Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: John Carragher who wrote (118112)	6/4/2005 3:06:00 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) of 793846

Under current federal law any use of marijuana is illegal and the Supreme Court has determined that this supercedes state law. Here ia brief summary of the legal situation as of June 2004 from a Berkeley website. Whether or not to permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes is both a public policy issue and a contentious legal issue, especially in California. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act of 1970) marijuana use for any purpose is illegal. The federal law has not stopped a number of states from enacting medical marijuana legislation. California was one of the first. In 1996 California voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. Proposition 215 permits seriously ill Californians to use marijuana, provided they first obtain a doctor's recommendation. Proposition 215 also gives doctors a legal defense against professional or legal sanctions for recommending marijuana use. Proposition 215 put California law in direct conflict with federal law, and litigation ensued. The key case began in January 1998 when the U.S. government sued the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (OCBC) in federal district court for violating the Controlled Substances Act. The government asked that the OCBC be banned from distributing cannabis to member patients. The medicinal marijuana group rebutted that it acted out of "medical necessity" on behalf of seriously ill citizens, and that such a medical necessity should stand as an exception to the law. The district court ruled in favor of the U.S. government, causing a temporary shutdown of the OCBC, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a medical necessity defense existed. The Supreme Court took the case and unanimously overturned Proposition 215 in a May 2001 decision. ...... ...... ...... More here: igs.berkeley.edu There may be more current legal situations since this summary was posted.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next