{
  "id": "RL31100",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31100",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 305139,
      "date": "2005-06-14",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:41:41.815029",
      "title": "Marijuana for Medical Purposes: The Supreme Court's Decision in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Related Legal Issues",
      "summary": "In  United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers\u2019 Cooperative , 532 U.S. 483\n(2001), the\nUnited States Supreme Court held, without dissent, that there is no medical necessity defense to the\nfederal law prohibiting cultivation and distribution of marijuana -- even in states which have created\na medical marijuana exception to a comparable ban under state law.\n \n Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, a classification it reserved\nfor those substances which have no currently accepted medical use in the United States. Therefore,\nthe Court concluded, Congress could hardly have intended to recognize a medical necessity defense\nfor marijuana and recognition of any such defense would be contrary to Congress\u2019 clear\nintentions.\n \n The Coop raised three constitutional issues in its brief before the Court. It suggested that a\nfederal medical marijuana ban would exceed the reach of Congress\u2019 authority to regulate\ninterstate\ncommerce; that such a ban would be contrary to the constitutional reservation of powers to the\npeople; and that such a ban would be contrary to the substantive due process rights of patients who\nuse marijuana for medical reasons. The Court did not address the constitutional issues suggested in\nthe Coop\u2019s brief because the lower court decision under review did not rule upon them. \nOther courts\nhave disagreed over whether enforcement of the ban against physicians is contrary to their First\nAmendment right to free speech. \n \n The Court\u2019s description of matters within Congress\u2019 legislative authority under\nthe commerce\nclause in  United States v. Lopez  and  United States v. Morrison  indicates that the\nfederal ban on the\ncultivation, distribution or possession of marijuana lies within Congress\u2019 prerogatives. The\nCourt\nconfirmed that Congress\u2019 commerce power permits it to ban in-state cultivation and\npossession of\nmarijuana for medical purposes in  Gonzales v. Raich . Its characterization of the limitations\non the\nenacting clause in  Prinz v. United States  and of the circumstances warranting expanded\nsubstantive\ndue process recognition in  Washington v. Glucksberg  encumber the Coop\u2019s\ncontentions on those\ncounts. \n \n Related legislative activity in this Congress includes a proposal for an exception to the federal\nprohibitions in those states whose laws allow use of marijuana for medicinal purposes\n( H.R. 2087 ).",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL31100",
          "sha1": "1eccd44fa1874166915907dea4ce1cb931f4cfa7",
          "filename": "files/20050614_RL31100_1eccd44fa1874166915907dea4ce1cb931f4cfa7.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31100",
          "sha1": "c610487c43204ccc2fe08de59a85dd5b48c16e35",
          "filename": "files/20050614_RL31100_c610487c43204ccc2fe08de59a85dd5b48c16e35.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818387/",
      "id": "RL31100_2003Nov18",
      "date": "2003-11-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Marijuana for Medical Purposes: The Supreme Court\u2019s Decision in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers\u2019 Cooperative and Related Legal Issues",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20031118_RL31100_8353a8886bc8ccced1b2fe31aed5dd4002bbe4d2.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20031118_RL31100_8353a8886bc8ccced1b2fe31aed5dd4002bbe4d2.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}