Federal Courts

MEDIA ADVISORY Americans for Safe Access For Immediate Release: April 21, 2009 DOJ: Policy Statements on Medical Marijuana Don't Affect Federal Sentencing Advocacy group to argue at 4/23 sentencing hearing that Lynch did not violate state law Los Angeles, CA -- Legal counsel for the advocacy organization Americans for Safe Access (ASA) will appear on behalf of Charles C. Lynch at his federal sentencing hearing on Thursday, April 23rd to challenge the federal government's claim of state law violations. Even though defendants are prevented from using a medical marijuana defense in federal court, they can argue state law compliance at sentencing. ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford will argue that Lynch in no way violated state law, something that U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien has alleged in his sentencing recommendations. At Lynch's previously scheduled sentencing hearing on March 23rd, federal district court Judge George H. Wu asked for written clarification from the U.S. Attorney General as to whether recent statements by that office would impact Lynch's sentencing. In a brief filed Friday, U.S. Attorney O'Brien stated that "the Deputy Attorney General has reviewed the facts of this case and determined that the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of defendant are entirely consistent with the policies of DOJ and with public statements made by the Attorney General with respect to marijuana prosecutions." Lynch's sentencing, which was originally postponed until April 30th, was changed by Judge Wu to April 23rd. What: Sentencing hearing for Charles C. Lynch at which state law compliance will be argued by Chief Counsel for medical marijuana advocates Americans for Safe Access When: Thursday, April 23rd at 10:30 a.m. Where: Los Angeles Federal Court, 312 N. Spring Street, Courtroom 10 "It's bad enough that the Justice Department is accusing Lynch of violating state law in order to sentence him in federal court," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford. "But, there is not even any evidence that state law was violated." Despite a March 2008 public statement by then-Senator Obama that he was "not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws" on medical marijuana, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has since stated that the DOJ would still "go after those people who violate both federal and state law." Advocates contend that the federal government should not even be prosecuting violations of state medical marijuana law. "It's disingenuous to accuse people of state law violations and then prosecute them under federal law, thereby denying them an adequate defense in federal court," continued Elford. Because of the June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, federal medical marijuana defendants are prohibited from entering evidence related to medical marijuana or their compliance with local and state laws. With more than two dozen pending federal medical marijuana cases, advocates are demanding that the government cease prosecutions or remove them to state court where evidence can properly be heard. Defense attorneys are seeking time served for Lynch, but he faces a mandatory minimum of 6 years and the possibility of up to 20 years in federal prison. Before his medical marijuana dispensary was raided by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents in March of 2007, Lynch had operated for 11 months without incident, and with the blessing of the Morro Bay City Council, the local Chamber of Commerce, and other community members. Two months after Lynch closed his dispensary, Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers, he was indicted and charged with conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute marijuana and concentrated cannabis, manufacturing more than 100 plants, knowingly maintaining a drug premises, and sales of marijuana to a person under the age of 21. None of the federal charges constitute violations of local or state law. Further information: DOJ Response to Judge Wu's request for clarification: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/DOJ_Lynch_Response.pdf Charles C. Lynch Interview with John Stossel: http://www.friendsofccl.com/johnstossel.htm Friends of Charles C. Lynch website: http://www.friendsofccl.com # # #

MEDIA ADVISORY Americans for Safe Access For Immediate Release: April 14, 2009 Contact: 510-251-1856 x307 Federal Position on Medical Marijuana Put Before Ninth Circuit Tuesday Federal hearing is latest battle on whether policy is based on science or politics San Francisco, CA -- Medical marijuana advocates will get to argue before the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, April 14th, the right to challenge an outdated position held by the federal government: "marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The national advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit in February 2007 demanding that the federal government cease issuing misinformation and correct its statements on medical marijuana. "We welcome the Obama Administration's recently stated commitment to making policy decisions based on science, not politics," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with ASA. "This case is designed to ensure that the federal government's policy on medical marijuana is not politically motivated." What: Oral arguments in a case before the Ninth Circuit that challenges the government's position on medical marijuana When: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. Where: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Courtroom 4 at 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco, CA In order to challenge the government's position, advocates are using a little-known law called the Data Quality Act (DQA). The DQA requires federal agencies such as Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to rely on sound science when disseminating information to the public. One of the main issues in the case is whether citizens have a right to challenge government information believed to be inaccurate or based on faulty, unreliable data. "The science to support medical marijuana is overwhelming," said ASA Executive Director Steph Sherer. "It's time for the federal government to acknowledge the efficacy of medical marijuana and stop holding science hostage to politics." On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies stating that, "The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions," and calling for "transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking." The original DQA petition was filed in October of 2004, aimed at forcing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) -- the FDA's parent agency -- to correct statements about the medical value of marijuana. After more than two years of delay by the federal government and a refusal to act on the petition, a lawsuit was filed in February of 2007. Despite a rejection by the federal district court in late 2007, Science Magazine published an editorial that year claiming that HHS had "violated its own DQA guidelines." Preeminent legal scholar Alan Morrison, who founded Public Citizen's Litigation Group and who currently teaches at American University's Washington College of Law, is co-counsel in the case and will be arguing before the court on behalf ASA and patients across the country. "Citizens have a right to expect the government to be transparent and to use the best available information for policy decisions," said Morrison. "Unfortunately, so far, the government has been anything but transparent and has failed to produce any evidence for its policy statements on medical marijuana." In April 2006, while ASA was awaiting a response to the petition from HHS, the FDA issued a statement claiming that it conducted an "inter-agency review" and had "concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana..." However, none of the alleged scientific evidence used to reach that conclusion was ever provided to ASA or the public. Further information: DQA Opening Appeal Brief: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/DQA_Appeal_Brief.pdf President Obama's memorandum on scientific integrity: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09/ DQA Background info: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/DQA

Dear ASA Supporter,

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision yesterday in which California state courts found that its medical cannabis law is not preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court’s decision in Garden Grove v. Superior Court means that federal law does not prevent state and local governments from implementing medical cannabis laws adopted by voters or state legislatures. In short: federal law does not override state law on medical cannabis!

Yesterday’s decision follows three years of strategic legal work by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) in a California case involving the return of wrongfully confiscated medicine. ASA needs your help to keep doing important work like this. Please take a moment to make a special contribution to ASA today.

The Court’s decision has broad implications for medical cannabis patients in the 13 states where medical cannabis is legal, and signals a sea change in the impasse between state and federal laws. Better adherence to state medical cannabis laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and other problems for patients, allowing for better implementation of medical cannabis laws in all states that have adopted them.

Medical cannabis advocates should be encouraged by opportunities for change in federal policy with a new Presidential Administration and shift in Congress. But until now, federal pre-emption has haunted patients whose state laws allow for medical cannabis use. This decision further clears the way for state implementation and adds new urgency to ASA’s work in the nation’s capitol, where we have been working full-time to change federal policy since 2006.

ASA is working in the courts and in the halls of Congress to protect and expand patients’ rights – and we are making a difference. We have won important victories in court, made significant inroads in Congress, and helped reframe the national debate about medical cannabis. But we need your help to carry on. Please make a contribution to support ASA today.

Thank you,

Steph Sherer
Executive Director
Americans for Safe Access

 

P.S. Read more about the Supreme Court decision at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/USSCKha.

PRESS RELEASE Americans for Safe Access For Immediate Release: December 1, 2008 U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law / Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today 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." California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March. "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." Further information: Today's U.S. Supreme Court Order denying review: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Kha_USSC.pdf Decision by the California Fourth Appellate District Court: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/GardenGroveDecision.pdf Felix Kha's return of property case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=4412 # # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November, 13, 2008 CONTACT: Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671 or [email protected], or Tom Murphy at 207-542-4998 or [email protected] Licensed Hemp Farmers Heard by US Court of Appeals Decision in Lawsuit Could Bring Back Hemp Farming in US ST. PAUL, MN – Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a lawsuit in June of 2007 to end the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the U.S., were heard yesterday, November 12, 2008, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The oral arguments before the three judge panel centered on the farmer’s assertion that because there is no possibility the hemp crop could be diverted into the market for drugs, the Commerce Clause does not allow DEA to regulate industrial hemp farming in North Dakota. If successful, the landmark lawsuit will lead to the first state-regulated commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in over fifty years. The court’s decision is not expected until next year. The farmers, North Dakota State Rep. David Monson and seed breeder Wayne Hauge, are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court of North Dakota on a number of grounds; in particular, the District Court ruled that hemp and marijuana are the same, as DEA has wrongly contended. In fact, scientific evidence clearly shows that not only are oilseed and fiber varieties of Cannabis genetically distinct from drug varieties, but there are absolutely no psychoactive effects gained from eating it. All court documents related to the case can be found online (http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html). Representative Monson observed oral arguments made on his behalf by attorneys Joe Sandler and Tim Purdon. In court Mr. Sandler argued, “Given North Dakota’s unique regulatory regime, nothing leaves the farmer’s property except those parts of the plant Congress has already decided should be exempt from regulation: hemp stalk, fiber seed and oil. The question is whether there is any rational basis for Congressional regulation of the plant itself growing on the farmer’s property. The answer is no — because industrial hemp is useless as drug marijuana and there’s no danger of diversion, so there’s no possible impact on the market for drug marijuana.” The government’s arguments centered on the idea that the plaintiffs should apply to the DEA for permission to grow hemp and that the court didn’t have jurisdiction over the issues raised by the farmers. “The plaintiffs should await the DEA’s decision on their application,” said Melissa Patterson on behalf of the government. In response, Judge Michael Milloy asked, “Isn’t it true the DEA will not rule on the farmer’s applications to grow hemp, you’ve had eleven months?” Ms. Patterson answered, “The DEA has not replied out of respect to the pending proceedings.” In response to the jurisdictional objections made by the DEA, Judge Lavenski Smith said, “When there is a legitimate constitutional issue brought before us we can hear the case.” Background In 2007 the North Dakota Legislature removed the requirement that state-licensed industrial hemp farmers first obtain DEA permits before growing hemp. The question before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will be whether or not federal authorities can prosecute state-licensed farmers who grow non-drug oilseed and fiber hemp pursuant to North Dakota state law. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If it is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. Learn more about hemp farming and the wide variety of non-drug industrial hemp products manufactured in the U.S. at www.VoteHemp.com and www.TheHIA.org. # # #

PRESS RELEASE: October 30, 2008 CONTACT: Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671 or [email protected] U.S. Farmers Suing DEA to Grow Hemp in Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on November 12 Oral Arguments Open to Public; Media Availability after Proceedings ST. PAUL, MN – Two North Dakota farmers, who filed a lawsuit in June of 2007 to end the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) ban on commercial hemp farming in the U.S., will be back in court on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 in St. Paul, Minnesota. Oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit begin at 9:00 am CST in the Warren E. Burger Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse at 316 North Robert Street in St. Paul and will immediately be followed by a press conference on the courthouse steps. The farmers, North Dakota State Rep. David Monson and Wayne Hauge, are appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court, District of North Dakota on a number of grounds; in particular, the District Court ruled that hemp and marijuana are the same, as the DEA has wrongly contended. In fact, scientific evidence clearly shows that not only is industrial hemp genetically distinct from drug varieties of Cannabis, but there are also absolutely no psychoactive effects gained from ingesting it. All court documents related to the case can be found online (http://www.VoteHemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html). Representative Monson will appear in court to observe oral arguments made on his behalf by attorneys Joe Sandler and Tim Purdon. If successful, the landmark lawsuit will lead to the first state–regulated commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in over fifty years. WHO: Rep. David Monson, North Dakota House Assistant Majority Leader, licensed hemp farmer Tim Purdon, attorney with Vogel Law Firm of Bismarck, ND and co-counsel for the plaintiffs Joe Sandler, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and legal counsel for Vote Hemp, Inc. Eric Steenstra, President, Vote Hemp, Inc. Lynn Gordon, Owner, French Meadow Café of Minneapolis, MN WHAT: Oral arguments and media availability WHERE: Warren E. Burger Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, 316 N. Robert St., St. Paul, MN WHEN: Wednesday, November 12, 9:00 am CST for oral arguments (media availability afterwards) Background In 2007 the North Dakota Legislature removed the requirement that state-licensed industrial hemp farmers first obtain DEA permits before growing hemp. The question before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will be whether or not federal authorities can prosecute state-licensed farmers who grow non-drug oilseed and fiber hemp pursuant to North Dakota state law. Vote Hemp, the nation's leading industrial hemp advocacy group, and its supporters are providing financial support for the lawsuit. If it is successful, states across the nation will be free to implement their own hemp farming laws without fear of federal interference. Learn more about hemp farming and the wide variety of non-drug industrial hemp products manufactured in the U.S. at www.VoteHemp.com and www.TheHIA.org. # # #

Atlanta, GA - “The principle of federalism seemed dead three years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the federal government to run roughshod over state laws permitting the medical use of marijuana,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party presidential nominee. Barr says the tide may be turning with the recent decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who refused to dismiss a case by city and state officials against the federal government for raiding a medical marijuana group in San Cruz, California. “Keeping the case alive was significant enough,” notes Barr. “But Judge Fogel suggested that the Bush administration might have violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution in adopting a policy intended to effectively void California’s medical marijuana law." As Judge Fogel explained, a trial must proceed on whether the federal government attempted to make ‘California’s medical marijuana laws impossible to implement and thereby forcing California and its political subdivisions to recriminalize medical marijuana.’ In short, says Barr, the courts may end up deciding that while the federal government may implement a policy that runs contrary to state rules in an area of traditional state authority, namely the criminal law, Washington may not work to overturn state law. “After spending billions of dollars and arresting millions of people, we seem no closer to eliminating illicit drug use than we were at the start,” Barr says. “But we certainly have lost a lot of our freedom. While we might disagree about the best approach to problem drug use, we should be willing to accept the compassionate use of marijuana by those who are sick and dying. Certainly states have authority under the Constitution to allow doctors to prescribe marijuana as medicine. The federal government has no constitutional authority to interfere,” insists Barr. Barr says that neither Sen. Barack Obama nor Sen. John McCain is willing to consider real change to current policy. “Sen. Obama says the federal government shouldn’t interfere with state policy, but he says he doesn’t want to waste his political capital on the issue," Barr explains. "Sen. McCain was for respecting state authority before he was against it. Neither the Democratic nor the Republican presidential candidate is willing to put constitutional principle—or the lives of those who are suffering from AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, and more—before federal power." Barr says as president, he would "direct the DEA to initiate, for the first time, a truly open and objective scientific evaluation of the medical potential of marijuana." Moreover, Barr says he would ensure that all federal officials, including those in the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Agency, respect the decisions of states that choose to allow the medical use of marijuana. Finally, Barr would undertake a comprehensive review of federal crimes, which have expanded far beyond the few narrow cases foreseen by the nation’s Founders. "What the federal government does, it should do well, but it attempts to do far too much today," Barr says. "We must never forget that we are supposed to be living in a free society." "Such a decision, especially if upheld on appeal, would have significant and positive repercussions in other matters of public policy in which the federal government has used the power of federal law to thwart decisions by citizens of individual states," Barr notes. Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. (This press release was reprinted by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)