Drug Abuse Essay

set almost topic:\n\nThe job of medicate holler on the example of the character known as coupled States v. Oakland hempen necktie Buyers conjunctive.\n\nEssay Questions:\n\nWhy has dose cry out become such a tremendous problem present? How does the uprightness restrict the dose abuse issue? What level-headed act does prohibit soporiferouss in the joined States of America?\n\n thesis Statement:\n\nDrugs may degrade the flavour of a person, and so epoch fighting with drug dealers and buyers accommodatives no other form-to doe with rather than removing this elements from the society should be interpreted into account.\n\n \nDrug deprave Essay\n\n \n\nTable of circumscribe:\n\n1. knowledgeableness\n\n2. Main stagecoach of the event\n\na. The chief(prenominal) job of regular army suing the conjunct\n\n3. The judiciarys decision\n\n4. heterogeneous aspects of the display human face\n\n5. Conclusion\n\nIntroduction: Drug abuse has continuously been a actually finespun interrogate as it forever and a day it deals with the wellness, well-being and level(p) lives of humankind beings be to both unpolished. The fructify of the United States of America towards drugs has of all era been actually clear and distinctively negative. Throughout the history of the plain there were numerous sideslips against drug dealers, buyers and many to a greater extent. These bailiwicks did constantly plosive speech sound the attending of civil sight who by showing delight in such cases go baded their worries about the future of their own children that one-day king face this problem, too. As time goes by it get even more clear that mass get hold of to feel protective cover from the placement of law-enforcement establishments such as police. Drugs may destroy the life of a person, hence while fighting with drug dealers and buyers cooperatives no other interest rather than removing this elements from the society should be taken i nto account. The case, which is known as United States v. Oakland ganja Buyers concerted did more than just catch the attention of nation. Million of battalion fareed the case from its very beginning and did control sure expectations concerning the outcome of the case. The specifics of the case perform people waste twofold dots of view when analyzing the solvent that was delivered by arbitrator Clarence doubting Thomas concerning the case. Nevertheless, to belowstand the solution it is demand to examine the case deeper and nevertheless then decide whether the administrations decision is in truth twofold, indistinct or totally justify.\n\n2. Main flushs of the case. Summarizing the main point in the opinion of the case it is necessary to start from its very beginning. The case was argued on the twenty-eighth of March 2001 and the decision was delivered on the 14th of May 2001. It was argued intensively and both of the sides were acted rather confident. The Oaklan d Cannabis Buyers Cooperative with Jeffrey Jones as a head started its life fit in to Californias benevolent Use Act of 1996 and was started to follow checkup purposes of distributing ganja to people that in accordance with their assert of health qualify for it as a treatment. This presidential term fatigued two years distributing marihuana to sufficient longanimouss until the year of 1998, when it was sued by regular army. The main point of the careen was that USAs government charge of Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative breach of the Controlled philias Acts and mainly its embargo for distributing, manufacturing, and possessing of the substance, as far as hemp is listed in the Controlled bone marrows Act. The military action of the Cooperative continued in bitterness of the societys flirt decision and its action was very intense. The key issue presented by the Cooperative was its checkup sine qua non defence mechanism, other words they tell that all the marijuana that was distributed by means of their organization was only when distributed according to the health check demand of this substance by qualified patients. As it has been already mentioned the District woo made an command concerning the activity of the organization and the interest consideration of the case spark advance to the hook of Appeal. According to the appeal of Appeal all the checkuply necessary distributions were to be permitted. So the reason the United say of America charged the organization is for the violation of the policy concerning the distribution and manufacturing of the substance. On the other side the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative cited the checkup necessity defense which was approved the butterfly of Appeal and tardily made the District address change its injunction concerning the activity of the cooperative.\n\n2a. The main argument of USA suing the Cooperative. The United States of America on its side presented a staggeringly weighty argument that deals with the law of the country in the original place. The mentioned above Controlled Substances Act is a original prohibition concerning narcotics, which has been made by experts and considered to be a law. Ordinarily, there is no elision from the law that already exists; it is quasi(prenominal) to the accompaniment when the fact of non knowing a certain law does non passing game from the responsibility for its violation. The argument of the case was related to the possibility to refer an riddance concerning the Controlled Substances Act prohibitions. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative implied that marijuana is aesculapianly necessary for a contumacious root word of people and the USAs government considered this to be a violation the Controlled Substances Act. The storey of marijuanas necessity in medical checkup checkup exam purposes was point that caused the majority of the questions throughout the case. The court was supposed to solve the problem and announce its verdict.\n\n3. The Courts decision. The statute reflects a termination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception; medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana, these words of Justice Clarence Thomas clearly reveal the decision of the Court. The degree of medical necessity of marijuana was decided not to be bounteous to make an exception in the Controlled Substances Act and therefore convey it to people, who may medically occupy it. Manufacturing of marijuana as a fact in the activity of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and therefore its possibility to distribute marijuana to the citizens of the country was concluded to be weightier than marijuanas medical treatment characteristics. Therefore the Court confirmed USAs position of the impossibility to make violate the prohibitions of the Controlled Substances Act. The opinion of the Court basically reflected the next no distribution should be justified even by medical necessity and no defense should be given to such distributors. The possibility to make an exception was reviewed in four medical cases: The foregoing injunction does not apply to the distribution of hangmans halter by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones to patient-members who (1) come from a upright medical ensure, (2) will suffer imminent harm if the patient-member does not have access to cannabis, (3) assume cannabis for the treatment of the patient-members medical condition, or need cannabis to alleviate the medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition, and (4) have no reasonable impelling option to cannabis for the effective treatment or stand-in of the patient-members medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition because the patient-member has tested all other level-headed alternatives to cannabis and the alternatives have been unable in treating or alleviating the patien t-members medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition, or the alternatives result in side effects which the patient-member cannot reasonably tolerate. This critical exception by itself caused a batch of arguments and undermined the steadfastness of the Controlled Substances Act. Nevertheless, the decision of the case remained firm and by this produced a lot of opposition.\n\n4. Various aspects of the case. The decision of the motor inn is demonstrablely twofold and makes any person think late before expression any kind of opinions. People who in reality do suffer from severely diseases and may read marijuana might experience certain difficulties and probable complications in their health state. Therefore hospitals, which previously earlier had to deal with people belonging to this group, realise themselves in the situation of inability to help their patients. They need to find more high-priced medicaments for the patients treatment, which may hi t hard the cypher of the hospital and of the patient. This definite case is very complicated receivable to its connection to the most blue-chip thing the life and health of a human being. This ambiguous case may require new statutes or implicit in(p) amendments, due to the statutory equivocalness according to the opinion of both(prenominal) people. Nevertheless, this ambiguity is rather supposed and the Controlled Substances Act points it rather clearly. It seems that it is amend to find a medical substitute of marijuana, which is easier to do at present when medicine keeps providing new modern medicaments, than it was for instance, 30 years ago. And perhaps this is one of the primary reasons the Controlled Substance Act becomes so restrictive. It is obvious that it was designed in order to protect the health of the citizens of the country from drug-dependence and therefore any rehearsal claiming that it will kill people has no base under itself. It was a case of health v. health, and the only difference was that the Controlled Substance Act protected one million million of potential dope fiends and the cooperative defended a certain group of people who may find an alternative medical treatment. So, the Courts decision rest the same: there is no medical necessity exception to the prohibitions at issue, even when the patient is seriously ill and lacks alternative avenues for relief.\n\nConclusion. Is marijuana that well(predicate) after all? This was the main question that the Court answered by its decision. It is obvious that this case did strike certain moral issues, as the case was about the health of human beings. Analyzing the destructive lick of marijuana in worldwide it is necessary to remember that marijuana does more harm than it does good. Therefore, would not it be the main question to stop the outcry against the policy. A narcotic will always remain a narcotic; even the famous sense Sigmund Fried went through this stressful to tre at people. Why should we do it? Let us displace the health of the nation forth of everything.\n\n If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:

Need assistance with such assignment as write my paper? Feel free to contact our highly qualified custom paper writers who are always eager to help you complete the task on time.