Illegal Or Legal?

[t-pain]

just a quick poll to see where everyone is at after ter beek v wyoming.

[Restorium2]

Federal Preemption

The city argued that the ordinance was valid even if it was preempted by state law because the federal CSA preempts the state MMA. Federal statutes can preempt state statues in three different manners: field preemption, express preemption, and conflict preemption. Here, the court concluded that only conflict preemption was at issue. There are two ways conflict preemption can occur. Impossibility preemption occurs when compliance with state law and federal law is impossible. The Court found this did not apply because while the CSA prohibits any marijuana use, the MMA does not mandate marijuana use.

The other method of conflict preemption, obstacle preemption, occurs when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives on Congress. The Court found that the MMA, and specifically MCL 333.26424(a), did not serve as such an obstacle because the MMA clearly did not intend to protect Michigan’s medical marijuana patients from federal prosecution. And, as the Court stated, our state enjoys its sovereignty:


[T]he MMMA’s decriminalization of the medical use of marijuana is not contrary to the CSA’s provisions punishing all uses of medical marijuana. The CSA provisions do not preempt the MMMA’s grant of immunity as found in MCL 333.36424(a) because it is well established that Congress cannot require the states to enforce federal law.

Thus, the Court found MCL 333.26424(a) was not preempted by federal law.

[t-pain]

Instead, if certain individuals choose to engage in MMMA-compliant medical
use of marijuana, § 4(a) provides them a limited state-law immunity from arrest, prosecution, or
penalty, an immunity that could not and does not purport to prohibit the federal criminalization
of, or punishment for, that conduct.

 

 

Thus, the Court found MCL 333.26424(a) was not preempted by federal law.

 

lol you got that from a lawyer blog. wow is that sentence poorly written.

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/ter-beek-v-city-of-wyoming/

 

you can read the actual court opinion or you can ignore it at your own peril.

[bobandtorey]

Instead, if certain individuals choose to engage in MMMA-compliant medical

use of marijuana, § 4(a) provides them a limited state-law immunity from arrest, prosecution, or

penalty, an immunity that could not and does not purport to prohibit the federal criminalization

of, or punishment for, that conduct.

 

 

 

lol you got that from a lawyer blog. wow is that sentence poorly written.

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/ter-beek-v-city-of-wyoming/

 

you can read the actual court opinion or you can ignore it at your own peril.

Ask the Lansing 7 i would but they our in Fed jail now and when they get out thing won't seam the same

[Restorium2]

In plain terms;

 

The court said you could use the MMA and not violate the CSA.

 

To me that says the MMA, when used correctly, doesn't conflict with the CSA.

[Restorium2]

And that comes from The Michigan SUPREME Court.

[t-pain]

In plain terms;

 

The court said you could use the MMA and not violate the CSA.

 

the court was saying you could register for a card and never touch marihuana. thus the law isnt breaking any rules and you arent breaking the CSA.

[Restorium2]

the court was saying you could register for a card and never touch marihuana. thus the law isnt breaking any rules and you arent breaking the CSA.

That would be how Schuette MIGHT read it. But I bet he's even smarter than that. The Supreme Court weighed in heavily and gave us a hand. Thank you!

[t-pain]

did you read the actual supreme court opinion?

 

http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/SCT/20140206_S145816_78_terbeek-op.pdf