That ruling was stayed by the Supreme Court , who then accepted the case for review. We all can imagine circumstances where the justification of necessity is patently obvious. You break into your neighbor's burning house in order to rescue the child. In practice, however, necessity is rarely successful in a litigated case. Usually the facts of a given case are subject to varying interpretations, and the strict necessity is not clear.
Legal alternatives are usually available that negate the use of the defense.
The federal prosecutors and others argue that allowing this defense will amount to opening a hole in the dike which will grow until all drug laws become unenforceable. The argument is ridiculous. It is a knee-jerk response to a paranoia over the availability of marijuana, as if local law enforcement was incapable of distinguishing between a justified use and an unjustified use. It has offered no evidence to rebut OCBC's evidence that cannabis is the only effective treatment for a large group of seriously ill individuals, and it confirmed at oral argument that it sees no need to offer any. It simply rests on the erroneous argument that the district judge was compelled as a matter of law to issue an injunction that is coextensive with the facial scope of the statute.