As you may know, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, last seen promoting states’ rights and vowing to fight on when it comes to illegal immigration, and her Attorney General, Tom Horne, had filed a suit as plaintiffs against the federal government, requesting permission to move ahead with Arizona’s medical marijuana program implementation. This was ridiculous, since no other governor has needed federal permission to move ahead with medical marijuana implementation, even though some others have also tried to use the red herring threat of federal action to slow implementation. Apparently, the DoJ also thinks Brewer’s claims are ridiculous, and it said as much in its withering Motion to Dismiss brief, in which it took apart each of the state of Arizona’s arguments, urging the court to dismiss the case. If the court dismisses the case, Brewer’s logical course of action would be to fully implement Arizona’s medical marijuana law, including licensing more than 100 dispensaries, though given her intransigence, that course of action is sadly not a given.
Throughout its brief, the DoJ basically said that the state of Arizona has no case and that plaintiffs Gov. Brewer and AG Horne have invented a controversy where none exists. Further, the brief notes that a state is not allowed to bring a case asking two sides to fight it out, without taking a position on the law in question, belying Gov. Brewer’s claims upon the suit’s filing of being a neutral party seeking “clarity.” The American judicial process simply does not work that way. In its brief, the DoJ’s criticism of the plaintiffs’ complaint was often direct and sometimes even slightly mocking, which was definitely appreciated by this reader.
The brief attacks the premise of Arizona’s suit in several ways. It says that the suit does not raise a substantial federal question (which it must in order to be heard first in federal court) because it asks for a declaratory judgment on the validity of a state law. It is amusing to watch the federal government explain Constitutional Law 101 to Gov. Brewer, noting that, “there is no federal jurisdiction of a suit by a state to declare the validity of its regulations despite possibly conflicting federal law” (p. 6). The brief also states directly that Arizona has not asserted any “actual, concrete controversy” in its complaint. The brief criticizes the plaintiffs for not identifying a controversy between the parties in the suit and notes the plaintiffs’ failure to take a side as a fatal flaw in the lawsuit, accusing the state of Arizona of “attempt[ing] to manufacture disputes among other parties” (p. 9). The brief criticizes Arizona’s decision to create twenty fictitious defendants, ten on one side of the law and ten on the other, states its doubts about the existence of the hypothetical defendants, and notes definitively that “parties cannot have ‘adverse legal interests’ necessary to establish a live controversy, when one party (particularly the plaintiff) professes to take neither side of the dispute” (p. 10). Finally, the brief denies that Arizona even has standing to raise such a claim, as it has not suffered any “injury in fact.” Basing standing on the idea that some Arizonans disagree about federal law’s effect on Arizona’s medical marijuana law will not work, nor will an unspecific suggestion about a “supposed risk that Arizona citizens will lose revenue or property” (pp. 11-12).
More importantly on a national level, this DoJ brief appears to affirm the following interpretation of the Ogden and Cole Memorandums, along with other relevant case law and actual enforcement: that there has been no demonstration that the federal government is interested in prosecuting state employees for implementing state medical marijuana programs and issuing dispensary licenses. The DoJ cites the lack of any “genuine threat that any state employee will face imminent prosecution under federal law” (p. 2) and notes that “plaintiffs can point to no threat of enforcement against the State’s employees” (p. 10). The brief notes that Arizona has no “concrete plan to act in violation of the Controlled Substances Act,” as it has refused to accept dispensary applications and issue licenses (an act that MPP believes, based on relevant court precedent, would clearly not be such a violation). The brief notes that Arizona was not able to produce any threat, generalized or specific, directed towards its state employees, and it points to the omission of any state employee threats in Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke’s letter on the issue (p. 14). The brief dismisses Arizona’s suggestion that Arizona state employees are subject to federal prosecution as “mere speculation” (p. 15). It sums up this argument when it says:
Plaintiffs identify no prior instances in which the federal government has sought to prosecute state employees for the conduct vaguely described in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Without evidence of such prior prosecutions, Plaintiffs cannot credibly show a genuine threat of imminent prosecution in this case. (p. 15)
I don’t believe the United States Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, given the narrow and medically based nature of our program, will expend what are significantly lessening federal law enforcement resources in the context of the federal budget, on going after dispensaries in New Jersey, our Department of Health or other state workers who are helping to implement this program.
These recent events all suggest that the Department of Justice is interpreting its guidance to mean that state employees can fully implement medical marijuana programs, like those in Arizona and Rhode Island, with no fear of prosecution. So let’s get it done, Governors Brewer and Chaffee! Time is wasting, and people are hurting and need their medicine now.
Last week I wrote an article, ‘When Will Marijuana Be Legal?‘ The purpose of the article was to illustrate to readers that many consumers take the legalization movement for granted, and assume that legalization will come quick and easy. In actuality, due to the election cycle, fragmentation of the coalition, and outright laziness, recreational legalization is going to take longer than people think. Just look at the comments on that article and you will see what I am talking about.
The comments from that article inspired me to write today’s article. To give some background about my perspective, I have been an OMMP patient/caretaker/grower in Oregon since 2006. I have been a recreational consumer since 1993. I use my doctor endorsed medical marijuana often, especially on days where the pain is more prevalent. However, I also consume marijuana for recreational enjoyment as well. Oregon Revised Statutes do not provide guidance to the OMMP on how to differentiate between the two; if you are an OMMP patient you get to consume cannabis in a private area with State protection, whether it’s recreational or medical.
I was fighting for marijuana policy reform since the mid 90′s. Oregon did not get a medical marijuana program until 1998, and it wasn’t until years later that it was expanded to cover my ailments. Maybe I am a little biased due to the fact that I was fighting for recreational legalization before I was fighting for medical marijuana. However, I feel that just because I received my OMMP approval it doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t still fight for full legalization.
I have long dreamed of a day when I could consume without any fears of repercussion from law enforcement. Despite the fact that I have my paperwork on me at all times, I still worry that I am going to be confronted by a member of law enforcement that is on a personal mission to inject his/her views on the subject into their job. A cop can do whatever they want to do, and it’s up to the defendant to prove their innocence thereafter, despite the claim that we are a system of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Just ask anyone that has been falsely accused, and had to pay high legal fees to get their lives to the same status as before the cops’ wrath. I know there will be readers that will say, ‘then you can sue after you win!’ but let’s get serious, you have to have pay more legal fees, and maybe you win the next case as well. That’s not nearly as simple as ‘yes officer, I have cannabis on my person and/or in my vehicle, but it is legal, so kick rocks…’
I hope fellow medical marijuana patients understand that I hear their argument, and it is very valid. This was the comment from my previous article that I think sums up the mood of many mmj patients:
“I focus only on patient needs. We are struggling with just that issue. If you want to throw everything into the equation, you will never win in our lifetime…and patients will definitely lose. Don’t try to win your goal for legalization for everyone on the backs of patients. It’s seriously pissing us off.”
I understand where many patients are coming from when they feel this way. They use marijuana to alleviate their horrendous conditions, and see teenagers at the clinic getting their medical card/prescription when they look perfectly healthy. As with any government program, there are going to be loopholes and people taking advantage of the situation. It is absolutely disgusting to think that there are so many people suffering that need medical marijuana to tolerate living, and that there are people faking conditions to get a card. However, speaking as both a patient and a proponent of recreational legalization, I do honestly feel that we are in the same fight together.
Another reader made a very valid point:
“If there were assurances that the program would be left alone, AS IS, I might take your side. However, if you think that the medicinal cannabis business is safe and secure, guess again. The right wingers dismantled the entire system. They just gave the medicinal cannabis program in Colorado some revisions that are designed to make the program unworkable, and the guy who designed that fiasco said that he’s coming to California to “help us with our problem”. – Kevin
I think Kevin is correct. Without the votes of both medical marijuana members/sympathizers and recreational users, both groups are left open to attacks from those that wish to harm safe access. I can’t speak for all jurisdictions, but up here in Oregon, most of the members of one cannabis organization are also members of other cannabis organizations, both medical and recreational. These people also don’t think it’s cool to ‘ride the backs of patients,’ but they realize that there are clear benefits to banding together with like minded people.
Just as there are many in the MMJ community that are not happy about the recreational crowd, there are some in the recreational crowd that feel the same way toward the MMJ community. I have more acquaintances that are recreational users than medical consumers by far. There are not a lot, but there are some nonetheless, that feel the MMJ community turned their back on recreational users once the programs were started because cardholders already had their legal coverage. One guy I know very well always says, ‘We (recreational community) voted for medical marijuana in Oregon, when is it our turn for full legalization? All my card holding friends don’t go to any rallies anymore, they don’t collect signatures anymore, they just protect their own interests instead of going all the way on this thing.’ Like I said, that’s not MY opinion, but it’s something that I think is part of the conversation and comes up often.
What I do feel is that we are in this together. As a cardholder myself, I feel that medical marijuana should come first out of compassion, but that the fight should go on for full legalization out of a desire to apply logic to government. Anyone that has consumed marijuana, medical or recreational, will attest that it is not the menace that some make it out to be. In fact, it is a wonder plant that can be applied to so many facets of living. I am lucky enough to live in a state that recognizes the medicinal powers of marijuana. I wish it would be more widely applied so we could get the nation off of so many other harmful drugs. I also wish people could use it legally to relax from a long day instead of consuming large amounts of alcohol.
What do readers think? I welcome views from both sides, and as always, even people that disagree with me. I would much rather be wrong and create a constructive conversation than be right and bring zero awareness and education. Do you think that lumping the two causes together hinders the progress of either cause? I look forward to what people have to say.
Afer five hours of debate, on Tuesday Connecticut became the 13th state in the Union to decriminalize marijuana. The state’s House of Representatives passed new legislation and Governor Dan Malloy is expected to sign off on it.
The House voted 90 to 57 in favor of SB 1014.
According to the new rules first-time offenders caught in possession of less than a half-ounce of pot will be hit with a 150 ticket; repeat offenders would get at least $200 but a maximum of 500 per offense. If you’re under 21, you’ll get a two-month suspension of your driver’s license.
“Final approval of this legislation accepts the reality that the current law does more harm than good — both in the impact it has on people’s lives and the burden it places on police, prosecutors and probation officers of the criminal justice system,” Malloy said in the statement.
State Sen. Toni Boucher (R-Wilton) in a statement on her website said that decriminalization sends the wrong message to the state’s youth about the risks of marijuana use.
“What kind of message does this send to our children?” Senator Boucher said in the statement. “This law undermines a fundamental lesson that our schools, social service programs and parents teach our children: that taking drugs is bad for you.”
Connecticut’s non-partisan Office of Fiscal Analysis however estimates the bill will save the state nearly $1 million in court costs and attorney salaries and net upwards of $1.4 million in new fines and fees.
Antoine Dodson in the “Bed Intruder Song” video from YouTube
Antoine “Bed Intruder” Dodson, whose TV news rant against a would-be rapist became a viral music video and his expressway to stardom, appeared in an Alabama city court on Monday, facing marijuana possession charges along with four other misdemeanors.
Shortly after his court appearance, Dodson posted a series of defiant tweets poking fun at the proceedings, reports CNN.
“Court was bullshit,” said one tweet.
“Damn I didn’t kill anyone did I??? It’s Just weed!!! You know that stuff that grows like grass?? Yeah that! !!” said another tweet to his 37,000-plus followers.
“Damn!! I never been in jail except that time in grade school,” he tweeted. “You remember!!!”
Dodson was pulled over for speeding Saturday night in Huntsville, Alabama, and was subsequently arrested. He was released a few hours later.
The 20-year-old became suddenly famous after one viewer turned his television news rant about a break-in at his sister’s apartment into a music video that went viral on the Internet. The video has received almost 20 million views on YouTube.
Dodson’s “hide your kids, hide your wife” rant against someone who climbed in his sister’s bedroom window caught the imagination of the public.
The hit, “Bed Intruder,” inspired multiple covers and parodies, including an a cappella version performed by university singing group.
Dodson grabbed his 15 minutes of fame with both hands, quickly capitalizing on his success with numerous TV appearances, including one at the 2010 BET Hip-Hop Awards in October where he performed “Bed Intruder.”
“I don’t deserve to be here,” Dodson told reporters as he left the courtroom on Monday. “I never got in trouble for nothing in my life. I got pulled over in my Benz, Mercedes E-Class.”
Dodson is due back in court on July 19, according to CBS News.
Police fire percussion stun bombs and rubber bullets at the Marcha da Maconha protesters, São Paulo, Brazil, May 21, 2011
Prohibited from holding a “March for Marijuana,” cannabis advocates in Brazil’s largest city had agreed with police to protest instead in defense of freedom of expression. But minutes after allowing the march, the Military Police brutally attacked the unarmed demonstrators with stun bombs, tear gas and rubber bullets.
About 1,000 people showed up for the rally Saturday in São Paulo’s financial heart. Television images showed riot troops charging toward the protesters when they tried to march down the busy Paulista Avenue.
Protesters, journalists covering the event, drivers who happened to be traveling in the opposite direction of the march and people who were simply walking down the street at the time became victims of police violence, reports Ricardo Galhardo at Último Segundo.
Henrique Carneiro, a professor of history at the University of São Paulo who was taking part in the march, was injured after being hit in the head with a percussion stun bomb and had to be taken to the hospital.
“Marcha da Maconha” advocates protest a judge’s decision to ban their march. They instead marched for freedom of expression, but were brutally attacked by police anyway
Four of the protesters were arrested.
Students Lucas Gordon and Julio Delmanto, both members of the group ‘Desentorpecendo a Razão’ (Stretching Reason), which organized the march, were arrested and taken to the 78th Police Precincte with allegations of “disobedience.”
Arthur Tobias was reportedly arrested after police officers overran him, and a boy identified only as Cunha were taken to the 4th Police Precinct.
The original aim of the organizers was to hold a march for the legalization of marijuana, the “Marcha da Maconha.” However, Judge Teodomiro Mendes, of the Court of Justice of São Paulo, on Friday afternoon banned that march.
At that point, organizers agreed to instead hold a march in defense of freedom of expression, only to be attacked by the very police who had agreed to allow the demonstration.
So picture this: a 19-year old Wisconsin Marijuana / Hash dealer just got some new product, tried it out and couldn’t wait to share it with his “associates”. So he sends out a text message simply stating, “You want to buy some hash?” Little did he know, the number he texted went through to a 10-year old boy who happened to be playing with the phone at the time. Here’s where the story gets interesting, the phone actually belonged to the 10-year old’s grandfather who just so happened to be a State Trooper. So the State Trooper sets up a deal through text messages and arrested the dealer on the spot. That is some high stuff if I’ve ever heard it before!
The man’s vehicle and residence were searched, Clarke said. Troopers found a baggie in the vehicle containing 5 grams of hash. The searches also turned up drug paraphernalia believed used to smoke marijuana and a prescription bottle with 1.5 grams of hash, Clarke said.
The case has been referred to the Waukesha County district attorney’s office. Charges of felony possession with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia are being sought, Clarke said.
The fact that I know he was probably high and he got himself arrested makes me furious! He’s giving us a bad name out there! But this wasn’t the first time we saw a pothead get himself arrested because he was high, so I guess I have to shrug it off. Check out the full story here.
END OF STOCK SALE!! All 10*gs are now 8*! Both 8*gs are now 5*!! Don't forget about our edible specials & glass… wp.me/p1r6rh-1bG1 year ago
END OF STOCK SALE!! All 10*gs are now 8*! Both 8*gs are now 5*!! Don't forget about our edible specials & glass specials! Stop by before 10p 1 year ago
by Noah Mamber
