State Medical Cannabis Laws are Final!

[Jim Finnel]

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision yesterday in which California state courts found that its medical cannabis law is not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court's decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis!

Yesterday's decision follows three years of strategic legal work by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) in a California case involving the return of wrongfully confiscated medicine. ASA needs your help to keep doing important work like this.

The Court's decision has broad implications for medical cannabis patients in the 13 states where medical cannabis is legal, and signals a sea change in the impasse between state and federal laws. Better adherence to state medical cannabis laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and other problems for patients, allowing for better implementation of medical cannabis laws in all states that have adopted them.

Medical cannabis advocates should be encouraged by opportunities for change in federal policy with a new Presidential Administration and shift in Congress. But until now, federal pre-emption has haunted patients whose state laws allow for medical cannabis use. This decision further clears the way for state implementation and adds new urgency to ASA's work in the nations capitol, where we have been working full-time to change federal policy since 2006.

ASA is working in the courts and in the halls of Congress to protect and expand patients rights and we are making a difference. We have won important victories in court, made significant inroads in Congress, and helped reframe the national debate about medical cannabis.



News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Americans for Safe Access
Copyright: 2008 Americans for Safe Access
Contact: info@safeaccessnow.org
Website: ASA : Advancing Legal Medical Marijuana Therapeutics and Research

 

[darkrail]

Wow, that sounds great. I mean really, really great!

The Federal court system has now confirmed what anyone who has read the Constitution already knew: state law should be all that matters.

Could someone tell me why this actually is NOT as great as it sounds? I mean, it sounds like this means there can't be federal raids on co-ops anymore. But I have a sneaky feeling that there still will be raids anyway. What am I missing here?

 

[Happy Kitty]

This is fantastic!!!! Now the feds need to follow state law and get out. We'll see, and keep our fingers crossed...

Peace

 

[Keith Lake]

Wow, that sounds great. I mean really, really great!

The Federal court system has now confirmed what anyone who has read the Constitution already knew: state law should be all that matters.

This is a huge victory in my opinion as well.

But I think it only applies to the States, in that state officers are bound to enforce state law not federal law

Could someone tell me why this actually is NOT as great as it sounds? I mean, it sounds like this means there can't be federal raids on co-ops anymore. But I have a sneaky feeling that there still will be raids anyway. What am I missing here?

I could be wrong but I don't think there's any enforceable relation to Federal raids in this ruling. Still it's a clear signal from the court supporting states rights.

I think this ruling means that the State of California has lost all recourse and have no further appeals to their claim that they don't have to return confiscated medicine. Their claim that they are just following Federal law has been rejected.

Unless by some longshot, the Supreme Court changes its mind and decides to hear another challenge in the future - this ruling is final!

MMJ laws just grew some much needed teeth

 

[GanjaGardener]

If nothing else this is one more baby step toward sanity

 

[greens]

so with this law is it legal for my college in california to deny my presciption for marijuana for drug tests if our school is federally funded?? if you can help that would be appreciated ,
greens

 

[In_Hollywood]

Hi All, I'm confused about this latest Court ruling! I live (last 4 yrs.) in Federally funded/subsidized HUD housing (200 units here, mostly Elderly & a few Disabled - like myself, on S.S.I.) and am a CA Prop. 215 MMJ Patient . . . . I am being Evicted due to the Resident Manager entering my apt. without a 24 hr. notice and finding my 5 Mature, 2'-3' MMJ plants & 6 small clones! Since it's a Federal HUD housing building, he says he has to evict me - due to "illegal drugs/growing on premisses" due to FEDERAL law, not State law! Can this latest Court ruling . . . help protect me from this eviction, now??? ANY ideas or thoughts would be deeply appreciated! Thanks. =Judy= P.S. I'm having a hard time finding an affordable 1 bedroom, 1 bath apt. for $700. to $800. in L.A., now . . . . many places require 2-3 times the rent amount - to rent . . . my SSI is about $870-$890. a month!! UGH! Here in HUD housing I pay only $213. a month for a 1 bedroom, 1 bath!!

 

[Keith Lake]

I'm so sorry to hear of your dilemma.

I'm not a lawyer but my lay opinion is that this ruling is unrelated and probably an area of contract law. I would think the legality of the unannounced entry, presumably in non-emergency circumstance, and the wording of the no-drugs clause in your lease would be the points of attack.

Most states have a legal referral service through the bar, and most allow for 30-45 minute free initial consultation if you use the refereral.

I'd recommend you get the opinion of a professional for such an important issue.

Best wishes in your fight, let us know how you make out