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.
    PLEASE HELP

Judge says Feds violated 10th Amendment by subverting state marijuana laws

  1. chillinwill
    From: http://www.times-standard.com/ci_10461558?source=most_viewed

    A landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20th in a Santa Cruz courtroom.



    For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities.


    The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen.



    In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next?



    ”The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.



    So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated.



    California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients, caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.



    An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient's collective.



    The group was functioning so smoothly that the city even allowed them to hold regular meetings to distribute marijuana to its patients on the steps of city hall! The federal agents still went after them, which brought about this court decision.



    When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California's medical marijuana law.



    We must not forget that medical marijuana brings in about $100 million each year in tax revenue. Conferring total legitimacy to the law will allow this cash flow to continue, and hopefully, increase over time.



    When the judge ruled the feds were threatening physicians who recommended marijuana, he set the stage for regaining patient's rights. The ruling clearly pointed out that the feds were also threatening government officials who issue medical marijuana cards, and interfered with municipal zoning plans.



    In the summation, the court found that, “There was a calculated pattern of selective arrests and prosecutions by the federal government with the intent to render California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and therefore forced Californian's and their political subdivisions to re-criminalize medical marijuana.”



    In a recent column, I mentioned California's Attorney General Jerry Brown had passed out an 11-page directive that all law agencies were to go by. I expressed concern that the federal authorities would ignore those guidelines, but upon finding out about this recent ruling I now have some cause for hope.



    It sure sounded like Hopper was looking forward to the next phase, and he seemed confident that positive change lay ahead. Asked which presidential candidate would be more amenable to upholding medical marijuana laws, he cleverly replied that he thought they both would be willing to work for change. He could be right too. This is a year of change.



    This on-going battle with the federal authorities ignoring California's laws has been well-documented in the past. Why hasn't there been more coverage for such an epic ruling? Its potential as breakthrough legislation is something all Californian's should know about in my opinion.



    The war against medical marijuana hasn't been won yet, but this could be the breakthrough everybody's waited for. At the core of the war waged by the federal government against the voter's will, is the failed War on Drugs by the Bush Administration. It's about time someone told them to back off.
    As It Stands, we can score this as a successful round for state's rights.

Comments

  1. RoboCodeine7610
    I don't know if you've watched "Superhighme" but in that documentary they talk a lot about this issue with the federal government.
  2. Expat98
    If I am reading this correctly, they haven't actually won the case against the federal government yet. The court simply refused to throw out the lawsuit as requested by the Bush administration.

    So only a minor victory so far, but it will be a huge deal if the plaintiffs eventually win this lawsuit.
  3. elpatto
    I'm not sure how US law works as I have only been here for like 2 months. Would the federal judgement take place over state or local law? If so is that for most things or just some? I think it's silly that SWIM cannot buy cigarettes in Suffolk county, NY but if he goes into the city, the same state, he can buy all the cancer-sticks he wants.

    As the fella above says, it does seem like a minor victory, would like to see the rights of anyone, particularly health patients, upheld.

    Interesting post anyways.

    Peace.
  4. Expat98
    That is what the battle over medical marijuana in the U.S. is all about. :) States have legalized medical marijuana programs, but the federal government is harassing and prosecuting patients and people involved in the med mj scene. In the lawsuit discussed above the city of Santa Cruz has sued the federal government.
  5. Clif
    I can easily see this case making it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once there I don't see how the federal government could win. The Constitution , which is the highest law in the land, clearly states in the Tenth Amendment; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    So, one would have to believe that the Supreme Court would have to rule against the federal government. Such a ruling could almost effectively legalize all marijuana usage. Marijuana decriminalization laws would have a much greater chance of being passed if people were not worried about government harassment.

    Therefore we can expect the Supreme Court to somehow avoid the issue completely. It will probably say something about "wrong venue" or "all appeals not fully exhausted." What they really mean is " we do not want to offend the moral police."
  6. Panthers007
    The Supreme Court can refuse to hear the case. Then it will sit in limbo until time ends. Many very good and important cases still await adjudication - from the 1930's! As a politically appointed body, the SC can pick & choose what it wants to review and judge. When they actually do hear a case brought before them, they tend to act as professional jurists. But with the current regime in Washington, you can bet they will reserve judgment on anything more important than which color looks best on fat women in Alabama.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!