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.
I don't think that's right. The law says the Att. General has to consider x, x, and z, then the Sec of HHS has to gather data, submit recommendations in writing to the Att. general, who must then act on them. There's no way. They won't justify spending 10 minutes on it, and this would take more than 10 minutes.
I was thinking the same thing about the resources they allocated and continue allocating just to stop marijuana from being supplied to a few patients and overriding a State law in the process.
Do you think the Federal government enforces all of its laws as vigorously? For example, have they arrested or accounted for all illegal aliens from terrorist countries in the US?
How does it look to you the way the Federal government has been allocating its resources?
They could if they wanted to. They just don't want to.
Well, the argument certainly cuts both ways. Of course, now they have linked drug trafficking to terrorism, so that fighting drug trafficking is a function of fighting terrorism.
Do you think the Federal government enforces all of its laws as vigorously? For example, have they arrested or accounted for all illegal aliens from terrorist countries in the US?
Laws are not enforced equally. The various agencies are not equally effective. Maybe the reorg is supposed to address that. I really don't know.
How does it look to you the way the Federal government has been allocating its resources?
I think they allocate too damn many resources, but not too many people share my opinion.
That's right. They don't want to.
And all the talk about how they "can't", and "our hands are tied" is pure crap.
Because the facts might interfere with them staying in charge.
WHo said anyone's hands were tied? (Ashcroft would probably blush at the turn of phrase--lets say handcuffed. Hmm, maybe not. Nevermind.)
That's the rhetoric we get from the AG's office, and the federal bench. They don't have any choice but to bust the mm users in Ca. because marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, and by definition has no medical use.
BTW - you can send my 40B to JimRob to help get rid of than damned ostrich.
Lets say 65% of voters approve of Medical Marijuana and lets say at voting time this percentage maintains.... Why would outright obstruction and corrpution of the political process be necessary?
Because somewhere there are people who have an interest in it remaining illegal, and enough money to make the politicians interested in keeping them happy.
In your opinion, is supplying medical marijuana to patients in accordance with State law aiding the terrorists?
I don't know. I am opposed to this state "law" because it is bad strategy, it is illegal, and because it expends federal resources--the courts, the tax dollars required to ejudicate the case--which could be better used elsewhere. A state cannot nullify a Federal law. This stuff is a waste of time. If someone wants to say it takes time away from other concerns, including terrorism, I guess you can say that. I don't really know if it's true.
What is the basis for saying it is illegal?
Also, I've got to call you on saying you don't know enough to have an opinion on whether or not supplying medical marijuana in accordance with State law is aiding the terrorists.
You brought up the terrorist issue on a medical marijuana thread. Now you're saying you don't know enough to have an opinion.
Do I have that right?
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.