... Since Gonzales v. Raich
The U.S. Supreme Court's June 6, 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich does not affect states' ability to pass medical marijuana law -- and it does not overturn the laws now protecting the right of 57 million Americans living in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington to use medical marijuana legally under state laws.
Top officials in all 10 states with medical marijuana laws have publicly affirmed that the Court's decision in Raich does not impact their medical marijuana laws.
Alaska Attorney General David W. Márquez (state press release issued July 21, 2005):
"Attorney General David Márquez has advised the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services that the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), does not prohibit the state from registering medical marijuana users."
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer (statement issued June 6, 2005, and letter dated July 15, 2005):
"Today's ruling does not overturn California law permitting the use of medical marijuana, but it does uphold a federal regulatory scheme that contradicts the will of California voters and limits the right of states to provide appropriate medical care for its citizens. Although I am disappointed in the outcome of today's decision, legitimate medical marijuana patients in California must know that state and federal laws are no different today than they were yesterday. Californians spoke overwhelmingly in favor of medical marijuana by passing Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Initiative, and that law still stands in our state."
"(1) Would the implementation of [California's voluntary medical marijuana registry ID program] violate any federal criminal statute, including, but not limited to, aiding and abetting a federal crime? We believe the answer is no. … DHS's actions in implementing the Medical Marijuana Program are free from criminal prosecution not only because of federalism, but also because the activity itself fails to satisfy the elements of a federal crime."
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (official press release issued June 30, 2005)
"The Attorney General’s Office found that the Raich decision, which ruled federal authorities can prosecute people for use and possession of marijuana, does not directly impact the viability of the Colorado constitutional amendment or the enabling statute allowing the program."
Hawaii State Attorney General Mark Bennett (as reported in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 7, 2005):
"I suspect that this decision [Gonzales vs. Raich] will not have a great impact on what we do as a state [regarding medical marijuana]."
Maine Assistant Attorney General James Cameron (as reported by the Portland Press Herald, June 7, 2005):
"How will the court decision affect Mainers? Not much, said Assistant Attorney General James Cameron. 'Really nothing has changed,' he said."
Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath (as reported by the Helena Independent Record, June 7, 2005):
"Attorney General Mike McGrath said Monday that [Montana's] law is still valid and the 119 Montanans who have since registered with the state to lawfully use medical marijuana will not be prosecuted. McGrath further said that state officers, even if they were funded with federal dollars, would not go after lawful medical pot smokers in the state.
'We still have a valid law and certainly that would be a defense to any state prosecution,' McGrath said. 'I'm quite sure no county attorney would consider filing a (marijuana) case under these circumstances.'
McGrath said he didn't think local authorities would investigate medical marijuana cases. Even if they did, he said, 'Once they found out the person was following the provisions of I-148, we will advise our drug investigators that that's the end of it.'"
Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval (as reported by KRNV-TV, June 8, 2005):
"Nevada's registered medical marijuana users shouldn't expect police at the door even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they can be prosecuted under federal drug laws. That's according to state Attorney General Brian Sandoval. Federal law has long outlawed marijuana use, but no one in Nevada has been charged with using the drug for medicinal purposes since the state allowed use of the drug under a physician's care ... Sandoval says after the ruling it's essentially business as usual in Nevada, which is among the ten states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana to combat or relieve pain in such ailments as cancer, glaucoma and AIDS."
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers (statement issued June 17, 2005):
"1. Does Gonzales v. Raich invalidate the Oregon statutes authorizing the operation of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program? No. Raich does not hold that state laws regulating medical marijuana are invalid nor does it require states to repeal existing medical marijuana laws. Additionally, the case does not oblige states to enforce federal laws. The practical effect of Raich in Oregon is to affirm what the Attorney General understood to be the law since the adoption of the Act. ...
2. Should there be operational changes to the program in light of Raich? Since the Raich case does not invalidate the Act, the state has no legal mandate to change the program ... Does the program have a legal duty to communicate to registrants or applicants that state law does not protect patients from potential federal prosecution? No. Neither federal nor state laws require such notification to program participants. It is the Attorney General's belief that the vast majority of patients and caregivers already knew, before Raich was decided, that the Act did not protect against possible federal prosecution."
Vermont Governor James Douglas (as reported by the Associated Press, June 7, 2005):
"Jason Gibbs, a spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, said the Supreme Court ruling would not change the way the state registered people eligible to use marijuana to alleviate their suffering."
Washington State Department of Health spokesman Donn Moyer (as reported by the Associated Press, June 7, 2005):
"In Washington state, the ruling has no practical impact."
http://www.mpp.org/
The U.S. Supreme Court's June 6, 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich does not affect states' ability to pass medical marijuana law -- and it does not overturn the laws now protecting the right of 57 million Americans living in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington to use medical marijuana legally under state laws.
Top officials in all 10 states with medical marijuana laws have publicly affirmed that the Court's decision in Raich does not impact their medical marijuana laws.
Alaska Attorney General David W. Márquez (state press release issued July 21, 2005):
"Attorney General David Márquez has advised the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services that the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), does not prohibit the state from registering medical marijuana users."
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer (statement issued June 6, 2005, and letter dated July 15, 2005):
"Today's ruling does not overturn California law permitting the use of medical marijuana, but it does uphold a federal regulatory scheme that contradicts the will of California voters and limits the right of states to provide appropriate medical care for its citizens. Although I am disappointed in the outcome of today's decision, legitimate medical marijuana patients in California must know that state and federal laws are no different today than they were yesterday. Californians spoke overwhelmingly in favor of medical marijuana by passing Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Initiative, and that law still stands in our state."
"(1) Would the implementation of [California's voluntary medical marijuana registry ID program] violate any federal criminal statute, including, but not limited to, aiding and abetting a federal crime? We believe the answer is no. … DHS's actions in implementing the Medical Marijuana Program are free from criminal prosecution not only because of federalism, but also because the activity itself fails to satisfy the elements of a federal crime."
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers (official press release issued June 30, 2005)
"The Attorney General’s Office found that the Raich decision, which ruled federal authorities can prosecute people for use and possession of marijuana, does not directly impact the viability of the Colorado constitutional amendment or the enabling statute allowing the program."
Hawaii State Attorney General Mark Bennett (as reported in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 7, 2005):
"I suspect that this decision [Gonzales vs. Raich] will not have a great impact on what we do as a state [regarding medical marijuana]."
Maine Assistant Attorney General James Cameron (as reported by the Portland Press Herald, June 7, 2005):
"How will the court decision affect Mainers? Not much, said Assistant Attorney General James Cameron. 'Really nothing has changed,' he said."
Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath (as reported by the Helena Independent Record, June 7, 2005):
"Attorney General Mike McGrath said Monday that [Montana's] law is still valid and the 119 Montanans who have since registered with the state to lawfully use medical marijuana will not be prosecuted. McGrath further said that state officers, even if they were funded with federal dollars, would not go after lawful medical pot smokers in the state.
'We still have a valid law and certainly that would be a defense to any state prosecution,' McGrath said. 'I'm quite sure no county attorney would consider filing a (marijuana) case under these circumstances.'
McGrath said he didn't think local authorities would investigate medical marijuana cases. Even if they did, he said, 'Once they found out the person was following the provisions of I-148, we will advise our drug investigators that that's the end of it.'"
Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval (as reported by KRNV-TV, June 8, 2005):
"Nevada's registered medical marijuana users shouldn't expect police at the door even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they can be prosecuted under federal drug laws. That's according to state Attorney General Brian Sandoval. Federal law has long outlawed marijuana use, but no one in Nevada has been charged with using the drug for medicinal purposes since the state allowed use of the drug under a physician's care ... Sandoval says after the ruling it's essentially business as usual in Nevada, which is among the ten states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana to combat or relieve pain in such ailments as cancer, glaucoma and AIDS."
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers (statement issued June 17, 2005):
"1. Does Gonzales v. Raich invalidate the Oregon statutes authorizing the operation of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program? No. Raich does not hold that state laws regulating medical marijuana are invalid nor does it require states to repeal existing medical marijuana laws. Additionally, the case does not oblige states to enforce federal laws. The practical effect of Raich in Oregon is to affirm what the Attorney General understood to be the law since the adoption of the Act. ...
2. Should there be operational changes to the program in light of Raich? Since the Raich case does not invalidate the Act, the state has no legal mandate to change the program ... Does the program have a legal duty to communicate to registrants or applicants that state law does not protect patients from potential federal prosecution? No. Neither federal nor state laws require such notification to program participants. It is the Attorney General's belief that the vast majority of patients and caregivers already knew, before Raich was decided, that the Act did not protect against possible federal prosecution."
Vermont Governor James Douglas (as reported by the Associated Press, June 7, 2005):
"Jason Gibbs, a spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, said the Supreme Court ruling would not change the way the state registered people eligible to use marijuana to alleviate their suffering."
Washington State Department of Health spokesman Donn Moyer (as reported by the Associated Press, June 7, 2005):
"In Washington state, the ruling has no practical impact."
http://www.mpp.org/
