cannabisnews.com: Federal Court Could Allow City To Create MMJ Shop





Federal Court Could Allow City To Create MMJ Shop
Posted by CN Staff on June 24, 2006 at 09:07:51 PT
By Shanna McCord, Sentinel Staff Writer 
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel
Santa Cruz -- A federal judge will decide if medical marijuana patients and a proposed city-owned dispensary should be protected from federal prosecution.American Civil Liberties Union attorneys and other lawyers presented arguments to a San Jose federal court Friday in a case aimed at forcing the U.S. government to recognize California's 10-year-old medical marijuana law and to allow Santa Cruz to establish an Office of Compassionate Use — the nation's first government-owned medical pot shop.
The lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Drug Enforcement Administration began after a federal raid of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in 2002. The case since has grown to include the city and county of Santa Cruz.Justice Department attorney Mark Quinlevin asked the court to dismiss the case, which would leave the state's medical marijuana law intact but leave users and providers vulnerable to arrest by federal agents.No decision was made Friday by federal Judge Jeremy Fogel. His verdict could come in several months to a year."The federal government seeks to limit access to medical marijuana," said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "The government needs to accept that, at least for some people, this is the only medicine keeping them alive."City leaders voted in October to create a new department to distribute marijuana to seriously ill patients, but only if the federal government guaranteed the operation would be allowed to run without federal interference.The city's effort to form a compassionate-use office tests the state's right to enact the medical marijuana law that voters passed in 1996, Proposition 215, which allows some patients to use marijuana. Santa Cruz aims to provide the drug to qualified patients at a reasonable price, proponents say, in a safe environment."If it were legal we might contract with Longs pharmacy," Councilman Mike Rotkin said. "They provide morphine, why not marijuana? This is not a recreational issue, and we wish the government would see that." Marijuana co-op founders Mike and Val Corral were taken to federal holding cells in San Jose after the raid in 2002 and released later that day. They contend some patients, such as those undergoing chemotherapy or treatment for HIV and AIDS, should be able to use marijuana to ease pain, reduce nausea and stimulate appetite."If people are dying, they have enough to worry about," Mike Corral said. "This case is really important for America in general. It has far reaching and broad impacts for life in America."The federal government has been steadfast in viewing marijuana as a dangerous and illegal drug, and has challenged its use and distribution, shutting down medical co-ops and confiscating marijuana.In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that medical marijuana users can be prosecuted by the federal government.Complete Title: Federal Court Could Allow City To Create Medical Marijuana ShopSource: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)Author: Shanna McCord, Sentinel Staff Writer Published: June 24, 2006 Copyright: 2006 Santa Cruz SentinelContact: editorial santa-cruz.comWebsite: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/Related Articles & Web Sites: ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/WAMM Raided By DEA http://freedomtoexhale.com/valc.htm Pot Shop Gets Green Lighthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21911.shtmlSanta Cruz Okays City-Run Marijuana Distributionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21287.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by Hope on June 26, 2006 at 09:47:48 PT
Government doesnt' understand the reality
of people like Mike and Valerie."They are not trying to make money but want to help seriously ill people." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by runderwo on June 26, 2006 at 09:44:10 PT
Max Flowers
The problem is that the grandfathering angle only gets around the FDA and scheduling blockade. It does not remove the prohibition laws which also outlaw medical sale, possession and use. Prohibition on medical (and perhaps also recreational) use would then have to be challenged separately.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on June 26, 2006 at 09:24:36 PT
Hope
Everyone has someone they look up to and Mike and Valerie Corral are my heroes. They are not trying to make money but want to help seriously ill people. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Hope on June 26, 2006 at 09:19:18 PT
Way to go, Mike C. . Truer words never said!
"If people are dying, they have enough to worry about," Mike Corral said. "This case is really important for America in general. It has far reaching and broad impacts for life in America."Love you, man...and your dear wife, Valerie, and I'm so grateful for all you do for people and freedom and rights.Yeah. You are saints...make that Saints....in my book.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on June 26, 2006 at 07:27:19 PT
Event Scheduled for Today
Medical Marijuana Advocacy Groups Call for Protest Today***Marie McCain, The Desert SunJune 26, 2006 Supporters of patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes plan a protest today outside the office of U.S. Rep. Mary Bono, officials said.The Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project and the American Harm Reduction Association, according to a news release issued by the groups, stated the protest will begin at 10 a.m.The groups are “concerned that Rep. Bono will be voting against an amendment, that if passed, would help end the dichotomy between state and federal law” governing medical marijuana usage.Since 1996, California law has allowed use of medical marijuana by approved patients. However, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last year made such a practice illegal under federal law.Locally, at least one medical marijuana dispensary has been investigated by federal authorities in relation to federal drug trafficking charges, but no arrests have been made.A representative from the Palm Springs Republican’s office was not immediately available for comment early today.The protest is expected to last about 30 minutes in front of Bono’s office, 707 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way.Following the gathering, advocates plan to present the representative with a written letter asking her to meet with them and vote in favor of the proposal.Copyright: 2006 The Desert Sunhttp://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060626/UPDATE/60626002
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by mayan on June 24, 2006 at 16:33:48 PT
Murderers
Justice Department attorney Mark Quinlevin asked the court to dismiss the case, which would leave the state's medical marijuana law intact but leave users and providers vulnerable to arrest by federal agents.The JD doesn't sound too optimistic. The murderers are afraid of being embarrassed by the fact that they are stealing the medicine of dying people. Alberto Gonzales,John Walters,Karen Tandy,George W. Bush and most of the members of this current administration belong behind bars. Life sentences with no chance for parole.THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...Alex Jones' New Movie: Terror Storm:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7048572757566726569DVR / VCR Alert! Steven Jones video on FSTV Sat. & Sun.:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/06/dvr-vcr-alert-steven-jones-video-on.htmlKeys to 9/11:
http://www.hermes-press.com/keys9_11.htmFBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Max Flowers on June 24, 2006 at 14:12:37 PT
Paul
Thanks for the boost... I'll do that. Hang in there.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by paulpeterson on June 24, 2006 at 10:50:49 PT
Max Flowers
I have often wondered, myself, why nobody has taken Ed's quality work and placed it in a small airplane made of paper and flown it right into the coop of federal jurisdiction, especially on the West coast, where most of the heavy hitters on both sides have seemed to be waging a war of words on many fronts.Please direct your quality work on the subject to the websites of some of the players, at least on our side of the wager. And thanks for summarizing the case cites again, for the rest of us out here, waiting for this onslaught of vicious retribution to end. PAUL PETERSON, from behind enemy lines here in Northwest Iowa.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Max Flowers on June 24, 2006 at 09:39:01 PT
Argue legality instead of appealing for mercy
"The federal government seeks to limit access to medical marijuana," said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "The government needs to accept that, at least for some people, this is the only medicine keeping them alive.""If it were legal we might contract with Longs pharmacy," Councilman Mike Rotkin said. "They provide morphine, why not marijuana? This is not a recreational issue, and we wish the government would see that."These are good points, but ultimately, I fear they are the wrong points to use in argument with the feds. Why? Because they are based on the presumption that the government (as if it is a feeling entity) might change its "mind" and suddenly decide to "care" about the well being of people. It doesn't. It has proven that time and again by throwing sick people in jail.In my opinion, they (activists) should keep hammering the legal arguments---the only type of argument the feds respect, in the end, and there are some powerful ones available to us---and stop trying to appeal to the potential compassion of federal judges. That is a well that is basically dry.For example, I haven't seen a court proceeding yet where they've mentioned what to me is the most potent argument of all, the grandfather thing brought out by Ed Forchion. He spelled out how the law itself actually provides the exemption for cannabis from the CSA by a grandfather clause that is in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.Forchion showed conclusively and WITH SOLID LEGAL CITATIONS that medical cannabis is actually "grandfathered" in as an established, pre-1930s, widely-used medicine in the American pharmacopeia. So the entire prohibition on medical cannabis is itself illegal and based on ignorance and probably in some cases purposeful IGNORING and obfuscation of its true exemption from federal Schedule One status:The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 ("the FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq., is designed to protect public health by regulating "new drugs" that are intended for use in interstate commerce. Barnes v. United States, 142 F.2d 648 (9th Cir.1944); United States v. Kordel, 164 F.2d 913 (7th Cir.1947); United States v. Two Bags, Poppy Seeds, 147 F.2d 123 (6th Cir. 1945). There exists, however, a "grandfather" clause which exempts certain old drugs from this "new drug" status. 21 U.S.C. §321(p)(1); United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S.544, 546-48 (1979); Rutherford v. United States, 541 F.2d. 1137, 1140-42 (10th Cir.1976) (reversed on other grounds, 442 U.S. 544).As explained by federal regulators, when Congress revamped the FDCA in 1939, it "accepted those drugs marketed prior to 1938 which had been subject to the 1906 provisions of the FDCA [requiring drugs to be identified in recognized medical authorities such as the National Formulary, United States Dispensatory, Pharmacopeia of the United States, or other similar sources] provided these very old drugs retain their exact formulations and are never promoted for new uses." 57 Fed.Reg. 10499, 10503 (1992) (citing 21 U.S.C. §321(p) and (w)). As further explained, these pre-1938 drugs "are politically 'grandfathered' drugs" and "need not meet modern standards for safety and effectiveness." Ibid; United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. at 546-48; Rutherford v. United States, 541 F.2d. at 1140-42.As will now be shown, marijuana is one of those "very old drugs" that was grandfathered in as a medicine back in 1938. Marijuana (more commonly known as cannabis) was widely recognized for its medicinal use in the medical journals of that time, and brand-name companies, such as Parke-Davis and Eli Lilly, were cultivating "home-grown cannabis" and selling the "flowering tops" of the plant for use in the treatment of illnesses such as anorexia, chronic pain, spasticity, and nausea. So if its inclusion in the CSA was based even partly on its presumed illegality according to the FDCA, then that illegal status is on very shaky legal ground. Why haven't any attorneys jumped on this seemingly very potent legal weapon? 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment