cannabisnews.com: Calif Man Claims Legal Use of Pot in Arkansas 





Calif Man Claims Legal Use of Pot in Arkansas 
Posted by CN Staff on January 06, 2003 at 17:27:23 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press
A California man said he has a doctor's permission to use marijuana, but a prosecutor said Monday the state plans to charge the man anyway. Law enforcement officers recommended a formal charge against James B. Smith of possession with intent to deliver, according to Franklin County Deputy Prosecutor Gordon Mack McCain. Smith, 37, is to appear in court March 13. Smith says he has a doctor's permission to use marijuana to alleviate chronic back pain. 
Authorities say Smith was stopped Dec. 23 on Interstate 40 near Ozark for careless driving. A sheriff's deputy reported finding 11/2 pounds of marijuana, drug paraphernalia and $1,500 in cash in Smith's motor home. He was arrested on drug charges, then released from the county jail on $25,000 bond. Lawyer Dale Schafer, who with his wife, Dr. Marion Mollie Fry, runs the California Medical Research Center in Cool, Calif., in El Dorado County, confirmed that Smith was a patient at the center and that his wife recommended marijuana to alleviate his back pain. Schafer said Monday that Smith is legally allowed to smoke marijuana in California because he has a recommendation from a doctor. "This is not the first time, and I doubt it's going to be the last time, where someone goes out of the state of California and gets detected by law enforcement with marijuana, but they are a valid California user," Schafer said. "He's not being accused of driving without a license because he's a California driver in Arkansas, is he?" Schafer said he planned to help Smith fight the drug charge. "It's not a good use of state resources to punish someone for doing something that is lawful somewhere else," Schafer said. The prosecutor declined to comment on Smith's argument. "Until the defense puts something before us, I won't be able to respond," McCain said. California voters approved the use of marijuana as medicine in 1996 with Proposition 215. But federal law still bans marijuana under any circumstances. Source: Associated Press Published: Monday, January 6, 2003  Copyright: 2003 Associated Press Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by FoM on January 06, 2003 at 20:51:07 PT
p4me
Great information! Thanks!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by p4me on January 06, 2003 at 20:34:34 PT
Vienna 2003 Conference-4/8-4/18
The opening paragraph at http://www.edprc.org/ reads:
From the 8th to the 18th of April 2003, government representatives from all over the world will meet in Vienna to review progress at the half way point of the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs 10 year strategy, formulated in New York in 1998. Under the title ‘A drug free world we can do it’, this strategy promised to eliminate or significantly reduce the supply and demand for illegal drugs, before the year 2008 The link off the homepage from the block reading "Why Drug Policy Should End" goes to a page that list 9 reasons why things must change. Here are the first two and that seems a hard thing for the prohibitionist to talk about much less acknowledge the truth in them.1. Laws that prohibit a substance or a service are different in essence from other criminal laws. They criminalise a consensual act, rather than criminalising a non-consensual act such as murder, rape, theft or fraud. It follows that the 'victim' seeks and collaborates with law enforcement in cases of non-consensual offences, and avoids and obstructs the law in offences against prohibition. If our fear is that persons under the influence of a prohibited substance, might be more likely to harm others, then prohibitory laws could only protect citizens if prohibition reduced use or abuse of whatever has been prohibited. The history of prohibition contains considerable evidence that the reverse is true.2. Prohibition hands a monopoly of the prohibited substance or service to criminal groups who are greedy by nature and avoid accountability and responsibility
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment