2

If a doctor recommends medical marijuana to a patient who lives in a state without compassionate-care laws established, can that patient sue the state for access on the grounds that a doctor is an expert in health whereas legislatures are not?

Another way to think about this is how the Federal Marijuana program works and how it protects registered patients from State intervention. (Since 1977, well before prop 215 in California).

  • 4
    I don't think this would be valid grounds for a lawsuit. It basically reduces to "the dumb legislature made a dumb law that I shouldn't have to follow". The legislature has the authority to make valid laws on all sorts of things that they are not necessarily experts on. In this case, the legislature apparently decided that this is not a matter that should be left up to individual doctors and patients, and they have the authority to make that decision. – Nate Eldredge Jan 24 '16 at 19:24
  • 1
    If this attack was able to work then you could be sure that most of the laws in the United States would have already been torn down. – NotMe Jan 25 '16 at 3:14
  • A comment above deleted, as it was an answer to the first deleted comment, and took this question out of context, as per the response of @cpast answer, second para., below. – irth Jan 26 '16 at 15:43
  • @NotMe this is specifically related to personal health, which I think falls under "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." – irth Jan 27 '16 at 18:04
  • 1
    @irth There is no protected right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is a right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. – cpast Jan 27 '16 at 20:39
1

Generally, no. Legislatures pass laws. The fact that someone else knows more about the thing they're passing laws about is utterly irrelevant -- the power to make laws is given to the legislature, not to experts. If the legislature thinks experts should make the rules on something, they can delegate (this is why the FDA approves medicine rather than Congress), but the legislature of a state generally has the power to pass any law that is not unconstitutional.

Your analogy to paper money is a poor one: that's a federalism thing, not an expertise thing. Congress has established a system of paper money, and states can't interfere with that. It's not that the Fed thinks paper money is good, it's that Congress said paper money shall be a thing. That could stop a state from banning an FDA-approved drug; however, since marijuana is illegal under federal law, it would be odd to conclude that banning it at the state level as well is preempted.

Legislators aren't inherently experts on anything (except being elected). That doesn't matter. They have the authority to pass laws, even if those laws directly go against the views of people who are recognized experts in the area.

You appear to think there must be a judicial remedy against bad policy. You would be wrong. The role of the courts is not to decide what policies are good or bad; they are concerned only with what is legal. Deciding what policies are good or bad is a matter for the democratically elected representatives of the people, or for the people themselves in states with ballot questions. It is not the job of the courts.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    Are you saying that the framers of the constitution left citizens with no remedy against bad laws? As for the paper money argument, that was a stretch to reply to a deleted comment, after the comment was deleted, my response no longer applies. Now, with over 20 years of research, including hushed executive branch commissioned studies, there is enough evidence to make a case that the FDA is not doing their job. They'll blame the Controlled Substances Act and wait for Congress. Congress in turn will wait for FDA. Please revise your answer accordingly with proper instruments of remedy. – irth Jan 27 '16 at 17:34
  • 1
    @irth There is a remedy. It's called voting. What policies are good or bad is not a matter for the courts. – cpast Jan 27 '16 at 17:55
  • 2
    @irth You may find it ridiculous. I'm at a loss why you think the legal system cares. – cpast Jan 27 '16 at 18:04
  • 2
    I disagree entirely with that viewpoint. It's my understanding that the judicial system's responsibility in checks and balances is to check congress's laws are constitutionally valid and that no rights are being infringed on by legislation. Please review this link so we're on the same page. cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/legislation.html – irth Jan 27 '16 at 18:09
  • 2
    @irth It checks if things are constitutionally valid. But "this is dumb and experts disagree" isn't a constitutional issue. – cpast Jan 27 '16 at 18:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.