Skip to main content

Medical Marijuana

Press Release: U.S. Supreme Court -- State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law

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 # # #

Press Release: California Supreme Court Strikes Down "Caregiver" Defense for 215 Growers - People V. Mentch

Cal NORML Release - Nov. 24, 2008 Cal Supreme Court Rules Prop 215 Caregivers Must Do More Than Just Supply Marijuana In a blow to medical marijuana providers, the California Supreme Court ruled that defendants are not entitled to a defense as Prop 215 caregivers if their primary role is only to supply marijuana to patients. The court unanimously overruled an appellate court decision in the case People v Roger Mentch", writing: "We hold that a defendant whose caregiving consisted principally of supplying marijuana and instructing on its use, and who otherwise only sporadically took some patients to medical appointments, cannot qualify as a primary caregiver under the Act and was not entitled to an instruction on the primary caregiver affirmative defense. We further conclude that nothing in the Legislature's subsequent 2003 Medical Marijuana Program (Health & Saf. Code, § 11362.7 et seq.) alters this conclusion or offers any additional defense on this record." Full text of the decision may be found at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S148204.PDF Prop 215 defines primary caregiver to be the "individual designated by the [patient]... who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person." According to the Court, these words " imply a caretaking relationship directed at the core survival needs of a seriously ill patient, not just one single pharmaceutical need." The Court concluded, " a defendant asserting primary caregiver status must prove at a minimum that he or she (1) consistently provided caregiving, (2) independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, (3) at or before the time he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana." The Court's ruling effectively limits the caregiver defense to relatives, personal friends and attendants, nurses, etc. In particular, it excludes its use by medical marijuana "buyers' clubs," retail dispensaries and delivery services. The remaining legal defense for medical marijuana providers is to organize as patient cooperatives and collectives, which are legal under SB 420. "The Mentch decision highlights the inadequacy of California's current medical marijuana supply system," said Cal NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer. "The law needs to allow for professional licensed growers , as with other medicinal herbs." - D. Gieringer Cal NORML -- Dale Gieringer - [email protected] California NORML, 2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114 -(415) 563- 5858 - www.canorml.org

Press Release: Medical Marijuana Lawsuit Filed Against Department of Motor Vehicles

For Immediate Release: November 19, 2008 Medical marijuana lawsuit filed against Department of Motor Vehicles Americans for Safe Access fights baseless revocation of patient's driver's license Merced, CA -- A lawsuit was filed today by medical marijuana advocacy organization Americans for Safe Access (ASA) against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on behalf of Rose Johnson, a 53-year-old patient from Atwater. Despite Ms. Johnson's clean driving record, not having caused an accident in 37 years of driving, the DMV revoked her license on July 26, 2008 because of her status as a medical marijuana patient. The DMV refused to renew Ms. Johnson's license only after obtaining her medical records and finding out that she was a qualified medical marijuana patient. According to the DMV, Ms. Johnson's license was revoked "because of...[an] addiction to, or habitual use of, [a] drug," thereby rendering her unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, even though no evidence existed to substantiate this claim. "The DMV cannot simply disregard California's medical marijuana law," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who is representing Ms. Johnson in her claim against the DMV. "When the voters of California enacted the Compassionate Use Act, they never intended to authorize the DMV to strip medical marijuana patients of their drivers' licenses," continued Elford. "The DMV should not be in the business of revoking the licenses of drivers like Ms. Johnson simply because she is a medical marijuana patient." Advocates assert that the DMV policy of suspending and revoking the licenses of medical marijuana patients is widespread, occurring in at at least 8 California counties, including Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, and Sonoma. License revocations by the DMV, which have been based on a person's status as a medical marijuana patient, are often rationalized by calling the drivers "drug abusers" despite no evidence of the claim. In 2007, Merced -- the county in which Ms. Johnson lives -- implemented a police policy that instructed its Sheriff deputies to respect state law and not to cite medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine. "The DMV is not under a different set of requirements than local police in California," said Elford. "The failure to uphold California's medical marijuana law is entirely inappropriate for any local or state agency." The lawsuit filed today by ASA is expected to be heard in Merced Superior Court in the next few months. The lawsuit against the DMV is part of a campaign by ASA to fully implement California's medical marijuana laws. Further information: ASA's lawsuit against the DMV: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/DMV_Writ.pdf # # #

OPNews from the Ohio Patient Network is Back

[Courtesy of Ohio Patient Network] SPONSOR AND PROPONENT TESTIMONY HEARING SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 19 A Sponsor and Proponent Testimony Hearing for SB 343 has been scheduled by the Ohio Senate Criminal Justice Committee for 10:00 am on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 in the North Hearing Room at the Ohio Statehouse. Known as the Ohio Medical Compassion Act, SB 343 would allow patients and their caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana to treat the patients' serious illness. The Proponent component of this hearing will be grounded in testimony from seasoned medical professionals. If you would like to encourage your state Senator to vote for this important legislation, please visit https://ssl.capwiz.com/mpp/issues/alert/?alertid=11445816. It is hoped that this bill will be accorded swift passage in consideration of the highly successful Michigan Initiative. MICHIGAN LEGALIZES MEDICAL MARIJUANA Before the statewide initiative was started in five citywide medical marijuana votes, medical marijuana won in a landslide (with 62% in Flint in February 2007; with 63% in Traverse City and 61% in Ferndale in November 2005; with 74% in Ann Arbor in November 2004; and with 60% in Detroit in August 2004). All these efforts were spearheaded by Michigan NORML http://www.minorml.org/ and it's affiliated chapters. Based on these efforts Tim Beck wrote 'Taking the Initiative; A Reformer's Guide to Direct Democracy' online at http://www.drugsense.org/caip#take. When the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care http://stoparrestingpatients.org/ launched it's statewide signature drive they sought the help of Michigan NORML. The NORML members gathered a substantial share of the signatures, and then went on to support the initiative in every way possible. They wrote letters to the editor and OPEDs, which were published. They placed thousands of Yes on 1 yard signs. What they did not do was connect their effort in any way at with NORML to preclude any perception that they were really working to legalize marijuana. Thus they set a standard of professionalism for other NORML chapters to emulate. On Election Day, the initiative, on the ballot as Proposal 1, passed by 63% with 3,005,678 Yes votes. It passed in every county in the state. The new Michigan law, now known as The Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, will be certified and go into effect later this year. However, implementing regulations to include the patient and caregiver I.D. Card system may take until May of next year to go into effect. Unique among the 13 states with medicinal marijuana laws, covering a quarter of the U.S. population, Michigan's law recognizes the patient identifying documents of the 12 other states. The Ohio Patient Network salutes Michigan activists for their success with the hope that it will catch not only the attention of Congress but also the Ohio State Legislature. MEETING WITH OHIO SENATOR TOM ROBERTS The meeting of Ohio medical marijuana activists, called by Ohio Senator Tom Roberts (D-5), was held on November 6, 2008, in the Senate Minority Conference Room on the Southeast corner of the Ohio Statehouse. Excluding the Senator and his staff, around fifteen people participated in this meeting, including Ohio Patient Network officers Jeff Horvath, Nikki Plassenthal, and Mary Jane Borden, each of whom introduced themselves by their respective titles (Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer) and were recognized by the Senator as such. Others in attendance included Eleanor Ahrens, Christy Becker, Jim Cowen, Tonya Davis, Dennis Day and Dawn Dunlap (Ohio Patient Action Network); Damien Hardy (Senator Roberts' aide), Brian McCann, Cher Neufer, Ed Orlett (Drug Policy Alliance), and Penny Tipps (State street Consultants). Topics covered included LTEs; meetings with editorial boards; consumption (the Senator wanted to know how much patients typically consumed); Marinol and Sativex; possible pharmaceutical industry resistance; and opposition to the bill from government agencies. Medical marijuana advocates should be inspired by the harmony and unified purpose displayed at this meeting. OPN ANNUAL MEETING HELD ON MAY 31, 2008 The Ohio Patient Network held its Annual Meeting on Saturday, May 31, 2008, at the offices of the Columbus Free Press at 1000 East Broad Street, Columbus, OH. Forty-three people participated in this meeting to elect the organization's officers for the coming year. After the meeting, OPN Past President, Mary Jane Borden commented, "This is a very special board. Well over half of the original co-founders came together to seat this board, which includes three of them in the positions of President, Vice President, and Treasurer." Board President Brandy Zink said that she looks forward to setting the organization on a course to better achieve its goals and be of service to patients. "With the introduction of the Ohio Medical Compassion Act, there is a greater need for educational resources from a credible, professional organization such as the Ohio Patient Network. The OPN Board Members are listed at http://www.ohiopatient.net/v2/content/view/16/34/ RIGHT, MORAL AND GOOD It has been said that we are living in a time of great change. There are new voices in Washington, the legislature, and even in the world of activism. If we could offer leadership advice at this pivotal moment, we wish that change, which has been given so much lip service, would be based on the principle of right, moral, and good. We encourage leadership to weigh decision making and subsequent action using this three-legged principle. Right, moral, and good means: Right: Right refers to the information on which decisions are made and asks if that fact base is correct. What are the holes in it and where might it be potentially wrong? Is the information on which actions are planned logical? Does it pass the smell or common sense test? Can it be substantiated by independent, third party sources? Right is not a feeling; it is the truth and cold hard facts that withstand repeated tests to discredit them. Moral: Morality concerns principles of conduct. For moral teachings, we often look to the Golden Rule or the 10 Commandments. The Golden Rule quite simply states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." As most people don't seek harm, we should behave toward others as we would want them behave toward us. The 10 Commandments also provide a moral compass. "Do not bear false witness against your neighbor" - don't lie. "Do not steal" - don't take things that aren't yours. "Do not covet." - don't desire or scheme to obtain that which belongs to another. Morality doesn't equate to any specific religion or doctrine; all religions have their tests of moral conduct. Still, moral conduct pivots on the query: does action find its roots in lies, harm, theft, or greed? Would I want to be treated this way? Good: Good is actually a two-part test. There is the definition of good as beneficial and also good as of high quality. The beneficial test of good deals with well being. Good draws a direct line to positivity, prosperity, health, and vitality. It easily bridges to its benefits to others through the greater good. Good being of high quality equates to functional excellence. When something is good, all parts work, all pieces fit together, beauty radiates, and intended results are achieved. In both definitions, good refers to a plural or to the larger whole. As a two-part test, good asks, is action both beneficial to and functional for the larger whole and for the greater good? The right, moral, and good paradigm of decision making is a three legged stool that will topple when one leg becomes compromised. Actions cannot be moral or good if their fact base is lacking. They are neither right nor good if based in lies, theft, or greed. They can't be right or moral, if they function improperly or harm overall well being. We encourage leadership both nationally and locally to weigh these three tenets in the decision making process and as it considers actions based on this process. If we are to engender change at this pivotal time, then change should mend the rips and tears in our culture. Engaging in thinking that is right, moral, and good - holistically - gives all of us the best chance of achieving the results that we all want and for which we chanted change in the first place. You may wish to read another essay on this topic, "On Harmony," http://www.ohiopatient.net/v2/content/view/817/2/ You can also participate in an online discussion about it on our forum at http://www.ohiopatientnetwork.org/zot/viewtopic.php?t=535.

Job Opportunity: Arizona Campaign Manager, Marijuana Policy Project

The Marijuana Policy Project is seeking a Campaign Manager for MPP's Arizona ballot initiative campaign to legalize the possession and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana for patients who have a doctor's recommendation. The overarching goal of the Campaign Manager is to successfully implement the campaign strategy from the campaign’s inception through Election Day and ensure that every possible measure is taken to win the campaign. All aspects of the campaign will be overseen by MPP’s Director of State Campaigns, with the Campaign Manager playing a key supporting role to the Director of State Campaigns and the campaign consultants. This position is based in Arizona and runs through November 2010. The Campaign Manager’s salary is $50,000 to $60,000, plus full health insurance and a modest retirement plan. [Courtesy of MPP] Qualifications include a minimum of two years of statewide campaign experience in a senior management position, though five or more years are preferred. The ideal candidate will be a goal-oriented, fastidious, hands-on manager. The Campaign Manager must be hardworking, get along well with people, and have excellent communication and management skills. Applicants who have ties to the Arizona political community will be given priority, although such ties are not a requirement. Responsibilities include overseeing and successfully completing the signature drive to place the initiative on the November 2010 statewide ballot; managing all day-to-day campaign operations; acting as first point of contact for the general public and the local activist community; ensuring that the local activist community is happy and engaged; identifying, training, and successfully managing and utilizing regional volunteer spokespeople; overseeing the distribution of all written campaign materials, such as campaign literature, Web site updates, etc.; working closely with MPP’s State Campaigns office in Las Vegas to ensure that the campaign complies with all applicable campaign laws and successfully files all campaign finance reports; working closely with the campaign’s in-state consultants; conducting fundraising meetings with potentially major donors; assisting in-state, paid consultants with coalition-building efforts as requested, resulting in a substantial number of community leaders and organizations publicly backing the campaign; and assisting the consultants with media operations, as requested. To apply, please see http://www.mpp.org/jobs/process.html and follow the instructions there. Interviews are being conducted on a rolling basis, so interested candidates are encouraged to apply as soon as possible.

