U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

[lame54]

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5614

For Immediate Release: December 1st, 2008
U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law
Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today

Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.

"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."

California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March.

"The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmZOLcOhvcM

[aquart]

1. Hallefuckinlujah.

Now let's get sane about painkillers, too.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Wow. You mean to say the Court actually (if implicitly) remembered that the 10th Amendment exists?

:wow:

Maybe this will be the start of repealing other federal laws that overstep the Constitution.

[Johonny]

12. I see state rights abortion laws in the future from this court:(

[mykpart]

44. That was exactly my first thought

when I read the subject line of this post. They are laying the groundwork to allow states to make abortion illegal.

[dixiegrrrrl]

49. We fought 'em once on that issue and won..

we can do it again.
Damn, it took a lot more energy than I have left now.tho.

[madokie]

3. Thats good news

[JohnAB]

4. The people government

The peoples government
made for the people
made by the people
and answerable to the people

that's all folks, The End.

[Fumesucker]

5. The cops in general absolutely hate the idea of legalizing drugs..

There are some individual exceptions but as a whole the police love the drug war. And why wouldn't they?

Income and power both flow to the police from the drug laws.

[lame54]

6. Free drugs...

from shaking down the high school kids

[crikkett]

51. when i was in the navy the cops took our beer and pizza

every payday weekend. of course, we were underaged. so in hindsight I'm glad we weren't arrested. that would probably happen now.

[JonLP24]

54. I can understand the beer

But the pizza??? :wtf:

[crikkett]

55. so we'd leave, is my guess.

we had cops called on our (hotel) parties all the time.

They really were more tired than assholes about it.

Since we were in the service there weren't any drugs (outside of sugar and alcohol). It just never entered the equation.

[JonLP24]

58. Must've been different times

I was recently discharged from the army and drugs are rampant. Actually there are more drugs available in the service then there is in my hometown and that is saying quite a bit.

[-..__...]

8. MA voters just approved a ballot question...

decriminalizing possession of an oz or less of pot.

The MA Chiefs of Police, other LEO organizations and the AG fought hard against the measure.

[Taverner]

24. Most cops knew hated pot laws

[Fumesucker]

27. Youre meaning isn't clear..

Most of the cops I'm familiar with love the drug laws, it lets them pull over anyone anytime and trash their vehicle.

[slutticus]

29. How many cops are you familiar with?

Do you know them personally? I would have thought that cops hated the drug war because it creates unnecessary violence...but then again...I don't know any cops.

[Shakespeare]

36. Bullshit. Most cops HATE the war on drugs.

It's a monumental waste of resources, and they know it. They also know it harms more harmless people than any other set of laws on the books.

[Occulus]

57. Funny. The police in our area LOVE drug laws.

They take actual delight in getting people evicted for it, too. I mean, real, noticeable delight.

They fucking ENJOY it.

[Marrah_G]

37. The cops I know were happy about this passing.

Most of them smoked when they were young, before they got on the force (and some after, before mandatory testing) and they think having to arrest people for a joint is stupid as hell and a waste of time and money.

[tridim]

38. But I bet they still love busting people who grow a few plants for personal use.

That gets their name on the local news for being a drug-warrior hero.

[Marrah_G]

41. I don't know any like that.

perhaps it's different here then where you are.

[eridani]

47. That's what they have to say in public

A friend of mine in Law Enforcement Against Prohibition works a lot of street fair booths. He says that most of the cops who come over and talk to him are retired--active duty ones studiously ignore him.

[bdamomma]

7. am I dreaming, the Supreme Court on the side of the people

in this case??

[hootinholler]

32. Oops, my bad

It was the Supremes who refused the appeal.

-Hoot

[eShirl]

9. "error: you've already recommended that thread"

kick

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

10. Recommended

:hi:

[depakid]

11. A very misleading headline- federal law does preempt state law

and federal agents can still make arrests on marijuana charges, if they choose- regardless of California's involvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

On a more positive note- that's not likely to be a federal priority in an Obama administration.

[High Plains]

17. The California appeals court ruled that Garden Grove cannot

...use the excuse that "it's against federal law" to ignore a court order to return a patient's pot.

The court said state and local police are not required to enforce federal law.

Of course, the DEA can still go in and do its raids, at least until Obama acts on his promise to end them.

[Poll_Blind]

19. Thanks- I just noticed that. The headline IS misleading.

  While Obama is very unlikely to focus on this in the future, I fear what a Republican president might do in the future to stock the privately-owned corporate jails with "paying customers".

PB

[GrpCaptMandrake]

13. Hugh! Er, High! Er, Huge!

Now all we have to do is get the DEA monkey off the state's backs and we'll begin to see real progress.

I'm suddenly feeling ravenously, unexplainably hungry for a twinkie . . . and maybe some Fritos. Hey! Ice Cream!

:)

[rhett o rick]

14. Thomas Jefferson would be happy. nm

[me b zola]

15. A while back on FSTV there was a documentary

about a native American tribe who sued the government for the right to grow hemp, and that suit made it to the Federal level and then died. The tribe (my apologies for not remembering which tribe, and I came in late in the show...) wanted to grow hemp like another crop, as a means of sustenance.

I am hopeful that this ruling will not only give grounds to proponents of medical marijuana, but the hemp industry as well.

This is very good news all the way around! :thumbsup:

[High Plains]

25. That was Alex White Plume, a Lakota from the Pine Ridge reservation.

He got shot down in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The DEA raided his crop one year.

The DEA raided his crop the next year.

The DEA filed for an injunction against him the following year. That's what he appealed.

But they never tried to arrest him.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Big step in the right direction

For once.

[surrealAmerican]

18. Wow. A genuine step in the right direction.

I should not be this surprised when the Supreme Court get something right.

[sarcasmo]

20. Good news, getting closer to freeing Mother Earth's Plant.

[Subdivisions]

21. Now legalize it across the board and over the counter. There are too

many people going to jail over weed.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

22. Will this automatically free the medical marijuan suppliers in California? BTW.. This is Fantastic!

Now if only one of the "most Liberal" states, NY would pass its own law.

[musiclawyer]

26. Exactly

Federal law has been the bases of the dispensary crackdown. I have not read the case, but if this reporting is correct, the medial pot dispensaries will come back to life. This is a good thing. It will siomply be a matter of local governments zoning them properly, rather than zoning them out of existence-- that won't work anymore as there is no underlying federal law muddying the water in connection with legal inconsistency.

[slutticus]

31. No. I think the Feds still have jurisdiction to enforce federal law anywhere in the country.

It's just that California law enforcement can't make arrests for medical marijuana.

But it is a step in the right direction.

[XOKCowboy]

35. The beloved DEA can still come in and uphold federal law...

No matter how many local citizens vote otherwise. Hopefully the new administration will make the prosecution of pot laws the low priority/no priority that the majority of people support.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. Our new AG, Holder, was for harsher laws on marijuana in 1996.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/11/18/21472/416

[XOKCowboy]

46. That was '96...

and a different administration. I hope. There's that word again.

[Taverner]

23. FUCK YEAH!!!!!!

[Greyhound]

28. One more small step in the right direction. K&R.

[Romulox]

30. Unfortunately, the headline is misleading. This will only affect California for the time being...nt

[MarkInCA]

33. About time

There are so many contitutional issues that arise when the federal government tries to enforce laws contrary to local laws.

[Peace Patriot]

34. Now maybe the DEA can concentrate on Big Pharma profiteers and scofflaws!

And get the hell out of Latin America!

Evo Morales--first indigenous president of Bolivia--threw the DEA out of his country for colluding with fascist rioters and murderers. But there is another policy difference that is crucial to understand. Coca leaves are a traditional indigenous medicine--a highly nutritious leaf, served in tea and chewed, essential to survival in the icy, high altitudes of the Andes mountains. The corrupt, murderous, failed US "war on drugs" sprays toxic pesticides on campesinos' farms--poisoning other food crops (they are the best food producers), children and animals, and driving tens of thousands of peasant farmers from their lands into urban squalor. Morales was (and remains) head of the coca leaf farmers' union. His policy is to leave the small coca leaf farmers alone (legalizing small scale coca leaf growing and use), thus respecting local custom, preserving food production, and gaining their cooperation in dealing with the cocaine manufacturers, drug lords and serious crime. This policy is working. The two biggest recipients of US "war on drugs" money--Colombia ($6 BILLION!) and Peru--remain the biggest sources of cocaine in South America, after two decades of this wretched US policy, while Bolivia and other Bolivarian countries have reduced the cocaine trade, and are further ridding themselves of the fascist militarization that the US "war on drugs" fosters.

Bolivia now has a SANE drug policy. It's good to see some sign of one here--this Supreme Court ruling. I share the commenter's concern, upthread, that this may be the ground work for leaving women's rights up to the states, and failing to support women's rights under the Constitution. We shall see if that is what they do. But I have to say that states' rights are sometimes important to our freedoms and to democracy itself. I support states' rights on voting systems, because of what Congress has already done to destroy the transparency of our voting system, and what it may do further: federalization and centralization of the voting system, and the voter database, with required 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, without adequate audit and transparency requirements, making both the theft of elections, and purging of voters from the rolls, "touch of the finger" easy for future fascists. On this issue, our crazy variety of voting systems, state rules, and state/county jurisdictions is our strength. We can fight for transparency in these local jurisdictions. We lost the fight in Congress in 2002, and Congress will not reform it now, in my opinion--only make it worse. Beware of talk of "standardization." It is code for rightwing corporations 'counting' all our votes with 'TRADE SECRET' code.

[foo_bar]

50. aren't "states' rights on voting systems" what caused the mess?

Didn't it take the Civil Rights Act to supersede "states' rights" with regard to denying suffrage to anyone (black or poor)? It seems like the patchwork of standards we see today is a direct consequence of the 10th amendment; most modern nations appear to pick one standard and apply it federally (e.g., Canada, Venezuela), so the problem with HAVA was not going far enough IMO in terms of mandating rights at least. I mean, since the "let the local government decide" approach brought us Palm Beach 2000 and Jim Crow from the 1870s to the 1960s, I don't know if secure voting in Oregon justifies DREs without paper trails in Georgia (or Roe v. Wade only in blue states by the "strict constructionist" standard), isn't the answer necessarily reforming Congress to do the right thing?

[Peace Patriot]

52. You can't reform Congress until we have restored transparent vote counting.

And Congress is very unlikely to do so--but rather to make things worse by mandating these expensive, PRIVATE, 'TRADE SECRET,' electronic systems everywhere with inadequate audit/recount and other controls, and putting control over them far, far away from the citizenry. A line or two of 'TRADE SECRET' computer code in Singapore or Dubai. It could happen. ES&S already manufactures its touchscreens in sweatshops in the Philippines. How far away are we from computer control of our elections in some foreign land? That's what federalization and centralization can do. And that is the danger of further meddling by Congress.

I was a civil rights worker in Alabama in 1965. I know what the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts are about. I helped to pass them. But guaranteeing civil rights and the right to vote, in what was a clear-cut case of racial discrimination, is quite a different issue from RIGHTWING tyranny over the voting system throughout the nation BECAUSE OF A BILL PASSED BY CONGRESS. In this case, I favor states' rights. We have a better chance of restoring transparency in local/state jurisdictions. It is being, and will continue to be, harder in some jurisdictions than others, but it is our best chance. From what I've seen gone on in Congress on this issue, Congress is the chief enemy--and it is now so remote from the people, that NOTHING can make them do the right thing, in my opinion--whereas your county registrar may live down the street from you, and in most states the capitol is not that far away. Ordinary people have more influence at the local/state level.

Non-transparent, corporate-run vote counting impacts EVERYONE--even Republicans. (How did that party get taken over by Bushwhackos?) It is not an equal rights issue, unless you are talking about the more-than-equal rights of multi-billionaires vs the rest of us. Congress and the federal government had a clear duty to stop racially discriminatory election practices, under the 14th amendment--equal protection of the law. That is not the same thing as corpo/fascist companies vs the rest of us, on transparent vote counting. IF Congress were to pass a law that bans these fuckwad corpos from our election system, and mandates OPEN SOURCE code electronics with PAPER BALLOTS and good audits, yes, it would solve the problem in a stroke, nationwide. But THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. If anything, they will make things worse--less accountable, more remote from the people--and THAT is the problem. How would you like to have to go Washington DC, if you get electronically purged from the voter rolls, to fight for reinstatement? Got a lot of Washington lawyers and lobbyists in your corner, do you?

Local control is best, on some things--and the fundamental right to transparent vote counting is one of them, because vote counting SHOULD OCCUR LOCALLY. Or, at the least, I would say, local control of election systems is currently our best hope for change. Miracles can happen, I suppose. Congress could do the right thing. Don't hold your breath. And do be very, very wary and alert if they take this up again--after the utter fiasco of the "Help America Vote (for Bush) Act."

[foo_bar]

59. so the Kucinich bill mandating paper ballots federally was part of the problem?

Why would you "have to go Washington DC" if federal legislation granted equal access at the local level via uniform standards?

[Peace Patriot]

61. The Kucinich bill went exactly nowhere. That is the problem.

A "uniform standard" of privately coded touchscreens with no audit/recount capability whatsoever would be total tyranny. A "uniform standard" of privately coded opticans/central tabulators with a 1% audit is 99% tyranny. A "uniform standard" of voter databases that makes it easy to purge black or other minority, poor, or Democratic voters at the state/county level is trouble enough, is repressive enough, is tyranny enough. Federalize and centralize it, and you have nazi Germany without the "brownshirts." Stolen elections made simple and invisible, and utterly remote from the peple.

We are almost there now--near complete invisibility of vote counting. The state/local venues are the most hopeful venues for reversing this horror. Congress is very unlikely to do anything but make it worse. That is their track record--from bad to worse. I said above, IF--IF--Congress were to ban the private vendors from our election system, and require either open source code programming with a paper ballot backup and sufficient audit, or handcounted paper ballots, I will eat my keyboard. This is not going to happen, in my opinion. So, what are we going to do? We have a nearly completely non-transparent vote counting system. The power over voting systems still resides at the state/local level, where we have a better chance of restoring transparency. If Congress usurps that power, we have about as much chance of reversing what will likely be an evil "standardization" as we had of stopping the Iraq War. The Democrats who somehow get elected are as bad on this issue as they are on the Forever War--and the two things--Congressional Democrats' support for non-transparent, corporate-run vote counting and the Forever War--are, very likely, closely related. Local/state officials are not so directly tied to the war profiteers. And they are closer to home. Local/state election reform movements have been successful, in some cases, at banning touchscreens and at least obtaining some kind of paper trail, miserable though it is. National efforts, on the other hand, have had no success at any reform whatsoever. And no reform will occur at that level, in my opinion, that does not further enhance the power of the corpo/fascists who rule over us.

[slackmaster]

39. The SC refusing to hear a case should not be interpreted as agreeing or disagreeing

With the decision of a lower court. The SC has limited bandwidth, so most cases submitted to them get prioritized out.

[spanone]

40. afuckingmen

[proud patriot]

42. good news

:D

[slay]

45. Nice to get some good news isn't it?

Especially when it relates to making sure people have the right to medical marijuana - at the very least. And while I know not every state has compassionate medical marijuana laws, I consider this a step in the right direction. Gonna K&R this one for my friend with AIDS in NC. Hopefully one day she too will be able to get the marijuana she desperately needs legally instead of having to get it from shady dealers and worrying about getting busted for it.

[proud patriot]

48. My little cuz works at one of the cooperatives

I'd hate to see her messed with.

[librechik]

53. wow, I thought this thread was lost

why isn't this more popular than a Bristol Alien Baby?

[apocalypsehow]

56. So, let me see if got I this right (the headline from the article is a little confusing):

If I'm a California resident with a prescription for medical marijuana and the local or state authorities stop me, I'm good. If a Federal agent does the same, on the other hand, I'm liable to arrest?

It's confusing, and could lead to cross-sovereignty problems all over the place, IMHO. What we need is broad-based decriminalization across the board. :thumbsup:

[old mark]

60. Hate to say it, but sometimes these "strict constructionist" justices

are right.

The Constitution really is on the side of the people, not the Bush version of government.

mark