The legalization of medical marijuana has been a complicated and confusing process. The drug is used for medical purposes yet is only semi-legal and not approved by the federal government. This piece will observe the legal medical history of this drug in the United States. It will analyze the growth of the medical marijuana movement up to the present with a special emphasis to the importance of federal, state and local supremacy. It will observe important court cases that have been decisive in defining the reach of federal power under the Commerce Clause and the 1970 Controlled Substance Act. This analysis will look at the current legal standing of medical marijuana as well as the legal hurdles to achieve full legal status and medical recognition from state federal and local levels of government. A special focus will be given to the state of California because it has the largest medical marijuana market and has taken center stage in the movement to legalize marijuana as a medicine. This paper will also cover the growth of the state condoned medical marijuana black market and the complications that arise from taxing, and licensing semi-legal businesses. This paper will assess the monetary and personal costs of this movement and the political elements of resisting the medical development and scientific understanding of this drug. It will seek to suggest a solution to the current impasse and explain why medical marijuana in this instance has been bad medicine and dangerous policy.

A supremacia da Constituição exige que a Suprema Corte tenha a última palavra sobre o sentido da Constituição? As Supremas Cortes norte-americana e brasileira afirmam que sim, respaldadas pelo conhecimento convencional. O objetivo principal da tese é demonstrar que esta assertiva é simplesmente equivocada. Será reconstruída a história da expansão do papel político do Judiciário, no âmbito da interpretação constitucional, com vistas a elucidar os seus verdadeiros pressupostos. A evolução do constitucionalismo brasileiro será analisada à luz de tais critérios, para que se possa perceber que só há no Brasil algo parecido com uma supremacia judicial após 1988. Após o exame das críticas institucionais e democráticas, será explorado o potencial da doutrina dos diálogos constitucionais para explicar a realidade das interações entre os Poderes Legislativo e Judiciário na interpretação constitucional, e para prover um suporte normativo que logre reconciliar o fenômeno da judicialização da política com a democracia no Brasil. / The supremacy clause requires that the Supreme Court shall have the last word on constitutional matters? The brazilian and north-american Supreme Courts confirms, endorsed by the traditional wisdom. The thesis aims proving that such statement is mistaken. The history of the global expansion of the judicial power, in refer to the constitutional intepretation, will be reconstructed, in order to clarify its real presuppositions. The brazilian constitutional evolution will be analyzed to prove that before 1988 there was no judicial supremacy in Brazil. After the analysis of the institutional and the democratic criticisms, the potencial of the constitutional dialogues doctrine will be explored to explain the interactions between the legislative and the judicial branches in constitutional interpretation, and its ability to provide a normative basis to reconcile the judicialization of politics with democracy in Brazil.

A supremacia da Constituição exige que a Suprema Corte tenha a última palavra sobre o sentido da Constituição? As Supremas Cortes norte-americana e brasileira afirmam que sim, respaldadas pelo conhecimento convencional. O objetivo principal da tese é demonstrar que esta assertiva é simplesmente equivocada. Será reconstruída a história da expansão do papel político do Judiciário, no âmbito da interpretação constitucional, com vistas a elucidar os seus verdadeiros pressupostos. A evolução do constitucionalismo brasileiro será analisada à luz de tais critérios, para que se possa perceber que só há no Brasil algo parecido com uma supremacia judicial após 1988. Após o exame das críticas institucionais e democráticas, será explorado o potencial da doutrina dos diálogos constitucionais para explicar a realidade das interações entre os Poderes Legislativo e Judiciário na interpretação constitucional, e para prover um suporte normativo que logre reconciliar o fenômeno da judicialização da política com a democracia no Brasil. / The supremacy clause requires that the Supreme Court shall have the last word on constitutional matters? The brazilian and north-american Supreme Courts confirms, endorsed by the traditional wisdom. The thesis aims proving that such statement is mistaken. The history of the global expansion of the judicial power, in refer to the constitutional intepretation, will be reconstructed, in order to clarify its real presuppositions. The brazilian constitutional evolution will be analyzed to prove that before 1988 there was no judicial supremacy in Brazil. After the analysis of the institutional and the democratic criticisms, the potencial of the constitutional dialogues doctrine will be explored to explain the interactions between the legislative and the judicial branches in constitutional interpretation, and its ability to provide a normative basis to reconcile the judicialization of politics with democracy in Brazil.