The upcoming Supreme Court case, to be argued March 28, will mark the first time Americas highest court has ever considered the issue of medical necessity with regard to marijuana. As a matter of individual liberty, it should be beyond the power of the federal government to regulate the medicinal use of cannabis when the voters or legislatures of states decide it should be legalized for medical use, the authors argue. Once the voters of a state have adopted an initiative or a state legislature has enacted a statute protecting the medical use of cannabis, the people of that state have compellingly expressed their public policy, even if that public policy differs from that of the federal government.
Federalism mandates that state public policy is entitled to presumptive deference.
A fortiori, it naturally flows from that case that there is also a parallel right patients in chronic pain or the terminally ill have to alleviate their pain and suffering when they want to live. Lead author of the brief, attorney John Wesley Hall of Little Rock, Arkansas said, When the medical use of cannabis can restore some quality and dignity of life to a seriously ill or dying patient, that person should have a constitutional right to use it. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that patients who risk suffering imminent harm without access to medical marijuana, and have exhausted all other legal remedies, are exempt from federal laws otherwise outlawing its use. The Justice Department is appealing that decision. All rights reserved.