Majority Opinion
Justice Thomas wrote for the majority. The OCBC contended that the Controlled Substances Act was susceptible of a medical necessity exception to the ban on distribution and manufacture of marijuana. The Court concluded otherwise.
Since 1812, the Court had held that there were no common-law crimes in federal law. See United States v. Hudson and Goodwin. That is, the law required Congress, rather than the federal courts, to define federal crimes. The Controlled Substances Act did not recognize a medical necessity exception. Thus "a medical necessity exception for marijuana is at odds with the terms of the Controlled Substances Act." When it passed the Controlled Substances Act, Congress made a value judgment that marijuana had "no currently accepted medical use." It was not the province of the Court to usurp this value judgment made by the legislature. Thus, it was wrong for the Ninth Circuit to hold that the Controlled Substances Act did contain a medical necessity defense. It was also wrong for the Ninth Circuit to order the district court to fashion a more limited injunction that would take into account the fact that marijuana was necessary for certain people to obtain relief from symptoms of chronic illnesses.
Read more about this topic: United States V. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
Famous quotes containing the words majority and/or opinion:
“In republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.”
—James Madison (1751–1836)
“When, in some obscure country town, the farmers come together to a special town meeting, to express their opinion on some subject which is vexing to the land, that, I think, is the true Congress, and the most respectable one that is ever assembled in the United States.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)