cannabisnews.com: Groups Restate Case on Medical Pot





Groups Restate Case on Medical Pot
Posted by CN Staff on February 01, 2006 at 07:18:47 PT
By Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer 
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel
Santa Cruz, CA -- An area medical marijuana cooperative should be free from harassment by federal agents as should the city's recently enacted ordinance that would establish a compassionate use office for the drug, an amended federal court complaint filed this week contends. Attorneys for the city and county of Santa Cruz and the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana filed the amended complaint in U.S. District Court in San Jose.
It is basically an updated version of a lawsuit filed in 2003.The suit contends that the state, county and city have the right to establish medical marijuana policies under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""Essentially, we're arguing that the federal government is interfering with the city's and county's right to regulate the health and welfare of its own citizenry," said Gerald Uelmen, law professor at Santa Clara University and one of a string of attorney's working for the plaintiffs.Uelmen is joined by Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice as well as lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Drug Policy Alliance, the firm of Bingham McCutchen and Santa Cruz City Attorney John Barisone. The suit also centers, in part, on the argument that a person has a right to manage her or his illness and death. "We're dealing with how do you convince the federal government the harm they are creating is much worse than the harm they are trying to prevent," said Valerie Corral, co-founder of WAMM.The issue not in the suit is that of interstate commerce, which was part of the original complaint. That concept led to an appeals court ruling that individuals in states with medical marijuana laws may supply for each other as long as money doesn't change hands and the pot doesn't cross state lines.Though an appeals court went along with that argument, it was later rejected in June by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Raich v. Gonzales.WAMM was joined by the city and county in filing the suit back in 2003 and inlcuded that argument as part of the suit, months after federal agents raided the cooperative's Davenport garden and uprooted 167 plants. Corral and husband Mike, also a co-founder of the group, were briefly jailed but have not been charged.The suit seeks an injunction against future raids, as well as a judicial declaration that medical marijuana use is necessary for the sick plaintiffs and their caregivers to manage their disease and that city or county employees are not subject to prosecution for helping to implement local medical marijuana policies. A call to the National Office of Drug Control Policy, also known as the Drug Czar, in Washington, D.C., was not immediately returned late Tuesday afternoon.Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)Author: Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer Published: February 1, 2006 Copyright: 2006 Santa Cruz SentinelContact: editorial santa-cruz.comWebsite: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/Santa Cruz, ACLU Renew Fight for Med Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21541.shtmlMedical Pot Users Deal With Legal Setbackshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21504.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by OverwhelmSam on February 01, 2006 at 16:47:47 PT
I Think The Feds Are More Afraid of Medical Use
The logic flows, that if marijuana is good for you, how can it be bad for you?think about it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Max Flowers on February 01, 2006 at 14:19:06 PT
Don't "ask", just DO IT 
If this is really true:“The federal government cannot force California or the city of Santa Cruz to make medical marijuana use a crime, nor can the federal government use the threat of criminal prosecution to intentionally sabotage state and local laws that it does not like.”...then why do we "ASK", as in ACLU and Others Ask Federal Court to Approve City of Santa Cruz Plan to Provide Medical Marijuana Directly to PatientsI think this is part of the problem---there is way too much deference to the feds and "asking", and not enough rights-exercizing and TELLING!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by potpal on February 01, 2006 at 12:43:03 PT
state of the union
What was it Bush was saying, something about burning wood and 'switch grass' for energy or something or other. Gotta wonder if he's ever heard of hemp?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on February 01, 2006 at 10:46:15 PT
Dr Ganj 
You said: That my friends, is why we will be seeing a big change in our marijuana laws-and it's going to be sooner than we previously thought.I agree.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dr Ganj on February 01, 2006 at 10:34:55 PT
City, County, ACLU, and Patients Verses The Feds
*The suit contends that the state, county and city have the right to establish medical marijuana policies under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."*It will be very interesting if this approach will work in finally piercing the CSA (Controlled Substances Act).
Considering a city & county government is getting directly involved, I feel there is a good chance this might work.
I've said in the past, if a city starts to distribute medical marijuana in direct violation of federal law, we will have the much needed showdown we've all been waiting for.
As more and more states pass their own medical marijuana laws, it just seems the federal government will have to capitulate, and accept the fact that medical cannabis use is real, and is here to stay.
Too many people are benefiting from its use, and too many people want to learn about its medicinal properties. That my friends, is why we will be seeing a big change in our marijuana laws-and it's going to be sooner than we previously thought.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by siege on February 01, 2006 at 09:35:31 PT
FDA
WHY was the (FDA) not in this lawsuit, and hit them hard...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on February 01, 2006 at 07:57:11 PT
ACLU Press Release
Round Two Begins in Legal Fight to Force Feds to Honor States’ Medical Marijuana Laws ***January 31, 2006ACLU and Others Ask Federal Court to Approve City of Santa Cruz Plan to Provide Medical Marijuana Directly to Patients 
SAN JOSE, CA – The city of Santa Cruz, California and a collective of Santa Cruz medical marijuana patients today asked a federal court to approve the city’s plan to provide medical marijuana directly to patients. The American Civil Liberties Union, Bingham McCutchen LLP, the Drug Policy Alliance and others filed legal documents setting out new claims based on an ordinance recently enacted by the Santa Cruz City Council that establishes the provision of medical marijuana as an official city government function. The legal papers were filed in County of Santa Cruz v. Gonzales. The U.S. Constitution permits states to determine for themselves what is legal and what is illegal under state law, according to today’s filing. In the case of medical marijuana, the plaintiffs argue that the federal government has intentionally sabotaged this process, selectively utilizing arrests, prosecutions and other means in an effort to thwart state medical marijuana laws.“The White House wants California to march in lockstep with its misguided prohibition of medical marijuana, but the Constitution says otherwise,” said Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. “The federal government cannot force California or the city of Santa Cruz to make medical marijuana use a crime, nor can the federal government use the threat of criminal prosecution to intentionally sabotage state and local laws that it does not like.”In addition, the group points out that federal government interference with the ability of seriously ill, in many cases terminal, patients to use medical marijuana deprives them of basic due process rights in the Constitution - denying patients access to the only medicine that addresses otherwise fatal symptoms of their conditions.County of Santa Cruz v. Gonzales originated in 2003 when Bingham McCutchen LLP and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), along with private attorneys Gerald F. Uelmen and Benjamin Rice, sued the federal government for raiding a Santa Cruz-area medical marijuana cooperative, the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM). The case was delayed pending the outcome of last summer’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Raich v. Gonzales, in which the Court held that the federal government maintains power to enforce federal marijuana laws even in states that have made medical marijuana legal under state law. However, the Raich decision left intact the ability of individual states to enact and implement their own medical marijuana laws. Responding to local patients, Santa Cruz enacted a first-of-its-kind ordinance to provide medical marijuana as a city function. “We are asking the court to recognize the individual constitutional rights of patients, along with the city’s right to implement California’s medical marijuana laws,” said Frank Kennamer, an attorney with Bingham McCutchen who represents WAMM and individual patients in the lawsuit. “The Santa Cruz ordinance represents the city’s sincere attempt to provide patients with a safe and legal source of medical marijuana without exposing them to the danger of federal criminal prosecution. These patients have a constitutional right to their medicine.”California passed Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act, ten years ago, making medical marijuana legal under state law. Eleven other states have since enacted similar measures. Today’s legal papers state that, “the federal government’s campaign against California’s medical marijuana laws has continued unabated” and that the federal government “continues to purposefully interfere with California and other states’ medical marijuana laws, intending to coerce states to recriminalize medical marijuana.”The legal papers cite as evidence of the federal government’s “campaign” against state medical marijuana laws federal interference in state legislative decisions to legalize medical marijuana, federal law enforcement decisions to focus on medical marijuana users to the exclusion of similarly situated non-medical marijuana users and federal threats to doctors who recommend medical marijuana to patients.“The Santa Cruz case not only raises fundamental constitutional claims never before decided by the judiciary in the context of medical marijuana, but also offers some of the most compelling facts ever presented by patients to the courts,” said Daniel Abrahamson, Director of Legal Affairs for DPA. “At the heart of the Santa Cruz case are patients using marijuana to stay alive and to live out their last days with dignity, control and comfort. Their stories and their plight underscore the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by their constitution - freedoms that federal officials are trying to squash.”County of Santa Cruz v. Gonzales is currently before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. In addition to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the lawsuit names as defendants U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents involved in the raid of WAMM, DEA Administrator Karen Tandy and Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John Walters. The group’s amended complaint is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/23992lgl20060130.htmlRelated information on the ACLU’s response to San Diego’s recent attempt to overturn California’s Compassionate Use Act is available at: http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/23587prs20060124.html http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medicalmarijuanafeature/index.htmlhttp://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/24002prs20060131.html
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment