cannabisnews.com: Court Ruling Threatens Nevada Marijuana Plan Court Ruling Threatens Nevada Marijuana Plan Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 18:17:55 PT By Brendan Riley, Associated Press Writer Source: Associated Press Nevada's medical marijuana plan could go up in smoke as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Monday -- even though the state's voters overwhelmingly favor the proposal. The high court ruled that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal makes no exception for ill patients. The court's action doesn't strike down state laws allowing medical use of marijuana, but leaves those distributing the drug for that purpose open to prosecution. In Nevada, voters by a 2-1 margin have approved medical marijuana. The task of implementing the voters' mandate was left to the Legislature. The result was AB453, to let seriously ill Nevadans grow their own marijuana for pain relief. The bill also would ease penalties for anyone caught with small amounts of the illegal weed. Also proposed was SB545, seen as a backup proposal, which would make the drug available only to a limited number of people for a marijuana research study program. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, who proposed AB453, said the court ruling "has no affect on our bill. Not one word of the ruling diminishes the use of medical marijuana." Giunchigliani added the ruling had more to do with the distribution of marijuana for medical purposes, and her bill is safe since it doesn't deal with distribution. But Assembly Judiciary Chairman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, disagreed, saying AB453 is "probably not going to make it -- and it's a tragedy." Senate Judiciary Chairman Mark James, R-Las Vegas, agreed with Anderson that the Supreme Court ruling could stop the plan, although he's asking the Legislature's legal researchers for an analysis. But at this point, he said it looks like "we wouldn't process the bill. We wouldn't act on something we know to be unconstitutional." Senate Human Resources and Facilities Chairman Ray Rawson, R-Las Vegas, whose committee proposed SB545, said the bill "is the only one likely to meet the terms of the federal law. "I don't know if it will satisfy those who want to open this up," he added. "But it does open up the possibility for serious research -- and if the research shows this is good, then we're a lot farther ahead." Dan Geary, a leader of Nevadans for Medical Rights which pushed the marijuana issue onto the ballot, said the Legislature could still move ahead with Giunchigliani's bill despite the high court ruling. Geary said the ruling was limited in its scope, and in any case "the Nevada voters have spoken." He added that Nevadans for Medical Rights doesn't favor Rawson's SB545 because "it's almost a dishonest approach. It just doesn't implement the will of the people." Geary's group is part of Americans for Medical Rights, which sponsored eight successful medical marijuana initiatives around the nation. Bill Zimmerman, director of the national group, said the Supreme Court ruling rejected one form of marijuana distribution -- a cooperative arrangement with city approval -- but "does not foreclose creation of state-sponsored medical marijuana distribution systems." "Two states, Nevada and Maine, are now actively considering such legislation," he added. "The question of federal supremacy in such matters is for another day." Besides Nevada and Maine, voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington have approved ballot initiatives allowing medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it last year. In Nevada, voters authorized use of marijuana by those suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other painful and potentially terminal illnesses. The amendment to the Nevada Constitution easily won voter approval in 1998 and again last November. Source: Associated PressAuthor: Brendan Riley, Associated Press WriterPublished: Monday, May 14, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Sites:Science of Medical Marijuanahttp://www.medmjscience.org/California Campaign for New Drug Policies http://www.drugreform.org/Expect Fight, Marijuana Supporter Sayshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9708.shtmlEx-Candidate Offers To Fund Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9656.shtmlMedical Marijuana: Budget Crimps Bill's Chances http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9629.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #1 posted by Dan B on May 14, 2001 at 22:22:53 PT: Strange Conflation by Nevada Reps Senate Judiciary Chairman Mark James, R-Las Vegas, agreed with Anderson that the Supreme Court ruling could stop the plan, although he's asking the Legislature's legal researchers for an analysis. But at this point, he said it looks like "we wouldn't process the bill. We wouldn't act on something we know to be unconstitutional." Wake up, Nevada legislators, and read the Supreme Court ruling. They did not say that distribution of medical marijuana was unconstitutional. In fact, they left open the possibility of a separate trial over the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act.The Supreme Court ruled that legal distribution of medical marijuana runs counter to the Controlled Substances Act. Their decision had nothing to do with the Constitution (aside from the fact that it conveniently sidestepped any attempt to address the constitutionality of the CSA). If you live in Nevada, alert your representatives to these facts. Encourage them to pass AB453 as an act of compassion toward medical marijuana patients, and encourage them to defend their passage of this bill, even to go so far as to call the CSA's constitutionality into question before the Supreme Court.Tell them they must listen to the will of the people, and encourage them that they will not be left "hung out to dry" by their constituents if they take bold measures against the federal supercedure of state powers.While I would encourage any contributor to Cannabis News who is so inclined to run for office, we don't necessarily have to be in office to effect change. Write your newspaper, national newspapers, news magazines, television stations, cable networks, and your local, state and federal representatives (even if they really don't "represent" your opinions). Express yourself; you will be heard. I know that I am annoying the hell out of my senators and representatives (state and federal), and I just sent a letter to the local newspaper and (gasp!) Bill O'Reilly of FoxNews. They may deny until the day they die that they aren't listening, but they are. They have to. They cannot survive without us.Cheer up, folks. The Supreme Court has just given us a mandate. Let's follow through and give back a little of the hell they've been dishing out to us for the past 30+ years.Fight the WarPigs.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: