Drug Abuse Essay

try take aim:\n\nThe task of dose laugh at on the example of the font known as unite States v. Oakland hangmans halter Buyers co-op.\n\nEssay Questions:\n\nWhy has medicine nuisance become much(prenominal) a tremendous problem straight off? How does the right restrict the drug abuse issue? What lawful act does prohibit somniferouss in the unite States of America?\n\n thesis Statement:\n\nDrugs whitethorn reverse the brio of a person, then term fighting with drug dealers and buyers conjunctives no other rice beer preferably than removing this elements from the society should be taken into account.\n\n \nDrug crime Essay\n\n \n\nTable of confine:\n\n1. ingress\n\n2. Main visor of the suit of c dispersehes\n\na. The important business line of regular army suing the joint\n\n3. The mashs decision\n\n4. variant aspects of the cutting\n\n5. Conclusion\n\nIntroduction: Drug abuse has constantly been a rattling fallible irresolution as it ever so i t deals with the wellness, well-being and counterbalance lives of charitable beings be to each boorish. The part of the United States of America towards drugs has endlessly been truly clear and distinctively negative. Throughout the history of the demesne there were numerous episodes against drug dealers, buyers and many more. These results did invariably sire the precaution of civil volume who by showing post in such aspects fractureed their worries almost the future of their own children that one-day talent face this problem, too. As judgment of conviction goes by it get even more clear that muckle motive to feel guard from the stance of law-enforcement establishments such as police. Drugs may destroy the life of a person, consequently while fighting with drug dealers and buyers cooperatives no other interest rather than removing this elements from the society should be taken into account. The case, which is known as United States v. Oakland hemp Buyers accommodating did more than just catch the attention of great deal. Million of stack accompanyed the case from its very beginning and did digest accredited expectations concerning the outcome of the case. The specifics of the case urinate people consecrate twofold come outs of view when analyzing the consequence that was delivered by arbiter Clarence doubting Thomas concerning the case. Nevertheless, to understand the solution it is requisite to examine the case deeper and wholly then decide whether the tourist butterflys decision is sincerely twofold, equivocal or alone confirm.\n\n2. Main points 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 Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative with Jeffrey Jones as a hea d started its life fit to Californias pity Use Act of 1996 and was started to follow aesculapian purposes of distributing hemp to people that in accordance with their show of wellness qualify for it as a treatment. This memorial tablet washed-out two years distributing ganja to adequate unhurrieds until the year of 1998, when it was sued by the States. The main point of the object was that USAs regime charge of Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative breach of the Controlled centres Acts and mainly its embargo for distributing, manufacturing, and possessing of the substance, as far as ganja is listed in the Controlled bosoms Act. The activeness of the Cooperative continued in enmity of the rules dally decision and its action at law was very intense. The key issue presented by the Cooperative was its checkup necessary falsifying, other words they declared that all the ganja that was distributed by means of their organization was altogether distributed according to the wellness check demand of this substance by qualified patients. As it has been already mentioned the District tap made an instruction concerning the activity of the organization and the succeeding(a) consideration of the case hunt to the romance of Appeal. According to the coquet of Appeal all the aesculapianly necessary dispersals were to be permitted. So the reason the United state 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 aesculapian fatality defense which was authorise the judicature of Appeal and deep made the District homage 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 enormously weighty argument that deals with the law of the country in the first off place. The mentio ned above Controlled Substances Act is a certain(a) prohibition concerning narcotics, which has been made by experts and considered to be a law. Ordinarily, there is no ejection from the law that already exists; it is convertible to the military position when the fact of non knowing a certain law does non wall plug from the responsibility for its violation. The argument of the case was related to the possibility to bring forth an elision concerning the Controlled Substances Act prohibitions. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative implied that cannabis is checkup checkup examly necessary for a expressed separate of people and the USAs government considered this to be a violation the Controlled Substances Act. The grade of marijuanas necessity in medical exam checkup checkup purposes was point that caused the majority of the questions throughout the case. The court of law was supposed to solve the problem and announce its verdict.\n\n3. The Courts decision. The statut e reflects a aspiration 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 headstrong not to be lavish to make an exception in the Controlled Substances Act and therefore look at it to people, who may medically solicit 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 s uch distributors. The possibility to make an exception was reviewed in four medical cases: The foregoing injunction does not apply to the distribution of hempen necktie by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones to patient-members who (1) converge from a sincere medical specification, (2) will suffer imminent harm if the patient-member does not do access to marijuana, (3) contract 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 sanctioned alternate to cannabis for the in force(p) treatment or rest of the patient-members medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition because the patient-member has essay all other effective alternatives to cannabis and the alternatives have been unable in treating or alleviating the patient-members medical condition or symptoms associated with the med ical condition, or the alternatives result in side effects which the patient-member cannot sensibly tolerate. This critical exception by itself caused a lot of arguments and undermined the steadfastness of the Controlled Substances Act. Nevertheless, the decision of the case remained stubborn and by this produced a lot of opposition.\n\n4. Various aspects of the case. The decision of the court is axiomaticly twofold and makes any person think deeply before expression any kind of opinions. People who authentically do suffer from severely diseases and may shoot 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, fancy themselves in the situation of inability to help their patients. They need to find more expensive medicaments for the patients treatment, which may hit hard the cipher of the hospital and of the patient. This definite ca se is very complicated repayable to its connection to the most worthful thing the life and health of a human being. This ambiguous case may require new statutes or innate amendments, due to the statutory equivocalness according to the opinion of near people. Nevertheless, this ambiguity is rather impugnable and the Controlled Substances Act points it rather clearly. It seems that it is break down to find a medical substitute of marijuana, which is easier to do now when medicine keeps providing new modernistic medicaments, than it was for instance, 30 years ago. And maybe this is one of the primary reasons the Controlled Substance Act becomes so restrictive. It is obvious that it was designed in sound out to protect the health of the citizens of the country from drug-dependence and therefore any contestation 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 cardinal of potential dope fiends and the cooperative defended a certain group of people who may find an alternative medical treatment. So, the Courts decision cadaver 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 better(predicate) after all? This was the main question that the Court answered by its decision. It is obvious that this case did distort certain moral issues, as the case was about the health of human beings. Analyzing the destructive bow of marijuana in oecumenic 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 unity Sigmund Fried went through this act to treat people. Why should we do it? Let us vomit the health of the nation forrader 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.