Feds Scared Of State Law In Medical Marijuana Trial
Joe | Sep 05, 2011 | Comments 16
It seems the federal prosecutors seeking convictions against medical marijuana providers in Montana are trying to prevent the defense from even mentioning Montana’s medical marijuana law in their trials.
U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have made motions in at least two cases stemming from federal raids on dozens of pot operations this spring, asking those judges to forbid any testimony or evidence at trial about medical marijuana or related issues involving state and federal laws.
“Montana’s medical marijuana laws have no relevance to the present prosecution, which consists of various charges the defendants violated federal law in relation to a marijuana manufacture and distribution scheme,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph Thaggard wrote in an August court filing.
While that is technically true – anyone selling or growing marijuana is violating federal law – this brings up a larger point. First, the feds are saying state law just doesn’t matter. As an extension of that, the feds are saying that what voters decide in their own state doesn’t matter.
This is a very dangerous road to travel. As the federal government gathers power unto themselves, the only place they have to take it from is they people they “serve.”
But attorneys for a Miles City family of medical marijuana operators plan to fight the prosecutors’ attempt to keep the question of what’s allowed under Montana’s medical marijuana law out of their trial.
“There are enormous issues in the fight against the federal government versus states’ rights in these cases,” Billings attorney Brad Arndorfer said in a recent email to The Associated Press.
Arndorfer represents Richard Flor. He argues that Flor, his wife, Sherry, and son Justin were in compliance with state law and conducted their operations in full view of law enforcement.
“Evidence concerning the fact that medical marijuana is a legal drug in Montana, and that Mr. Flor was not some nefarious drug dealer, should be allowed at trial,” Arndorfer wrote in his reply to Thaggard.
Precedents where the federal government can eliminate references to state law at trial is the first step to stripping the states of all power. Which means the end to medical marijuana as we know it unless there is a change in federal law.
Filed Under: Best Of The Best • Exclusive Web Content • Medical Marijuana News • Politics • The War On Drugs
So, it’ll drive the market underground and give more power to the drug cartels . When will they ever get it ? You can’t stop freedom .
Come on guys, are ALL the smart lawyers on the bad guys side ?
Medical Marijuana is a myth, or maybe your ‘wet dream’. Since state laws trying to create ‘Medical Marijuana’ were in conflict with Federal Law from the very beginning, they are by definition null and void.
Oh, FreeTexas: All the smart lawyers are on the Fed’s side. You get the dumb lawyers, that’s why you’re going to lose.
It’s not about freedom. It’s more about stupidity. We’re doing you a favor, preventing you from getting a lung cancer diagnosis in 20 to 40 years.
Actually, if you smoke cgars, you’re the one who’s going to get cancer.
The truth is that you seem ignorant about the many uses of cannabis. It can and does help many diseases and conditions — including cancer — and it doesn’t have to be smoked, which avoids your cancer scare.
Also, please show us where the Constitution gives the Federal government the ability to ban a plant whose effects have never killed anyone and which was the most valuable crop in the country until the day it was banned.
Federal prohibition is your ‘wet dream’ CGAR . Since state laws trying to create ‘Medical Marijuana’ were in conflict with Federal Law from the very beginning, they are by definition the way democracy works in this nation.
On smart lawyers, you miss the point, that is Judges make the calls, not smart lawyers on either side.
Lung cancer has not been associated with cannabis usage, nor do most people choose to imbibe cannabis in the manner you suggest. And I would quit them cigars if I were you, they do cause cancer.
As for the article, as suggested, this does set up an interesting federal repression of state law that the supremes have yet to address on the power level or the cannabis level. Normally federal law usurps state law as we saw in the Arizona immigration case.
Forcing the feds to come down heavy handed on “the people’s state laws” isn’t going to go over well. The sooner the better.
While I appreciate honest debate and opposing points of view, what cgar offers falls short. Lies and scare tactics don’t help your argument. Until the big money behind prohibition is exposed we’ll never get anywhere.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 10th amendment.
Why is this so difficult for the Feds to let that go? Maybe the $2.3billion a year in DEA revenue? Maybe all the money they make in criminal proceedings and drug courts? Maybe the billions of dollars in private prisons systems? Or maybe they just don’t want to admit they’re wrong?
All I know is I voted for a candidate that said he once smoked marijuana, I didn’t think he’d be such a hypocrite and continue to ruin so many lives for something he himself has done.
Dear cgar, Dr Tashkin who was hired by the Nixon administration to find negative effects from cannabis and more specifically that it causes cancer, after over 30 years of study has found that chronic smokers of cannabis actually have a reduced risk (that’s right, less chance) of getting lung cancer than someone who doesn’t smoke anything. Stick that in your pipe of misinformation and smoke it!
Hey cee-gar, if your cigars happen to give you cancer as they are apt to do (wouldn’t wish it on ANYONE), you can count on cannabis’ anti-tumor properties to extend your life and reduce the misery of the chemotherapy you may have to face. You may eventually thank the people fighting for our freedom to medicate with cannabis.
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live in tyranny.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”
- Carl Sagan
On September 5, 2011 at 1:25 pm cgar regurgitated:
Medical Marijuana is a myth, or maybe your ‘wet dream’. Since state laws trying to create ‘Medical Marijuana’ were in conflict with Federal Law from the very beginning, they are by definition null and void.
In the 15th year of medicinal cannabis patient protection laws with the California Compassionate Use Act (CUA) having been in front of the SCOTUS 4 times, one would think that even the dimmest of dim bulbs would be able to grasp the reality that these laws are fully within the rights of State’s to pass, and that the Federal government isn’t going tome riding in on a white horse and strike these laws down.
cgar seems to be unaware of County of San Diego v San Diego NORML, 165 Cal.App.4th 798 , Cal.Rptr.3d –
[No. D050333. Fourth Dist., Div. One. Jul. 31, 2008.] and that the SCOTUS signed off on the the ruling in that case by refusing to grant the County of San Diego certiorari. The County of San Diego specifically requested that the CUA and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP or SB-420) be struck down because it was pre-empted by Federal law. The County of San Diego couldn’t even get the local Court to agree with that flapdoodle. Yet still members of the ignorati insist that the Supreme Court of the United States of America is incorrect about the law in direct contradiction to over 80 years of legal precedent.
There simply is no factual basis to claim that the CSA or the US Constitution require States to adopt a criminal code identical to that of the Federal governments. Indeed, were that the case the evasion of Federal income tax would not be perfectly legal as far as the laws of all 50 States and the District of Columbia are concerned. cgar, if you have even an iota of interest in learning the truth, reading Gambino v United States of America 275 US 310 (1927) is a great place to correct your mistaken beliefs:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/275/310/
The SCOTUS ruling in Gambino not only expressly states that not only are the various States not required to adopt Federal law as their own, it sure seems to say that they’re not even welcome to enforce Federal law if that’s their desire.
cgars uniformed opinions are simply wrong. People should not pay any regard to his legal opinions because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, not even a little bit.
http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/85901
quoted from the ruling in County of San Diego v USA (link directly above):
“In the proceedings below, State and other respondents contended this language evidenced a congressional intent to preempt only those state laws in direct and positive conflict with the CSA so that compliance with both the CSA and the state laws is impossible. Counties asserted this language was merely intended to eschew express and field preemption and should be construed as declaring Congress’s intent to preempt any state laws that posed a substantial obstacle to the fulfillment of purposes underlying the CSA in addition to those in direct conflict. The trial court, after concluding title 21 United States Code section 903 was intended to preserve all state laws except insofar as compliance with both the CSA and the state statute was impossible, found the MMP and CUA were not preempted because they did not mandate conduct violating the CSA.
One can completely discredit any claim of the possible health hazards of smoking cannabis as a reason for any public policy more limiting than smoking in public places. Smoking is simply not in any way, shape or form required in order to gain the benefits of cannabis, whether medicinal or for enjoyment. The vporizer has been proven safe and preferred by patients by a margin of 7:1 in peer reviewed research published in February 2010 which is linked and quoted below.
It always disgusts me when a Know Nothing prohibitionist claims that this issue is not a matter of freedom. These people seem to believe that this is a free country as long as you do as your told. Yes Mr. enemy of freedom cgar, this is very much a freedom issue, and a direct slap in the face to the birthright of all Americans which was promised and protected by the Founding Fathers in the late 18th Century. Freedom is a two way street sunshine. You can’t restrict mine without stepping on your own. I’ll tell you what. If you give me your address and agree that I can show up at your home in the dead of night, break down your front door, shoot dead your dogs, minister and grandfather before ransacking your home, then I’ll reconsider your absurd claim that this has nothing to do with freedom.
———- ———- ———-
Vaporizers proven safe, cheaper than smoking, and preferred:
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=149:vaporization-as-a-qsmokelessq-cannabis-delivery-system&catid=41:research-studies&Itemid=135
/snip/
The analysis suggests that the blood levels of vaporized marijuana are similar to those of smoked marijuana. However, blood concentrations at 30 minutes after drug administration and beyond were significantly higher in vaporized marijuana as compared to smoked marijuana. In addition, the carbon monoxide levels were significantly reduced with vaporization compared with smoked marijuana. Fourteen participants preferred vaporization, 2 smoking, and 2 reported no preference. No adverse events were observed.
In this study, vaporization of marijuana was found to be a safe mode of delivery. Participants had a clear preference for vaporization over smoking as a delivery system for the marijuana used in this trial.”
/snip/
Cgar… what planet are you from? Any discussion about a plant created by God (whether your god be nature or a higher being) and prohibited by government is by definition a limitation of freedom. It is quite a simple task to defend the non-toxic plant, because it IS less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, and many could even argue caffeine. It is so obvious that you don’t know what you’re talking about I wonder if you even got past the title before writing your comment. Federal law does not trump state law, and in this case the Constitution supports the state, not the federal prosecution. Go ahead and try to find any shred of evidence that cannabis causes cancer. When you give up looking because you cannot find it, please come back and apologize for the misinformation you put in this comment thread.
since medical marijuana is confined in state, feds actually shouldn’t have any jurisdiction and they are trampling on states’ rights per the 10th amendment. i think the feds justify their actions via the commerce clause.
and i suspect that they go after small outlets like these as, ostensibly, easily won battles in the otherwise failed war on drugs.
If its not in the constitution, its a states right, according to the tenth amendment. The Feds are not credible, sch one drug “No medical bennifits” if you can lie about a weed, what else are you tellin lie’s about?
The Patriot Act has suspended the constitution of the U.S. We are no longer a free people
Cgar your a complete moron….