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.
Fat chance of that happening considering the LEO community care more for enforcing their federal masters laws rather than the laws passed by the folks they are supposed to "protect and serve".
Semper Suo
It's the authoritarian in him. He just can't stand anyone thumbing their nose at him, which is what the people and states that have passed medical marijuana are doing. He is a statist to the hilt with no regard for the tenth amendment or any other amendment that gets in the way of his precious WOD.
Semper Suo
Semper Suo
Instead, they have been complicit with the democans in using this "new found authority" for their own advantage and to "We the People's" detriment. As far as I'm concerned, the republicrats have been as instrumental in destroying the Constitution as the democans, which is why I split the ticket between the Constitution and Libertarian parties (flame suit on).
Not only that, but during the debates, Bush's stance on medical marijuana was that it was a states rights issue. Now that he has won, he has turned his back on that stance. It also appears he is encouraging Asscrap to waste resources on this issue instead of focusing on terrorism, which they should be doing, considering Cheney has stood up and stated that an attack on our soil is inevitable. P*ss poor priorities if you ask me.
I may never live to see a third party win a national election, but I'll be darned if I'm going to go along with any party that willingly ignores the rules established for them while imprisoning Americans that don't follow "there" rules. They will not get my vote. They are not conservatives.
Semper Suo
Career politicians = Career criminals
Semper Suo
Dopers: America's newest class of professional victims.
Poor babies.
I didn't read the opinion. I am familiar with the Constitution of the US, which says:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
My understanding is that the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 trumps any state law legalizing marijuana. It is on that basis that I say it is illegal. In other words, as I understand it, no state can legalize marijuana on any basis, without conflicting with the CSA of 1970. Maybe I am wrong about that. I am not sure.
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?
When I brought up the terror thing, I think I was speaking to what the public perception might be of the justice department spending time on medical marijuana. I imagine that it would open them--and the Administration--up to criticisms that they were operating under messed up priorities. They should be spending every second--the critics would say--looking under rocks for terrorists, not legalizing dope. On top of that, I speculated, there have been ads linking drug use to terror groups, saying that buying drugs is helping our enemies. Whether or not this instance fits that claim, it would open them up to that criticism. I am not saying any of that makes rational sense; I am saying that someone would take advantage of those political opportunities to attack the Administration, and then you would have Cheney, and Ari Fleisher, out there spending time defending the move. I am speculating on the political ramifications.
This is a joke....right? You expect the supremes to uphold the constitution?
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
My understanding is that the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 trumps any state law legalizing marijuana. It is on that basis that I say it is illegal. In other words, as I understand it, no state can legalize marijuana on any basis, without conflicting with the CSA of 1970. Maybe I am wrong about that. I am not sure.
I think that the point here is that the Controlled Substances Act was not "made pursuant to" (i.e., "in conformity with") the Constitution, as it exercises powers not granted to the Federal Government in Article I, Section 8.
Where in he Constitution does it say that constitutional issues are to be decided by popular vote?
This isn't going to happen. Unlike some advocates here, state LEOS are not in favor of this silly attempt to legalize drugs and, they enforce the law, not break it. Now. . . were they to turn on those FOUND in one of the buyers clubs . . . :)
Why bite the hand that feeds you? The feds give grants to our state LEOs to conduct exactly these types of drug raids. I'm happy to see my tax dollars go to crushing drug users.
There are a handful of rather irrelevant types here. Usually their screen names have some sort of historic or patriotic theme, or some historical founding father type character. Don't be fooled. Most are shamefully anti american. The libertarian taliban is how many of us refer to them in private.
And you call yourself a conservative? I would disagree.
Semper Suo
Many, many innocents have died in the course of drug trading and turf wars than in the execution of valid law enforcement activities. Since the druggies are harming more innocents than our LEOS, I think the solution is to exterminate the druggies. They are the problem.
By the way, a person speaking out against what they think is wrong and unconstitutional is not anti-American. The precedent for verbal dissent was set by greater men than either you or I. I've proven my loyalty to this country, as my military record would prove to any alphabet agency. However, love of country does not necessarily equal love of government. It is not only the right, but the duty for loyal Americans to fight against what they believe is wrong. The WOD is just one aspect of the governments abuse of both the commerce and general welfare clauses, just as social security, welfare, the EPA, the dept. of education, etc., etc.
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.