States' Right to Initiative: Medicinal Marijuana
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } Competition between state and federal government has been shaping American society for centuries. Interesting enough, the battle has recently set medical marijuana as the new battleground. California state law and Federal law collide in the 2005 Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich , in which the court used the Commerce Clause to affirm federal authority. Much controversy and confusion has arisen from this decision, and my paper serves to analyze the reasoning behind the decision and its repercussions. I first explore the subject matter of this case, medical marijuana. After reviewing its medical history and consulting professional medical opinion, I establish and weigh the value of medical marijuana in contemporary society. I combine my findings with the legal analysis to show the circumstances surrounding Gonzales v. Raich in a new perspective. Using opinions ranging from the Supreme Court justices’ to law journal reviews, I decide whether the jurisprudence behind Raich was applied correctly. I hope my paper will not only detail the most recent controversy between state and federal government, but also examine an equally controversial subject, medical marijuana, as an example of the trends that exacerbate changes in the fabric of our society.
Marijuana as antiemetic medicine: a survey of oncologists' experiences and attitudes.
A random-sample, anonymous survey of the members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was conducted in spring 1990 measuring the attitudes and experiences of American oncologists concerning the antiemetic use of marijuana in cancer chemotherapy patients. The survey was mailed to about one third (N = 2,430) of all United States-based ASCO members and yielded a response rate of 43% (1,035). More than 44% of the respondents report recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the control of emesis to at least one cancer chemotherapy patient. Almost one half (48%) would prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were legal. As a group, respondents considered smoked marijuana to be somewhat more effective than the legally available oral synthetic dronabinol ([THC] Marinol; Unimed, Somerville, NJ) and roughly as safe. Of the respondents who expressed an opinion, a majority (54%) thought marijuana should be available by prescription. These results bear on the question of whether marijuana has a "currently accepted medical use," at issue in an ongoing administrative and legal dispute concerning whether marijuana in smoked form should be available by prescription along with synthetic THC in oral form. This survey demonstrates that oncologists' experience with the medical use of marijuana is more extensive, and their opinions of it are more favorable, than the regulatory authorities appear to have believed.
Basic Legal Issues of the Management of Natural Resources of the Caspian Sea
Taking into account different interpretations of legal status of the Caspian Sea, the paper focuses on the current and future legal regime of its natural resources. The relevant international instruments are considered and in this context national approaches of the Caspian states to resource management are legally assessed. In conclusion, some basic prerequisites for the developing scope of the legal regime of the Caspian natural resources are suggested.