cannabisnews.com: AGs Office: Medicinal Pot Law Might Face Challenge





AGs Office: Medicinal Pot Law Might Face Challenge
Posted by FoM on February 01, 2002 at 09:33:47 PT
By  Gilbert Gallegos, Tribune Reporter
Source: Albuquerque Tribune
The Attorney General's Office is raising a red flag over a provision added to the medicinal marijuana bill making its way through the Legislature. Assistant Attorney General Michael Cox warned in an analysis of the bill that a change designed to make the measure comply with federal law might actually make it unconstitutional.The Senate Public Affairs Committee revamped the measure, Senate Bill 8, to allow the state to cultivate and distribute marijuana to patients suffering from specific debilitating illnesses.
The committee also added language that says the state law should comply with federal law. Similar language was used for a medicinal marijuana bill passed by the Senate in 2001.Last year's bill never made it out of the Legislature. Later that year the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that barred a cooperative in Oakland, Calif., from cultivating and distributing marijuana to sick patients.Cox, in his analysis of the substitute for SB 8, said New Mexico may be headed for trouble if it ties the state law to the federal Controlled Substance Act - which the Supreme Court said does not make an exception for the medical use of marijuana.The Supreme Court case "suggests that any medical use of cannabis would be illegal under federal law and therefore the entire Act (Senate Bill 8) may be invalid on its terms unless the federal law changes," wrote Cox, the director of criminal prosecutions for the AG's Office.The analysis does not represent a formal attorney general's opinion.One legislator has requested a formal opinion, but a spokeswoman for Attorney General Patricia Madrid said the office would offer only the bill analysis during the legislative session.Cox suggested that the bill could be changed in one of two ways.He wrote that New Mexico could follow the lead of Montana or the District of Columbia, which have similar laws that would only go into effect if the federal government changes marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II or lower-class drug. That change would allow physicians to prescribe marijuana.Cox also suggested that if the bill is changed to remove the provision dealing with federal law, the state might be able to defend the law against another possible constitutional challenge.He said if the state grows and distributes marijuana, or allows individuals to do so for medical use only within New Mexico, it could argue that that is intrastate commerce."It could be argued that the Congress does not have the authority under the Commerce Clause to make that conduct illegal," Cox wrote.The Supreme Court did not address that circumstance in the Oakland case. Cox warned that New Mexico could be setting itself up for a challenge if it structured its law that way.But if the state leaves the bill as is, "the use or possession of cannabis would continue to be a crime," Cox wrote.The head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has also informed legislators that he believes the Senate bill conflicts with federal law.In a letter to Sen. Ramsay Gorham, a North Valley Republican, DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson said such a state law would undermine drug enforcement efforts."The bill is conspicuously silent with regard to the fact that the cultivation, distribution and possession of marijuana . . . would violate federal law and subject individuals engaged in such conduct to criminal and civil penalties," Hutchinson wrote.Katherine Huffman, director of the New Mexico Drug Policy Project, said the Senate bill is unique because it puts the onus on the state to grow and distribute marijuana. She agreed that idea has not been tested in court.After reading Cox's analysis of the bill, Huffman said she agreed that the state could probably defend the law in court by using the Commerce Clause argument.She said she's not sure what to make about Cox's analysis regarding the language tying the bill to federal law."If that clause, in the opinion of the attorney general, causes problems, that could easily be removed," Huffman said.Source: Albuquerque Tribune (NM)Author: Gilbert Gallegos, Tribune ReporterPublished: February 01, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Albuquerque TribuneContact: letters abqtrib.comWebsite: http://www.abqtrib.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htm Legislative Roundup - Letter To Asa Hutchinson http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11895.shtmlStatistical Contradictionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11836.shtmlMedical Marijuana Bill Draws Objections http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11833.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by p4me on February 01, 2002 at 10:02:32 PT
Same old problem
It all comes back to the Schedule One Lie. How can the Attorney General live with his sorry self or Bushit. The government knows dam well that MJ has extreme potential for helping people with the same 100 ailments that it was used for 100 years ago. Yes Virginia, the government is lying to you about MJ not having medicinal value. And yes Virginia, the government is lying to you about not lying to you. "Grandad, why is the government lying to us." 
"Because the voters have not said enough and voted those that perpetuate the lie out of office. If they want to continue the lie the only thing to do is vote against all of them now in office. That is why I wear a "Vote Against All Incumbents" button. It is easier to change politicians than it is to change the minds of the ones we have. Someone has to do it and I am one voter that has had too much already.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dark Star on February 01, 2002 at 09:59:15 PT
Legal Confusion
"New Mexico could follow the lead of Montana or the District of Columbia, which have similar laws that would only go into effect if the federal government changes marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II or lower-class drug."This would be a token effort only, since the DEA is not going to roll over and change the listing without coercion. This is not what Gov. Johnson had in mind. The Supreme Court ruled that the Oakland Club could not distribute cannabis. They said nothing about an individual's medical necessity or ability to cultivat or possess cannabis for that purpose. There was some implication that that might also get the axe, but they did not do so, and some veritably invited a new suit on that basis.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment