In the case of numerous substances, including cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, barbiturates, and even thalidomide, the government has acted to provide for medical use while limiting abuse. Plaintiffs should therefore not be precluded from establishing the arbitrary and irrational nature of the ban without requiring of the government even a hint of explanation of the reasoning behind the ban of all medical use of cannabis. When applied to plaintiffs' for whom cannabis is the only effective treatment, the government's ban on treatment with cannabis is effectively a bar to those plaintiffs above-mentioned fundamental right to receive medical treatment. As such, the government's actions must be analyzed under a traditional strict scrutiny standard. The government must establish a compelling interest and the use of the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.
Plaintiffs allege that the government can do neither a.
Where fundamental liberty interests have been demonstrated, any restraint on those interests must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Glucksberg , at 2268. The federal proscription against the possession and distribution of medical cannabis is unnecessarily overbroad and arbitrary where it restrains the terminally ill and others in chronic pain from obtaining an essential medication to alleviate their pain and in some cases contribute to the preservation of life. The government has a legitimate interest both in assuring that appropriate medicines are made available, and in stemming the abuse of controlled substances. The government cannot show, however, that a blanket prohibition, disregarding the medical needs of seriously ill persons for whom cannabis is the only effective treatment, furthers any legitimate interest.