cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Case May Shape Medipot Industry





Supreme Court Case May Shape Medipot Industry
Posted by CN Staff on November 26, 2004 at 09:23:07 PT
By Penne Usher, Journal Staff Writer
Source: Auburn Journal
It will most likely take the decision of the Supreme Court to determine if California's medical marijuana law is legal, but that hasn't stopped a dispensary in Colfax from operating."It appears as if under state law there can be certain allowances for the disbursement," said Brad Fenocchio, Placer County district attorney. "At the county level, is this disbursement illegal? Under federal law it is, but under state law it is somewhat contentious."
A case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Raich vs. Ashcroft, could put dispensaries in several counties out of business, permanently. Arguments in the case are expected to be heard beginning Monday.Two patients with medical conditions, who under California law can use medical marijuana on the recommendation of their physicians, initiated the Raich case.A proposed shop in Nevada County near Alta Sierra never made it past the permit stage and one in Roseville was raided last month. However, a shop in Placerville got the go-ahead from the city council at a Tuesday meeting."They had applied for a permit to operate under our ordinance, which is similar to Auburn's," said John Driscoll, Placerville's city manager. "They were denied the permit, but approved a variance with conditions imposed by the council."In determining whether to approve the permit the council decided the shop would be too close to a school and a church, "as a crow flies." However, Driscoll explained there are several buildings and obstacles between the business and school that must be circumvented. Based on this information, the council approved the variance."The variance and permit will not be immediately operational to ensure it is a legal activity," Driscoll said. "If at the federal level it is preempted and invalid, they will not be able to operate."As for the Nevada County shop, it didn't make it out of the permit phase either."There was no crime committed," said Michael Ferguson, Nevada County district attorney. "It didn't open, (most likely) because of the permit (issue) and the county."He said much confusion around dispensaries arises from the shops selling marijuana and other "token services" and claim to be a primary caregiver.Section 11362.5 of California's Health and Safety Code, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is to "ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician."Confusion in the interpretation of the law arises in the section of the code that discusses "primary caregiver."A primary caregiver, according to the code, reads in part, "the individual designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that patient or person."Some in the area are opposed to the idea of a "pot shop" anywhere in Placer County."I see no point in the shops," said Carl Greenburg, 47, of Auburn. "It seems to me that they are being abused and not used exclusively for medial purposes."Proponents argue the rights of patients to be free from government influence when it pertains to their medications."This is about whether the federal government can and should treat an American citizen like a criminal for using a medicine that's been approved by her doctor, validated in scientific studies and legalized by state law," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, in a press release.Cities and counties have been addressing the shops as they attempt to open to ensure they comply with various local ordinances.Fenocchio said since there hasn't been any complaints about the Colfax shop, there is not reason at this point to be concerned."We haven't seen any complaints come through the office," he said. "We respond based on complaints."The Nevada County medicinal marijuana store came to the attention of neighboring businesses concerned about the shop's intents to sell starter plants and have a smoking room. The business reportedly did not fit the definition of a highway commercial business."In my humble opinion, it is illegal under state law unless the person running the operation is a primary caregiver," Ferguson said.Note: Patchwork of laws has led to a few foothills shops.Complete Title: Upcoming Supreme Court Case May Shape Medipot IndustrySource: Auburn Journal (CA)Author: Penne Usher, Journal Staff WriterPublished: Thursday, November 25, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Auburn JournalContact: ajournal foothill.netWebsite: http://www.auburnjournal.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htm Hope for Healinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19885.shtmlSupreme Court To Hear California Med Pot Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19882.shtml Auburn Proposes Pot Shop Ordinancehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18994.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 28, 2004 at 13:30:39 PT
Max Flowers
I wish the decision would be made tomorrow. Waiting for this is slow torture. Maybe it will be decided sooner then they say. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Max Flowers on November 28, 2004 at 13:27:52 PT
Ashcroft v. Raich ruling comes in July, eh?
That's what I just read in another thread. That burns me up, I thought we were going to know in January.Well, July sounds like a good month, a nice warm month, to either A) move to Canada or B) revel in the new safety of a ruling against the government.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 26, 2004 at 15:24:50 PT
rchandar 
I know what you mean. With this administration I just worry a lot.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by rchandar on November 26, 2004 at 15:18:41 PT:
don't get your hopes up....
...the last time this went to the Supreme Court, they ruled 8-0 against medical pot. Congress had the same question, they voted against it. There are many Republicans that support the idea, just not the ones on Capitol Hill or at the Supreme Court. (Picture how Scalia, for example, will vote on this one). They're just brainwashed f #$ks, that's all. It would be great if they DID vote for it, I just doubt it and, if I'm ignorant on this one, please enlighten me.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment