Posted on 06/14/2002 12:15:06 PM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - A federal judge in California has ruled in favor of a Justice Department request to permanently block three northern California medical marijuana clubs from the distributing the drug to patients.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco ruled against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana and a dispensary located in Ukiah.
Attorneys for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative said they would appeal Breyer's ruling to a higher court.
The U.S. Supreme Court last year rejected the Oakland cooperative's claim that federal law allowed the distribution of marijuana to patients with a proven medical need for it.
In his ruling Thursday, Breyer said, "In the absence of an injunction, the defendants (the clubs) are likely to resume distributing marijuana in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
"Given the amount of marijuana distributed by the clubs, the potential prison time faced by the individual defendants...is significant. Furthermore, the fact that the defendants were distributing marijuana to seriously ill patients is not a defense under federal law."
California is one of eight states that allow individuals to grow or use small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes as long as the use is ordered and supervised by a physician. Thursday's ruling banned clubs from distributing the drug.
Keith Stroup, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) said the judge's ruling was expected, but unfortunate.
"By targeting these dispensaries, the federal government is forcing seriously ill Californians to obtain their medicine on the street from the black market," Stroup said.
"While the government's actions may result in driving the use of medicinal marijuana underground, they will do nothing to stop the use of medical cannabis by those who require it and have a legal right to it under state law."
Stroup said he doesn't expect Breyer's decision to invalidate California's Proposition 215, which legalizes the use, cultivation and possession of marijuana by qualified patients.
Proposition 215 was approved by California voters in 1996.
Americans For Safe Access, a grassroots campaign in favor of medical marijuana, expressed displeasure with the judge's ruling as well.
"We demand that all prosecutions of medical marijuana patients, growers and dispensaries cease immediately. We demand that President Bush and Attorney General (John) Ashcroft declare a moratorium on the federal anti-medical marijuana campaign. We demand President Bush declare his support for HR 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana act," the group declared in a statement.
But a Drug Enforcement Administration said federal authorities will continue to take action against the California clubs.
"Cannabis is illegal under federal law. The cannabis clubs are actually marijuana distribution centers. We will enforce the Controlled Substances Act," said DEA spokesman Thomas Hinojosa in a statement.
E-mail a news tip to Jim Burns.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Just curious
Semper Suo
An absolutely insane statement. More people have died since booze was made legal than ever died during prohibition. Your side will never succeed until they can grasp even the simplist understanding of the facts.
An absolutely insane statement. More people have died since booze was made legal than ever died during prohibition. Your side will never succeed until they can grasp even the simplist understanding of the facts.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been a drive by shooting or turf war due to alcohol since alcohol prohibition. However there were many during alcohol prohibition. So there is nothing insane about my statement. Once drugs are removed from the black market and away from the control of the criminal element, there will be none of the above. What's insane is the lack of understanding of cause and effect as well as supply and demand you appear ot have.
As to deaths AFTER alcohol prohibition, they are the responsibility of the person drinking the alcohol. Unless of course you are one of those who believe it is up to you to save people from themselves.
Semper Suo
The life of a young boy struck and killed while playing at the end of his driveway by a drunk driver. Its our responsibility to make sure that NEVER happens again. Adding your illegal drugs into the mixture is only going to make it worse.
If you and the government want the WOD, fine. There is a constitutional process to go by to get it done correctly. But using the controlled substances act to do it is as unconstitutional as most of the executive departments are, as well as social security, welfare, etc., etc. It is nothing but an abuse of the commerce clause.
As for innocent people being killed by drunk drivers, there are both criminal and civil laws to deal with such things. The fact that liberal judges continue to let these scumbags free to do it again and again is the fault of the citizens of that county and state for not demanding accountability. Judges can be impeached. If representatives refuse to do it they can be voted out of office. It's called individual responsibilty.
Semper Suo
IMO, whenever a poster is accused of either being a druggie or being pro-druggie, it is fair play to turn the question around.
They obligate themselves to answer whether or not they have any vested interest in the WOD.
Those with vested interests include anyone who financially benefits from the WOD such as bureaucrats, attorneys involved in drug cases, those on the take at any level of government, rehab clinics, drug testing companies, and prosperous drug dealers.
Getting marijuana is very easy in California. This whole thing is just a public PR game, since this will not in any way effect the quantity of marijuana imported, sold or consumed in the state.
You probably didn't realize there were so many potheads in the USA. Why should FR be any different? FR members can be considered a representative sample of right of center Americans.
I can't say whether they are on those threads or not, but 9 times out of 10 I bet they would agree with your position on these issues as well.
He later told authorities he thought Hernandez and two companions were bugs trying to invade his home.
"This defendant is a poster child against the argument for drugs being legalized," Superior Court Judge Stephen Ashworth said. "Not that he's not responsible. But if it wasn't for drugs, this never would have happened."
Another wise Judge. Link here.
It's interesting to note that the "know Your customer" law recently passed as part of the Patriot Act exempts "private banking" customers. These are customers that have more than 1 million dollars in their account. So much for going after "kingpins". Once again, the "elite" are allowed to live under different standards than the rest of us. This makes sense if you're a politician on the take because your bribe money could become known to LEO's. It also protects the ones doing the money laundering. Meanwhile, they are able to track every transaction you or I make and can then manipulate the information and use it against us if they choose. This way they can bust the low level drug dealers so that they can show that they are fighting the WOD. The so-called "greatest generation" allowed FDR to corrupt the USSC through intimidation. They stood by and allowed it to happen. Then they allowed the civil rights act to take place, which gave us affirmative action. Then the "great society" and war on poverty, etc., etc. Then there are the different executive departments that pass laws and regulations which they have no constitutional authority to pass.
The above issues set the stage for the WOD. They have set the stage for even more abuses. I abhore drug use. However, there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. If the American people want the government to get involved in all the above, then by gosh they should have to do it the correct way, i.e. via constitutional amendments that give them the valid constitutional authority to do it. Otherwise they are no better than the criminals they seek to imprison, and are in fact criminals themselves.
Attempting to address the constitutional issues with Republicrats (as opposed to conservatives) is a waste of time. This is not only true for the republicratic politicians, but their sycophant followers also. Neither believe in the Constitution unless it fits their purpose.
You hear the grass root republicrats b*tching and moaning about the department of education, the EPA, welfare, etc., without understanding that you cannot pick and choose. If you allow the government to get away with one abuse, you set the precedent to allow them to get away with any abuse.
The thought that a man growing corn for his families own consumption can be regulated via the commerce clause because he "may" sell his crop across the state line is ridiculous. Yet this was just one of the cases that turned a Constitution of Enumerated powers into a Constitution of unenumerated powers. It's an outrage.
I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I am not a libertarian. I am a constitutionist. I split the ticket between the Constitutional party and the Libertarian party. If the Constitution party had candidates in my state then I would vote a straight Constitution party ticket. Since they don't, then I vote for the only third party available to me in my district/state.
One thing I won't vote for though are parties that are intent on destroying the foundations this country was founded on.
Rant off
Semper Suo
Oh yeah, and isn't it great to see the judge, the DoJ, and the press tiptoe around the Xth as if it didn't exists. Shhhhh! It's that "radical" Bill of Rights again!
The above type of situation happens all across the country in bars every weekend in conjunction with drinking alcohol. Hence the term pink elephants.
Semper Suo
It doesn't.
As a matter of fact, since I served my country in the armed forces for nine years and was medically retired due to injuries received while on active duty serving my country, then I would say that I am more patriotic than 90% of the American population. While they (and maybe you also) were sitting at home in front of television getting fat and going about their lives doing nothing for their country, I was risking my life as an Army Ranger and as an infantryman serving on the DMZ in Korea in the service of this country. I was jumping into battle in Panama, fast-roping out of helicopters, jumping out of airplanes and traveling the world over training in preparation to defend this country. Proud to do it too. Would still be there if I hadn't been injured. I neither ask nor expect gratitude from anyone. But I damn sure reject your idea that I'm despicable because my view of the WOD is different from yours. It doesn't fly.
And as an ex-druggie, Bush doesn't have the moral authority to condemn anyone for using drugs or for disagreeing with the WOD. What are youthful indescretions for him, Gingrich, Gore and a buttload of other politicians are crimes for normal Joe's.
Semper Suo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.