Free Memorandum - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 DANIEL G. KNAUSS
United States Attorney
2 District of Arizona
3 MICHAEL A. LEE
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
Two Renaissance Square
4 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408
5 Arizona State Bar No. 018065
Telephone (602) 514-7500
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 United States of America,
CR—04-0468-PHX-SMM
10 Plaintiff,
AMENDED MEMORANDUM
ll v.
12 _
Barry Christopher Defroe,
13
14 Defendant.
15
16 The United States of America, by and through it attorneys undersigned, responds to the
17 request of the Court regarding the issue of medicinal prescription of marijuana.
18 1. Directly on point is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' C0-op., 532 U.S. 483
19 (2001). A summation of the holding:
20 Whereas other drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use, see 21
21 U.S.C. § 829, the same is not true for marijuana, which has "no currently accepted
22 medical use" at all, § 812. This conclusion is supported by the structure ofthe Act
23 (Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II), which
24 divides drugs into tive schedules, depending in part on whether a drug has a
25 currently accepted medical use, and then imposes restrictions according to the
26 schedule in which it has been placed. The Attorney General is authorized to
27 include a drug in schedule I, the most restrictive schedule, only if the drug has no
28 currently accepted medical use. It is clear from the text of the Act that Congress
ase 2:O4—cr—OO468—SI\/II\/I Document 143 Filed O2/14/2007 Page 1 of 3

1 determined that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception granted
2 to other drugs. The statute expressly contemplates that many drugs have a useful
3 medical purpose, see § 801(1), but it includes no exception at all for any medical
4 use of marijuana.
5
6 2. lncidently, Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), addresses the issue of locally authorized
7 private cultivation and use of marijuana. A summation of the holding:
8 Congress' Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local
9 cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. For the
10 purposes of consolidating various drug laws into a comprehensive statute,
11 providing meaningful regulation over legitimate sources of drugs to prevent
12 diversion into illegal channels, and strengthening law enforcement tools against
13 international and interstate drug trafficking, Congress enacted the Comprehensive
14 Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II of which is the CSA. To
15 effectuate the statutory goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system making
16 it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled
17 substance except as authorized by the CSA. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 844(a). All
18 controlled substances are classified into five schedules, § 812, based on their
19 accepted medical uses, their potential for abuse, and their psychological and
20 physical effects on the body, §§ 811, 812. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule
21 I substance, § 812(c), based on its high potential for abuse, no accepted medical
22 use, and no accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment, § 812(b)(1).
23 This classification renders the manufacture, distribution, or possession of
24 marijuana a criminal offense. §§ 841(a)(1), 844(a). (b) Congress' power to
25 regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities"
26 that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established. See,
27 e.g., Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 151, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686. If
28 Congress decides that the " 'total incidence' " of a practice poses a threat to a
2
ase 2:O4—cr—OO468—SI\/II\/I Document 143 Filed O2/14/2007 Page 2 of 3

1 national market, it may regulate the entire class. See, e. g., id., at 154-155, 91 S.Ct.
2 1357. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between
3 marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5),
4 and concems about diversion into illicit channels, the Court; has no difficulty
5 concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate
6 the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole
7 in the CSA.
; Respectfully submitted this 14“‘ day of February, 2007.
10 PAUL K. CHARLTON
11 BIEE§‘$tS§?E§ir?3.°&m°y
12 S/Michael A. Lee
13 MICHAEL A. LEE
14 Special Assistant U.S. Attomey
15 CERTIFICATE
‘6 dOCum£n‘2§{2‘iI1€°5‘£}E»§*2§‘l»¤‘Z5é f§3‘“31‘Zéi$1y§?;¥7s E$.‘i{’l~E3“&i’$1y$§‘€é.“§§“‘?d §l‘°1~“‘i5‘°*I°d
17 of Electronic Filing to the followinggCM/ECF registi/ants: Baltizarglnigquez. m tt O 8 Ot Cc
18 S/Michael A. Lee
19 MICHAEL A. LEE
20 Special Assistant United States Attomey
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
se 2:O4—cr—OO468—SI\/II\/I Document 143 Filed O2/14/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00468-SMM

Document 143

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00468-SMM

Document 143

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00468-SMM

Document 143

Filed 02/14/2007

Page 3 of 3