cannabisnews.com: U.S. Judge in CA Considers Argument on MJ Law
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('U.S. Judge in CA Considers Argument on MJ Law');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/28/thread28478.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;
}






U.S. Judge in CA Considers Argument on MJ Law
Posted by CN Staff on February 13, 2015 at 04:43:42 PT
By Sharon Bernstein
Source: Reuters
California -- A federal judge hearing the case of nine men accused of illegally growing marijuana in California said Wednesday she was taking very seriously arguments by their attorneys that the federal government has improperly classified the drug as among the most dangerous, and should throw the charges out.Judge Kimberly J. Mueller said she would rule within 30 days on the request, which comes amid looser enforcement of U.S. marijuana laws, including moves to legalize its recreational use in Washington state, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska.
"If I were persuaded by the defense's argument, if I bought their argument, what would you lose here?" she asked prosecutors during closing arguments on the motion to dismiss the cases against the men.The men were charged in 2011 with growing marijuana on private and federal land in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in Northern California near the city of Redding.If convicted, they face up to life imprisonment and a $10 million fine, plus forfeiture of property and weapons.In their case before Mueller in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, defense lawyers have argued that U.S. law classifying pot as a Schedule One drug, which means it has no medical use and is among the most dangerous, is unconstitutional, given that 23 states have legalized the drug for medical use.Lawyer Zenia Gilg, who represented defense attorneys for all of the men during closing arguments, pointed to Congress' recent decision to ban the Department of Justice from interfering in states' implementation of their medical marijuana laws as evidence of her contention that the drug's classification as Schedule One should be overturned."It's impossible to say that there is no accepted medical use," said Gilg, who has argued that her client was growing pot for medical use.But Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Broderick said that it was up to Congress to change the law, not the court. He said that too few doctors believed that marijuana had medical uses for the drug's definition to change under the law."We're not saying that this is the most dangerous drug in the world," Broderick said. "All we're saying is that the evidence is such that reasonable people could disagree."The defendants, he said, were illegally growing marijuana on federal land."They had weapons," Broderick said. "These guys were not producing medicine."Editing by Eric WalshNewshawk: Sam AdamsSource: Reuters (Wire)Author: Sharon BernsteinPublished: February 11, 2015Copyright: 2015 Thomson ReutersCannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #7 posted by runruff on February 17, 2015 at 18:32:55 PT
Here in Orygone!
I am planting my first "legal" pot garden. The feeling is indiscribable. Six for me, six for linda. I can grow ten pound plants as you can see over on Youtube.Search: runruff. You get three videos. One of them shows my ten pound plants.We are winning!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Sam Adams on February 16, 2015 at 18:04:00 PT
gains and losses
>>>"If I were persuaded by the defense's argument, if I bought their argument, what would you lose here?" she asked prosecutorsTheir jobs, hopefully!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Oleg the Tumor on February 14, 2015 at 10:48:28 PT
The Invisible Wall That Does Not Exist.
"If I were persuaded by the defense's argument, if I bought their argument, what would you lose here?" she asked prosecutors during closing arguments on the motion to dismiss the cases against the men.We never did get the prosecutors exact response. Instead, the judge heard another refrain of the old song: "The Rule of Law Must Prevail!"But when the law is bought and paid for, it becomes dung, not law.If we are to learn anything from our Founding Fathers experience, it should be that the Law serves the class that writes the Law. Remember, they pledged "their lives, liberties and their sacred fortunes…"People like, say, the Koch Brothers would point out that if you don't have a fortune, then you don't have a place in the conversation of liberty. "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing."If you're not a landowner, then you must either be a slave or a female. But you're not a voter, that is certain.It was Patrick Henry, who owned more slaves use than any other slaveholder in the colonies. If his own slaves had asked him for "Liberty, or Death", what would he have given them? They sure didn't get liberty, and they're all dead now anyway.The founding fathers made the law changeable with cause. They understood how money became influence, and they tried to warn us at every stage.They saw the imperfection in their own steps and left it to us to make our own mistakes. If we have at least as much collective brains as our founding fathers did, then we will let the future generations make their own laws for their own reasons for their own time.When a judge, ANY JUDGE smells something that stinks this bad, they are obligated to speak up and correct the would-be lawmakers. It's not like we haven't been petitioning judge after judge over the years.The Law can sometimes act as an invisible wall, meant to keep monied interests, well, monied - and little else.At some point, each of us is called to bear witness to the truth.FREE THE PRISONER OF SCHEDULE 1, Judge!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by schmeff on February 14, 2015 at 10:21:19 PT
Huh?
"We're not saying that this is the most dangerous drug in the world," Broderick said.In fact, the most dangerous drugs in the world are supposedly what Schedule I is all about.And to claim that too few doctors believe cannabis has medical properties to change the "drug's" definition under law suggests that doctors and scientists determine the DEA's scheduling process. This is total BS. Politicians and bureaucrats put cannabis in Schedule I, not doctors.It is politicians, bureaucrats and their sleazy lawyers who commit fraud and perjury in their efforts to keep cannabis in Schedule I.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Canis420 on February 13, 2015 at 11:14:37 PT:
Damn
What the hell is taking this woman soooo freakin long to get on with this...I am tired of waiting for this ruling!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Quax Mercy on February 13, 2015 at 08:51:12 PT:
Reasonable People?
Judge Mueller needs to definitively dispel the notion the these Prohibitionists belong to the class "reasonable people." There has been nothing reasonable (nor humane) about forestalling the research necessary to understand the myriad ways Cannabis will soothe the suffering of millions. Broderick: tour the research centers and clinics of Israel where Doctors have been prescribing Cannabis for over 20 years. Then get back to us on "reasonable disagreement."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by runruff on February 13, 2015 at 08:38:03 PT
Farmers have always protected their crops.
Prosicutors condemn people to death, sometimes innocent people who the Prosicutors frame. It is the ignoramus here, and his job security prohibition laws, that cause gurella farmers to have to protect their crops.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment