1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

Detroit-area judge: Medical marijuana is illegal

  1. Terrapinzflyer
    A suburban Detroit judge says Michigan's medical-marijuana law is illegal and is trumped by federal anti-drug laws.

    Dearborn District Judge Mark Somers ruled in March in a case involving a man who was caught with pot before he received a medical-marijuana card. Robert Brandon unsuccessfully tried to have his case dismissed.

    Somers is one of three judges in Dearborn. His decision isn't binding on them or judges elsewhere in Michigan. But anyone appearing in Somers' court and arguing a medical-marijuana defense will lose.

    He says Michigan can't allow the legal use of marijuana when Congress has made it illegal. Voters approved the law in 2008.

    Wednesday, April 06, 2011


  1. Terrapinzflyer
    [IMGL="white"]https://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19848&stc=1&d=1302392430[/IMGL]District Judge rules state medical marijuana rules unconstitutional

    DEARBORN — The city’s chief judge last month made a ruling that could have big implications for the state’s two-year-old medical marijuana law.

    In an order denying a motion to dismiss a possession of marijuana case, Judge Mark Somers wrote, “This court finds that in consequence of the lawful designation of marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic under the Controlled Substances Act, the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act is rendered unconstitutional and void in its entirety by operation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

    The Controlled Substance Act is a federal statute that classifies drugs into five categories, known as schedules, based on their potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine and LSD, are considered to be the most addictive and are not legal to prescribe.

    The case stems from a traffic stop in January 2010. Dearborn police cited the defendant, Robert Brandon, for illegal possession of marijuana and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, according to court documents.

    Brandon tried to have the case dismissed four months later based on the grounds that, after he was ticketed, he saw a doctor who issued him a “physician’s certification” for medical marijuana to treat chronic back pain. Doctor’s can’t legally prescribe medical marijuana so, under the Michigan law, a physician’s certification is the terminology used.

    Somers questioned the legitimacy of the claim, however, noting that Brandon’s doctor only met with Brandon for about 20 minutes before writing the certification, did not perform any physical examination, and had no previous patient-doctor relationship, which is part of the criteria for medical marijuana certification.

    Moreover, Somers wrote, Brandon’s certification came after the traffic stop, meaning that it couldn’t be used as a defense.

    But what was most significant in the order was that Somers, an outspoken critic of marijuana and skeptic of the medical marijuana law, declared the medical marijuana law void. The case is scheduled for a pretrial conference April 12.

    Somers declined comment Thursday because the case remains pending.

    The medical marijuana law has been a legal quagmire since Michigan voters adopted it in 2008. Because marijuana remains illegal under federal law, local governmental bodies in Michigan have been forced to interpret how to apply it.

    Somers’ ruling doesn’t mandate Dearborn’s two other district judges take the same view.

    By J. Patrick Pepper
    Press & Guide Newspapers
    Saturday, April 09, 2011


    See the attached PDF for the full ruling
  2. CaptainTripps
    This decision will not stand. At least as far as invalidating the state medical marijuana law. It is judical activism at it's worst. The concept of federalism allows states to have their own laws. These laws are restricted if they violate the contstituional rights of the individual. That is why a state can not execute someone for stealing a car. They can also be restricted if they violate the rights of another state. That is why if one state wants to build a dam that will flood another state and federal government can stop it's construction.

    The surpremacy clause has to to with a conflict between state and federal laws. In that case the federal law wins. That is why if a state legalizes medical marijuana the feds can come in and make arrests under federal law. If a state chooses to not make something illegal that is illegal under federal law, they can. The feds can not make a state make something illegal. All they can do is make a federal law and enforce it.

    Now the feds could attack state laws by going after those that administer the state laws. If it could be shown that state regulators are somehow engaged in facilitating the violation of federal law, that could be an issue. An example might be going after a state for collecting taxes on medical marijuana. This could be considered as accepting proceeds from an illegal enterprise. But whatever they do they have to use federal law to do it. I do not see how you can prosecute someone under state law for something legal under state law. The reason doctors "recommend" marijuana and don't prescribe it, is it is illegal to prescribe marijuana under federal law. However, they can exercise their first amendment rights and recommend, something they believe to be of benefit to the patient.

    This judge has clearly exceeded his authority and is legislating from the bench. He has no respect for the democratic process and a lack of understanding of the role of the judiciary.
  3. stickboy239
    Why not just appeal his decision to State court?
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!