Jump to content

This Case Outcome Will Have Huge Implications On Medical Marijuana


Recommended Posts

@KomornLawMI

 

 

 

This case will have huge implications on the rest of the 14 medical marijuana states. This decision will most likely be used in all 14 states, by attorney’s prosecutors and defense attorneys for patients and caregivers, as precedent to argue that either Federal Law does in fact trump state law, or that both can coexist together, and all the medical marijuana acts in all states are not illegal federally. The decision could affect not only criminal cases, but have impact on those 28-29 cities that have enacted moratoriums or ordinances based upon the premise that the MMMA is illegal under federal law, and therefore can be legislated as prohibited. A ruling by this Court that Mr. Rice can argue the Medical Marijuana Defense in Federal Court suggest that those 28-29 cites are wrong and the legislation would need to be reexamined.

 

A very important case the medical marijuana community should keep on its radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@KomornLawMI

 

 

 

This case will have huge implications on the rest of the 14 medical marijuana states. This decision will most likely be used in all 14 states, by attorney’s prosecutors and defense attorneys for patients and caregivers, as precedent to argue that either Federal Law does in fact trump state law, or that both can coexist together, and all the medical marijuana acts in all states are not illegal federally. The decision could affect not only criminal cases, but have impact on those 28-29 cities that have enacted moratoriums or ordinances based upon the premise that the MMMA is illegal under federal law, and therefore can be legislated as prohibited. A ruling by this Court that Mr. Rice can argue the Medical Marijuana Defense in Federal Court suggest that those 28-29 cites are wrong and the legislation would need to be reexamined.

 

A very important case the medical marijuana community should keep on its radar.

great post michael glad we got you with the movement keeping us informed on issues 2 thumbs up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CaveatLector

@KomornLawMI

 

 

 

This case will have huge implications on the rest of the 14 medical marijuana states. This decision will most likely be used in all 14 states, by attorney’s prosecutors and defense attorneys for patients and caregivers, as precedent to argue that either Federal Law does in fact trump state law, or that both can coexist together, and all the medical marijuana acts in all states are not illegal federally. The decision could affect not only criminal cases, but have impact on those 28-29 cities that have enacted moratoriums or ordinances based upon the premise that the MMMA is illegal under federal law, and therefore can be legislated as prohibited. A ruling by this Court that Mr. Rice can argue the Medical Marijuana Defense in Federal Court suggest that those 28-29 cites are wrong and the legislation would need to be reexamined.

 

A very important case the medical marijuana community should keep on its radar.

 

A case out of federal circuit court in CA. doesn't set binding precedent here in the 6th circuit. It doesn't matter how that judge decides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These busy bodies better lay off. We have a nation of 300 million geniuses, every one with a bright idea for a new law of his own. The natural course of government is to grow, and for more laws restricting our liberties to be passed. I haven't smoked much marijuana but would draw the line a little higher when it comes to what I permit the government to involve themselves concerning what goes on in the privacy of our homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

:rolleyes:

These busy bodies better lay off. We have a nation of 300 million geniuses, every one with a bright idea for a new law of his own. The natural course of government is to grow, and for more laws restricting our liberties to be passed. I haven't smoked much marijuana but would draw the line a little higher when it comes to what I permit the government to involve themselves concerning what goes on in the privacy of our homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being able to argue that to a jury would be huge...They will be deciding what the outcome is

 

And it makes sense in federal court since its a federal memo

 

Its disqualifing all the MMJ evidence that sinks people in federal court...The jury doesnt even know or cant use it...which is crazy

 

This would be a great advancement in defense in federal court

 

Hopefully it would discourge DEA from seeing through these bust which are obviously in compliance with state laws

 

And keep communities from inacting these "follow all laws including federal" baloney ordinaces created to try and scare MMJ patients and caregivers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A case out of federal circuit court in CA. doesn't set binding precedent here in the 6th circuit. It doesn't matter how that judge decides.

Just curious where you received your law degree.Just wondering because almost everytime a lawyer says something you argue about it. Could we know your record to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice in the article that Stacy had sold MM to an undercover San Diego Officer who was pretending to be a patient. So I wonder if he, the undercover, had fake paperwork to suggest that he was legal. If so, isn't that in itself entrapment?

 

Using illegal falsified documents for the sole purpose of deceiving someone so they could bust him? And bust him for what if he did sell to what he perceived to be a qualified patient? So much BS, cops who are once again claiming to be ABOVE THE LAW. Couldn't Stacy sue the police agency that provided the falsified documents in civil court? Or something? Anything? It's just not right that they can break the law, forging documents, in order to entrap someone, BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CaveatLector

Just curious where you received your law degree.Just wondering because almost everytime a lawyer says something you argue about it. Could we know your record to?

 

I'm just a caveman and I got my law degree from a box of crunch berries one night when I had the munchies.

Funny thing is that was all it took to know that I am correct.

 

I'm not arguing anything I'm stating facts.

 

I never said I have a law degree. But I did say that I am correct! And I am. Why are you jumping my (I can't convey a point without vulgarities) for making something clear? The OP was unclear and somewhat misleading. I staighten that out and I'm the bad guy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest CaveatLector

(I can't convey a point without vulgarities)

 

Really?

 

REALLY?

 

You have GOT to be kidding me! A mod censors my word and replaces it with the parenthetical "(I can't convey a point without vulgarities)" ----and it was a self-censored word to begin with! I didn't even write out the word! I used NON-letter characters!!! And you censor that??? Why? To make it LOOK as though I wrote a vulgar word? Are you trying to use your mod power in a veiled attempt at denigrating me???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just a caveman and I got my law degree from a box of crunch berries one night when I had the munchies.

Funny thing is that was all it took to know that I am correct.

 

I'm not arguing anything I'm stating facts.

 

I never said I have a law degree. But I did say that I am correct! And I am. Why are you jumping my (I can't convey a point without vulgarities) for making something clear? The OP was unclear and somewhat misleading. I staighten that out and I'm the bad guy?

First off I didn't jump your azz I asked because I wanted to know if I should pay attention to what a layman says or what a licensed Lawyer says. At this point the lawyer is out front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it more than disingenuous that any Federal Prosecutor or even employee for that matter can legally argue anywhere - in any court in this nation that cannabis has no medical benefit since the Federal Government grows and distributes cannabis to patients with a prescription rate of 10 pre-rolled cannabis joints per day.

 

OK - I am not a lawyer - but good sense dictates that this is an injustice - anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...