cannabisnews.com: State Supreme Court Restores Medical Marijuana Law
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('State Supreme Court Restores Medical Marijuana Law');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/27/thread27087.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}






State Supreme Court Restores Medical Marijuana Law
Posted by CN Staff on September 11, 2012 at 19:23:27 PT
By Matt Gouras,  Associated Press 
Source: Associated Press
Helena, Mont. -- The Montana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a ban on medical marijuana sales does not violate the constitutional rights of registered users or providers, overturning a lower judge's decision to block part of lawmakers' restrictive rewrite of state regulations. The justices ruled that the portion of the 2011 state law that limits the number of patients per provider to three and prohibits those providers from making a profit does not violate the Montana Constitution's right to privacy or to pursue employment and health.
Last year, District Judge Jim Reynolds last year blocked four provisions of the law from taking effect. Medical marijuana advocates had argued the new law was an unconstitutional violation of registered patients' right to pursue good health and privacy, while also violating the providers' right to pursue employment. The plaintiffs had asked the high court to expand Reynolds' decision and block the entire state law. But the Supreme Court said in its 6-1 decision that the Legislature was within its rights to gut the voter-approved initiative that brought medical pot to the state. The court said rights to health and privacy do not protect medical marijuana use. "In pursuing one's own health, an individual has a fundamental right to obtain and reject medical treatment. But, this right does not extend to give a patient a fundamental right to use any drug, regardless of its legality," the opinion by Justice Michael Wheat said. "Thus, we conclude, in pursuing health, an individual does not have a fundamental, affirmative right of access to a particular drug." The high court said there is a constitutional right to pursue employment, but that right does not extend a right to any particular job, or employment free of state regulation. The court said medical marijuana providers are horticulturalists, free to generally pursue horticulture work. Wheat went on to say the regulation of a medication is within the government's interest of protecting public health and does not violate an individual's constitutional rights. The Legislature enacted the law as a reaction to public concern over the rapid growth of a medical marijuana industry that included retail storefronts, thousands of providers and tens of thousands of patients. Even after Reynolds' decision, other restrictions in the state's crackdown remained in place. That, along with a decision by the U.S. Department of Justice to prosecute medical marijuana growers under federal law, led to a severe reduction in the state's medical marijuana industry. Some aspects of Reynolds' decision were not challenged, such as his move to block a portion that allowed warrantless searches of medical marijuana premises. The Montana Supreme Court returned the case to Reynolds for further review, telling him that the state law does not face the strict constitutional hurdles he had originally applied. The high court said the state only needs to prove that its new law is "rationally related to a legitimate government interest." The justices pointed out that medical marijuana is illegal under federal law. "The Plaintiffs cannot seriously contend that they have a fundamental right to medical marijuana when it is still unequivocally illegal under the Controlled Substances Act," Wheat wrote. Justice James Nelson was the court's lone dissenter, arguing that the Montana court system should not attempt to legitimize medical marijuana laws by issuing opinions on the matter. Any change in the drug's legality must come from the federal government, and the state Supreme Court should order Reynolds to dismiss the case entirely, Nelson wrote. The ruling comes less than two months before voters make their own decision on the matter. A ballot initiative asks voters to reject the Legislature's restrictive law, and return to the original law enacted by voters in 2004.Source: Associated Press (Wire)Author: Matt Gouras,  Associated Press Published:  September 11, 2012Copyright: 2012 The Associated PressCannabisNews  Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on September 12, 2012 at 09:46:56 PT
crisis
>>>The Legislature enacted the law as a reaction to public concern over the rapid growth of a medical marijuana industry that included retail storefronts, thousands of providers and tens of thousands of patients.You know Pharma and the alcohol industry were positively cringing over this development! Better get the government on it RIGHT AWAY, they're thinking. This is what we pay them for!And then you realize how bad the lies are. The government doesn't want to "stimulate" the economy at all, does it? They want to make sure the elite few are collecting all the profits, they couldn't care less about the effect of the economy on anyone else but themselvesReality is that our oppressive political class is supressing economic development everywhere in the US. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by museman on September 12, 2012 at 07:26:14 PT
doublespeak
"Wheat went on to say the regulation of a medication is within the government's interest of protecting public health and does not violate an individual's constitutional rights."And just what is "the government's interest" here?Protecting their control over our liberty. Protecting their real constituents -the wealth corps like the big pharma, and the burgeoning prison industry.And since we don't really have any 'constitutional rights' without the means to pay the shysters, its an easy lie to state as if it were some kind of truth. But again, truth is not recognized by this government. Only statistically manipulated 'facts.'And they are so 'interested' in protecting the public health, they sign off on major pollution, destruction of our forests, and systematic removal of our natural access to good and wholesome foods, while claiming their various synthesized toxins are 'good for us.'Yeah right, benevolence exemplified - not.LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by josephlacerenza on September 12, 2012 at 06:31:48 PT
uh....
It is a miss leading title. Yes, the law was restored, but the law the pols put in place earlier this year. The court decided that the lower courts judge was WRONG. This does not make it better here in Montana.Even restoring I-148 does not seem viable. The Montana Supreme court also made decisions gutting the original initiative. It is a real set back that the legalization initiative went nowhere in Montana. So, to vote down SB-423 just to stick it to the man, or live with the law?????
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment