Pompo

Judge says Feds violated 10th Amendment by subverting state marijuana laws
9/14/08|The Times-Standard| As It Stands by Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard



A landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20th in a Santa Cruz courtroom.

For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities.

The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen.

In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next?

”The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.

So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated.

California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients, caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.

An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient's collective.

The group was functioning so smoothly that the city even allowed them to hold regular meetings to distribute marijuana to its patients on the steps of city hall! The federal agents still went after them, which brought about this court decision.

When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California's medical marijuana law.

We must not forget that medical marijuana brings in about $100 million each year in tax revenue. Conferring total legitimacy to the law will allow this cash flow to continue, and hopefully, increase over time.

When the judge ruled the feds were threatening physicians who recommended marijuana, he set the stage for regaining patient's rights. The ruling clearly pointed out that the feds were also threatening government officials who issue medical marijuana cards, and interfered with municipal zoning plans.

In the summation, the court found that, “There was a calculated pattern of selective arrests and prosecutions by the federal government with the intent to render California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and therefore forced Californian's and their political subdivisions to re-criminalize medical marijuana.”

In a recent column, I mentioned California's Attorney General Jerry Brown had passed out an 11-page directive that all law agencies were to go by. I expressed concern that the federal authorities would ignore those guidelines, but upon finding out about this recent ruling I now have some cause for hope.

It sure sounded like Hopper was looking forward to the next phase, and he seemed confident that positive change lay ahead. Asked which presidential candidate would be more amenable to upholding medical marijuana laws, he cleverly replied that he thought they both would be willing to work for change. He could be right too. This is a year of change.

This on-going battle with the federal authorities ignoring California's laws has been well-documented in the past. Why hasn't there been more coverage for such an epic ruling? Its potential as breakthrough legislation is something all Californian's should know about in my opinion.

The war against medical marijuana hasn't been won yet, but this could be the breakthrough everybody's waited for. At the core of the war waged by the federal government against the voter's will, is the failed War on Drugs by the Bush Administration. It's about time someone told them to back off.

As It Stands, we can score this as a successful round for state's rights.

sterbo

The enormity of this ruling cannot be underestimated.

The very fact that the Federal Gov't sought to take it's bully tactics to ground zero, (a most extraordinary Co-operative like WAMM), is a milestone in the fight for the rights of marihuana users nation wide.

Norml is at the forefront of most everyone's radar but if you can, take a moment and check in with WAMM at Federal Court Rules U.S. Government May Not Deliberately Subvert California’s Medical Marijuana Laws (8/20/2008)

What a heroic group of people they are...
.
.

__________________

frolic

To me the information above would indicate that the government was involved in a conspiracy. Thats' against the law.

king cola

I think it bothers the government so much that California is allowing medical marijuana because some of the politicians probably own shares in these big drug companies including the Bush family. The Bush Administration has done nothing but harrass California. They knew that if California allowed medical marijuana other states would follow so if they could stop California it would prevent other states from doing the same. They aren't harrassing them because of federal law, I think they use that as a scapegoat from their real motive, it's about the drug companies. You rarely pickup the newspaper or hear on the news something good about medical marijuana, how would shareholders in the drug market react to that news? I think it causes a panic when it comes to the future of the drug stocks. A good report about medical marijuana or a state allowing medical marijuana isn't going to help the drug stocks go up when they aren't in control of the sale of medical marijuana. It might even cause the stock to go down or stay neutral when shareholder's question the future of prescription drugs that marijuana can compete with. CEO's of big drug companies probably pay the guys in politics to protect them or maybe give them extra shares for doing it. It also helps the drug market look better for the future if a state doesn't win their battle for allowing medical marijuana.

This should give other states confidence with their decision on allowing medical marijuana.

GREENFOODGAMES

Got to say awsome

"At the core of the war waged by the federal government against the voter's will, is the failed War on Drugs by the Bush Administration. It's about time someone told them to back off"
Absolutley 100% about time

This is supposed to be a government for the people by the people but even though the people voted for it, big brother says no way it is about time the pushing back started. I agree there is a reason the government does not want this plant around and it has nothing to do with the intoxicating affects - do I smell kickbacks from other organizations maybe? Think about all the companies who would lose million's because of the potential this plant holds - pharmacuticles would be hit big time if we could grow our own medicine, and they have the money to pay more then a few people off, cheaper to pay off people then to lose a huge chunk of their profits/industry. Lets not forget about the stock's either.

__________________
"Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." Lincoln

Buzzby

I thought that you couldn't bring suit against the federal government unless the federal government agreed to it. Are there any lawyers in here?

I don't think this suit will go anywhere. The issue of the federal government ability to enforce federal law over state law was settled in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich. If the DEA is targeting people who are breaking federal laws, what are they guilty of? A conspiracy to enforce federal laws? The fact that the DEA allocates its limited resources to target high-profile "offenders" is irrelevant. They want to deter the use of marijuana and busting high-profile people and organizations facilitates that better than busting some guy on a street corner.

__________________

Merry-juana

That sounds hardly like justice to me...
How can you say that everyone lives under the same law and nobody is above the law if the feds can just say "we do not wish to go to be sued." whenever they think they can't win a legal fight.

Buzzby

It's called "sovereign immunity" and has been around for hundreds of years. No individual is above the law, but you can't sue the government or government agencies per se without their waiving sovereign immunity.

For instance, in Gonzales v. Raich, the defendant was the attorney general, not the United States government. Immunity can be waived under the Federal Tort Claims Act if a government employee has committed an official act that has harmed someone.

kinghelwig

It's all crap and we know it if everyone is so concerned about wamm let's do what we can to help them like donating money to keep them afloat and our medicine flowing without that many more problems,but I have the feeling that most people are all talk and no action which is why we are having such a hard time with the feds,wamm needs support if they go down we are going to be mixed up more than we are now,no more talk people action,let's put this to rest once and for all,if you want it legal with no more hassle,start investing,that way you dont have to buy it you can grow your own.

Frylok

This is a very significant ruling. I disagree that this suit has no chance, with the change of administration, if the perception is there, on the judicial bench, that, given the current political climate, change is possible, likely, or less dangerous to those making the rulings, then I believe it will happen.

President Carter's administration made the mistake of underestimating the power of the growing christian conservative movement when President Carter suggested, on national television, that marijuana should be decriminalized.

Under Reagan, Bush I & II, and Clinton, the political climate was very closed to any kind of relaxation of the drug laws, mainly due to the backlash against the Carter administration's push to decriminalize.

Now, in 2008,l I think the climate is just right to elicit real change. Medical Marijuana is a foregone conclusion, the polls are right at 50% on decrim/legalization, and tons of jurisdictions are passing ordinances making marijuana the lowest priority for law enforcement, and, most significantly, conservatism is in catastrophic decline.

So far, I see the Obama administration making extremely pragmatic choices filling cabinet positions and govenment posts, and hopefully they will either abolish the ONDCP altogether or use the office to bring about real and significant changes in our national drug control strategy.

I am hopeful and optimistic, but it's tempered. There have been so many setbacks and letdowns for our movement in the past that it's hard to get excited, but never before have we had the organization, funding, or political climate we have now, so there is reason for hope and optimism.