"Alberto Gonzales Vs. Angel Raich" Argumentative Essay

"Alberto Gonzales Vs. Angel Raich"
A review of the case "Alberto Gonzales Vs. Angel Raich" regarding the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
# 149267 | 1,333 words | 5 sources | MLA | 2011 | US
Published on Dec 03, 2011 in Political Science (U.S.) , Criminology (Drugs Enforcement) , Law (General)


$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now

Description:

The paper describes the case where the defendant, Angel Raich, sued the Attorney General for declaratory and injunctive relief, on the belief that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was unconstitutional. The paper summarizes the facts of the case and the legal issues involved. The paper provides an argument that the defendant clearly violated the law, regardless of the necessity defense, and Constitutional rights were not breached or encroached upon when the Government was only doing its job of enforcing the law.

Outline:
Procedural History
Facts of Case
Summary of Argument
Argument
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"Marijuana has been outlawed in the United States of America since 1970, with the passing of the Controlled Substances Act. Marijuana and all other types of controlled substances consumed by society were subject to classification, into 5 separate "schedules" with Schedule V containing the controlled substances less likely to be abused and the reverse for Schedule I, where marijuana is classified. Specifically, marijuana is deemed a Schedule I controlled substance because it is found to 1) "have a high potential for abuse"; 2) that the substance "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"; and 3) "there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." What should be focused on in this provision is, again, that there is NO currently accepted medical use in the United States. While Ms. Raich will argue that this practice of using marijuana was suggested by her own physician, we must not confuse one doctor's firm belief for the otherwise contradictory beliefs of other doctors, who have not pushed to make medical marijuana approved as a reliable medicinal option. She is therefore, breaking the law, a federal law at that."

Sample of Sources Used:

  • "Commerce Clause." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Oct. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause>.
  • FindLaw. Web. 27 Sept. 2011. <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9thcircuit/1451522.html>.
  • "Gonzales v. Raich." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Oct. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich>.
  • "Necessary and Proper Clause." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 04 Oct. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause>.
  • Web. <http://http://www.lexisnexis.com.ez-proxy.brooklyn.cuny.edu:2048/hottopics/lnacademic/>.

Cite this Argumentative Essay:

APA Format

"Alberto Gonzales Vs. Angel Raich" (2011, December 03) Retrieved August 10, 2022, from https://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/alberto-gonzales-vs-angel-raich-149267/

MLA Format

""Alberto Gonzales Vs. Angel Raich"" 03 December 2011. Web. 10 August. 2022. <https://www.academon.com/argumentative-essay/alberto-gonzales-vs-angel-raich-149267/>

Comments