157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16290884)
1. Gonzales v Raich: the US supreme court's consideration captured the public policy debate about the medical use of marijuana.
Lorber L
Gend Med; 2005 Sep; 2(3):124-30. PubMed ID: 16290884
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Medical marijuana, American federalism, and the Supreme Court.
Gostin LO
JAMA; 2005 Aug; 294(7):842-4. PubMed ID: 16106011
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Gonzales v. Raich: federalism as a casualty of the war on drugs.
Somin I
Cornell J Law Public Policy; 2006; 15(3):507-50. PubMed ID: 17593582
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Gonzales v. Raich. In the Supreme Court of the United States.
Bostrom BA
Issues Law Med; 2005; 21(1):47-56. PubMed ID: 16173504
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Court decision on medical marijuana use worries patient advocates.
Krisberg K
Nations Health; 2005 Aug; 35(6):1,14. PubMed ID: 16130240
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Ashcroft v. Raich background.
Laughlin C
J Law Med Ethics; 2005; 33(2):396-9. PubMed ID: 16083100
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Supreme Court rejects attack on medical marijuana.
Wolski K
N J Nurse; 2003 Dec; 33(9):2-3. PubMed ID: 14746112
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Medical marijuana and the Supreme Court.
Okie S
N Engl J Med; 2005 Aug; 353(7):648-51. PubMed ID: 16107619
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Gonzales v. Raich: implications for public health policy.
Rosenbaum S
Public Health Rep; 2005; 120(6):680-2. PubMed ID: 16350339
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Justices say doctors may not be punished for recommending medical marijuana.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2003 Oct; ():A14. PubMed ID: 14610768
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Justices set back use of marijuana to treat illness.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2001 May; ():A1, A20. PubMed ID: 12159858
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Drug enforcement: Controlled Substances Act inapplicable to medicinal marijuana.
Muldrew BL
J Law Med Ethics; 2004; 32(2):371-2. PubMed ID: 15301203
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. CMA position against separate regulations for medical cannabis draws ire and insults.
Owens B
CMAJ; 2018 May; 190(18):E574-E575. PubMed ID: 29735538
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Brewing a pot of hysteria.
Nat Neurosci; 2005 Aug; 8(8):971. PubMed ID: 16047019
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public.
Jessee S; Malhotra N; Sen M
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2022 Jun; 119(24):e2120284119. PubMed ID: 35666873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Help from my friends. The high court's marijuana ruling won't play in Mendocino.
Curry A
US News World Rep; 2001 May; 130(21):40-2. PubMed ID: 11383128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. US Supreme Court says no to medical marijuana.
Hopkins Tanne J
BMJ; 2005 Jun; 330(7505):1408. PubMed ID: 15961803
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Courts protect Ninth Circuit doctors who recommend medical marijuana use.
Christenson V
J Law Med Ethics; 2004; 32(1):174-7. PubMed ID: 15152441
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Congress, controlled substances, and physician-assisted suicide--elephants in mouseholes.
Annas GJ
N Engl J Med; 2006 Mar; 354(10):1079-84. PubMed ID: 16525147
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Jumping frogs, endangered toads, and California's medical-marijuana law.
Annas GJ
N Engl J Med; 2005 Nov; 353(21):2291-6. PubMed ID: 16306529
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
