Jump to content

Supreme Court: Local Ordinance Cannot Bar Medical Marijuana‏


Recommended Posts




To: Safer Michigan Coalition, Michigan NORML Talk


 







bluemanmxl.png

 



 






 

From: Karen O'Keefe (kokeefe@mpp.org) Sent: Thu 2/06/14 9:52 PM To: Safer Michigan Coalition (SaferMichCoalition@googlegroups.com); Michigan NORML Talk (minorml-talk@norml.net)




 


 




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos to the ACLU and everyone else involved in this case!

>
> Thursday, February 6, 2014, 04:32 PM
>
>
> Supreme Court: Local Ordinance Cannot Bar Medical Marijuana
>
>
> A local ordinance cannot prohibit the usage of medical marijuana in Michigan by claiming cover under the federal Controlled Substances Act, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
>
>
> In Ter Beek v. Wyoming, Justice Bridget McCormack said Michigan’s Medical Marihuana Act itself is not barred by the federal law.
>
>
> But a local ordinance seeking to prevent the usage of medical marijuana within the community’s boundaries violates the specific statutory authority in the state act that pre-empts such local laws, Ms. McCormack said.
>
>
> Gongwer News Service will have more on this story in Thursday’s Michigan Report.
>
>
>
> Please send all correspondence to gongwer@gongwer.com This mailbox is not regularly monitored.
>
> Copyright, 2014, Gongwer News Service, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This message and any attachments may not be forwarded or reproduced without express permission from Gongwer News Service.
>

Sincerely,

Karen O'Keefe, Director of State Policies
Marijuana Policy Project
West Hollywood, California
Phone: 323-568-1078
Virtual fax: 202-552-0982
kokeefe@mpp.org
http://www.mpp.org




Edited by Marijuana Ranch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to the City’s concern, this outcome does not “create a situation in the State of
Michigan where a person, caregiver or a group of caregivers would be able to operate
with no local regulation of their cultivation and distribution of marijuana.” Ter Beek
does not argue, and we do not hold, that the MMMA forecloses all local regulation of
marijuana; nor does this case require us to reach whether and to what extent the MMMA
might occupy the field of medical marijuana regulation.

 

cant tell if this defecates all over that or if it was just thrown in as a joke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city’s ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA by permitting what the MMMA expressly prohibits: the imposition of any penalty, including a civil one, on a registered qualifying patient whose medical use of marijuana falls within the scope of the immunity granted under § 4(a)

 

 

ok.. so that's good news. 

 

24 pages.. i don't think i have the mental capacity this evening to digest all this..

 

maybe this will help some people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats to us.

 

It appears the SC took the case to loudly proclaim to the feds its primacy in ruling on our law. How effective will this be in stopping local governments from enforcing their disallowed laws? Can they be expected to ignore them, dragging defendants into court? The illegal transport law also conflicts with the MMA, yet we are being charged with it regularly. A misemeanor with a small fine is too easy to walk away with in the face of a hugely expensive appeal. Is there a resolution for that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...