The Legalization of Marijuana, Research Paper Example

The Legalization of Marijuana and the Effects on the Criminal Justice System

Introduction

No democracy deals without the burning issues that split the society and fall under different categories of perception according to their morality and acceptability. Such issues in the USA include euthanasia, death penalty, legalization of marijuana etc. The problem with such issues is that they are ethically perceived from different points of view and can find both proponents and opponents who may justify their position from legal, moral and philosophic points of view. The federal government usually adopts a position cardinally different from that of the public, and the only way out is to track the change in public thinking, to conduct thorough research on all issues related to the problem to identify the true outcomes of any decision taken in their respect, either positive or negative.

As an example, one can consider the debates over legalization of marijuana that have been overwhelming the USA for more than ten years since the adoption of the Compassionate Use Act in California. The revolutionary effect of that law was that it legitimated the cultivation and usage of marijuana for medical purposes. Since then a large number of states have passed similar laws that allowed distribution and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes, which caused outrageous resistance from federal bodies of power.

Such a decision was caused by the long-term research of medical properties of marijuana. This substance scientifically called tetrohydrocannabinoid has proved to have a profound pain-relieving power for seriously ill patients with cancer, glaucoma or neuritis. It is also a recognized substance for appetite-increasing activities for patients with appetite loss and is widely applied for medical purposes in cases of epilepsy. However, the main problem with the application of marijuana in the medical field is the unclear margin between the positive therapeutic effect and the uncontrolled effect on the CNS that patients experience because of wrong dosing or inappropriate usage.

The question is still open for the majority of the US states and even those states that have more loyal legislation on access to marijuana for medical purposes can become the subject of legal prosecution and sanction. Such incongruence is caused by the unchangeable position of marijuana in the list of dangerous drugs that has not been changed yet even with the proper consideration of all recognized medical effects that were found out as properties for this substance. As a result, the USA experience a set of scandalous lawsuits from marijuana users for medical purposes and proponents of fundamental freedoms stipulated in the US Constitution; it is still not clear which outcome awaits the US in the process of that fight for free access to cannabis for medical application. But what remains obvious is that the possible outcomes of marijuana legalization have to be thoroughly considered and analyzed to predict the changes that it will cause in the state system of law enforcement, prosecution, investigations and criminal punishment.

One can predict assume that the legalization process will inevitably cause the changes in the law enforcement structure and will require a more comprehensive approach from law enforcement agencies on the provision of safe access to marijuana for qualified patients and to restrict its usage for non-medical purposes. The danger of marijuana abuse still remains extremely high, so an adequate criminal justice system response is necessary to ensure the proper fulfillment of legalization law observation and compliance with all its provisions.

Study of California and New Jersey Marijuana Legalization

Medical Applications of Marijuana

Nowadays the debate over propriety of marijuana medical usage is gaining force under the conditions that different US states experience different attitudes and legislative measures concerning the medical substance. Alongside with marijuana’s status of a forbidden drug, its tremendous therapeutic effect has been recognized and proven, causing the necessity for further action in the legislative sphere. As a proof for positive tendencies in the issue of legalization one can check the assumptions of the National Institutes of Health meeting on the subject of marijuana application in medicine:

“Central to the current debate about the therapeutic uses of marijuana is the claim that smoked marijuana offers therapeutic advantages over the currently available oral form (dronabinol capsules) of its most active ingredient, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (9-THC), for a wide variety of conditions” (NIH, 1997).

The first factor that initiated research of cannabinoid receptors was the recognition of their positive functional roles in treatment of particular disorders such as analgesia, neurological and movement disorders, nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy, glaucoma, and appetite stimulation/cachexia. Thus, compiling the views of the Expert group, a series of the following conclusions has been made on the range of cannabis applications in medicine (NIH, 1997).

The study with patients experiencing pain, cancer pain included, showed that there was a vague margin between the positive analgesia and the adverse CNS effects that are highly negative and undesirable. Research with patients with neurological and movement disorders turned out to be paradoxical: help of marijuana in spasticity release in cases of multiple sclerosis, partial spinal cord injury as well as Parkinson’s disease and Huntington’s chorea was not proven (NIH, 1997). However, assistance of cannabinoid substances in treatment of epilepsy, tonic-clonic seizures in particular, was found evident, though not understood in full. Some more positive results from application of marijuana occurred in cases of dystonic states, neuritis and experimental allergic encephalomyelitis (EAE) (NIH, 1997).

Marijuana application in cases of nausea and vomiting connected with chemotherapy is widely recognized despite the fact that many anti-emetics have been developed to eliminate these symptoms. Treatment of glaucoma showed efficiency of cannabis application – it proved to “lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in subjects with normal IOP and patients with glaucoma” (NIH, 1997). Appetite stimulation is also a widely known effect of cannabinoid consumption – it proves not to change the biological mechanisms of taste and normal satiety, thus becoming a valuable medication in appetite-related cases (NIH, 1997).

Drawing a conclusion from the NIH report assumptions, it is possible to understand how widely cannabis can be applied in medicine. Ways of consumption are different, and consequences as well as side effects are diverse and not completely known; however, the positive effect overwhelms the negative side of cannabis application, making debates about its legalization more and more intense. In some cases marijuana has proven to have a stronger clinical effect than strong medications do; all this evidence speaks in favor of legalization of this doubtable drug with so many applications, both in medicine and for evil purposes (as a narcotic). Such diversity of applications and effects caused by cannabis is causing various attitudes in law enforcement agencies across the country, causing legalization in some states that are more liberal and legislative prosecution in states with stricter legislation.

The Status of Legalization in the USA

Legalization of marijuana in the USA has several dimensions for consideration; this is largely determined by the fact that power in the country is distributed on several levels including federal government, state agencies and the strong impact that public opinion produces on shaping the US legislation. The main turning point in the legalization process occurred in 2005 with the decision of the Supreme Court to prosecute patients consuming the marijuana for medical purposes even in states with compassionate use laws (Medical Marijuana, 2010). This decision seriously aggravated the situation with cannabis consumption, since the public opinion on the subject is directly the opposite.

The federal opinion on marijuana legalization is highly negative – however, positive tendencies are evident in the Congress position concerning the issue. The recent proportion of votes for legalization constitutes 161 instead of 94 in 1998 (Medical Marijuana, 2010). The history of marijuana treatment started in 1978 when federal government started to sponsor access to medical marijuana for serious, terminal diseases. The program had to be conserved 14 years later because of the extreme growth of applications for treatment from AIDS patients, so now there are less than a dozen patients who still receive federal support with access to marijuana (Medical Marijuana, 2010).

One more aggravating circumstance can be seen in the fact that cannabis is still considered a Schedule I substance – having a high potential for abuse and no medical value. The fight for reconsideration of the role of cannabis lasts for 30 years already and has led to the establishment of the Coalition of Rescheduling Cannabis in 2002 (Medical Marijuana, 2010).

Nonetheless, the federal disapproval of marijuana use finds little state support, which can be witnessed from statistics of marijuana arrests – 99% occur at the state or local level. The distribution of tolerance towards marijuana across the USA looks as follows:

1. The most loyal states that remove penalties for cannabis-related activities are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington
2. Ten states virtually provide citizens with the right to use but do not provide support and protection before the law
3. Thirteen states have medical research laws
4. Fifteen states haven’t ever had protective marijuana use laws (Medical Marijuana, 2010).

Finally, public opinion in the USA is exceedingly pro-marijuana: since the extensive medical usefulness has been recognized, more and more Americans vote for legalization in search of elimination of pain and sufferings. The recent research showed that more than 70% of US citizens would agree to use and approve of the use of marijuana if prescribed or recommended by the doctor (Medical Marijuana, 2010).

California Medical Marijuana Laws

The state of California is in the list of states exercising loyalty towards marijuana usage. A set of legislative provisions have been taken to ensure softer requirements for marijuana access in medicine. Among the most powerful ones it is necessary to note California Proposition 215 (titled “The Compassionate Use Act”) passed in 1996 and the Bill No. SB420 passed in 2003 to stipulate the provisions of Prop 215 (California’s Medical Marijuana Laws, 2010).

The California Proposition 215 was passed by 56% of votes and made California the first state to legalize marijuana usage for medical purposes. It introduced changes in the California Health and Safety Code as under its provisions, Californians obtained the right to get and use marijuana in the following cases:

“seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana  for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the persons health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief” (The California Proposition 215, 1996).

More than that, the Proposition allowed Californians who used marijuana for medical purposes to be not subject to criminal prosecution and outlined recommendations to ensure “safe and affordable distribution” of marijuana (The California Proposition 215, 1996). Physicians who recommend marijuana use are also not subject to prosecution of any kind. Thus, possession and cultivation of cannabis has become subject to a set of guidelines that became the margin between lawful and unlawful treatment of marijuana, stipulating the acceptable amounts for marijuana users for medical purposes only (California’s Medical Marijuana Laws, 2010).

The second major legislative act that promoted marijuana usage in California for medical purposes is the Bill No. SB420. This Bill established certain limits for the usage of Proposition 215, offering the establishment of identification cards that would be issued to qualified patients allowing usage of marijuana. The initial purpose of this document’s adoption was the growing number of irregularities concerning application of Proposition 215 – many problems and uncertainties caused the inability of law enforcement officers to provide adequate protection for qualified patients and designated primary caregivers. For this reason the act pursued the following set of purposes:

• To clarify the provisions of the act
• To promote its correct application
• To enhance access to marijuana for authorized individuals according to the provisions of the act (Bill No. SB420, 2003).

The State Department of Health Services plays the key role in provision of ID cards, development of protocols and application forms, renewal fees for the program etc. The Bill also enables the Attorney General to establish limits for cannabis possession and cultivation as well as to establish security and non-diversion of marijuana grown under the Proposition 215 for medical purposes (Bill No. SB420, 2003).

New Jersey Medical Marijuana Laws

The beginning of 2010 witnessed a democratic decision on legalization of marijuana usage for medical purposes in New Jersey, making it the 14^th state in the USA to adopt suchlike legislative provisions. The most striking fact is that legislation took place in the East Coast state – the region is famous for anti-legislation attitudes and statistically has no states where marijuana would be allowed (Kocieniewski, 2010). However, this democratic step was made by the state government:

“The measure — which would allow patients diagnosed with severe illnesses like cancer, AIDS, Lou Gehrig’s disease, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis to have access to marijuana grown and distributed through state-monitored dispensaries — was passed by the General Assembly and State Senate on the final day of the legislative session” (Kocieniewski, 2010).

The newly passed legislative act is recognized as the most restrictive medical marijuana law because it enables physicians to prescribe marijuana only for a limited set of highly serious, chronic diseases. Besides, in contrast to other states, patients will be forbidden to grow marijuana on their own, will be unable to use it in public and will have to act according to a set of guidelines controlling consumption limits and distribution specifics (Kocieniewski, 2010).

Surely, adoption of legalization laws in such a conservative state as New Jersey could not help causing an agitated protest and debates around an easier access to marijuana that resulted from the decision made. First of all, the New Jersey public is concerned by the potential threat of marijuana becoming available for recreational usage and the increase of marijuana usage by teenagers. More than that, the main loophole seen by opponents in the law was “a list of ailments so unrestricted that it might have allowed patients to seek marijuana to treat minor or nonexistent ailments” (Kocieniewski, 2010). Luckily, that black spot was successfully eliminated.

At least, the stricter approach to medical marijuana legislation turned out to be decisive for the growing concern of patients left behind the legalization provisions in New Jersey. On the example of O’Brien born without fingers and toes as well as experiencing awful neuropathic pain, James (2010) shows how many patients with serious illnesses have still remained unable to receive medical marijuana for medical purposes. The initially reasonable wish to adopt a more restrictive law on medical marijuana that would leave no chance for drug abuse turned out to be an unlawful restriction and unequal access to medical marijuana for those in pain (James, 2010).

Figure 1. O’Brien’s in-born defect causing neuralgic pain

Note: From James, S.D. (2010). N.J. Medical Marijuana Law Overlooks Many in Pain. The ABC News Online. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/ Health/Wellness/nj-medical-marijuana-law-ignores-chronic-pain-sufferers/ story?id=9574509&page=1

Surely, the overwhelming majority of medical marijuana proponents are sure that the legalization of law is a good start of the process of access to marijuana provision for all those needing it. The law will come into force within half a year and the list of diseases that are subject to recommended marijuana treatment will be reviewed in two years. Thus, there is still hope that in the near future much more will be done to provide a wider and more equal access to marijuana for medical purposes.

Criminal and Social Justice Issues Application to the Marijuana Legalization Process

The issue discussed in the present report cannot be unanimously assessed because of the overlapping spheres of philosophy, ethics and criminal justice that can be applied to marijuana legalization. When speaking about whether cannabis should be allowed for free medical use or not one should consider such theory as the criminal justice one that dictates punishment for wrongdoing according to the commonly accepted standards. Drug use, cultivation and sale are crimes according to the Criminal Code of any country, so distribution and use of marijuana should be punished according to the law. However, in connection with the possibilities for the medical application of marijuana one should also think about the social justice theory that dictates equality of opportunity and outcome. This theory protects human rights and fights for the equal access to their enjoyment. This is why the cannabis legalization issue is highly controversial – many assumptions of both theories come into conflict in this sphere, so they have to be considered extremely thoroughly.

US Constitution and US Homeland Security Act

The US Constitution is the main law governing the lives of US citizens and formulating democratic provisions for their enjoyment of equal opportunities, freedoms and rights. The USA have been fighting for democracy and independence hard, so there is no surprise that the Constitution of the US represents a highly democratic document allowing the nation to enjoy the rights inherent in every person in the world. The USA is fairly regarded as the most democratic country in the modern world; one cannot find any other country where the human rights are so eagerly protected in the courts of all levels. For this reason it is necessary to get a deeper look into the provisions of the US Constitution that may aid both proponents and opponents of marijuana legalization.

The first constitutional provision that is used by proponents of marijuana legalization is the Fifth Amendment that states that the US citizen cannot be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (U.S. Const. am. 5, 1787). The second most powerful argument can be found in the Ninth Amendment stating that ” the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (U.S. Const. am. 9, 1787). These two amendments dictate the protection of inherent human rights to seek a normal life for themselves and to look for ways to eliminate pain and sufferings that they experience. This is the reason why so many fighters for freedom of marijuana usage apply these provisions for the protection of their right to equal usage of medical substances that have proven to ensure the needed therapeutic effect for them.

However, the protection of basic freedoms for all US citizens dictated by the Constitution comes into conflict with the provisions of the Homeland Security Act adopted in 2002. As it is known, the Homeland Security Act was a natural reaction of the US to the series of inhuman terrorist attacks on the 9^th of September 2001; after the tragedy was understood, the federal government recognized the urgent necessity of composing a document in which it would formulate the major directions in which action should be taken and would list the threats that await the country in the modern world. Thus, drug interdiction and control over drug dissemination and illegal drug trafficking in the USA were recognized as several number one priorities alongside with the possible measures of terrorist attacks prevention (The Homeland Security Act, 2002).

This fact speaks about the seriousness of attitude to drugs taken by the US government, which makes the attitude to marijuana legalization understandable. When discussing marijuana-related issues one should remember that the cannabinoid substance is still considered a drug of the first degree with the high potential for abuse. This is why the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is often used by opponents of marijuana legalization to make their argument stand to reason.

Looking at the situation with marijuana legalization from a legislative point of view one can see that the debate has many implications interwoven; the issues where the principles of social justice and criminal justice contradict each other it is highly complicated to find the unified way out that would satisfy both the law enforcement authorities and the common public. As soon as the social justice requirements are satisfied, a great number of people will get the relief from pain they desire and will obtain an opportunity to get this relief on a legal basis. It is hard to imagine that all people refuse from pain relief and do not use cannabis only because it is forbidden by the law – the majority of terminally, chronically ill people confess in a confidential manner that they smoke marijuana being in the constant fear of legal prosecution.

But with the fulfillment of social justice principles there is a high threat of marijuana abuse and the increase of criminal prosecution cases that are likely to emerge in the state with legalized marijuana. Remembering that marijuana is highly necessary for thousands of people in horrible pain, one should still take into consideration the whole scope of outcomes that will result from legalization, both good and bad. The outlook on the problem from the side of the Homeland Security Act supposes that extended use of cannabis, no matter for what purposes, is already a federal crime that threatens the motherland’s security; it is equaled to terrorism or human trafficking, so it has to be eliminated in all its revelations no matter how much suffering and prosecution for terminally ill people it will cause.

CSI Applications in Legalization: Traditional Marijuana-Related Law Enforcement Measures

Even despite the fact that New Jersey and California have absolutely different attitudes and legislative provisions concerning marijuana possession, cultivation and sale, there are still criminal measures that govern the legal part of marijuana-related issues. Californian laws are surely more loyal and soft concerning the amount of marijuana to be held and cultivated; they also allow Californians to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes in their own households. Detailed legal penalties concerning marijuana in California look as follows:

Note: From California (2010). The NORML Site. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525&wtm_view=penalties

California as a state with the 14-year-old experience of marijuana legalization has much softer laws concerning cannabis possession, use, transportation, selling and distribution. Possession of up to an ounce of marijuana is not a punishable misdemeanor at all. In case individuals were caught with the described amount of marijuana and have an identification card of a qualified patient, they will not have to do anything and will not pay a fine. In case the right for possession has not been proven in court, the fine of $100 will be imposed. Possession of a greater amount of marijuana is penalized by up to $500 (California, 2010).

Possession of about an ounce of marijuana at school grounds presupposes the penalty of $500 and 10 days in jail. Larger amounts presuppose 6 months of imprisonment and a $500 fine. Cultivation of marijuana also has some legal limitations but they are not imposed on qualified patients. Those who consume marijuana upon a medical prescription or recommendation are not subject to any legal penalties except cases of marijuana sale (California, 2010).

Sale of marijuana in any amount is punishable by law – it takes from 2 to 4 years of imprisonment. However, passing a small amount of marijuana (less than one ounce) is not a serious misdemeanor and is punished by up to a $100 fine. Sale of marijuana to a minor is a graver offense and presupposes criminal prosecution and imprisonment for up to 5 years. It is also necessary to note that using marijuana for industrial purposes is also popular – this is called hemp industry and specializes in producing textiles, paper, paints etc. (California, 2010).

In comparison with New Jersey one can see that the penalties are much softer. The New Jersey list of penalties and fines related to marijuana possession, cultivation and dissemination is as follows:

Note: From New Jersey (2010). The NORML Site. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4552&wtm_view=penalties

New Jersey imposes much stricter rules on the possession of marijuana (about 50 grams is considered an offense and is punished by imprisonment up to 6 months). Possession of greater amounts of marijuana supposes imprisonment for up to 1,5 years. The jail sentences are also accompanied by considerable fines ($1,000 in the first case and $25,000 in the second). In addition, the New Jersey government is highly obsessed by the potential threat of marijuana usage by teenagers, so possession of marijuana near schools is considered a graver crime and is additionally punished by 100 hours of community service (New Jersey, 2010).

Manufacture and distribution of marijuana are also considered grave crimes and are punished by means of imprisonment from 1,5 to 20 years and a fine from $10,000 to $300,000 depending on the amount of marijuana detected. The starting point is about one ounce. Growing marijuana (about 10 plants found) is already considered an illegal narcotics manufacturing activity that is severely punished – from 10 to 20 years of imprisonment (New Jersey, 2010).

Detected sale of marijuana is also considered a crime, even for doses less than an ounce. The sentence usually depends on the place where the sale has been detected – sale in public places as well as near schools is additionally punished. There is a complementary provision about sale to under-aged and pregnant females that presupposes double sentence (New Jersey, 2010).

Changes in Criminal and Social Justice Systems Caused by Legalization of Marijuana

As it comes from the legal information on attitude to marijuana-related issues in such states as New Jersey and California, one can see that the legalization process has reached different stages in various parts of the country. The Western Coast is considered a more loyal territory where the majority of states have already legalized marijuana for medical purposes more or less recently. However, the change in the criminal justice system that California has already undergone and that is awaiting New Jersey is evident – it is enough to have a look at the statistics of penalties for marijuana-related issues and to compare the amount and gravity of penalties for them.

At the present moment, before the enactment of the marijuana legalization process, New Jersey has a wide variety of penalties for marijuana possession, sale and cultivation – law enforcement officers are guided by those regulations in case they detect carriers or sellers of marijuana and severely punish them by law. At the present moment of site, as soon as the medical marijuana law is enacted, the infrastructure of law enforcement agencies in New Jersey will inevitably be changed. First of all, the change pertains to the identification cards issuing and management. The set of new roles and responsibilities is generated for the authorities in the state, for the Department of Health and Safety. These agencies will take the main burden of issuing identification cards to qualified patients, of prolonging the term of their power, of collecting the fees for taking part in the medical marijuana access program etc.

In addition, the role of police officers who used to detect marijuana users will have to be re-considered. Surely, the law about medical marijuana is much stricter in New Jersey and only usage will be punished less severely – in all other aspects such as selling or cultivation the role of police will remain the same. Thus, it becomes possible to assume that the change in New Jersey is not as grand as it is in California, but it may be a matter of time – it is hard to suppose that the loyalty towards marijuana in the first state that adopted legalization happened within a short period of time. The state has stepped on the way of change, and the review of diseases that will enable patients to apply for access to marijuana will be done in two years. Maybe this will be a turning point for further softening of possession, cultivation and obtaining procedures.

Conclusion

Social justice principles are gradually coming into force in New Jersey, which can be seen on the law about legalization recently passed by the state government; however, the common fears concerning this process of establishing social justice are intermingled with the inevitable abuse cases that will intrude in the criminal justice principles that worked well in New Jersey. Many opponents of medical marijuana legalization have used the situation in California as an argument against legalization – it is evident that too much abuse can be detected in this state as a result of too soft legislative measures both for authorized and unauthorized usage of marijuana. However, there is still some hope that some legal action will be taken to achieve a consensus between the social and criminal justice values that should be kept to in every society.

As it has been found in the present report, much incongruence is inescapable in any society obsessed by such controversial issues as marijuana legalization – these problems will always find both proponents and opponents, and the arguments each group will find will be justifiable. Each point of view stands to reason and each party of suchlike debates has the right for preservation either of indispensible human rights to eliminate pain by all possible means or to sustain law and order in the society by eliminating the chance for drug abuse or easy access to drugs in the community where their children exist.

The government can understand both sides of the debate, which is seen in the decisions of varying loyalty in different states. However, no equilibrium in the correlation of law, ethics and morality has been yet found, and both negative and positive decisions about marijuana legalization have proven to cause negative consequences that will hardly be eliminated unless the problem is approached in a more reasonable, balanced and grounded way from the side of the government and the public.

References

Bill Number: SB 420 — Bill Text (2003). Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/sb420-03.htm#text

California (2010). The NORML Site. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4525&wtm_view=penalties

California Proposition 215 (1996). Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/Prop215.html#215text

California’s Medical Marijuana Laws (2010). Americans for Safe Access Site. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://www.safeaccessnow.org/ section.php?id=189

James, S.D. (2010). N.J. Medical Marijuana Law Overlooks Many in Pain. The ABC News Online. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://abcnews.go.com/ Health/Wellness/nj-medical-marijuana-law-ignores-chronic-pain-sufferers/ story?id=9574509&page=1

Kocieniewski, D. (2010). New Jersey Vote Backs Marijuana for Severely Ill. The New York Times Online. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.c om/2010/01/12/nyregion/12marijuana.html

Medical Marijuana (2010). Drug Policy Alliance Network. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/medical/

New Jersey (2010). The NORML Site. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4552&wtm_view=penalties

The Constitution of the United States, 1787.

The Homeland Security Act, 2002.

The Medical Uses of Marijuana (1997). The National Institutes of Health. Retrieved February 17, 2010, from http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj022.htm