This is a pretty big win so far. Go Cali !
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_10461558?source=most_viewed
http://www.times-standard.com/ci_10461558?source=most_viewed
Battle lines drawn in Cali .. Small victory.
- Thread starter roadrcr
- Start date
HOODOOBLUESMAN
Member
???
???
the article is not there????
???
the article is not there????
U
ureapwhatusow
Judge says Feds violated 10th Amendment by subverting state marijuana laws
As It Stands by Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/14/2008 01:32:06 AM PDT
A landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20th in a Santa Cruz courtroom.
For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities.
The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen.
In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next?
”The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.
So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated.
California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.
An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient's collective.
The group was functioning so smoothly that the city even allowed them to hold regular meetings to distribute marijuana to its patients on the steps of city hall! The federal agents still went after them, which brought about this court decision.
When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California's medical marijuana law.
We must not forget that medical marijuana brings in about $100 million each year in tax revenue. Conferring total legitimacy to the law will allow this cash flow to continue, and hopefully, increase over time.
When the judge ruled the feds were threatening physicians who recommended marijuana, he set the stage for regaining patient's rights. The ruling clearly pointed out that the feds were also threatening government officials who issue medical marijuana cards, and interfered with municipal zoning plans.
In the summation, the court found that, “There was a calculated pattern of selective arrests and prosecutions by the federal government with the intent to render California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and therefore forced Californian's and their political subdivisions to re-criminalize medical marijuana.”
In a recent column, I mentioned California's Attorney General Jerry Brown had passed out an 11-page directive that all law agencies were to go by. I expressed concern that the federal authorities would ignore those guidelines, but upon finding out about this recent ruling I now have some cause for hope.
It sure sounded like Hopper was looking forward to the next phase, and he seemed confident that positive change lay ahead. Asked which presidential candidate would be more amenable to upholding medical marijuana laws, he cleverly replied that he thought they both would be willing to work for change. He could be right too. This is a year of change.
This on-going battle with the federal authorities ignoring California's laws has been well-documented in the past. Why hasn't there been more coverage for such an epic ruling? Its potential as breakthrough legislation is something all Californian's should know about in my opinion.
The war against medical marijuana hasn't been won yet, but this could be the breakthrough everybody's waited for. At the core of the war waged by the federal government against the voter's will, is the failed War on Drugs by the Bush Administration. It's about time someone told them to back off.
As It Stands, we can score this as a successful round for state's rights.
As It Stands by Dave Stancliff/For the Times-Standard
Article Launched: 09/14/2008 01:32:06 AM PDT
A landmark decision for all Californian's quietly made history on August 20th in a Santa Cruz courtroom.
For the first time since 1996, when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, the federal authorities have been charged with violating the 10th Amendment for harassing medical marijuana patients and state authorities.
The case of Santa Cruz vs. Mukasey, was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who said the Bush Administration's request to dismiss a lawsuit by Santa Cruz city and county officials, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), wasn't going to happen.
In a recent telephone interview with Alan Hopper, an ACLU counsel familiar with the case, I asked him what came next?
”The plaintiff will get a get a court-ordered discovery document that will allow them to get documents, and even depositions, from the federal authorities to support their claims,” he explained.
So now it's the city, county, and WAMM's turn to prove their case against the federal government. The court has recognized a concerted effort by the federal government to sabotage state medical marijuana laws, which violates the U.S. Constitution. The significance of this ruling, the first of its kind, cannot be overstated.
California voters may finally get what they asked for a dozen years ago. When the court said that the federal government had gone out of its way to arrest and prosecute some of the most legitimate doctors, patients,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
caregivers, and dispensary owners that had been working with state and local officials, it finally drew a line-in-the sand.
An example of the federal authorities violations was their pursuit of WAMM. This non-profit group has been around for many years, and has been fully supported by the city and county of Santa Cruz. They have been referred to, by officials, as the model medical marijuana patient's collective.
The group was functioning so smoothly that the city even allowed them to hold regular meetings to distribute marijuana to its patients on the steps of city hall! The federal agents still went after them, which brought about this court decision.
When the ACLU filed this lawsuit to stop them from targeting medical marijuana providers and patients, they opened a door that may finally lead to no federal interference in California's medical marijuana law.
We must not forget that medical marijuana brings in about $100 million each year in tax revenue. Conferring total legitimacy to the law will allow this cash flow to continue, and hopefully, increase over time.
When the judge ruled the feds were threatening physicians who recommended marijuana, he set the stage for regaining patient's rights. The ruling clearly pointed out that the feds were also threatening government officials who issue medical marijuana cards, and interfered with municipal zoning plans.
In the summation, the court found that, “There was a calculated pattern of selective arrests and prosecutions by the federal government with the intent to render California's medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and therefore forced Californian's and their political subdivisions to re-criminalize medical marijuana.”
In a recent column, I mentioned California's Attorney General Jerry Brown had passed out an 11-page directive that all law agencies were to go by. I expressed concern that the federal authorities would ignore those guidelines, but upon finding out about this recent ruling I now have some cause for hope.
It sure sounded like Hopper was looking forward to the next phase, and he seemed confident that positive change lay ahead. Asked which presidential candidate would be more amenable to upholding medical marijuana laws, he cleverly replied that he thought they both would be willing to work for change. He could be right too. This is a year of change.
This on-going battle with the federal authorities ignoring California's laws has been well-documented in the past. Why hasn't there been more coverage for such an epic ruling? Its potential as breakthrough legislation is something all Californian's should know about in my opinion.
The war against medical marijuana hasn't been won yet, but this could be the breakthrough everybody's waited for. At the core of the war waged by the federal government against the voter's will, is the failed War on Drugs by the Bush Administration. It's about time someone told them to back off.
As It Stands, we can score this as a successful round for state's rights.
More battle lines being drawn, getting interesting
More battle lines being drawn, getting interesting
Here is a quote from San Bernardino County, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Based on what I read, the sheriff's have a conflict of interest, and probably should be terminated if they cant follow the state law, and go work for the Feds full time if they dont like it.
Pot appeal up in air
State's top court mum on SB County move
Lauren McSherry, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County has appealed its medical marijuana lawsuit to the California Supreme Court, but it remains unclear whether the court will agree to hear the case.
The county lost its lawsuit July 25 when a court of appeals ruled that a state law requiring counties to issue medical marijuana identification cards is constitutional.
The county maintains that the state law is at odds with federal law, which criminalizes the drug.
"The lower courts haven't done what the county has asked them to do and address the conflict between state and federal law," said David Wert, county spokesman.
The state Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will hear the case within the next 60 days, although that deadline could be extended, according to a statement from the county.
Wert said the county appealed the case upon the urging of the sheriff. Some sheriff's deputies serve on joint federal task forces, which puts them in a difficult position because they are sworn to uphold federal law, Wert said.
Lanny Swerdlow, director of the Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project, said the county is wrong to appeal the case because the courts have ruled that the state law is not in conflict with federal law.
"They are trying to stall issuing cards," Swerdlow said. "My perspective is it's a waste of taxpayers' money, and a violation of their responsibility to enforce state law, and a failure to protect the health and welfare of San Bernardino residents."
He said other counties, such as Orange, Santa Barbara and Imperial, have issued cards.
In 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which exempted patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. In 2004, the Legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Program Act, which included establishing an identification card system, according to a statement from the Attorney General's Office.
On Aug. 25, state Attorney General Jerry Brown issued guidelines to clarify the state's laws governing medical marijuana.
More battle lines being drawn, getting interesting
Here is a quote from San Bernardino County, the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Based on what I read, the sheriff's have a conflict of interest, and probably should be terminated if they cant follow the state law, and go work for the Feds full time if they dont like it.
Pot appeal up in air
State's top court mum on SB County move
Lauren McSherry, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County has appealed its medical marijuana lawsuit to the California Supreme Court, but it remains unclear whether the court will agree to hear the case.
The county lost its lawsuit July 25 when a court of appeals ruled that a state law requiring counties to issue medical marijuana identification cards is constitutional.
The county maintains that the state law is at odds with federal law, which criminalizes the drug.
"The lower courts haven't done what the county has asked them to do and address the conflict between state and federal law," said David Wert, county spokesman.
The state Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will hear the case within the next 60 days, although that deadline could be extended, according to a statement from the county.
Wert said the county appealed the case upon the urging of the sheriff. Some sheriff's deputies serve on joint federal task forces, which puts them in a difficult position because they are sworn to uphold federal law, Wert said.
Lanny Swerdlow, director of the Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project, said the county is wrong to appeal the case because the courts have ruled that the state law is not in conflict with federal law.
"They are trying to stall issuing cards," Swerdlow said. "My perspective is it's a waste of taxpayers' money, and a violation of their responsibility to enforce state law, and a failure to protect the health and welfare of San Bernardino residents."
He said other counties, such as Orange, Santa Barbara and Imperial, have issued cards.
In 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which exempted patients and their primary caregivers from criminal liability under state law for the possession and cultivation of marijuana. In 2004, the Legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Program Act, which included establishing an identification card system, according to a statement from the Attorney General's Office.
On Aug. 25, state Attorney General Jerry Brown issued guidelines to clarify the state's laws governing medical marijuana.
Last edited:
G
guest
WOW Who would have ever thought something like this could happen. 
Next: Retroactive to 1996.
Next: Retroactive to 1996.
ureapwhatusow said:
G
guest
So 60 days would be ~9/25.Care Free 1 said:
That would be before the election .. naaaa .. never happen.
Can we push just a little harder?
StayHigh149
Member
vta said:
F Tha Police! FTp!
FrankRizzo
Listen to me jerky
One step closer.
G
guest
Report them to the AG's office RIGHT NOW!vta said:
vta, dude, go for that cop's badge! A guy on another board had 4 felony charges and got the cop fired! It CAN happen! pb's right, set the wheels turning!
And about whether federal law trumps state law.... I believe there are certain guns that although legal federally, are quite illegal in Cali! You own one of them in Cali and claim "fed law rules" and you'll get laughed at all the way to prison!
The law must be interpreted one way or the other! THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Granny
And about whether federal law trumps state law.... I believe there are certain guns that although legal federally, are quite illegal in Cali! You own one of them in Cali and claim "fed law rules" and you'll get laughed at all the way to prison!
The law must be interpreted one way or the other! THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
Granny
PB, Granny......I called the AG's office today, didn't feel like what I told them is going to go anywhere so I'll follow up with a letter to Brown himself. I talked to a lawyer friend and she told me that since I was on a certain type of private property that there wasn't much if anything I can do.
I was at a Judas Priest/ Black Sabbath concert. I had 8 joints in a cig pack and the guy searching me found them...went stright behind him to a supervisor who looked at the pack and said, "Thanks! These are mine now!". I said NO THERE NOT! I explaned that was my medicine and showed my Doc 's note. She got on the radio and thats when the Sheriff showed up. We argued a bit and then I cop told me "Look...your not getting this back but if you keep pushing your gonna miss the show." So I gave him a look of frustration and grabbed the cig pack from him...took out and handed him the joints and then said I know you can't take these from me.
The only good thing about it was all 3 of my friends were behind me and walked right through while the popo was busy with me. So we had plenty of pot for the show.
I was at a Judas Priest/ Black Sabbath concert. I had 8 joints in a cig pack and the guy searching me found them...went stright behind him to a supervisor who looked at the pack and said, "Thanks! These are mine now!". I said NO THERE NOT! I explaned that was my medicine and showed my Doc 's note. She got on the radio and thats when the Sheriff showed up. We argued a bit and then I cop told me "Look...your not getting this back but if you keep pushing your gonna miss the show." So I gave him a look of frustration and grabbed the cig pack from him...took out and handed him the joints and then said I know you can't take these from me.
The only good thing about it was all 3 of my friends were behind me and walked right through while the popo was busy with me. So we had plenty of pot for the show.
ureapwhatusow said:
Why??? Because they dont want to LOOK weak. All of media is controlled
and anything PRO-POT will never get covered. All they want to see is
armed tactical agents making arrests and showcasing items confiscated...
GrassRoots
Active member
Hey, just a little tip when going to concerts. I know there are a lot of places to put your stash but I buy a pack of cigarettes, the long ones, 100's. I then take super glue and glue all the filters together, take out the lil' brick of smokes and rip or cut off all the tobacco then i load up joints and set the filter brick back on top. Looks like a fresh pack if they ask you to open. Or, I'll buy a soft pack, take all the smokes out, load up joints, reload however many cigs will fit, and I'm on my way. I guess the second way is better if you don't like totally wasting 20 cigarettes.
But yeah, F.T.P. And go Cali!
But yeah, F.T.P. And go Cali!
vta said:
Yes, your Lawyer friend is correct. Private property means they can make the rules. I have also tried to use my Rec to get weed into a show, and they weren't going for it. Just like some places don't let you bring in Ciggs or lighters--
