Arizona Sues Justice Dept. Over Medical Marijuana

[Croppled1]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jDoSsiok5rGgOeA8XuMQlv0SVBvA?docId=b684ab558f964b6aaa547dd72dd00c89

 

 

[TajMahal]

:sword:

 

 

That is a three sword deal!!!

[SlowJustice]

PHOENIX – Arizona officials are taking the state's own medical marijuana law to court.

 

Attorney General Tom Horne late Friday sued the U.S. Justice Department and other defendants on behalf of the state and Gov. Jan Brewer.

 

The suit asks a federal judge to rule on whether strict compliance with the Arizona law provides protection from federal prosecution or whether the Arizona measure is pre-empted by federal law.

 

The state law approved by voters in November, like those in other states, decriminalizes distribution, possession and use of marijuana for medical purposes under specified circumstances.

 

However, the U.S. attorney for Arizona has reminded state officials that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

 

Horne said the Arizona suit was intended get a court ruling "that makes it clear what direction we can safely go — either to implement the law or that we cannot."

 

The suit also named medical marijuana supporters, a group representing would-be dispensary operators and others as defendants in the case. Horne said they accepted invitations to be included in the case to ensure the state law gets a vigorous defense.

 

Brewer announced the planned lawsuit Tuesday, saying she's concerned that state employees could face federal prosecution for regulating the state program.

 

The governor and Horne, both Republicans, opposed the medical marijuana law but said they weren't trying to thwart the will of the voters. They said the lawsuit is specifically prompted by a May 2 letter in which U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke noted that marijuana remains illegal under federal law and that criminal prosecutors of traffickers and others are possible.

 

Burke's letter did not specifically mention state employees, but he said his office intends to prosecute individuals and organizations engaged in illegal manufacturing, distribution and marketing involving marijuana.

 

Burke did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday, but he told The Arizona Republic there had been no policy change.

 

"We have no intention of targeting or going after people who are implementing or who are in compliance with state law," Burke told the newspaper. "But at the same time, they can't be under the impression that they have immunity, amnesty or safe haven."

 

Horne said Burke's letter and similar letters sent by U.S. attorneys elsewhere raised the prospect of federal prosecutions related to medical marijuana, and he noted that a letter signed by U.S. attorneys in Washington state said state employees administering a medical marijuana program would not be immune from liability under a federal drug law.

 

Saying she was worried about federal prosecution of state workers, Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire vetoed key parts of a legislative measure to clarify her state's medical marijuana law.

 

Elsewhere, Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee has suspended plans to license three medical marijuana dispensaries after a U.S. attorney warned the dispensaries could be prosecuted for violating federal law.

 

In Montana, two medical marijuana providers sued the Justice Department on May 10 to challenge March 14 raids of their businesses. The lawsuit claimed the raids exceeded the federal government's authority, pre-empted Montana's medical marijuana law and violated the providers' civil rights.

 

A spokesman for a Washington-based medical marijuana advocacy group said the Arizona lawsuit won't accomplish anything because it won't change federal law or enforcement policies and because individual patients can grow their own marijuana.

 

"Gov. Jan Brewer is trying to hamstring this program," said Morgan Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project.

 

Between April 14 and Tuesday, Arizona approved 3,696 applications for patients to have and use medical marijuana, including 2,694 for growing up to 12 plants each. An additional 69 applications have been approved for caregivers, who can provide marijuana for up five patients other than themselves.

 

An application period for dispensaries is supposed to begin Wednesday, but Brewer is expected to direct the Department of Health Services to not proceed with that part of the program.

 

M. Ryan Hurley, a Scottsdale lawyer for would-be dispensary operators, said they're troubled because the state is not proceeding with full implementation of the law.

 

"They've invested a lot of time and effort and money in this process in reliance of the law," he said.

 

[Guest Happy Guy]

The patients of Arizona should sue Arizona for trying to set them up with a law that only hurts them. I'm sure that is not what the voters voted for when they voted to help medical cannabis patients. Maybe the patients wrote their federal government asking for help with their loser republican governor? Wouldn't you like to see the feds slap up Snyder too? LOL

[Guest Happy Guy]

M. Ryan Hurley, a Scottsdale lawyer for would-be dispensary operators, said they're troubled because the state is not proceeding with full implementation of the law

 

I bet you are troubled you filthy animal. How much cash did you pony up to the state officials to get them to hand you a monopoly at the expense of their citizens? Obama has your number, will you pick up the phone at 3 in the morning? LOL Third ring, too late.

 

The patients are learning to grow because of the memo and they like it!

 

I wonder what Arizona patients think about Michigan patients that go to the dispensary when they can/could just grow their own?

[Dr. Bob]

Actually this seems like a forceful move on the part of a state to enforce the will of the voters against an uncaring and overbearing federal government. How often have we heard from townships and LEO that 'we are following federal law'. This suit may well force that issue. We may lose and continue with the headache we have now, but by the same token, we may well win under the 10th amendment and be free of the DEA and its interference in state medical marijuana cases. Another thing I like is that instead of causing problems for MMJ patients as is the case in MI, the state and AG in AZ is asking for our help to join the suit and get a strong message sent to the Feds.

 

We should follow this case.

 

Dr. Bob

[Guest Happy Guy]

Actually this seems like a forceful move on the part of a state to enforce the will of the voters against an uncaring and overbearing federal government. How often have we heard from townships and LEO that 'we are following federal law'. This suit may well force that issue. We may lose and continue with the headache we have now, but by the same token, we may well win under the 10th amendment and be free of the DEA and its interference in state medical marijuana cases. Another thing I like is that instead of causing problems for MMJ patients as is the case in MI, the state and AG in AZ is asking for our help to join the suit and get a strong message sent to the Feds.

 

We should follow this case.

 

Dr. Bob

You do understand that if the state wins that patients will have to buy all of their medical cannabis at the dispensaries? At a set price and a set dosage? Taking away the grow rights they now enjoy? Are you assuming that the voters wanted medical cannabis to be un accessible to most patients? That's what they voted for? Or do you think the people of Arizona voted that patients should be able to actually use the law to have their medicine? You can't have it both ways. You can't say that states should have the right to do what they want and cry for patients at the same time. The state of Arizona is trying to hurt patients. They can grow right now and the state is pumping itself up to nip it in the BUD! If that is state rights then I'm not for that kind of state rights. Not at all. States should not have the right to do things to subvert the will of the voter. Where have we heard that before? We need to stay on track and consistent. Not pick and choose where we let patients throats get cut.

[Dr. Bob]

Again, you are looking at rather fine details of this case. As for AZ laws, the key point is that MMJ is ALLOWED, and as you know private grows are too, with restrictions.

 

The big picture here is not the details of the law, the big picture is the ability of the Feds to interfere with a state MMJ law. The thing I would really like to see is that the courts rule this is a 'state issue' not a 'state and federal' issue.

 

This isn't a matter of what is going on with MMJ in AZ, they voted on their law and got what they voted for. We voted on our law and got what we voted for. Let them battle out the details as we are here. We need to fight those battles within the state, not in Federal Court which does NOT recognize our state MMJ law or allow us to use it or even mention 'Medical Marijuana' in our defense. Removing the Feds from the equation on an intrastate matter would be huge. If the AZ suit can do that, it closes a lot of headaches for those in the MMJ field in other states. What we do with that opening is up to us.

 

Dr. Bob

[Guest Happy Guy]

Again, you are looking at rather fine details of this case. As for AZ laws, the key point is that MMJ is ALLOWED, and as you know private grows are too, with restrictions.

 

The big picture here is not the details of the law, the big picture is the ability of the Feds to interfere with a state MMJ law. The thing I would really like to see is that the courts rule this is a 'state issue' not a 'state and federal' issue.

 

This isn't a matter of what is going on with MMJ in AZ, they voted on their law and got what they voted for. We voted on our law and got what we voted for. Let them battle out the details as we are here. We need to fight those battles within the state, not in Federal Court which does NOT recognize our state MMJ law or allow us to use it or even mention 'Medical Marijuana' in our defense. Removing the Feds from the equation on an intrastate matter would be huge. If the AZ suit can do that, it closes a lot of headaches for those in the MMJ field in other states. What we do with that opening is up to us.

 

Dr. Bob

Patients DO NOT have limited grow rights. They have no right to grow at all. That is what the state is attempting. I'm going to assume you didn't know that because you have shown to be a patient advocate. That would be totally un acceptable to any patient advocate. Forcing patients into a corner isn't what anyone would want other than dispensaries and cannabis haters. They seem to make good bedfellows in Arizona.

[Guest thequietone]

Somewhere I read there is a group already set to open dispensaries across the state of Arizona approximately 50 miles apart. When they do it will eliminate the right for any patient in the state to grow for themselves. The state government plans on profiting from them through taxes and fees so they are backing the dispensaries. I personally see the Arizona law as doing more harm then good to the patients of the state.

 

I will try to find the article I read about this.

[solabeirtan]

Somewhere I read there is a group already set to open dispensaries across the state of Arizona approximately 50 miles apart. When they do it will eliminate the right for any patient in the state to grow for themselves. The state government plans on profiting from them through taxes and fees so they are backing the dispensaries. I personally see the Arizona law as doing more harm then good to the patients of the state.

 

I will try to find the article I read about this.

 

Totally agree TQO. If anything it will give these dispensaries an outlet to connect the MexCartels with other dispensaries nationwide, as there 9,000 gun dealers across the state dump trainloads of weapons under Fed Protection to the cartels in Mexico and then around the world.

 

 

 

 

[Dr. Bob]

I am not debating the points of what AZ put into their law. I do recall something about being able to grow if you were a certain distance from a dispensary.

