context: A classification that adversely affects a fundamental right or is based on a suspect category is constitutional if it passes strict scrutiny in that the classification is "necessary or narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental purpose." Appellant maintains that the use of marijuana is a form of health care affordable to him, and he claims that he has a fundamental right to affordable health care while at the same time he concedes that affordable health care has not been recognized as a fundamental right.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 500 F.3d 850, 866
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that "federal law does not recognize a fundamental right to use medical marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician to allev iate excruciating pain and human suffering"
citation_a.sentence: See Mitchell v. Clayton, 995 F.2d 772, 775-76 (7th Cir.1993) (stating that “most federal courts have held that a patient does not have a constitutional right to obtain a particular type of [medical] treatment”); see also Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 866 (9th Cir.2007) (stating that “federal law does not recognize a fundamental right to use medical marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician to allev iate excruciating pain and human suffering”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 995 F.2d 772, 775-76
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that "most federal courts have held that a patient does not have a constitutional right to obtain a particular type of [medical] treatment"
citation_b.sentence: See Mitchell v. Clayton, 995 F.2d 772, 775-76 (7th Cir.1993) (stating that “most federal courts have held that a patient does not have a constitutional right to obtain a particular type of [medical] treatment”); see also Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 866 (9th Cir.2007) (stating that “federal law does not recognize a fundamental right to use medical marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician to allev iate excruciating pain and human suffering”).