We Are Almost there ...
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY A BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
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.
According to the Constitution Society's website, it's still there.
The Constitution: Amendment X is right below Amendment IX on this page.
Sorry. You advocate the destruction of America through your drug legalization. Like Lee Harvey Oswald, any good will you've developed through your service to this country has expired.
Well like others here have said, an amendment had to be passed to enact prohibition. And pot is a plant ferchrissake. At most, for interstate commerce purposes, the stuff could maybe be regulated when transported across state lines, strictly for control of agricultural disease.
But good luck now getting the FedGov to act within it's enumerated powers.
Dave in Eugene
At most, for interstate commerce purposes, the stuff could maybe be regulated when transported across state lines, strictly for control of agricultural disease.Actually you are being generous to the Commerce Clause abusers: The Commerce Clause is intended to prevent states from making laws that impede interstate commerce. You have to twist that intention pretty far to justify the WoD, and I think there is a good chance it would not survive a USSC look at a medical MJ case.
LOL careful what you ask for. You pro-druggie jokers might be ignored even more than you are now.
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.Actually, they don't even bother to tiptoe around it - it was long ago used in the court's restroom after the illustrious judges had polished off a big bag of Olestra Doritos.
Ugly picture, but effectively true.
Do you think we should face reality, forget Amendment X, and move on?
I don't think Amendment X is going to help anyone undo any Federal law.
If only you were king for a day right? You could send your goons over to exterminate anyone that disagrees with you. Spoken like a true Republicratic sychophant.
Your opinion of me and my service to the country means nothing to me. It is people like you sir, who are the enemy to this country, not I, and more and more people are waking up to that fact. In the end, you and your kind will lose the WOD, just like you lost the war on alcohol prohibition. It really doesn't matter though because those that use drugs are ignoring the WOD anyway.
Insulting opponents in a debate is a common liberal tactic used by those that cannot defend their position, and indeed, "because I say so" is not a defense.
However, I come to this board to discuss and debate the issues of the day, not read insults thrown out by hysterical men and/or women that can only argue their emotions instead of debating the facts. Hence, I am terminating our correspondance. Have a nice day.
Semper Suo
So I ask again, should we face reality, forget Amendment X, and move on?
They already have, didn't you get the notification in the mail?.
---max
You are such a liberal in denial. Why is it OUR responsibility to make certain that parents properly oversee their children?.
First, had the child not been near the street, the incident may not have happended. The same can be said of the driver not drinking. However, children get hit by cars by non-drunk drivers everyday. The lesson being that parents should NOT allow children near the street.
Prohibition works so well, it worked extremely well for alcohol, it's worked exceptionally for nuclear and biological weapons, and it's worked well for illegal drugs. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?.
You work for the Gov't don't you?.
---max
Have you ever tried posting BEFORE you start drinking?
---max
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.