 

The issue is not what the law says in AZ, it is the role of the Feds in States with MMJ laws. This case, which we should follow, is asking the feds to leave the states alone and stop threatening people for being involved in MMJ licensure. That is a good thing.

 

Don't miss the forest for the trees. My only point is that if the courts rule that the Feds should leave the States to regulate their own MMJ laws, that is good precedence to cite on federal vs state issues here. Example would be the issue of 'violate any laws' for folks on probation. Even if a probationer is appropriately licensed under Michigan law to use MMJ, we are seeing cases where local courts are citing federal authority to deny the use of MMJ while on probation. If this case shows federal law should defer to state law with MMJ regulations, the arguments that can be used to allow probation patients to use their medication are enhanced. There are also implications with Section 8 Housing and a host of other things that would be much easier if the states could call the shots under their own MMJ laws rather than have big brother coming in and countermanding a vote of the people.

 

This is the MMMA, not the AZMMA, let's see how what this court does in AZ affects us. It has nothing to do with dispensaries here in Michigan, it has to do with states rights to regulate their own MMJ policy.

 

Dr. Bob

[Guest Happy Guy]

All you have to do to see the bigger picture is put yourself in their shoes. The medical cannabis patients of Arizona's shoes. Should be easy enough for most of us Michigan patients. Just imagine if the Kuipers bill passed. Then we would have 10 major grows supplying state run dispensaries. No other supply at all. Just like what they are propopsing to do in Arizona. It just about happened here. And if Obama sent a memo to stop it here because we couldn't stop Kuipers, I think it would be a good thing. And it could still happen here. This is not so far removed from us.

[nthlghts]

This will be an interesting case, problem is I am not quite sure where it will lead. Some of the details in the Arizona law could empower and affect other states.

[Shredder]

The suit asks a federal judge to rule on whether strict compliance with the Arizona law provides protection from federal prosecution or whether the Arizona measure is pre-empted by federal law.

 

This has everything to do with the gov of AZ not wanting to follow the will of her voters. Of course the feds will not give protection to state workers (or anyone) who grows large numbers, and of course the feds won't change their policy to suit any state until they are forced to. I know this, you know this, and Az knows this. I view this as political stunt by back stabbing politicians. In their apparent zeal to not allow for home growing, they find themselves in a box with the feds, and very well may have to allow home growing, but not without years of delays and squabbling......shredder

[greenbuddha]

It is about time that the state governments started to respect the 'laws' as voted into legislation by the 'people'.

 

I think we are going to see a 'reverse' in the elections come 2012.

[greenbuddha]

I am not debating the points of what AZ put into their law. I do recall something about being able to grow if you were a certain distance from a dispensary.

 

The issue is not what the law says in AZ, it is the role of the Feds in States with MMJ laws. This case, which we should follow, is asking the feds to leave the states alone and stop threatening people for being involved in MMJ licensure. That is a good thing.

 

Don't miss the forest for the trees. My only point is that if the courts rule that the Feds should leave the States to regulate their own MMJ laws, that is good precedence to cite on federal vs state issues here. Example would be the issue of 'violate any laws' for folks on probation. Even if a probationer is appropriately licensed under Michigan law to use MMJ, we are seeing cases where local courts are citing federal authority to deny the use of MMJ while on probation. If this case shows federal law should defer to state law with MMJ regulations, the arguments that can be used to allow probation patients to use their medication are enhanced. There are also implications with Section 8 Housing and a host of other things that would be much easier if the states could call the shots under their own MMJ laws rather than have big brother coming in and countermanding a vote of the people.

 

This is the MMMA, not the AZMMA, let's see how what this court does in AZ affects us. It has nothing to do with dispensaries here in Michigan, it has to do with states rights to regulate their own MMJ policy.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I agree.

 

The result of what is happening right now related to the Federal government / DEA versus State's rights will be what we will wish we had paid more attention to in the end.

 

The Fedral government, right now, is trying to do an end run around the state laws so that the Feds can put in place a 'Federally sanctioned' Big Pharma control of the medical cannabis issue.

 

Once the 'STATE LAWS have been done away with, the 'plant' itself will be made 'illegal' to 'grow' or 'possess', and the only 'legal' way then to obtain and possess MMJ / cannabis will be through 'Federal government regulation' of the Pharma Companies.

 

This way the LEO / justice / enforcement machine gets to maintain the money it receives from the government to 'bust' drug users and dealers while the Big Pharmas help control 'legal' distribution' of the MMJ.

 

When this come about, and it may take another year or so for it to happen, won't be happy when it occurs but I'll post again and ask if anyone remembers this situation being pointed out to them?

 

And I'll bet very few will admit that it WAS pointed out to them.

[greenbuddha]

Hopefully HR1983 will pass...............

 

Indica, 100%.

 

This is 'Federal legislation' we should ALL be paying attention to.

 

Thanks for the reminder.