MMJ Protest Comes Down To Federal-State Question

MMJ Protest Comes Down To Federal-State Question
Posted by CN Staff on June 01, 2006 at 10:40:51 PT
By Robert McCockran, Times-Herald Staff Writer 
Source: Times-Herald
Fairfield, CA -- About a dozen medical marijuana advocates held an orderly protest Wednesday in front of the Solano County courthouse, saying local law enforcement has been ignoring state law and arresting patients for having marijuana. But Solano County supervisors countered that marijuana possession is still illegal under federal law.
As protesters stood in front of the Hall of Justice - some holding signs - Leona Mae Benjamin and John Benjaminsen were inside asking for a preliminary hearing postponement because they'd hired a new attorney. The couple, described by protesters as a caregiver and patient, was arrested in October at their home near Rio Vista for allegedly cultivating and selling marijuana. Galen R. Lawton, 38, Solano Patients' Group spokesman, called on the Board of Supervisors to allow the county health department to issue medical marijuana identification cards. Solano is the only county in the Bay Area that does not have such a program, he said. Lawton said agencies like the Benicia Police Department and Solano County Sheriff's Office have opted to "hide behind federal law instead of following state law." Proposition 215, passed by California voters in 1996, aimed to exempt from prosecution, patients and caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment recommended by a physician. Nevertheless, "it's a federal violation," said Supervisor John Silva, District 2-Benicia, "the use of marijuana for medical or any other purposes and I don't support the violation of the law. "I think the U.S. Supreme Court trumps state law," he said. Supervisor Mike Reagan, District 5-Vacaville, agreed, saying "there is a supremacy clause in the Constitution that makes federal laws override local druthers. It's illegal and as far as I'm concerned will remain so in Solano County." Lawton and his wife, Laura Jane Coleman, were arrested in December 2004 on suspicion of cultivating, possessing and selling marijuana. Their cases are scheduled for jury trial in July. Lawton said patients are not asking for special privileges, but law enforcement is supposed to follow state law even when it is in conflict with federal law. Solano County District Attorney Dave Paulson was not available to comment on the cases being prosecuted and no one from the health department responded to requests to discuss the identification card program. Supervisor John Vasquez, District 4-Vacaville, said he wasn't even sure people can cultivate marijuana under state law. He said right now he probably wouldn't support a medical marijuana identification card program. Supervisor Barbara Kondylis, who represents Vallejo, could not be reached for comment. Duane Kromm, District 3-Fairfield, said many health care professionals don't think there's much medical validity to medical marijuana. "The various ailments and diseases and symptoms and things that folks that want to use marijuana to help take care of - the medical folks I've talked to would all seem to indicate that there's better or more efficient ways to treat them," he said. "I'm not necessarily against marijuana, but I don't think the medical marijuana is particularly valuable or a necessary procedure." Complete Title: Medical Marijuana Protest Comes Down To Federal-State QuestionSource: Times-Herald, The (CA)Author: Robert McCockran, Times-Herald Staff Writer Published: June 1, 2006Copyright: 2006 The Times-HeraldContact: opinion timesheraldonline.comWebsite: Medical Marijuana Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #11 posted by user123 on June 03, 2006 at 15:44:51 PT:
Cherry Pickin'
Don't ya just love how politicans cherry pick laws they want to follow? So Fed law says MMJ is illegal. Well, I live in Calif. & I want an assult rifle. Fed law says I can have one, state law says no. Guess which one California enforces. Yep, state law. So stick with one or the other but you can't have it both ways.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by dongenero on June 02, 2006 at 07:45:51 PT
nice post Max
well done
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by Max Flowers on June 01, 2006 at 18:11:19 PT
More Supremacy Clause misrepresentation
Right, Sam. As I posted back in February,(To understand the Supremacy Clause) one has to look at which powers are delegated to the United States (federal authority) by the Constitution. In other words, we look at the enumerated (limited) powers that ARE given to the federal government by the Constiution, knowng that if it is not there in the list, it is NOT under federal jurisdiction. Those enumerated powers are listed in Section 8:Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;To borrow money on the credit of the United States;To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;To establish post offices and post roads;To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;To provide and maintain a navy;To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--AndTo make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.Those areas above are the only areas which Congress is allowed by the Constitution to have supremacy over the states, period. Those who make the argument that the Supremacy Clause means that federal law "trumps" state law no matter what the federal law is, are making a foolishly simplistic interpretation of the Constitution or are being treasonously disingenuous. There is no way that the founders were sloppy enough to put such a huge contradiction into the Constitution---one that on one hand says that all power not specifically named to be federal defaults to the states, and on the other says that any federal law is the supreme law of the land. Think about it! That would have negated every single thing they were working toward, making state sovereignty and indeed most of the Constitution itself irrelevant and impotent! We KNOW they did not intend that, so the proper interpretation has to be that when they wrote in the Supremacy Clause This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, they meant only federal jurisdiction which is constitutionally enabled, i.e. the areas specifically listed in Section 8.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by runderwo on June 01, 2006 at 16:58:37 PT
Sam Adams
What's funny is that the Supremacy Clause means nothing in this case, and this fellow is obviously more ignorant than the people he is serving. The Supremacy Clause does NOT bind local and state law enforcement to enforce federal law. It makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land.Since drug prohibition never required an amendment for some reason, the Supremacy Clause does not apply.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Max Flowers on June 01, 2006 at 16:06:57 PT
Har har
Solano, Sonola, Solona, Sonoma, Canola---what's the difference, right? ;^)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by OverwhelmSam on June 01, 2006 at 13:52:31 PT
Ask Then This Question
Who were you elected to represent? The people of your county, or the United States Federal Government?And someone should remind him that the Supreme Court left states' rights to pass medical marijuana law in place. Yeah, the sorry feds can enforce the defunct law, but that doesn't mean the states have too.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on June 01, 2006 at 13:21:33 PT
Sam it says CBD works even better than THC
I think this suggests people should smoke strains higher in CBD and harvest their plants later to get the best anti-tumoral effect.Now correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the Afghan landraces highest in CBD?**********************************************************Cannabidiol Dramatically Inhibits Breast Cancer Cell Growth, Study SaysNaples, Italy: Compounds in marijuana inhibit cancer cell growth in animals and in culture on a wide range of tumoral cell lines, including human breast carcinoma cells, human prostate carcimona cells, and human colectoral carcinoma cells, according to preclinical trial data published in the May issue of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.Investigators at Italy's Instuto di Chemica Biomolecolare assessed the anti-cancer activity of various non-psychoactive cannabinoids - including cannabidiol (CBD), cannabigerol (CBG), and cannabichromine (CBC) - in vivo and in vitro. Researchers reported that CBD acts as a more potent inhibitor of cancer cell growth than other cannabinoids, including THC, and noted that the compound is particularly efficacious in halting the spread of breast cancer cells by triggering apoptosis (programmed cell death).Cannabigerol and CBC also possess anti-tumor properties, but lack the potency of CBD, they found."These results suggest the use in cancer therapy for cannabidiol," investigators concluded.Previous studies have shown cannabinoids to reduce the size and halt the spread of glioma (brain tumor) cells in animals and humans in a dose dependent manner. Separate preclinical studies have also demonstrated cannabinoids to inhibit cancer cell growth and selectively trigger malignant cell death in skin cancer cells, leukemic cells, lung cancer cells, and prostate carcinoma cells, among other cancerous cell lines.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on June 01, 2006 at 12:52:43 PT
I meant Solona County below, not sonoma. EJ, I'm sure quitting donuts is probably better health-wise than cannabis! Wow, the cancer news is exciting. I wonder how much you have to take to get the protective effect?  
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by afterburner on June 01, 2006 at 12:38:14 PT
More Renegades
California, Love or Leave It!The FDA looks totally foolish after their pronouncement has been soundly rebutted by science. There is no longer any justification for cannabis to be listed as schedule one. The dyed-in-the-wool prohibitionists just refuse to see the light! Instead of honoring their state's noble experiment, these supervisors throw their lot in with federal thugs and liars.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on June 01, 2006 at 12:08:14 PT
Speaking of bending over, Sam
Check out this week's NORML news. Yet more confirmation that marijuana users should expect to get less prostate, breast and colorectal cancer than these insane haters like the sedentary doughnut eaters of Solano County.God and science are converging in this plant in a way that stuns me and leaves me at an utter loss for words.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on June 01, 2006 at 11:01:32 PT
you know what this means
Supervisor Mike Reagan, District 5-Vacaville, agreed, saying "there is a supremacy clause in the Constitution that makes federal laws override local druthers. It's illegal and as far as I'm concerned will remain so in Solano County."This is the sound of Sonoma County taxpayers bending over and being forced to pay a million-dollar legal settlement to wrongly arrested medical MJ patients.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment