Medical Marijuana, Individual Autonomy, and State Authority:
Student
Professor
English 102.211
August 13, 2008
Medical Marijuana, Individual Autonomy, and State Authority:
The Reclamation of Rights
In recent years, the debate over medical marijuana has become increasingly contentious and highly polarized. Patients, medical practitioners, citizens, lawyers, politicians, and lobbyists, to name a few, have joined the processes of deliberation and legislative activism; some advocate for the primacy of patient rights, while others stress points of medical research, state oversight, or federal supremacy. These points of advocacy intertwine, overlap, and inherently conflict, and, as such, legislative measures intended to resolve the debate seem only to inflame it. While state-based legislation, in places like California, Vermont, and Rhode Island, seeks to regulate medical marijuana – and to protect patient rights of autonomy and practitioner rights of discretion, the federal government claims legal jurisdiction and authority. As such, medical marijuana is classified as an illegal substance, in accordance with the Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970, and patients, practitioners, and states are deprived of their respective prerogatives regarding medical oversight.
Though federal enforcement of medical marijuana prohibition is, unfortunately and unwaveringly, common, it represents a seizure of localized power and a gross expansion of federalism. The autonomy and privacy of citizens, particularly ill citizens seeking liberty in the most personal matters (those of physical health and medical treatment), is circumvented by federal intervention; the ability of state legislatures to fulfill their constitutionally endowed powers of oversight is severely impeded. Ultimately, the federal prohibition of medical marijuana [under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970] represents a centralized abuse of power in that (1) it violates individual rights of personal autonomy and privacy, as defined by the Due Process Clause and (2) it
Professor
English 102.211
August 13, 2008
Medical Marijuana, Individual Autonomy, and State Authority:
The Reclamation of Rights
In recent years, the debate over medical marijuana has become increasingly contentious and highly polarized. Patients, medical practitioners, citizens, lawyers, politicians, and lobbyists, to name a few, have joined the processes of deliberation and legislative activism; some advocate for the primacy of patient rights, while others stress points of medical research, state oversight, or federal supremacy. These points of advocacy intertwine, overlap, and inherently conflict, and, as such, legislative measures intended to resolve the debate seem only to inflame it. While state-based legislation, in places like California, Vermont, and Rhode Island, seeks to regulate medical marijuana – and to protect patient rights of autonomy and practitioner rights of discretion, the federal government claims legal jurisdiction and authority. As such, medical marijuana is classified as an illegal substance, in accordance with the Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970, and patients, practitioners, and states are deprived of their respective prerogatives regarding medical oversight.
Though federal enforcement of medical marijuana prohibition is, unfortunately and unwaveringly, common, it represents a seizure of localized power and a gross expansion of federalism. The autonomy and privacy of citizens, particularly ill citizens seeking liberty in the most personal matters (those of physical health and medical treatment), is circumvented by federal intervention; the ability of state legislatures to fulfill their constitutionally endowed powers of oversight is severely impeded. Ultimately, the federal prohibition of medical marijuana [under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970] represents a centralized abuse of power in that (1) it violates individual rights of personal autonomy and privacy, as defined by the Due Process Clause and (2) it
Cited: Drug Control Policy, 1937-2000.” Journal of Policy History 19.2 (2007): 147-179. Academic Search Premier. UNLV Lib., Las Vegas, NR. 30 July 2008 . Gostin, Lawrence O. “Medical Marijuana, American Federalism, and the Supreme Court.” Journal of the American Medical Association 294.7 (2005): 842-854 Jill , B. Jessie. “The Constitutional Right to Make Medical Treatment Decisions: A Tale of Two Doctrines.” Texas Law Review 86.2 (2007) 277-345 McCarthy, Kathleen T. “Conversations About Medical Marijuana Between Physicians and Their Patients.” The Journal of Legal Medicine 25 (2004): 333-349 McClairy-Raich, Angel. “Last Resorts and Fundamental Rights: The Substantive Due Process Implications of Prohibitions on Medical Marijuana.” Harvard Law Review 118.6 (2005): 1985-2006