ACLU defends Prop 215 and States' Rights.

[palmspringsbum]

ACLU and Others Step In To Defend California’s Medical Marijuana Law From Rogue Counties’ Attack (7/7/2006)


The Law is Clear: States Can Allow Medical Marijuana Even if the Federal Government Disagrees, Say Groups

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
The American Civil Liberties Union


SAN DIEGO - The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access and the Drug Policy Alliance moved today to intervene in a lawsuit brought by several California counties that seeks to overturn the state’s Compassionate Use Act, which makes medical marijuana legal for patients with a doctor’s recommendation.

"These counties are putting politics over the lives of seriously ill patients," said Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "The law is clear: federal marijuana laws do not trump California’s ability to make medical marijuana legal under state law. County officials are thumbing their noses at state law and in the process harming patients and creating unnecessary chaos and confusion."

San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced counties argue in a lawsuit filed in state court that federal laws prohibiting all use of marijuana invalidate state laws that allow qualified patients to use medical marijuana. The ACLU, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and the Drug Policy Alliance (the Alliance) filed legal papers today seeking to intervene in the proceedings on behalf of a number of medical marijuana patients and patients’ groups, as well as their caregivers and doctors.

The lawsuit, initially brought by San Diego County and later joined by San Bernardino and Merced counties, challenges state laws that permit patients to use, and doctors to recommend, medical marijuana under the explicit protection of state law. The lawsuit further challenges the state’s Medical Marijuana Program Act, which calls for the implementation of an identification card program that would allow police and others to identify legitimate medical marijuana patients.

The groups maintain that state medical marijuana laws are not preempted by the federal ban on medical marijuana. While the federal government is free to enforce its prohibition on medical marijuana, even in states, such as California, that permit its use, all states remain free to adopt and implement policies of their own design - an opinion shared by the California Attorney General’s office.

Although the California Attorney General plans to defend the state’s medical marijuana statutes from the counties’ challenge, the groups are intervening in order to assure adequate representation of those most impacted: medical marijuana patients, and their caregivers and doctors.

"The counties’ actions seriously threaten the health, well-being and in some cases, lives of many, many Californians," said Wendy Christakes, a medical marijuana patient and ASA member represented by the groups. "The county supervisors are playing politics while we struggle to survive. They should be ashamed."

In addition to Christakes, the groups represent Pamela Sakuda, William Britt and Yvonne Westbrook, Californians who use physician-recommended marijuana to treat medical conditions and their side-effects, including chronic pain and sciatica, multiple sclerosis, rectal cancer, epilepsy and post-polio syndrome. The groups also represent Sakuda’s spouse and caregiver, Norbert Litzinger, as well as Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a physician who specializes in HIV/AIDS treatment in Oakland, California, and believes that many of his seriously ill patients benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

In addition to being co-counsel, ASA is also a party to the proceedings on behalf of its membership, which includes thousands of medical marijuana patients, caregivers and physicians residing in California. The Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) is also represented by the groups. WAMM is a medical marijuana collective and hospice located in Santa Cruz, California, whose 250 members, the majority of whom are terminally ill, use marijuana to treat a range of conditions.

In addition to entering the case, the groups are seeking a court order that would compel the counties to abide by and implement California’s medical marijuana laws. The groups are also asking the court to affirm that the state’s medical marijuana laws are not preempted by contrary federal statutes.

The groups’ legal papers are available online at:
www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/26 ... 60707.html

The ACLU’s January 19, 2006 letter to the San Diego Supervisors explaining why California’s medical marijuana laws are not preempted by federal law is online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/23 ... 60119.html

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s opinion issued to the state’s Department of Health Services affirming the validity of the state’s medical marijuana laws is available at:
www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/21 ... 50715.html

Additional background on the case can be found at:
www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/23 ... 60124.html

[Midnight toker]

Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Monday, July 10, 2006
Page 3


ACLU Seeks to Intervene in Suit Challenging Medical Marijuana Use

By a MetNews Staff Writer



The American Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Alliance and Americans for Safe Access moved Friday to be allowed to intervene in a state lawsuit brought by three California counties seeking to overturn Proposition 215, the alliance said Friday in a release.

Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act — which allows medical use of marijuana upon a doctor’s recommendation — was passed by California voters in 1996.

In the lawsuit, the counties of San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced sued the state and others, claiming that federal laws prohibiting marijuana use preempt state laws such as Proposition 215. The suit cites the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and a 1961 U.S. treaty with 150 other nations outlawing marijuana.

The suit also challenges the state’s Medical Marijuana Program Act, which provides for an identification card program that would allow police to identify legitimate medical marijuana patients.

The groups believe Proposition 215 is not preempted by federal law and seek an order requiring San Diego County to begin issuing medical marijuana identification cards.

Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the alliance, said in the release,

“We are confident the court will require the state’s medical marijuana program to be implemented in San Diego, as required by law. Renegade politicians in San Diego are simply postponing the inevitable, while thousands of sick people suffer.”

The groups seek to intervene to represent medical marijuana patients, patients’ groups, caregivers and doctors. “Our motion to intervene will allow the court to recognize the harm done to patients by the county’s frivolous lawsuit,” Abrahamson said.

Wendy Christakes, a medical marijuana user represented by the groups, said in the release, “The county supervisors are playing politics while we struggle to survive. They should be ashamed.”

The groups also represent Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a physician who specializes in HIV/AIDS treatment in Oakland and believes that many of his seriously ill patients benefit from marijuana use, the release said.

San Diego County originally filed the lawsuit in federal court this January, but dismissed it and refiled, along with the other counties, in state court in February.

Last month San Diego Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt Jr. rejected the State’s contention that counties are precluded from challenging state law, and allowed the case to proceed.

The Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project has reported that a January poll of San Diego County voters conducted by Evans/McDonough Company, Inc. showed that 67 percent said they support Proposition 215, while only 30 percent said they oppose it, and 80 percent agreed that the suit “is wasting taxpayers’ money.”

California is one of 11 states which allows the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.



Copyright 2006, Metropolitan News Company

[budman]

Medical Marijuana and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments

by Anthony Gregory
Lew Rockwell
October 5, 2006

On Tuesday, Drug Enforcement Administration agents swooped down upon the premier medical marijuana club in California’s Bay Area, targeting its dispensary and seven ancillary locations in San Francisco and Oakland. By destroying and confiscating property, seizing medical records, pummeling ATM machines with sledge hammers and jailing fifteen people, the federal agency hopes to teach a lesson, not just to medicinal pot users but to all Americans – this area, as all areas in the country, belongs to the federal government.

The press says the DEA seized 13,000 plants, but don’t let that number mislead you. Many of the plants these locations carry are barely sprouted and are intended for sale to patients to grow on their own. And besides, even if they had seized ten times as many, the issue at stake here is clear: the power of Washington, DC, to push around individuals and localities with its sheer tax-funded might.

In 1996, California voters approved a sweeping medical marijuana initiative, Proposition 215, which established a list of accepted medical conditions to be treated with marijuana. Even after the State Attorney General had used his official capacity, on the taxpayer’s dime, to lobby against it, claiming it would lead to the decriminalization of the plant for recreational as well as medical purposes, the voters sided with the measure.

Whatever we might think about such state and local regulations, the marijuana clubs have been at pains to follow them. This makes little difference to the feds. The Drug War knows no bounds. National laws, even ones that Congress has no authority under Article I, Section 8 to pass – even ones that are outright barred by the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of unenumerated powers to the states – trump state and local law, to say nothing of individual liberty, in this day and age.

Consider another atrocity. In 2002, the feds busted author Ed Rosenthal for growing marijuana, which he had been growing on behalf of the city of Oakland. Then they disallowed the admission of evidence that what he had been doing was for medical purposes and under the auspices of the city. Upon convicting him under these false pretenses and then discovering the truth, a majority of the jurors renounced their own verdict at a press conference. He only got a day-long sentence from a sympathetic judge, but outrageously the federal government appealed it.

The Supreme Court had a chance to review the Constitutionality of such pharmacological national socialism back in June, 2005, and totally blew it. Even though it should be obvious that this is not properly a federal matter, the five "liberals" on the court decided that ruling in favor of states rights and federalism might jeopardize all their beloved federal welfare state programs erected during the New Deal and Great Society. (They were right about this.) So they decided to side with leviathan, jackboots and all, rather than decentralism and the rights of the sick to medicate themselves. "Strict constructionist" Antonin Scalia, a rabid drugwarrior, also upheld the national police state.

The federal crusade against marijuana has not been limited to California. The White House Drug Czar has illegally used tax dollars to campaign against medical marijuana initiatives in Montana and Vermont in 2004 and in Rhode Island early this year. Just recently, the feds descended upon Nevada to combat an initiative that would altogether decriminalize marijuana for adults. Not only do they use our money to enforce laws against our own local sentiments; they use it to try to influence the outcome of local elections.

The federal government has increasingly come to regard anything having to do with drugs to be in its sole jurisdiction. It has poisoned marijuana abroad, financed anti-drug regimes, even brutal and murderous ones, and strong-armed other nations, most recently Mexico, to prevent them from liberalizing drug laws.

As for medical marijuana itself, the plant has been used medicinally in numerous cultures for thousands of years. According to laboratory studies with rodents, it is one of the safest intoxicants known to man, as it takes an estimated 40,000 doses to kill a human – compared to five or ten doses of alcohol. It acts on cannabinoid receptors in the brain, almost none of which are in the brain stem, which helps to explain its negligible lethality. It treats nausea, pain, glaucoma, and some of the nasty side effects of cancer and AIDS medications. In the case of some sick people, it is the only known drug that will really help.

There are some objections. One is that it must be smoked, and that can’t be good for you. Another is that federally approved Marinol, a synthesized THC pill, is available for those who really need it. Well, Marinol does not have all the cannabinoids of marijuana, only the THC. According to some patients, several of the medicinal properties of the plant, such as its anti-nausea effects, are not nearly so prevalent in Marinol. In other words, there are sick patients who are getting very stoned off federally approved Marinol, which is not the effect they seek, all the while it is failing to address their symptoms.

A reason a lot of patients smoke marijuana as opposed to swallowing it is to control dosage. It is harder to predict with digestion how strong the effects will be, as it depends on such factors as what food one has eaten. Studies reveal that even regular marijuana smokers are much less likely to get lung cancer than cigarette smokers and are actually no more likely to get it than the non-smoking population. New vaporization technology has also enabled patients to inhale marijuana vapor without the undesired contents of smoke.

However, none of this should have to be argued. The fact is people have a human and Constitutional right to control their bodies: self-medication is a Ninth Amendment right "retained by the people." And since there is no enumerated power of the federal government to regulate drugs and medicine, the federal government certainly has no right overthrowing local medical marijuana laws and imposing its centralized authoritarianism in their place. With the latest disgrace of the Bay Area pot club raids, individual rights and federalism have once again been demolished by the DEA. If ever we are to restore anything resembling a working Bill of Rights, of which the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are perhaps the crowning jewels, the DEA should be one of the first agencies to go.

<hr class=postrule>

<small>Anthony Gregory [<a href=mailto:anthony1791@yahoo.com>send him mail</a>] is a writer and musician who lives in Berkeley, California. He is a research analyst at the Independent Institute. See his webpage for more articles and personal information.

<center>Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com</small></center>

[palmspringsbum]

Proposition 215 Ten Years Later


New Report Examines Impact of California's Landmark Medical Marijuana Law

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today the Marijuana Policy Project released the first comprehensive examination of the impact of California's landmark medical marijuana law, "Proposition 215 Ten Years Later: Medical Marijuana Goes Mainstream." The report, which can be downloaded at www.mpp.org/prop215, includes:<ul class=postlist><li>An analysis of predictions made by opponents of medical marijuana, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Clinton administration Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey, and how they have played out in California and the 10 other medical marijuana states. Among other things, McCaffrey predicted "increased drug abuse in every category." In fact, teen marijuana use dropped precipitously in California, and has declined across the board in states with medical marijuana laws.</li>

<li>New polling from all 11 medical marijuana states showing strong, growing public support for the laws.</li>

<li>An examination of key legal decisions affecting state medical marijuana laws.</li>

<li>The real-world experiences of patients now protected by state medical marijuana laws, as well as of patients living in states where they still lack legal protection.</li>

<li>A summary of key research developments since the initiative's passage, including remarkable new evidence of marijuana's benefit in treating hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, cancer, and neurological illnesses such as multiple sclerosis.</li></ul>"In 1996, medical marijuana was often dismissed as a fringe issue, but that is no longer the case," the report concludes. "In the decade since passage of Proposition 215, support has steadily grown, reaching a level of public consensus seen with relatively few issues. ... Politicians, particularly at the federal level, have been slow to adapt to the changing landscape."

With more than 20,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit www.MarijuanaPolicy.org.

Date: 10/26/2006

[palmspringsbum]

California's Medical Marijuana Laws Get Nod from Court (11/16/2006)

The American Civil Liberties Union
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

<span class=postbigbold>Ruling Would Deny Counties' Attempt to Undermine Patient Protections</span>

SAN DIEGO - Medical marijuana patients around the country scored a major win today, as a California Superior Court judge issued a preliminary ruling that state medical marijuana laws can co-exist with the federal law that prohibits all use.

Following oral arguments by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access and the Drug Policy Alliance, as well as the California Attorney General's office, a San Diego Superior Court judge appeared poised to reject the contention of three California counties - San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced - that the state's medical marijuana laws are invalid because of a conflict with federal law. While no final opinion was issued, a tentative ruling released prior to the hearing dismissed the counties' arguments in their entirety.

"We are looking forward to a major win for the democratic process and the constitutional rights of all Californians," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "This ruling destroys the claim that medical marijuana laws are inherently invalid and confirms that states need not march in lockstep with the federal prohibition of medical marijuana."

Enacted in 1996, the Compassionate Use Act, also known as Proposition 215, removes legal penalties for patients who use marijuana on a doctor's recommendation. The Medical Marijuana Program Act, passed by the California legislature in 2003, mandates an identification card program that helps law enforcement properly identify qualified patients.

Following the ruling, San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn indicated the counties' willingness to abide by state law, telling the Associated Press, "All we wanted was guidance from the court telling us where we're at so we don't break any rules and lose any funding."

Once the court finalizes its ruling, the ACLU, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) expect that the counties' will move quickly to implement the state's medical marijuana laws, as the group expressed during today's hearing.

"Medical cannabis patients everywhere should soon breathe easier," said Steph Sherer, executive director of ASA. "States can act to protect patients, and local officials are now on notice that they cannot hide behind the federal reluctance to acknowledge medical use of marijuana."

The California Attorney General's office joined the ACLU, ASA and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) in arguing that state medical marijuana laws are not invalidated by conflicting federal statutes - an opinion previously voiced by the attorneys general of several other states, including Colorado, Hawaii and Oregon, which permit medical use of marijuana.

The groups argued that while the federal government is free to enforce its ban on medical marijuana, even in states such as California that permit its use, all states remain free to adopt and implement medical marijuana policies of their own design.

"The tentative ruling upholds the state of California's sovereign right to fashion common-sense, responsible and compassionate drug policies for its residents," said Tamar Todd, an attorney for DPA. "Today's ruling makes clear that states need not wage the federal government's failed drug war."

Eleven states have so far acted to fully and effectively protect the right of qualified individuals to use medical marijuana with the approval of a physician: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

The case originated from a lawsuit initially brought against the State of California by San Diego County, which was later joined by San Bernardino and Merced counties. The ACLU, ASA and DPA intervened in the proceedings on behalf of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers and doctors in order to assure adequate representation of those most impacted by the case.

The groups represent Wendy Christakes, the late Pamela Sakuda, William Britt and Yvonne Westbrook, all Californians who use physician-recommended marijuana to treat medical conditions and their side-effects, including chronic pain and sciatica, multiple sclerosis, rectal cancer, epilepsy and post-polio syndrome. The groups also represent Sakuda's spouse and caregiver, Norbert Litzinger, as well as Dr. Stephen O'Brien, a physician who specializes in HIV/AIDS treatment in Oakland, California, and believes that many of his seriously ill patients benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

"We just wish Pam had lived to see this," said Sherer of ASA. Pamela Sakuda, one of the plaintiffs, died on Friday after a long battle with cancer.

In addition to being co-counsel, ASA was also a party to the proceedings on behalf of its membership, which includes thousands of medical marijuana patients, caregivers and physicians residing in California.

The Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) is represented by the group as well. WAMM is a medical marijuana collective and hospice located in Santa Cruz, California, whose 250 members, the majority of whom are terminally ill, use marijuana to treat a range of conditions.

The court's tentative ruling, issued earlier today by Judge William R. Nevitt, and which is expected to be finalized in the near future, is available at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/27 ... 61116.html

The group's most recent legal filing is online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/27 ... 61103.html

Additional information on the case is available at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/26 ... 60804.html

<span class=postbold>See:</span> 16 Nov 06 - Judge rejects San Diego challenge to medical marijuana law

<span class=postbold>See:</span> 21 Nov 06 - Judge Issues Tentative Ruling Rejecting Counties' Prop. 215 Challenge

<span class=postbold>See:</span> 6 Dec 06 - Judge rejects counties' challenge to California marijuana law

<span class=postbold>See:</span> 7 Dec 06 - Judge Upholds Ruling Dismissing Counties' Prop. 215 Challenge

<span class=postbold>See:</span> 21 Dec 06 - San Diego judge upholds state medical pot law