Changes

In '''''United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop.''''', 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld, without dissent,the federal law prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of [[marijuana]] against a challenge based on medical need. The issue concerned the argument that patients, some of whom suffered from devastating illnesses, have a medical need for marijuana. The plaintiffs challenged a federal law interfering with patients' access to the drug.  

In '''''United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop.''''', 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld, without dissent,the federal law prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of [[marijuana]] against a challenge based on medical need. The issue concerned the argument that patients, some of whom suffered from devastating illnesses, have a medical need for marijuana. The plaintiffs challenged a federal law interfering with patients' access to the drug.  

must Congress create a health exception to a generally applicable criminal law? The answer in Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. was an emphatic "no". Although the Court declined to reach constitutional arguments in that case, there can be no doubt that the Constitution did not require a different outcome.  

Must Congress create a health exception to a generally applicable criminal law? The answer in Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop. was an emphatic "no". Although the Court declined to reach constitutional arguments in that case, there can be no doubt that the Constitution did not require a different outcome.  

"Under any conception of legal necessity, one principle is clear: The defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a 'determination of values.'" ''Id.'' at 491 (quoting 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 5.4, p. 629 (1986)).

"Under any conception of legal necessity, one principle is clear: The defense cannot succeed when the legislature itself has made a 'determination of values.'" ''Id.'' at 491 (quoting 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 5.4, p. 629 (1986)).