Colorado Cannabis Confrontation: A Patient and a State Judge Take on the F

[andyjackson1828]

What started as a small-time drug raid that never should have occurred has now blossomed into a confrontation between a Colorado judge and the United States Justice Department. Hayden resident Donald Nord, 57, suffers a variety of maladies and uses marijuana for relief. He is a licensed medical marijuana patient in compliance with Colorado's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 2000. Local police knew he was a medical marijuana patient and was growing his own medicine. But that didn't stop the Grand Routt and Moffatt Narcotics Enforcement Team (GRAMNET), a federally-funded anti-drug task force, from obtaining a search warrant, raiding Nord's home, and removing his lights, plants, and related materials on October 14.

Nord has been totally disabled since the mid-1980s, he said, citing a litany of health problems, including phlebitis and blood clots, gall bladder surgery, pancreas problems, removal of a kidney, diabetes, and necropathy in the soles of his feet. "It is very difficult for me to walk," he said, "it feels like there are hard rocks in my shoes." But that's not all. Last week, Nord was again hospitalized, this time for prostate surgery and bladder infections from previous hospitalizations. "I have a very hard time relaxing enough at night to where I can get to sleep so I use marijuana for pain and to get rest. I am on complete disability and my income is $655 a month," he told DRCNet.

"I told them I was a registered medical marijuana patient, but they said they're federal agents and my certificate doesn't mean anything to them," Nord related. "I don't think that's right. The DEA agent, Doug Cortinovis, wanted to throw me in jail, but Chief Jody Lenahan said he didn't think that was a good idea given my medical conditions. The chief and I sat at the table and talked while Cortinovis searched the place. I had shown the chief my certificate when I first got it. He knew I had it. He said he hoped this didn't hurt our friendship."

Nord's lawyer, Kris Hammond, sent a copy of Nord's certificate to Routt County Judge James Garrecht. Prosecutors filed no charges against Nord, and Garrett ordered that Nord's property be returned, including two ounces of marijuana. On December 23, the task force brought back Nord's equipment, but not his medicine. A week after that, Hammond filed a contempt motion against the task force members "for failing to follow the Colorado Constitution and a judge's orders" by not returning the marijuana.

The rest at...

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/322/colorado.shtml

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. What??

Someone said something about pot??? Where??? :hippie: :smoke:

[Must_B_Free]

2. enforcement of mental slavery

what ever happened to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[Pale_Rider]

3. Only if you are a repug ...

... are you entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (and health).

BTW: Welcome to DU andyjackson1828! :hi:

[Virgil]

4. This is a much bigger thing than you can imagine

What federal prohibition of cannabis did was to create hedgemony withing the US long before we would export the concept. Judge Gray, who is now a converted Republican running for Senate in California for the Libertarian Party, says it is the drug wars that first ignored the 9th and 10th amendments. There is also the issue of inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers really never defined those rights but most people would think generally that you can do what you want as long as the act does not harm someone. The prohibitionist would say it is not a victimless crime. They would be sure and say crime instead of act. The media choses a time tested script in its complicity with the USG. That is why the word prohibition probably seems strange to you. I use it quite freely as the real issue of harm and of our human rights is prohibition. The government does not want you to use the word prohibition and I cannot say prohibition enough. The prohibitionist also do not want people to break the silence that is their greatest strategy. That is why I am typing- to break the silence and insert reason. The Constitution sets out to define the limits of power that the government would have so as not to trample on people that are not engaged in an act that harms others. Tell that to a drug warrior.

This is a big deal and it would be best to read Kaptinemo's response in comment3 to understand the real importance of this issue- http://tinyurl.com/24cnr This is as big an issue that exist today. Please read his comment to understand this issue better.

[RainDog]

5. To allow state's right to be dismissed at the whim of

the sitting Federal power...

Yes, this is a further erosion of the separation of powers which our founders so wisely put into place at every intersection of powers and interests of our govt.

Another poster on that site had an excellent comment which I had not thought about before now (since I've never lived in a state which bothered to have the guts to actually do things for the benefit of their citizens over the objections of Federal power. )

That other poster noted that Nevada had legalized prostitution and gambling for many years.

Yet that state right to govern differently on what others viewed as vice or crime of illegal actitvity was not subject to the harassment that the DoJ and the DEA, under Ashcroft, are doing to states over the medical marijuna issue.

Why isn't this precedent an example of the unequal application of laws according to what is prohibited?

[Virgil]

7. So far Nevada has protected its states rights to write laws

I even hate to mention the storm over same sex marriages, because it gets complicated in a hurry when people get married in one state and move to another. The USG uses the commerce clause to give it authority in the area of cannabis prohibition. Because society is so mobile, I think as bad as I hate to say it, the USG can make a case in the area of same sex marriages. It really is too complicated and filled with Christian fundamentalism to get involved with for me.

The easiest comparable issue is the state law concerning doctor assisted suicide when people were at the end of life in Oregon. As soon as they passed it, Ashcroft was all over it in his fundy, Crisco-annointing way. I think the 9th Circuit told him to butt out, which he should have had enough sense to do in the first place.

He is a proclaimed Federalist which advocates the Constitutional limits set on the Federal power. But like many things, we see the misadministration say one thing and do another. Bush also said before the elections that states could do as they wished with medical cannabis. As soon as he took power there was an immediate escalation against patients and the doctors themselves. The DEA collects a fee for giving doctors the right to prescribe medicines. It went up pretty considerably too about a year ago.

[RainDog]

8. States Rights, as a term

in my mind has for so long been co-opted by my association of the issue with segregationists and racists and the issue of traffic in human slavery...

which is a perversion of the issue, isn't it, because those "rights" were based upon disenfranchisement in the first place.

it's sad that now, when the heirs of those original states rights arguments find themselves in control of the Federal govt, they have simply switched their "rights" preference to reflect the same perversion of the issue when they were on the "state" side of the issue...

which is an abridgement of freedoms for other Americans based upon their own bias.

[Virgil]

9. States were countries

The best way to see states is to view them as countries. The European union tried to adopt a Constitution that all countries could embrace. It fell apart a few months ago, because it is hard to agree. The best way to view our Constitution is to pretend we are now a European Country working out an agreement on a union for purposes of defense and commerce.

The states had to have a common defense because, any European power could have easily taken any one state had there not been an agreement on a common defense. What the Constitution did was to outline what powers the governments would yield to create a common defense and commerce. It is best to think of the states as countries when thinking of the Constitution. The federal government has far exceeded its authority and userped power from the states. That is what makes it all so sickening about Bush and Ashcroft going off on federal power when they campaigned as Federalist which seek to role back federal power. That is why they are not conservatives like Pat Buchanan. And of course they are not compassionate either. They even call their lies, spin.

[Jacobin]

6. Excellent. I'm heartened to see state court judges standing up

to the Asscrack Thugs