One Large Step!!!!!!!!

[SnSstealth]

2. Federal Court Rules that DEA's Actions in California May be Unconstitutional

On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that the DEA crackdown on medical cannabis in California may not be allowed under the 10th Amendment, saying that enforcement of U.S. drug laws can go too far if it seeks to interfere with state authority.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose denied a Bush administration request to dismiss the lawsuit by the ACLU, Santa Cruz city and county officials, and members of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a patient collective whose medical cannabis was seized by federal agents in a 2002 raid.

Since 1996, the DEA's aggression in California has included raids of locally regulated dispensaries and collectives, property seizure threats to landlords, attempts to intimidate and punish doctors, and prosecutions of patient caregivers. These tactics have come under fire for years by ASA and others as an attempt to undermine California's constitutional right to enact health care policies that protect patients within our state. This ruling in the United States District Court says that we may have been right all along.

The suit claims federal prosecutors have tried to disrupt the California law by targeting critical participants in the state system - doctors who approved their patients' cannabis use, local officials who issued state-approved identification cards to patients, local governments whose zoning allowed dispensaries, and medical cannabis dispensing collectives who cooperated with local governments. Federal authorities' goal, the plaintiffs alleged, is to make it impossible for the state to distinguish between medical and recreational use of cannabis and render the state law unenforceable, interfering with California's constitutional power to enact its own laws.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the federal actions in the past (except for the government's attempt to strip licenses from doctors simply for talking about medical cannabis), Fogel said the plaintiffs in this case may be able to show that the federal government exceeded its constitutional authority by trying to force California to repeal its medical cannabis law. This case addresses the fundamental underlying problem with California's ability to perfect its law: federal interference and undermining of that law. It could be an exciting end to the DEA's attacks on medical cannabis patients in California and across the country!

wrap your lips around THAT and smoke it!!!!
whiskeytango

SnSstealth Reviewed by SnSstealth on 08-24-2008. One Large Step!!!!!!!! 2. Federal Court Rules that DEA's Actions in California May be Unconstitutional On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that the DEA crackdown on medical cannabis in California may not be allowed under the 10th Amendment, saying that enforcement of U.S. drug laws can go too far if it seeks to interfere with state authority. U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose denied a Bush administration request to dismiss the lawsuit by the ACLU, Santa Cruz city and county officials, and members of Rating: 5

[8182KSKUSH]

I am going to go out and look for more info on this now! Holy shit shit shit! I have so many questions, I will wait until I get more info but all I can say is HOLY SHIT SHIT ON SHIT STICK!
I am calling Ronnie right now.

[SnSstealth]

info from safeaccessnow. Sorry I forgot to put that in there...
Its about time huh?
whiskeytango

[8182KSKUSH]

Ok I am there, having a hard time finding it though? Was this a federal court decision? Please link! PLease!

[SnSstealth]

ASA's Online Discussion Forums / ASA CA Weekly Alert 8-22--08

[8182KSKUSH]

OK, I found the post on their forum.
What the hell does "may be unconstitutional" mean? Did the federal court come down with a ruling or is it that they are just letting the case go to trial? Anyone have more info or links to more info on this?

[SnSstealth]

In the first decision of its kind, a federal judge has ruled that California's medical marijuana advocates may go forward with a claim that the federal government has a pattern of drug law enforcement intended to subvert California law in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, in San Jose, Calif., said he will allow Santa Cruz County to go forward with its claim that federal authorities deliberately are seeking to frustrate the state's ability to determine whether an individual's use of marijuana is permitted medical use, or illegal recreational use.

Medical marijuana advocates contend the federal government has engaged in a calculated campaign to force states to repeal medical marijuana use laws, in violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves states' powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said the federal government maintains the power to enforce federal marijuana laws, even in the dozen states that have made medical marijuana legal.

But the Court's Gonzales v. Raich ruling left individual state laws untouched.

Santa Cruz passed an ordinance that creates a government office responsible for providing medical marijuana directly to patients, in part to test the reach of the Raich decision.

The lawsuit, County of Santa Cruz v. Gonzales, C03-1802JF, by Santa Cruz County against the U.S. attorney general alleges the federal government has targeted enforcement to make it impossible for California to implement and enforce its law and force the state to recriminalize medical marijuana use.

The suit alleges federal prosecutors threatened to punish California doctors who recommend marijuana, threatened officials who issued medical pot identification cards, interfered with zoning plans to allow pot dispensaries and targeted for arrest those providers who cooperate closely with municipalities.

The suit alleges the actions make it impossible for the state to distinguish between authorized use and unauthorized recreational users in the state.

The federal government responded in papers that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held the plain terms of the Controlled Substances Act do not violate the 10th Amendment by directing actions of the state. Based on that ruling, federal officials argued the Santa Cruz case had to be dismissed, saying the case is nothing more than a claim of selective enforcement.

Fogel disagreed and allowed the case to proceed.

Federal Judge Backs Medical Pot Activists' Suit Against Government, Feds to be sued // Current

[theforthdrive]

wow, a federal judge standing up! thats crazy. I agree that this is a giant small step. all that was said is that he wouldnt throw the case out because they MAY be on to something! now if this judge has the testicular fortitude to rule in their favor is the real question!

LOL, $20 bucks this guy smokes!

Jeremy Fogel | Stanford Law School

[painretreat]

Thanks WT! :thumbsup:

Now that they have seized so much from so many. It is about time!! I am happy to hear this, yet remain reserved!:thumbsup:

Like all legal things, may take too much time! :hippy:

Ole' Arnie has a 'cigar' smoke shack he put at the Capitol office's. Bet he tokes out there, too! If he spent more time doing what he is there for! Not our first Actor Governor though! pr :rastasmoke:

[8182KSKUSH]

Wow,
THis really is a big deal and could have huge implications for anyone (Ronnie) that is currently serving time, or going to trial (In Oct). I think this is worthy of being followed all the way to the end and receiving constant updates of this case here! Mods, is there any way we can have a thread started and stuck just for the purposes of following this case? Please pretty please with keef on top!
SnS you have struck gold here. This is the case will hopefully if won, set a new precedent!