| | |
|
AlexBuonocoreSecondPaper 8 - 17 Jul 2012 - Main.HarryKhanna
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Regina v. Dudley & Stephens suggests that extra-legal factors may influence the law’s application. Ordinarily, the British may not have prosecuted a homicide performed in survival conditions, especially where the law precluded a valid conviction. However, the British may have prosecuted Dudley with the extra-legal motivation of declaring the law-abiding British as incapable of committing cannibalism.
Similarly, the Obama administration’s enforcement of marijuana’s Schedule I status against California-based medical marijuana dispensaries may be motivated by extra-legal considerations. Marijuana’s CSA scheduling, like the facts of Regina v. Dudley, does not fully explain enforcement because other substances (notably, alcohol and tobacco) more fully conform to Schedule I criteria that are not prohibited. Instead, the Obama Administration may be motivated by the political tactic of appearing hard on drugs, without being hard on medical patients. The American public may not oppose this tactic as much as it would oppose legally dubious crackdowns on more conventional drug suppliers because the public may perceive medical marijuana consumption as distinct from traditional drug consumption. | | |
Both Regina v. Dudley and the DOJ’s recent actions illustrate the malleability of criminal law. The British state likely prosecuted Dudley and crew only because of their cannibalism, not because of the homicide. The United States likely prosecutes medical marijuana dispensaries with political motivations, not because we unilaterally condemns medicinal
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | -- AlexBuonocore 16 Jul 2012
I have a few comments, if you're still interested in editing this. I'm not totally on board with calling the DEA raids on marijuana dispensaries extra-legal in the same way Regina v. Dudley and Stephens was.
Your paper suggests that Dudley and Stephens were not within the jurisdiction of the court, and in any case they should have been acquitted on account of necessity. The DEA raids on medical marijuana are plainly authorized by federal law. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug. You correctly point out that the scheduling of marijuana is not reconcilable with the Schedule I criteria. But it's still scheduled there, so I don't see how the DEA's actions are extra-legal. Poor scientific policy and a waste of resources, to be sure. But barring constitutional issues, what's written in the US Code can't, by definition, be extra-legal. At the time of Dudley and Stephens, the court's lack of jurisdiction and the necessity defense were the law of land and they were fudged or ignored by the Court, so the Court acted extra-legally.
Just my US$0.02. Also, I think the end of the paper got cut off. Is it just missing the last word "marijuana?"
-- HarryKhanna - 17 Jul 2012 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |