|
|
| Groups Want To Oppose County's Marijuana Lawsuit |
|
Posted by CN Staff on January 25, 2006 at 06:52:38 PT By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer Source: North County Times 
San Diego, CA -- Flanked by frustrated cancer, car-accident and burn victims who use marijuana to ease their pain, a collection of legal and marijuana advocacy groups said Tuesday that they would seek court permission to oppose the county of San Diego's challenge to California's medical marijuana law.County officials formally filed a precedent-setting lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Friday seeking to overturn California's 9-year-old "Compassionate Use Act," Proposition 215 ---- on the grounds that it should be pre-empted by federal law, which says all marijuana use is illegal. Tuesday, after unsuccessfully lobbying county supervisors to drop the lawsuit, unhappy patients and officials from three groups ---- the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access, and the Drug Policy Alliance ---- said they would seek permission to challenge the county's lawsuit. Kevin Keenan, executive director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial counties, said the groups would do that by immediately filing a request in federal court to join the county lawsuit as an opponent ---- permission that may or may not be granted. Frustrated and angry patients, meanwhile, said during and after the county meeting that they could not understand why county supervisors were challenging California's medical marijuana law ---- even though supervisors have repeatedly said they are uncomfortable with supporting Prop. 215 when it contradicts federal law. "I don't get where you guys are coming from," said La Mesa resident Rudy Reyes, who has been using medical marijuana to alleviate the pain of third-degree burns he suffered during the 2003 Cedar fire. "You guys are just hurting people." Prop. 215, passed by 55 percent of voters statewide in 1996, states that "seriously ill" people have a right to "obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes" when recommended by a doctor. But the federal government still classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug on a par with heroin, LSD and mescaline, and says that it has no medicinal value. Vista resident and businessman Craig McClain said Tuesday that he had been using medical marijuana for years to alleviate his pain ---- after "crushing" his spine in car accident in 1992 ---- and campaigned for Prop. 215 in 1995 and '96. "When we passed the initiative, I thought we (patients) were safe," he said. "I no longer have that feeling of being safe. I want you to really think about what you're doing because you're opening a gate to cause a lot of damage to a lot of people." San Diego resident Pamela Sakuda told supervisors that she was dying from colorectal cancer, but that she still wanted to fight the disease through chemotherapy. She said that marijuana was the only drug that has helped quell her nausea and allow her to eat enough to keep up her strength. Sakuda's husband, Norbert Litzinger, offered the most tortured testimony. "We've been married 28 years," he said, speaking slowly. "She is the standard by which I measure everything in my life. By your acts ... you are attempting to deny her access to a legal medicine. "If you succeed," Litzinger said, "you will increase her pain. You will increase her suffering. And you will hasten her death. That is wrong. It is gravely wrong." Meanwhile, Keenan and Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access said they hoped that the courts would allow the groups to join the county lawsuit in order to represent patients and their testimony. The county lawsuit was filed against the state and Sandra Shewry, director of California's Department of Health Services. Keenan said Tuesday that he thought the federal courts might throw out the county's lawsuit because it lacked legal standing ---- because, he said, counties cannot sue states over federal law. He also said he did not think the county's argument that Prop. 215 should legally be pre-empted by federal law would be upheld by the courts. The county's argument cites the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" ----- which states that the Constitution and federal law should be "supreme" ---- and a 1961 U.S. treaty with 150 other nations that states marijuana is illegal. Keenan said case law ---- such as last week's decision to indirectly uphold Oregon's assisted suicide law ---- illustrates that the county's argument is hollow. But the county's top lawyer, John Sansone, said the county believes it has a good argument. Officials said there is no timetable on when the courts might hear the arguments on either side. Complete Title: Groups Want To Oppose County's Medical Marijuana Lawsuit Source: North County Times (CA) Related Articles & Web Sites: Drug Policy Alliance Americans For Safe Access Marijuana Advocates File Challenge To San Diego Marijuana Patients Serve San Diego Supervisors ACLU To Protest County's Marijuana Lawsuit Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #7 posted by afterburner on January 25, 2006 at 20:16:34 PT |
| and since the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was declared unconstitutional in Leary v. United States in 1969, there was no *legal* cannabis prohibition between 1937 and 1969 or before. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 http://www.incb.org/incb/convention_1961.html "The road to Zion (love) is not blocked by Babylon (fear)." --One Love Press http://www.rastaheart.com/ [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by Toker00 on January 25, 2006 at 14:18:26 PT |
| Very, very good! Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHBITION NOW! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by siege on January 25, 2006 at 13:07:23 PT |
| I send him "The Grandfather Clause" The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 ("the FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq., [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by Toker00 on January 25, 2006 at 09:23:46 PT |
| "Keenan said case law ---- such as last week's decision to indirectly uphold Oregon's assisted suicide law ---- illustrates that the county's argument is hollow." Empty of meaning. Void of reason. "But the county's top lawyer, John Sansone, said the county believes it has a good argument." See above statement. Even their lawyer doesn't JOIN them and say WE have a good case, only that the COUNTY THINKS they have a good case. Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by siege on January 25, 2006 at 07:42:38 PT |
| one at a time. maybe the right people will read it, and go from there! [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by siege on January 25, 2006 at 07:37:03 PT |
| Editions of the North County Times Serving San Diego and Riverside Counties January 24th, 2006 Letters to the Editor - 1/24/2006 Comments On This Story http://www.nctimes.com/opinion/letters/ [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 25, 2006 at 06:55:42 PT |
| By Tony Perry and Ashley Powers, Times Staff Writers January 25, 2006 SAN DIEGO — Despite pleas from the ACLU and several individuals suffering chronic pain, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday declined to withdraw a lawsuit seeking to overturn a state law requiring the county to issue medical marijuana cards. Meanwhile, San Bernardino County officials announced they supported the San Diego board's decision to challenge the state law on grounds that federal prohibition of marijuana use takes precedence. By day's end, the county counsel of San Bernardino had contacted his counterpart in San Diego to discuss legal strategy. Kevin Keenan, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union's office for San Diego and Imperial counties, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the San Diego supervisors' decision to "forge ahead with this misguided lawsuit." The ACLU and two groups that support medical marijuana on Tuesday petitioned the federal court to allow them to oppose the lawsuit. San Bernardino County Supervisors Dennis Hansberger and Josie Gonzales said their county's action was intended to force the state to clarify its policies on how local agencies should enforce drug laws. They said they believe San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod will join as a plaintiff, although Penrod could not be reached for comment. "I don't want law enforcement trapped between a rock and a hard place," Gonzales said. Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/state/la-me-pot25jan25,0,2250118.story?coll=la-news-state [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |