cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Possession Not a Deportable Offense
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Marijuana Possession Not a Deportable Offense');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/27/thread27437.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;
}






Marijuana Possession Not a Deportable Offense
Posted by CN Staff on April 23, 2013 at 10:39:45 PT
By Lawrence Hurley
Source: Reuters
Washington, D.C. -- The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a legal immigrant is not subject to mandatory deportation after being convicted of possessing a small amount of marijuana.The court held on a 7-2 vote that Adrian Moncrieffe, a Jamaican citizen, could not be subject to mandatory deportation because basic marijuana possession is not a felony under federal law.
The federal government has the authority to deport legal immigrants under various circumstances, including when the individual involved is convicted of an aggravated felony.Immigration officials sought to deport Moncrieffe after he was convicted under Georgia law for possession and intent to distribute 1.3 grams of marijuana.In Tuesday's ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the majority that a conviction for marijuana possession does not rise to the level of an aggravated felony if it is a small amount and the defendant was not being paid for it.She wrote that Moncrieffe could still be subject to deportation, but that he and others like him would now be able to contest the decision in further immigration proceedings and the Justice Department would be able to use its discretion in deciding whether to proceed.Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito both wrote dissenting opinions.The case is Moncrieffe v. Holder, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-702.Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Bill TrottSource: Reuters (Wire)Author: Lawrence HurleyPublished: April 23, 2013Copyright: 2013 Thomson ReutersCannabisNews  -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #1 posted by The GCW on April 23, 2013 at 15:27:23 PT
Cannabis and international borders and related law
Another instance of shooting down prohibitionists. Chalked up as a win.Another screwy international issue is how prohibitionists don't allow Canadians into the US for cannabis infractions which are minor 30 year old type. Is that the Canadian's or American's ignoid prohibitionists who are responsible??? Is it also other countries? It's another ignorant thing which RE-legalizing the superplant should remedy.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment