U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Law Does Not Pre-empt State MMJ Law

[RainDog]

http://www.thedailychronic.net/2011/7350/supreme-court-state-medical-marijuana-laws-not-preempted-by-federal-law/

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that “it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws.”

The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today’s decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement’s obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.

“It’s now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law,” said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state.”

“The source of local law enforcement’s resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana,” said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. “This should send a message to the federal government that it’s time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws.”

[MannyGoldstein]

1. What next? Gay marriage?

The world is becoming unhinged.

[Lionessa]

2. Now if we can just get the feds to quit ignoring state laws.

[villager]

3. Sadly, this administration shares that knack with its predecessors

n/t

[RainDog]

4. The executive branch and Congress need to respond to the will of the American people

because, after more than a decade of votes and polls that indicate an overwhelming majority of voters want to get rid of the lies that have been part of American law since the 1970s - they are doing a disservice to this nation to continue to enforce laws based upon those lies.

[Lionessa]

5. i agree but not because a majority of people, that's a slippery slope I won't go near.

I agree because it is the right thing, it's been scientifically been proven to be the right choice, and it has been proven to be less harmful than other legal "sins".

Not because a majority, who on many occasions in our past have been known to gang up on the wrong side of right.

[RainDog]

6. I agree - but the reason a majority want the law to change is because of the science

Which is interesting because there is an entire bureaucracy that exists, at the federal level, whose entire purpose is to create propaganda to influence American's opinion on this issue. That's the Office of National Drug Control Policy

That's why the Drug Czar exists. The U.S. spends a lot of amount of money on failed propaganda. Tax payers support an office dedicated to lying to the American people, no matter what facts indicate.

By law, the drug czar must oppose any attempt to legalize the use (in any form) of illicit drugs.[12] According to the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998"[13] the director of the ONDCP

(12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that -- 1. is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and 2. has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;

So, we have a federal bureaucracy dedicated to lying about this issue. And yet, they have failed because the science and people's experiences do not match their propaganda.

via wiki -

In August 2001, the office told a Congressional committee that its National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign "has been the most visible symbol of the federal government's commitment to drug prevention," and that the office was "investing $7 million a year in performance measurement to determine the effectiveness" of the campaign. The statement by said "We believe there is a strong body of evidence that indicates the campaign is working, as planned, to change drug attitudes, intentions and use."[17]

In 2002, according to a multiyear study by the research firm hired by the office, teenagers exposed to federal anti-drug ads were no less likely to use drugs for having viewed them, and some young girls said they were even more likely to give drugs a try. Walters blamed poor ads that weren't resonating with teenagers. Walters promised in Senate testimony in 2002 that he would show results within a year or admit failure, and Congress agreed to extend the campaign through 2003 while cutting funding for the ads from $170 million in 2002 to $150 million in 2003. An entirely new advertising campaign was created.[18]

In February 2005, a research company hired by the office and the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported that the government's ad campaign aimed at dissuading teens from using marijuana, a campaign that cost $1.4 billion between 1998 and 2006, did not work: "greater exposure to the campaign was associated with weaker anti-drug norms and increases in the perceptions that others use marijuana." The research company was paid $42.7 million for the five-year study. After the February 2005 report was received, the office continued the ad campaign, spending $220 million on the anti-marijuana ads in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.[19]

This is another example of how prohibition, as national policy, is bad policy.

[Lionessa]

7. Well we hope that's the reason, but in the end it doesn't matter,

majority opinion should not be a factor in deciding individual rights.

[RainDog]

9. Since the govt can no longer control information about this topic

support for legalization has grown.

It has always been bad policy - but, just as with slavery, bad policy remains for a long time if people do not fight against it.

The reality is that the federal govt seems to care little about whether or not something is good or bad policy until people start to make it too uncomfortable to continue that policy.

While I would hope that those who are elected to office are not moral cowards and will stand up for what is right, rather than what is demanded - history doesn't make that case for politicians.

What matters, in terms of the will of the people in this case, is that they have been able to go to the voting booth to indicate they know the policy is wrong. It's not about a majority vs rights - it's about people who have fought against bad law.

That's what matters in terms of the will of the people. The law was always bad, always based upon racism and lies. But the law stands until people stand up to bad law in too many examples in this nation.

[iscooterliberally]

24. Thanks for fighting the good fight RainDog.

The irony here is that this is about a minority opinion dictating civil liberties for everyone, not a majority opinion. People need to wake up to the fact that the 'war on drugs' is about far more than just wanting to legally get high on some illicit substance. These policies have been rotting our democracy to the core for decades now. So many bad things that are happening in our country today have been enabled by the lies of the drug prohibitionists. The prohibitionists are actually pro crime and anti liberty, but their propaganda has people believing the opposite.

[RainDog]

26. thanks for those kind words

I agree - the war on drugs has been a war on the American people and their civil rights. It's not simply about an individual right to choice, or the fact that the laws that exist were based upon and are now enacted based upon racism - or just the lies that have demonstrated what an utterly corrupt system the federal govt has become, just based upon this issue.

The war on drugs has systematically done away with so many constitutional protections the whole issue should make anyone concerned.

Anyone who thinks this sham has accomplished anything good is just a victim of propaganda.

[CactusJak]

8. That's pretty much what Arizona is arguing at the SC in regard to SB1070

isn't it? States rights and all that.

[Lionessa]

10. Yes, however the OPs title is inaccurate. Fed law does outrank State law for

federal officers, just not state or local officers. I guess that's pretty much the same though, huh?

[truedelphi]

14. it is indeed a very tough road to walk - if you are a federal

officer and you cannot get the local cops to support you.

And believe me, here in Northern Calif.; even the sheriffs are pissed at the DOJ and the other entities that are taking apart the medial marijuana clinics.

Obama's DOJ looks corrupt when they do this type of thing. One of the only groups benefiting from taking apart what the state voters decided upon are the Mexican cartels. Does Obama really want credit for aiding and abetting the cartels?

The entire summer of 2011, every time I picked up a newspaper in Northern calif., there was yet another news story about another police group praising the fact due to local tax revenue produced by the medical marijuana clinics, police were able to retain their trained officers and their pension funds. And school kids got to keep more of their teachers.

Since Obama was not that interested in California's economic plight, letting Tim Geithner refuse us a 20 billion dollar friggin' loan, he really should stay the way out of our local remedies to both our illnesses and our economic distress.

[RainDog]

11. Arizona is arguing against human rights

while the tactic may be states' rights - the application is very different.

Sadly, if the Federal govt. had not insisted upon enforcing law that was based upon racism and profiling of particular voting populations (i.e. Nixon's enemies list) we wouldn't have had this CA case before the Supreme Court at all.

So, yes, it's ironic that the Federal Govt., in this case, is on the side that profiles minorities - which may be an indication of just how bad the Federal law is, seems to me.

You could ask why the Federal Govt. has so failed regarding this issue that states have to resort to the courts in order to overcome the corruption of federal-level policy.

Since marijuana arrests target minorities - Hispanics and African-Americans - in this case, the Fed. Govt. shares more with Jan Brewer and Plessy v. Ferguson than with Brown v. the Board of Education.

In fact, at least one lawyer has claimed that, like Brown v. the Board of Education, recent Congressional action to allow the District of Columbia to enact the mmj law that citizens voted to enact is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

So, until we have better federal policy - it looks like this is what progressive states have to work with.

[truedelphi]

15. You say:

"In fact, at least one lawyer has claimed that, like Brown v. the Board of Education, recent Congressional action to allow the District of Columbia to enact the mmj law that citizens voted to enact is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

So, until we have better federal policy - it looks like this is what progressive states have to work with."
####

I was not alt all aware of the above, but it makes sense. Thanks for pointing it out.

[RainDog]

16. here's a link

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/congress_oks_medical_marijuana_everywhere_with_dc.php

D.C.'s medical marijuana law was the first time that the United States Congress had ever given its explicit assent to any state or local law that permits the medicinal use of marijuana -- and, according to a California attorney who specializes in health care compliance, that is enormously significant under the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

​In 2009, noting that it was "allowing" the voters of Washington, D.C., to vote on and implement that city's Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law, Congress approved medicinal cannabis in the federal District of Columbia, over which it has all governmental power.

Matthew Pappas: "Congress has turned over the area of medical marijuana to state and local governments"
​On December 2, 2011, in anticipation of the opening of medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation centers, the District's mayor released final rules for the program. Last month, the D.C. Council compromised on medical marijuana cultivation centers, a compromise agreement that limited the number of centers in each ward to six. The District of Columbia's medical marijuana program is now being implemented.

"States with medical marijuana programs should now be free from federal interference since Congress has allowed local control," attorney Matthew Pappas at Pappas Law Group, based in Long Beach, California, told Toke of the Town Monday afternoon. "Congress being the legislative branch of the federal sovereign and the only body that can change these laws has now done so by recognizing the voting rights of Washington, D.C., citizens."

This is something that would have to be argued - but it would be an "easy" way for Congress to deal with this issue without actually dealing with it - to say... oops. I guess that bad policy and law can no longer be upheld. Not that I think that will happen...

[freshwest]

12. I see this as a win for human rights, not because of the origin of the law. I'm encouraged by it.

If the federal government is needed to enforce civil rights over states rights that are infringing on the people's rights, fine.

If the states are doing something to harm individual rights, the federal government should step in. State government cherry picking laws to make more arrests is wrong and I hope this ends it.

This case was from 2005, a long time ago but I hope it ends the division in this country on the matter of MMJ and a personal choice for taking care of one's own health.

No matter who is enforcing individual rights anywhere, I support that. EOM.

[truedelphi]

13. Same hear. And a big shout out to raindog for

Posting about the SCOTUS decision!

[RainDog]

17. It's from Dec. 2011

I'm not aligned with any group or paid to track this - so I miss a lot.

[freshwest]

20. I'd have never known if you hadn't. This is the first I heard. Thanks!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

18. Misleading headline -- Actually, as stated in the story, "The U.S. Supreme Court REFUSED TO REVIEW

A refusal to review is not the same as a review. Or an opinion. Or a decision. Etc.

[bupkus]

21. Excuse me but doesn't the USSC refusal to review a case mean

That the lower court's ruling stands?

That's the way it's always been reported in the past.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. Of course that's what that means. In contrast, it does not mean (as improperly implied by the

headline writer at the Daily Chronic) that the Supreme Court made a decision to uphold the lower court's ruling.

If the Supreme Court had decided what the headline writer suggested, the Supreme Court's decision would be the law of the land in all 50 states and no California appellate courts or courts in other states could rule to the contrary.

The decision by the California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal is not even the law of the land in those counties in California not covered by California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal is limited to covering three geographical area. Division One is located in San Diego and has jurisdiction over matters from Imperial and San Diego Counties. Division Two is located in Riverside and has jurisdiction over matters from Inyo, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Division Three is located in Santa Ana and has jurisdiction over matters from Orange County.

The DCA made the right decision, but just as the California Supreme Court did not review the opinion, the United States Supreme Court did not review the opinion. No one should claim or imply that a decision was issued by the US Supreme Court.

Incidentally, the article also incorrectly states that the "City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court." I assume that you know why.

[DallasNE]

19. Does This Mean

That federal Marshall's, FBI agents , Park Rangers or even DHS agents could make an arrest in California? The scope is unclear from this writeup. A downside is that 10th-ers will try to run with this ball in other areas as well with States being urged to pass laws to repeal the Affordable Care Act (depending on actions from the Supreme Court next month), etc. I'm not sure I like this can of worms opened up by the Supreme Court.

[RainDog]

22. Federal agencies can make arrests in states.

What this said was that local law enforcement couldn't make arrests based upon federal law when the state law did not want people arrested for the same reason.

It's about the actions of local law enforcement in states with mmj laws.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/07/scotus-declines-to-review-appeals-court

U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a California appeals court ruling that said the state's medical marijuana laws are not pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act

That leaves the legal situation as I described it in the October issue of Reason: While the Court has held, based on a ridiculously broad reading of the Commerce Clause, that Congress has the authority to stop patients from growing and possessing marijuana for their own medical use, even when such use is allowed by state law, it has never held that states are obligated to ban what Congress bans or punish what Congress punishes. Such a ruling would render states mere subsidiaries of the national government, forced to mimic its laws and policies, thereby obliterating what remains of the federalist system established by the Constitution. Fortunately, the Court does not seem ready to go that far.

There remains the question of whether federal law bars state or local goverrnments from formally authorizing, as opposed to merely decriminalizing, production and distribution of medical marijuana. Two months ago, California's 2nd District Court of Appeal said it does and therefore overturned Long Beach's licensing system for medical marijuana dispensaries. Although that decision still allows local governments to regulate dispensaries, it has created uncertainties that will have to be resolved by the California Supreme Court.

[Meiko]

25. Even though

The medical marijuana law passed here in Arizona there is still a great deal of resentment for it. Dispensaries are having a hard time finding landlords that will rent to them once they find out what the business is. Even Jan Brewer tried to get the law overturned after it was voted in. Some apartment owners are requiring that their tenants sign a "no marijuana use form" it States that you cannot uses marijuana in your apartment for any reason because it is still against federal law. It's going to be an uphill battle.

[RainDog]

27. Do you know that Arizona has had to vote for the same law three times?

Arizona passed a mmj legalization initiative in the 1990s. The legislature created various ways to make it unenforceable. Then people had to vote for a law to keep the legislature from thwarting the will of the people. Then, people in Arizona had to vote for yet another mmj legalization measure - and yet, still Brewer and others are trying to make it impossible to enact the law in any reasonable way.

It seems to me, when you have a legislature and governor that work to prevent democracy - they should be booted out of office.

Since when were conservatives supposed to be the nannies for adults in this nation? Since they aligned with people who vote with them to oppress others rather than uphold conservative values.

Goldwater endorsed the 1996 bill.

Modern day conservatives are social totalitarians, imo, and there's nothing about their actions that tie them to actual principles of conservatism as a political movement.

[RainDog]

28. kick b/c I'm so pissed at what is going on now. n/t