cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Activist Seeks Dismissal of Charges





Marijuana Activist Seeks Dismissal of Charges
Posted by CN Staff on January 21, 2003 at 07:55:26 PT
By Marisa Taylor, Union-Tribune Staff Writer
Source: Union Tribune 
The attorney for Steve McWilliams will ask a federal judge today to drop all charges against the medical marijuana activist. McWilliams, 48, was arrested in October and charged with growing 25 marijuana plants in the front yard of the bungalow he shared with another activist. If convicted he faces a mandatory, minimum five-year prison sentence, because he also is charged with another cultivation count stemming from an earlier raid. 
Although McWilliams closed his Shelter from the Storm cannabis center in November, he remains one of San Diego's most visible advocates for medical marijuana. Before his arrest, he smoked marijuana on the steps of San Diego City Hall to draw attention to his cause. And, in 1999, police seized 448 plants from a marijuana garden he organized. At the time, the District Attorney's Office did not prosecute him, but federal authorities are now using that case to enhance their charges in federal court. The court filings in McWilliams' case mirror the national debate over whether patients should be allowed to smoke marijuana. McWilliams, who is scheduled for trial in February, argues he has a right to grow marijuana for medical use under Proposition 215, approved by California voters in 1996. Seven other states have adopted similar initiatives. McWilliams' attorney, David Zugman, contends that any prosecution of medical marijuana growers infringes on states' rights. In his written request filed in court, Zugman argues that California and other states have a right to define the legitimacy of a medical practice without federal government interference. He compares the medical marijuana issue to Washington state's battle with the federal government over assisted suicide. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that state's right to pass such legislation. Federal authorities argue against such a comparison because federal law clearly bans the cultivation of marijuana. According to prosecutors, any state law allowing the use of medical marijuana is trumped by the DEA's classification of marijuana as a drug that has no legitimate medical use. Proposition 215 has pitted the Justice Department and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration against California's top law enforcement officials. Federal officials say their stance on medical marijuana is supported by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held medical need can't be used in a defense against marijuana charges in federal court, no matter what state law has approved. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has complained that federal raids of cannabis clubs are "wasteful, unwise and surprisingly insensitive," because California allows the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Complete Title: Marijuana Activist Seeks Dismissal of Cultivation Charges Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)Author: Marisa Taylor, Union-Tribune Staff WriterPublished: January 21, 2003Copyright: 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.Contact: letters uniontrib.comWebsite: http://www.uniontrib.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htmPolice Raid Home of Medical Marijuana Activist http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15014.shtmlCannabis Club Loses Its Lease, Shuts Down http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14711.shtmlPot Grower Gets Letter of Warning from DEAhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14191.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by FoM on February 07, 2003 at 09:05:32 PT
Related Article
McWilliams Gives Up Hope for Federal Court: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread15405.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on January 22, 2003 at 18:08:37 PT
Important E-Mail News Update
 DPFCA: Steve McWilliams' Day in Court 
    
 Steve McWilliams reports from San Diego:  We had a great day in federal court yesterday. Judge Carter, traveling from Orange County wanted to hear our motion to dismiss, even offering to stay late to hear the arguments in full. the judge said on the record he had awoke at 5:OO am to read the UT's stories about my trial and the City Council vote on MMJ guidelines. Carter then asked the prosecutors if they had seen the paper also? They said yes, they had read the paper. The judge then asked if the prosecutors had a problem with the city too? No response. Judge Carter asked if the case could be settled then, if the prosecutors really wanted to go to trial? Can't we settle this now he said?Judge Carter went on to say the case was one of the most interesting and novel cases he'd seen in years and looked forward to hearing the arguments in full. Carter said he would carefully consider the motion and issue a 20-50 opinion. Before hearing arguments Judge Carter consulted the head judge to see if he or the trial judge should hear the motion to dismiss. With what seemed like resignation, Carter said the trial judge would hear the motions and thereby keep everything all together.Immediately thereafter, in the courtroom the prosecutors queried my attorney David Zugman, amount my pleading to count two, cultivation of 25 plants, in exchange for the dropping of count one, cultivation of 448 plants. No time plus probation. I have instructed David to take the case to court so that the truth can be told: of malicious and vindictive prosecution and Federal interference in passage of the task force guidelines.Steve -- ---- Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858 // canorml igc.org 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114
California NORML
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by afterburner on January 21, 2003 at 14:03:54 PT:
Trumping or Trumping-up?
Cannabis (marijuana) prohibition is based on trumped-up propaganda and prejudice used by Harry Anslinger to con the states out of their legal state's rights to regulate medical practice. The schedule one lie is similarly a trumped-up incongruity given the historic and legal use, even in the United States of America, of medical cannabis prior to the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937. If the federal government trumps-up the evidence, then the concept of trumping state law is highly suspect.ego destruction or ego transcendence, that is the question.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by freddybigbee on January 21, 2003 at 09:59:51 PT:
Word-games
"According to prosecutors, any state law allowing the use of medical marijuana is trumped by the DEA's classification of marijuana as a drug that has no legitimate medical use."I believe the schedule 1 lie refers to "no current medical use," thus avoiding the embarrassing fact that cannabis was prescribed commonly in the US during the nineteenth century for migraine, asthma, neurological disorders, etc. etc. Isn't it inspiring how legislators can create a monstrous fraud by inserting the word "current" into a statute? It really makes me admire the congress that they have such courage, such character. Wow. I'm in awe. You congress-guys are the best!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment