NORML Attorneys Matt Kumin, David Michael and Alan Silber have filed suit in the four federal districts in California to challenge the Obama Administration's recent crackdown on medical marijuana operations in the Golden State. Aided by expert testimony from NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano and research from California NORML Director Dale Gieringer, the suits seek an injunction against the recent federal intrusion into state medical marijuana laws at least and at most a declaration of the unconstitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act with respect to state regulation of medical marijuana.
The NORML attorneys allege the federal government has engaged in entrapment of California patients and their caregivers. They point to the courts' dismissal of County of Santa Cruz, WAMM et al. v. Eric Holder et al. where the Department of Justice (DOJ) "promised a federal judge that it had changed its policy toward the enforcement of its federal drug laws relative to California medical cannabis patients." So after 2009, California providers had reason to believe that the federal government had changed its policy. The legal argument is called 'judicial estoppel', which basically means that courts can't hold true to a fact in one case and then disregard it in another.
Kumin, Michael, and Silber also argue the government has engaged in 'equitable estoppel', which most people commonly think of as 'entrapment'. Under established principles of estoppel and particularly in the context of the defense of estoppel by entrapment, defendants to a criminal action are protected and should not be prosecuted if they have reasonably relied on statements from the government indicating that their conduct is not unlawful. That principle should be applied to potential defendants as well, the plaintiffs in this action. Such parties, courts have noted, are "persons sincerely desirous of obeying the law". They "accepted the information as true and were...not on notice to make further inquiries." U.S. v. Weitzenhoff, 1 F. 3d 1523, 1534 (9th Cir. 1993).
The attorneys have also employed constitutional arguments based on the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 9th Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The NORML attorneys argue that threatening seizure of property and criminal sanctions violates the rights of the people to "consult with their doctors about their bodies and health."
More at this
NORML link.
As one who would benefit greatly from medical cannabis, I'm grateful for the work NORML and other organizations have done and will do on to advance understanding of medical cannabis, protect those who are legally using & prescribing it according to state laws & fighting for the legalization of medical cannabis (and all cannabis, in the case of NORML). And I"m beyond pissed at our current administration for standing in the way of medical science when it comes to this substance. Its medical uses and relative safety profile are clear, other governments around the world have acknowledged that current policies are backward and should be abandoned in favor of freeing up the study of cannabis' many medical efficacies and yet this administration remains not only entrenched in an anti-scientific position but stands against the will of the people who, unlike the President, appear to understand and are strongly in support of the legalization of medical cannabis. Like so many other instances (e.g., single payer), the government stands in the way of the will of the people and good, knowledge-based policy.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
