Constitutional Law
Jun. 12, 2001
Cloudy Controversy
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative was entirely predictable. A defense of medical necessity for manufacturers and distributors of illegal drugs would have punched a gaping hole in a regulatory scheme adopted by Congress 30 years ago. It also would have authorized circumvention of the Federal Drug Administration drug approval process, as marijuana smoking never has been approved as medicine.
By Marsha N. Cohen
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative was entirely predictable. A defense of medical necessity for manufacturers and distributors of illegal drugs would have punched a gaping hole in a regulatory scheme adopted by Congress 30 years ago. It also would have authorized circumvention of the Federal ...
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative was entirely predictable. A defense of medical necessity for manufacturers and distributors of illegal drugs would have punched a gaping hole in a regulatory scheme adopted by Congress 30 years ago. It also would have authorized circumvention of the Federal ...
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In