高等法院面前:大麻的法律系统

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
J. Bosse
{"title":"高等法院面前:大麻的法律系统","authors":"J. Bosse","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the history of a legal-scientific controversy: the challenges to criminal prohibitions on marijuana, which invoked contested scientific views of the taxonomy of the cannabis plant. Facing prosecution in the 1970s, numerous defendants raised the ‘botanical defence’, an argument that relied on the expert testimony of scientists to dispute the classification and nomenclature of genus Cannabis. This article analyses judicial opinions from the three nations where the botanical defence was raised – the United States, Canada, and Australia – where the meaning of the name, ‘Cannabis sativa L.’, was found to be in the domain of judicial, not scientific, authority. Although this satisfied the need for closure in the criminal cases, the article draws attention to the ongoing consequences of the taxonomic debate for the regulation of the cannabis plant under intellectual property laws.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Before the High Court: the legal systematics of Cannabis\",\"authors\":\"J. Bosse\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article examines the history of a legal-scientific controversy: the challenges to criminal prohibitions on marijuana, which invoked contested scientific views of the taxonomy of the cannabis plant. Facing prosecution in the 1970s, numerous defendants raised the ‘botanical defence’, an argument that relied on the expert testimony of scientists to dispute the classification and nomenclature of genus Cannabis. This article analyses judicial opinions from the three nations where the botanical defence was raised – the United States, Canada, and Australia – where the meaning of the name, ‘Cannabis sativa L.’, was found to be in the domain of judicial, not scientific, authority. Although this satisfied the need for closure in the criminal cases, the article draws attention to the ongoing consequences of the taxonomic debate for the regulation of the cannabis plant under intellectual property laws.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文探讨了一场法律科学争议的历史:对大麻刑事禁令的挑战,该争议援引了对大麻植物分类学的有争议的科学观点。20世纪70年代,面对起诉,许多被告提出了“植物辩护”,这一论点依赖于科学家的专家证词,对大麻属的分类和命名提出质疑。本文分析了提出植物辩护的三个国家——美国、加拿大和澳大利亚——的司法意见,这些国家的名称“Cannabis sativa L.”的含义被发现属于司法而非科学权威领域。尽管这满足了刑事案件结案的需要,但文章提请注意根据知识产权法对大麻植物进行监管的分类学辩论的持续后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Before the High Court: the legal systematics of Cannabis
ABSTRACT This article examines the history of a legal-scientific controversy: the challenges to criminal prohibitions on marijuana, which invoked contested scientific views of the taxonomy of the cannabis plant. Facing prosecution in the 1970s, numerous defendants raised the ‘botanical defence’, an argument that relied on the expert testimony of scientists to dispute the classification and nomenclature of genus Cannabis. This article analyses judicial opinions from the three nations where the botanical defence was raised – the United States, Canada, and Australia – where the meaning of the name, ‘Cannabis sativa L.’, was found to be in the domain of judicial, not scientific, authority. Although this satisfied the need for closure in the criminal cases, the article draws attention to the ongoing consequences of the taxonomic debate for the regulation of the cannabis plant under intellectual property laws.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信