Marijuana.com

Lit_Match

Judge Keeps Door Open for WAMM's Marijuana Case
07-14-07|Santa Cruz Sentinel|By Sean Aronson

A Santa Cruz marijuana collective raided by federal agents in 2002 made its case for the right to grow medical pot in court Friday.

Though no ruling was issued, supporters of the group, Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, said they're encouraged by the judge's response.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel heard arguments on the federal government's motion to dismiss the suit, which alleges the raid five years ago at WAMM's Davenport garden was outside the law, given the legality of medical marijuana in California. The county and city of Santa Cruz are signed on as plaintiffs in the suit.

Many court observers believed Fogel would dismiss the case because of precedent to support federal law over state law. But he did not rule Friday, saying he would release a decision at a later date, providing hope for WAMM supporters.

"I'm quite optimistic after today's proceedings," said Gerald Uelman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. Uelman said Fogel took the arguments under serious consideration and "appeared persuaded"

Fogel did not specify when his ruling would be released.

Uelman and a team of lawyers representing WAMM argued that, under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot intervene in the affairs of the state, unless explicitly stated in the Constitution. The lawyers said this was especially true as it concerns an individual's right to medicine.

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, making marijuana legal for medical purposes.

But all marijuana use is illegal under to the federal Controlled Substances Act, hence the conflict.

The case represents one of the first challenges to the federal government's authority to raid marijuana grown exclusively for medical use since the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the government in the case of Gonzales v. Raich earlier this year.

In that ruling, the 9th Circuit Court said the federal government had the authority to confiscate marijuana from Angel Raich, an Oakland woman using medical marijuana. The defense unsuccessfully argued Raich had a legal right to use marijuana because of medical necessity.

The current case stems from a federal raid at WAMM's Davenport farm in September 2002. More than 20 armed federal agents descended on the property, arrested owners Valerie and Michael Corral and seized 165 pot plants. Neither were charged in the aftermath of the raid, but their plants were not returned.

More than 50 WAMM members were in attendance Friday to support the attorneys representing the collective. At least 15 people were not allowed inside due to overcrowding.

"I think the judge realizes this impacts a lot of people," said Hal Margolin, a plaintiff. Margolin has been a member of WAMM for seven years and suffers from leukemia. He said he is hopeful the case will be allowed to proceed.

Lawyers representing the U.S. Attorney's Office could not be reached for comment.

The case is County of Santa Cruz v. Alberto Gonzales.

 

Altogether

Indeed WAMM was back in Federal Court and Valerie Corral spends every day of her life better for the rest of us with no federal funding (they pulled WAMM's non-profit years ago). If you have anything to spare -- even $5 per month can help keep WAMM alive. http://wamm.org/helpwamm.htm
Thanks so much.

Here is a letter from WAMM:

The Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, (WAMM) is in trouble. If you care about your right to choose the medicine you want, this means you are in trouble, too.

Why? WAMM is the medical marijuana organization most likely to succeed in winning your medical freedom from the Supreme Court. As one federal judge put it, "WAMM is the gold standard of the medical marijuana movement."


The reason for this is because WAMM exists for people not profit. When WAMM opened its doors 14 years ago to people dying of cancer and AIDS they realized that sick people could not afford the high cost of medical marijuana. WAMM has established a communal garden where medicine is grown for terminally ill people with a doctor's recommendation. Patients take what they need and give what they can --- even if that is nothing.

If WAMM dies, this model dies with it. But if those of us who believe in the alternative WAMM offers unite, we can keep the vision alive. If each of us contributes as little as five dollars a month, we can move political history. That's one trip to Starbucks, less than a movie.

In 2002 the DEA raided WAMM's garden and arrested their founders, Mike and Valerie Corral. That didn't stop them. Wouldn't it be a shame if the lack of money did? Outraged by the federal government’s attack, Santa Cruz city and county officials, sponsored WAMM's medical marijuana "give away" on the steps of City Hall. In an unprecedented move, the city and county of Santa Cruz have both joined WAMM's lawsuit against the DEA, the US Attorney General, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

By donating just $5 or more per month you can secure a future we all can look forward to. The Wo/Men's Alliance of Medical Marijuana needs your financial support now. Don’t wait for change to come to you, create change by donating today.

Use PayPal's easy and free service to make a donation to this site. Clicking the donation button above will take you to PayPal's secure site, where you can easily make a donation.

or send check or money order payable to:

WAMM
309 Cedar ST #39
Santa Cruz, California 95060.
Note: The address above is only a PO Box and NOT a physical place.

If you prefer to donate anonymously, ask a bank for a cashier's check.

Thank you for your support.

Buzzby

Uh, Sean? The Gonzales v. Raich decision was handed down on June 6, 2005.

It looks like the difference between the two cases is that the Raich attorneys argued that marijuana grown and consumed within a state without a financial transaction did not fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the underpinnings of the Controlled Substances Act. In this case the plaintiffs are arguing that the Controlled Substances Act violates the Tenth Amendment guarantees that Even if the judge in this case finds in favor of the plaintiffs, I think the USSC will strike down the decision for the same reasons it found against Raich: a decision in favor of the plaintiffs would challenge an entrenched aspect of federal power.

__________________