Free Memorandum - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DANIEL G. KNAUSS United States Attorney District of Arizona MICHAEL A. LEE Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Arizona State Bar No. 018065 Telephone (602) 514-7500

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Barry Christopher Defroe, Defendant. CR-04-0468-PHX-SMM MEMORANDUM

The United States of America, by and through it attorneys undersigned, responds to the request of the Court regarding the issue of medicinal prescription of marijuana. 1. Directly on point is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op., 532 U.S. 483 (2001). A summation of the holding: Whereas other drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use, see 21 U.S.C. § 829, the same is not true for marijuana, which has "no currently accepted medical use" at all, § 812. This conclusion is supported by the structure of the Act (Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II), which divides drugs into five schedules, depending in part on whether a drug has a currently accepted medical use, and then imposes restrictions according to the schedule in which it has been placed. The Attorney General is authorized to include a drug in schedule I, the most restrictive schedule, only if the drug has no currently accepted medical use. It is clear from the text of the Act that Congress

Case 2:04-cr-00468-SMM

Document 142

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

determined that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception granted to other drugs. The statute expressly contemplates that many drugs have a useful medical purpose, see § 801(1), but it includes no exception at all for any medical use of marijuana.

2. Incidently, Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), addresses the issue of locally authorized private cultivation and use of marijuana. A summation of the holding: Congress' Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. For the purposes of consolidating various drug laws into a comprehensive statute, providing meaningful regulation over legitimate sources of drugs to prevent diversion into illegal channels, and strengthening law enforcement tools against international and interstate drug trafficking, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II of which is the CSA. To effectuate the statutory goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except as authorized by the CSA. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 844(a). All controlled substances are classified into five schedules, § 812, based on their accepted medical uses, their potential for abuse, and their psychological and physical effects on the body, §§ 811, 812. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, § 812(c), based on its high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment, § 812(b)(1). This classification renders the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana a criminal offense. §§ 841(a)(1), 844(a). (b) Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly establishe
2

Case 2:04-cr-00468-SMM

Document 142

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

d.

See,

e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151, 91 S.Ct.

1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686. If

Congress decides that the " ' t o t a l incidence' " of a

practice poses a

threat to a national market, it m a y

regulate the entire class. See, e.g., id., at 154-155, 91 S.Ct.
3

Case 2:04-cr-00468-SMM

Document 142

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 3 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 3 5 7 . Given the enforcem e n t

difficultie s that

attend distinguis h i n g between marijuana cultivated locally a n d

marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), a n d

concerns a b o u t diversion into illicit channels, the Court has no

difficulty
4

Case 2:04-cr-00468-SMM

Document 142

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 4 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

concludin g that

Congress had a

rational basis for believing t h a t failure to regulate t h e

intrastate manufact ure and

possession o f

marijuana w o u l d leave a

gaping hole in the CSA. Respectfully submitted this 14th day of February, 2007. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona S/Michael A. Lee MICHAEL A. LEE
5

Case 2:04-cr-00468-SMM

Document 142

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 5 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that on February 14, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached documents to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Baltizar Inigquez. S/Michael A. Lee MICHAEL A. LEE Special Assistant United States Attorney

6

Case 2:04-cr-00468-SMM

Document 142

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 6 of 6