cannabisnews.com: Judge Protects 2 Medical Pot Users Judge Protects 2 Medical Pot Users Posted by CN Staff on May 19, 2004 at 09:29:00 PT By Wire Reports Source: Oakland Tribune San Francisco -- A federal judge in San Francisco, following instructions of a U.S. appeals court, has issued a preliminary injunction shielding two ill women from federal prosecution for using medical marijuana. U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins issued the injunction protecting Angel Raich of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville on Friday. The order bars officials of the U.S. Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration from arresting or prosecuting the women for using medical marijuana. The officials also are forbidden to seize the patients' marijuana or seek civil sanctions against them. The preliminary injunction was ordered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in December. The circuit court ruling was a rare federal court victory for medical marijuana advocates in the conflict between federal law criminalizing marijuana and a 1996 California voter initiative that allows patients to use marijuana upon a doctor's recommendation. Meanwhile, Raich said Tuesday, "I am elated knowing that I am the first medical cannabis patient to be protected by the judicial branch of government." Raich suffers from an inoperable brain tumor, chronic pain and severe weight loss, and Monson suffers from a degenerative spine disease that results in chronic back pain and muscle spasms. But the federal appeals court last year based its ruling in the Raich case on a different legal ground -- the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The appeals court said the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, which is based on the commerce-regulation power, shouldn't apply to the two women because their marijuana growing and use were noncommercial and conducted within California. The U.S. Justice Department has appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both say they need marijuana to alleviate their pain and their symptoms. Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)Published: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Copyright: 2004 MediaNews Group, Inc. Contact: triblet angnewspapers.com Website: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Bush Asks Supreme Court To Okay Attackshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18715.shtmlJudge Prohibits Raids on Pot Clubhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18712.shtmlLong Battle Over Medical Marijuana Seen Aheadhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17984.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #14 posted by FoM on May 21, 2004 at 07:42:40 PT Hello Paul It's good to see you. It is hard to believe that in the midst of this horrible war any progress concerning cannabis law reform is being made but it is. Take care of yourself and drop in when you can. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by paulpeterson on May 21, 2004 at 05:57:56 PT FoM If someone takes pot across state lines, the question is: Can the person be found to be in "Commercial" activity? If so, that would certainly bolster the likelihood that someone could argue that such "Transportation" would affect interstate commerce, which is still the relevant buzzword here.Interestingly enough, When WAMM was busted on 9/4/02 at exactly the same time I was arguing my own case in Federal District Court in Chicago (asking for preliminary injunctive relief against the ARDC, the "Lawyer Police") under a 65 page complaint which included the exact legal argument (ie: where no COMMERCE, MM activity doesn't trigger commerce clause jurisdiction for the feds), I withdrew my own claim thusly after the judge stated "obviously" I would not prevail on that claim, stating in turn (I) that "obviously" I would be better to await case law precedent from the west coast (Including the WAMM/Monson cases moving up the pike at that time).Now we have TWO CITABLE PRECEDENTS, a true trend and quickening. Add to that the stunning movement out East (Vermont, added to the map!) and we have movements gathering to the West, North & East.I would also like to report that the following Northern Illinois town have started to decriminalize, by using "village ordnances" to give, in effect, parking tickets for minor pot possessions: Wilmette, Winnetka, Kennilworth, Glenview and now Niles, Illinois! This trend is widening also, since I can only take direct credit for Wilmette (the first, I think) and Niles.I also lobbied Dick Durbin (US Senator from Illinois) in 2001 to support MM issues in the Senate. Norml reported that he was on record as the Senate "Sponsor" of MM legislation, but his office confirmed that he is only a strong supporter of these issues, not the sponsor (yet). He has, in fact, been a staunch supporter in actual Senate debates (like when Karen Tandy was confirmed for the DEA), where he has placed the 99 IM report into the Senate record (for the first time in history, I think?).Oh, and please, please make note of the fine job MPP has done with its grant for Illinois action lobbying to "beef up" its 33 year old medical marijuana law with strong wording in its proposed legislation (both houses, both parties have supporters!), now buried in committee.Just checking in, somewhere in the heartland. paulpeterson [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Dankhank on May 20, 2004 at 18:25:54 PT I wanna ... smoke some fruit ...What is best???Inquiring minds must know ... Resist [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on May 19, 2004 at 16:27:15 PT druid Thank you. I didn't know that. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by druid on May 19, 2004 at 15:59:58 PT Hookays FoM asked:Could a person have a Hookah? Are they considered paraphernalia too? If not why are bowls? Is smoking fruit illegal yet?Hoookah's are 100% totally legal because they have historic use. That is the clincher in the paraphernalia laws. The smoking device has to have an historic tobacco use. Wooden and corn cob pipes, rolling papers, hookahs, meerschaum all these have a historic purpose in the use of tobacco so therefore are legal. Metal and glass pipes and rolling papers with wires in them are examples of items that do not have an historic use for tobacco products. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on May 19, 2004 at 15:16:53 PT Interstate Commerce What if people never went over state lines with any marijuana would that make a difference? [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on May 19, 2004 at 15:09:09 PT Hookah Could a person have a Hookah? Are they considered paraphernalia too? If not why are bowls? Is smoking fruit illegal yet? [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by global_warming on May 19, 2004 at 15:03:12 PT What aren't people allowed to have in their home? Some common sense that would alert them about the "thugs" that are hiding behind the mockery they call the "law"..I hope they are using this little and precious time to re-train and find a decent job. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 19, 2004 at 14:27:13 PT kapt What aren't people allowed to have in their home? What should we put our sandwiches in Tupperware? Heck they'd probably say Tupperware is not allowed too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on May 19, 2004 at 13:54:21 PT: It's a bigger can of worms than many think Most weed busts are begun with possession, and ratcheted up to dealing, solely on the basis of the presence of common household implements such as plastic bags. On the 'rationale' of the 'threat' of 'Inter-State Commerce', these convictions are upheld, despite the fact there often is no proof of commerce. It's been *assumed* for far too long.So now? Inter-State Commerce has to be *proven*.This will force LEO's to be more work intensive...on cases which if taken for jury trial, will almost certainly favor the defendent the moment a medical defense is mentioned...and must now be considered by the bench.This is going to get real interesting... [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on May 19, 2004 at 12:41:42 PT GRIN: Too late! They're already in way too deep:http://voteJose.net [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by TroutMask on May 19, 2004 at 10:57:17 PT Right dongenero That was my first thought."The appeals court said the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, which is based on the commerce-regulation power, shouldn't apply to the two women because their marijuana growing and use were noncommercial and conducted within California."That sort of opens up a whole can of worms, doesn't it? That could reach way beyond just marijuana. A yard full of opium poppies anyone? How about magic mushrooms? Coca? All the tryptamines and zillion other prohibited plants?The DEA better stop digging this hole because they're already in way too deep.-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by dongenero on May 19, 2004 at 10:36:11 PT commerce clause Maybe this will cast light on the entire Interstate Commerce aspect of the Federal drug laws. If you're growing your own for your own personal use.....how does it have anything to do with interstate commerce!!?? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on May 19, 2004 at 10:01:55 PT Question I can't figure out what this means. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment