Helena Judge Blocks Parts of Medical-Marijuana Law
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Helena Judge Blocks Parts of Medical-Marijuana Law');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

Helena Judge Blocks Parts of Medical-Marijuana Law
Posted by CN Staff on January 17, 2013 at 07:58:06 PT
By Charles S. Johnson, Gazette State Bureau
Source: Billings Gazette
Helena -- A Helena district judge for a second time has issued a preliminary injunction to block parts of Montana’s more restrictive 2011 medical-marijuana law from being enforced. District Judge James Reynolds late Wednesday blocked portions of the law that prevented a medical-marijuana provider from growing medical marijuana or producing related products for more than three cardholders. He also stopped a provision of the law that prevented providers from being paid by cardholders for growing medical marijuana or manufacturing tinctures and other products.
He granted the preliminary injunction at the request of the Montana Cannabis Industry Association and others to block certain parts from Senate Bill 423 from taking effect. The 2011 state law contained these two provisions as part of what some legislators said was an attempt to squeeze out the profits from what was then a booming industry in the state. The revised law allowed those with medical-marijuana cards to grow their own pot or find someone to grow it for them for free. “Properly registered and eligible cardholders will be injured or irreparably harmed if the court does not preserve the status quo pending final trial in this matter,” Reynolds wrote, “These cardholders will be unable to grow their own medical marijuana or will be unable to obtain it from a provider. “The court concludes that a preliminary injunction should be issued to prevent this irreparable injury to these properly qualified cardholders pending the outcome in this litigation.” In June 2011, Reynolds also issued an order temporarily blocking these and some other provisions aimed at limiting access to medical marijuana. In September 2012, the Montana Supreme Court reversed Reynolds in a 6-1 decision, declaring there is no fundamental right for patients to use any drug, particularly one that’s illegal under federal law, as is the case with marijuana. The Supreme Court ordered Reynolds to apply the “rational basis” test in evaluating the medical marijuana, a lower standard than the “strict scrutiny” test Reynolds had used the first time. The outcome was the same. In his decision Wednesday, Reynolds cited a number of witnesses who testified that medical marijuana had helped give them or a loved one relief in dealing with serious health problems or diseases. All testified they lacked the ability to grow their own medical marijuana as the 2011 law intended. Some marijuana growers or providers testified their businesses would not survive if they couldn’t charge for their project and could provide it only to three cardholders. Reynolds noted that as of November 2012, state Department of Public Health and Human Services statistics showed that Montana had 8,404 registered cardholders, of whom 5,211 rely on providers to supply them with medical marijuana, and 293 registered providers. The rest grow their own supply of pot. “Even assuming all 293 of the currently registered providers continue in business, the limitation of three cardholders per provider means that the existing providers could provide medical marijuana to a maximum of 879 cardholders,” Reynolds said. “This means that approximately 4,332 of the currently registered cardholders would have no source of medical marijuana. These are presumably the cardholders with the most severe medical conditions preventing them from growing their own medical marijuana.” Reynolds said nearly 1,500 additional providers would have to step forward to serve the remaining cardholders. “These cardholders would be injured or irreparably harmed if the provisions of SB423 barring commercial transactions were allowed to go into effect,” Reynolds said. “The court can envision few forms of injury or harm more substantial than to deprive persons with debilitating medical conditions of what may be the only form of effective relief from those conditions as testified to before the court.” It will be up to new Attorney General Tim Fox to decide whether to appeal Reynolds’ decision to the Montana Supreme Court, as his predecessor, Attorney General and now Gov. Steve Bullock, did. The 2013 Legislature convened last week and could make changes in the 2011 law to address the court’s concerns. In November, Montanans voted 268,790 to 200,739 to keep SB423, which medical marijuana groups had put on the ballot as a referendum in hopes voters would reject the law.Source: Billings Gazette, The (MT)Author: Charles S. Johnson, Gazette State BureauPublished: January 17, 2013Copyright: 2013 The Billings GazetteContact: speakup billingsgazette.comWebsite: Medical Marijuana Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #7 posted by adelitaashmi on January 18, 2013 at 21:29:14 PT:
CRB Application
Actually, I don't have much idea about this. I just know a little bit about judge and all these things. But is quite interesting to read your blog I really found this is so useful for me. After reading this is have got so many ideas. Thanks for the share.
CRB Application
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by disvet13 on January 18, 2013 at 17:55:28 PT:
who's agenda?
allow me to quote the late senator robert byrd "they are all following their own agenda's". well said, nero fiddled while rome burned, marie antoinette said to eat cake, and the nazi's in power today have lawurinated us all to prison, debtors prison, or worse, they have become the pharisees of old, you couldn't go into the church without paying them first, and your Constitutional Liberty comes after they fill their bellies with the wealth of the nation.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by museman on January 18, 2013 at 09:50:15 PT
"They have a lot of gall. Stupid gall. Prohibitionists are full of it, though."Law is the prohibition of liberty.Government is the institution and enforcement of law.LEGALIZE FREEDOM
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Hope on January 18, 2013 at 07:17:47 PT
Looks like six really ignorant judges.
Seems to me like the right to take medicine is about as fundamental as the right to eat food and drink water. And, fundamentally, cannabis is an herb... not a drug.They have a lot of gall. Stupid gall. Prohibitionists are full of it, though.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Hope on January 18, 2013 at 07:06:18 PT
Fundamental Right right legal definition
nounA basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference.Webster's New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. 
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by fight_4_freedom on January 18, 2013 at 00:36:48 PT
Just because they arent getting the cut
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by museman on January 17, 2013 at 08:22:47 PT
so you say....
"...there is no fundamental right for patients to use any drug,"This is what happens when you give people that kind of authority and power, they come to believe in their own power and authority over common sense, and common consensus."Judge not lest you be judged." Is not just a line out of a story we review every Sunday, xmas and easter, it applies to corrupt humanity -who invariably seek such positions -not out of a sense of service to others but as self service. Corruption has its roots in false power and false authority.The constitution supposedly guaranteed us certain rights such as the right to be "secure in our PERSONS and homes" but if you are a lawyer or a judge (that is also a lawyer) you can ignore the constitution pretty much these days, because it has all of these 'judges' that have interpreted it out of existence.And that is not just an opinion.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment