The paper "Craker vs. Drug Enforcement Administration" is a great example of a case study on law. A University of Massachusetts professor, Dr. Lyle Craker had an application to the Drug Enforcement Administration for permission to register for marijuana manufacture for clinical research. His argument was that there was a need for a second source of the plant material to facilitate research into medical uses of marijuana. That was to ensure enough supply of marijuana whose quality was research-grade to facilitate medical applications. Although the recommendation of the administrative law judge was that Dr.
Craker is granted his application, The DEA Deputy Administrator denied his application stating that the professor failed to prove measures to ensure there would be no diversion of the marijuana and the inadequacy of supply or competition (Cross and Miller 134). RuleThe National Institute on Drug Abuse administers the contract to grow marijuana for purposes of research. Bidding for the contract is open every five years and those interested in the contract may bid at such times. The National Center for Natural Products Research is the only institution with registration from the DEA for the manufacture of marijuana. ApplicationThe court observed that Dr.
Craker failed to show that he could provide marijuana for less than what NIDA provided. It also noted that he could bid for the contract during renewal. There was also no demonstration by Dr. Craker of the inadequacy of the current supply of marijuana as the amount in the possession of NIDA far exceeded the current and future research demands. ConclusionThe court denied Craker’ s petition as it found the interpretation of the CSA permissible, and there was sufficient evidence to support the reasonability of her findings.