A Criminal Case That Has Been Adjudicated by the United States Supreme Court - Essay Example

? The Gonzalez Vs Raich Case The Gonzalez Vs Raich Case The legal system has been put in place to ensure that law and order is maintained within the society, and this is with regard to all matters that fall under such jurisdiction. The rulings that take place in these courts of law also have the ability to influence the way that the judicial system will handle similar cases from that time onwards. These cases can be said to have changed the way the law reacts to such matters by setting precedence. There are a number of cases that have been handled by the supreme high court that have in one way or another set precedence over future rulings that may occur on similar matters and one of these is the Gonzalez Vs Raich case which occurred in the year 2005 (Find law). This case dealt with the issue of home grown marijuana in relation to its use for medicinal purposes, and whether an individual who was doing this had the right to do so without any interference from law enforcement authorities. The ruling that was made was based on the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution . Congress has the ability to criminalize the use and production of Cannabis that is home grown even when states have allowed its use for medicinal purposes. About the case Angel Raich and Diane Monson were the two defendants of this case which occurred after law enforcement agencies destroyed Diane’s Marijuana plants claiming that they were illegal under federal law. This was despite the fact that Diane resided in California, a state that had allowed the use of homegrown marijuana for medicinal purposes (Find law). The destruction of the marijuana plants were done under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), but both Angel and Diane sued in retaliation arguing that the implementation of the CSA would in turn violate a number of their rights within the constitution which included the Commercial Clause, the doctrine of medical necessity, the Due Process Clause as well as the 9th and 10th Amendment of the U.S Constitution. The defendants argued that they were protected under these laws thus what was done to them was not within the legal rights of the federal government (Find law). Angel Raich, who used Marijuana for medicinal purpose had the backing of her doctor who testified under oath claiming that she needed the marijuana for the excruciating pain that she was going through and her allergic reaction to the other forms of alternative medication that she had tried before. The two defendants sued the government for declaratory as well as injunctive relief in a bid to stop them from interfering in their growing and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. They argued that the interference of the government under the Controlled Substances Act was unconstitutional in reference to their activities and reasons behind those activities (that is, the growing and use of homegrown marijuana for medicinal purposes) and thus the government should not have a right to run interference. Both Angel and Diane Used marijuana to relieve themselves of pain that their bodies suffered and thus it could not be said that their handling of the drug was for recreational purposes (Find law). The government on the other hand argued that the Controlled Substance Act did not recognize nor accept the use of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes and thus the law had a right to put a stop to any form of drug cultivation among individuals despite the circumstances. The acts against Angel and Diana were as a result of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) who had been given instructions to break up the various co operations that dealt with medicinal marijuana within California and seize the assets belonging to those co-operatives (Find law). Though as mentioned earlier, California had made legal the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, this act was done in the belief that Federal law trumped that of California and thus the law enforcement agencies were within their rights to act on these orders (Find law). The government further argued that should even a single exception be made to the Controlled Substances Act it would affect the ability of the law to truly enforce the act onwards as a result. They also argued that the use of homegrown marijuana for medicinal purposes would leave a dent on the interstate market in reference to marijuana and hence the government should be allowed control such consumption. Angel and Diane were able to get an injunction form the circuit courts in 2003 that prevented the government from interfering with their activities until the court case was over as the court stated that the defendants seemed to have a high likelihood of winning their claim in the corridors of justice. However, this was not to be the case as in the final decision, the court ruled that the government was within its rights to ban the growth of marijuana in private homes. The court reasoned that banning the growing of marijuana in one’s homes even if it is for medical use ensured that the drug was not easily accessible for other purposes and allowed the government to efficiently control the substance and prevent it from getting into the wrong hands (Find law). The courts claimed that allowing marijuana to be grown in homesteads meant that there were risks of having it enter the market as those who practiced that activity may be tempted to get involved in its trade for financial benefit and thus an exception could not be made. As a result, Angel Raich and Diane Monson lost the case that they had filed against the government to stop it from interfering in their activities of growing and using medicinal marijuana in their homesteads (Find law). This case had a huge impact in future cases as there were a number of issues that were involved as the defendants attempted to argue their case in court. The first being whether Federal law actual preempted state law or should both be equal in nature (Jurriaan, 2009). The ruling meant that at times federal law did have a larger influence in the courts of law, and thus state law was not always dependable as a basis for final decision making. The use of homegrown marijuana was also officially termed as unacceptable despite the reasons behind such as medicinal purposes under the CSA and thus even in states such as California where it had previously been legalized, those who took part in the activity risked facing the long arm of the law (Reuters, 2009). References Find Law. ALBERTO R . GONZALES , ATTORNEYT GENERAL , et al PETITIONERS v . ANGEL McCLARY RAICH et al had the case no 03 - 1454 . Jurriaan, K. (2009). Is government finally wising up to legalizing marijuana? Magazine USA, Inc. and Ode Luxembourg. Retrieved on December 26, 2012 from: http://nl.odemagazine.com/blogs/print/editors_blog/5211 Reuters. (2009). Attorney General Announces Formal Medical Marijuana Guidelines. Retrieved on December 26, 2012 from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/19/idUS141818+19-Oct-2009+PRN20091019 Read More