Medical Defense Necessity Case

Introduction 

Medical cases can develop exceptions on various drugs in instances when used within the state to improve individual’s health. However, not all regions in the nation allow for such exceptions since when an individual is caught with such drugs, they are arrested for possession of the same. The case of Adonis is similar to his possession of Marijuana within a region where the drug was not allowed. The purpose of this research is to determine whether his situation would be argued on the basis of medical necessity as a defense to allow for him carry and use marijuana in a state that does not legally allow the same.

Statement of the Issue 

The issue is that Adonis, one of the patients suffering from PTSD, owing to his military services in Afghanistan, has been advised by his doctor that the use of Marijuana could be helpful in alleviating his condition. However, marijuana is only allowed in various states, and the current location for the patient is not among the ones in the allowed. Therefore, the doctor advises the patient that he is not allowed to be in possession of marijuana in the current state despite the potential positive outcomes it would have on his condition. The patient suffers from issues inclusive of irritability, depression, and memory losses, among others. However, on his way home, the patient decides to purchase one ounce of marijuana but is arrested by a police officer after he was stopped for overspending.

Statement of the Law 

Regulatory guidelines outlined in the California Medical Marijuana Program Act indicate that so long as the person is in possession of a valid identification card, they are eligible to carry and transport marijuana in any amount for health purposes. However, if there is a reasonable cause that can lead to establishing the card issued as having false information, the card can be taken into custody as fraud and the individual accused of falsification of information. The law suggests that marijuana used for medicinal purposes is allowed for people holding ID cards for the state and that are authentic. The doctor, however, had advised Adonis that despite trying all other medication without positive results, he is not supposed to use marijuana in the current state as it is not legalized. The doctor, therefore, is following legal guidelines that will ensure the patient is not exposed to risks with other stakeholders. However, the officer who stopped Adonis was interested in ticketing him for over speeding. However, the defendant explicitly informed the officer that he was in possession of marijuana, which led to the officer arresting him on possession of the drug. It is unclear if Adonis had presented his identification documents to the police officer or not as this would have helped to determine if the officer was at fault in arresting the individual on possession of marijuana.

Analysis of the Facts 

Justification of Adonis arrest is vague since the individual intentionally informed the officer about the marijuana he was carrying in his vehicle. The officer, however, had stopped the individual for over speeding rather than suspecting any illicit activities. A medical necessity defense can be recognized in the situation because the patient had been advised by the doctor that the use of marijuana can be helpful to reduce the symptoms, he faces due to the PSTD condition. The defendant, however, was not advised to purchase the drug while in the current state as he was informed it is illegal to use the drug there. However, his desperation had led him to purchase the drug, and he was open to the officer about it, which can show why the medical necessity is an integral defense in the situation. According to the Medical Marijuana Program Act of California 2003, the offender could have argued of his medical condition and thus being allowed to use the drug as an exception (Schuster, 2019). However, it is unclear if Adonis presented his identification card to the officer to determine whether there were other complications leading to his arrest other than the possession of the drug. Moreover, the offender had not been given any note by the doctor that he could show the officers as evidence of his medical need, which argues against his actions.

Conclusion 

The above research was purposed to understan whether medical necessity defense argument could be raised in the case of Adonis after he was arrested following his possession of marijuana in a state that does not allow its use. The culprit suffered from PTSD and was advised by his doctor that the drug could help reduce symptoms of the disease; however, the drug is not legally allowed in the state. However, the individual purchased one ounce of the drug but was arrested while over speeding on his way home.

References

Schuster, G. (2019). Medical Marijuana Laws and Opioid Overdose Deaths in the United States.