|
Abstract
|
Medical marijuana law and policy is at a crossroads in America. On the one hand, it appears the field has achieved a level of legitimacy it so desperately sought, as more than 30 states, territories, and districts have enacted comprehensive medical marijuana programs in the past two decades. In spite of these gains, medical marijuana is often still characterized as little more than a joke or an excuse to lend drug abusers an unearned air of legitimacy. Standing in stark contrast to medical marijuana, the right to bear arms, and firearms by virtue of the association, is afforded rarified status as one of the most cherished and protected rights afforded to Americans.
Part I begins by describing comprehensive medical marijuana laws and policies as a basis for the discussion to follow, before moving on to look at marijuana treatment at the federal level.
Part II gives a brief overview of Second Amendment and Gun Control Act jurisprudence, which has changed and expanded drastically since 2008. Part III attempts to bring together each of these loose ends, beginning with an examination of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Wilson v. Lynch.
This Article argues that the Ninth Circuit made three critical errors in reaching an inappropriate and unconstitutional conclusion under the two-step test. First, it held that qualified patients suffer only a limited temporal limitation under the qualification imposed by the Gun Control Act because they may give up their state marijuana registration and thereafter become eligible to again possess a firearm. Second, the court found that marijuana users, including qualified patients, are more violent than the general population solely on the basis of conclusions arrived at by another federal circuit court, which were based both upon non-longitudinal government surveys and gross misreadings of the conclusions and analyses of the studies reviewed. Third, the Ninth Circuit found that even if it was visiting constitutional violations upon qualified patients, precedent allows for such overreaches against a minority of individuals. In addition to these incorrect conclusions, such arguments should have been ruled moot as this Article further argues that the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment blocks the DOJ and any of its subsidiary agencies from enforcing the CSA or Gun Control Act against qualified patients as such actions impede the implementation of medical marijuana programs.
This Article seeks to be the first to describe the constitutional violations being visited upon and threatened against qualified patients acting legally under state law by the federal government. When federal courts apply the Gun Control Act to qualified patients and deprive them of their right to bear arms, they are utilizing bad or misunderstood data and further misapplying precedent to do so. By analyzing this issue through a generalized framework looking at medical marijuana law and policy at both the state and federal levels as well as Second Amendment jurisprudence and the application of the former to the latter, this Article intends to serve as both an introduction to the subject and a guide for future discourse.
It should also be noted that this Article does not seek the proliferation of additional firearms into a country already rife with violence and mass casualty incidents caused by them. Instead, the Article seeks to shed light on the constitutional violations that are occurring and call for equal treatment under federal and state law.
While it may seem a laughable excuse to some, medical marijuana helps many Americans cope with pain, anxiety, death and the many side effects attendant to debilitating illnesses. Stigmatizing and punishing qualified patients is an unnecessary and unconstitutional overreach based on illegitimate science and the federal government's prohibitionist attitude toward marijuana, and seemingly, little more.
Language: en |