Prohibitionists go down on Election Day

Dear friends:

Not only did Tuesday's election produce two major marijuana policy victories — MPP's sweeping wins in Michigan and Massachusetts — but we also saw signs of progress in Congress and the White House.

President-elect Barack Obama has said — often in response to questioning from MPP — that he does not support the federal government arresting medical marijuana patients in states where medical marijuana is legal.

As recently as Monday of this week, his campaign said: "Many states have laws that condone medical marijuana, but the Bush Administration is using federal drug enforcement agents to raid these facilities and arrest seriously ill people. Focusing scarce law enforcement resources on these patients who pose no threat while many violent and highly dangerous drug traffickers are at large makes no sense. Senator Obama will not continue the Bush policy when he is president."

The congressional landscape also changed for the better. With several contests still undecided, the Democrats are likely to pick up at least 23 new seats in the House of Representatives — 21 of which belonged to medical marijuana opponents in the last Congress. And three senators who opposed medical marijuana were replaced with newcomers who have already voted or spoken out in favor of protecting medical marijuana patients. 

Some of Congress' most outspoken medical marijuana opponents lost their seats, like Congressman Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), Congressman Ric Keller (R-Fla.), and Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). In fact, on the Democratic side, every single incumbent who lost Tuesday consistently opposed protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest and jail.

And candidates who are close allies of MPP won spots in the House of Representatives, like Nevada state Sen. Dina Titus (D), a strong supporter of medical marijuana access.

There is still more work to do in coming election cycles, of course. MPP's team on Capitol Hill will be working to ensure that presidential appointees (like the head of the DEA and the drug czar) are aligned with the commitment to marijuana policy reform that President-elect Obama expressed on the campaign trail. And we expect that medical marijuana legislation will be introduced in 2009, presenting an enormous opportunity to protect medical marijuana patients at the federal level.

You can help make the most of this changing dynamic in Congress and the White House. Any donation you can make today will help MPP push for the change that conditions are so ripe for.

Sincerely,
Kampia signature (e-mail sized)

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.0 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2008. This means that your donation today will be doubled.

Michigan passes medical marijuana law; when will New Jersey?

[Courtesy of the Coalition for Medical Marijuana--New Jersey, Inc.] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Ken @ (609) 394-2137 Michigan passes medical marijuana law; when will New Jersey? WHO: Residents of Michigan WHAT: Passed a medical marijuana law, becoming the 13th state in the U.S. to do so WHEN: Tuesday, November 4, 2008 WHERE: In the voting booths of the State of Michigan WHY: To protect seriously ill or injured patients who use marijuana therapeutically with the recommendation of licensed physicians The Coalition for Medical Marijuana--New Jersey, Inc., (CMMNJ) congratulates Michigan on becoming the 13th state in the U.S. to remove statewide penalties for the use of medical marijuana. Michigan voters yesterday approved the measure that would protect patients who use marijuana on the recommendation of a licensed physician. CMMNJ Executive Director, Ken Wolski, RN said, “The American people understand the need for this safe, effective and inexpensive therapeutic agent. Nearly 25% of all Americans now live in a medical marijuana state and eventually, medical marijuana will be legal throughout the country. How long will it take New Jersey to approve this? Every day, seriously ill New Jersey patients are either being arrested for using medical marijuana, or are suffering needlessly without it.” New Jersey residents, unlike those in Michigan, are unable to pass laws through the initiative process, so they must depend on their state legislators for lawmaking. While 86% of New Jersey voters approve of medical marijuana according to the latest poll, New Jersey’s bill has been tied up in legislative committees for nearly four years. The "New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act" (A804 & S119) http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=S119 would allow patients or their caregivers to grow and use a small amount of marijuana when a licensed physician recommends it for chronic pain, nausea, cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, etc. New Jersey patients would be issued state ID cards so law enforcement personnel could easily see they are legal medical marijuana users, as does Michigan’s law. The American Nurses Association, the American College of Physicians, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the American Public Health Association, the American Academy of HIV Medicine and many other professional healthcare organizations have endorsed medical marijuana. However, the federal government opposes the medical use of marijuana and so it is not available to patients in pharmacies yet. Michigan residents will have to grow their own marijuana, as patients are allowed to do in the 12 other states that approve its use. CMMNJ is a non-profit educational organization whose mission is to educate the public about the benefits of safe and legal access to marijuana for patients who are under the care of licensed physicians and nurse practitioners. CMMNJ is a 501(c)(3) public charity. For more info, contact: Ken Wolski, RN, MPA, Executive Director Coalition for Medical Marijuana--New Jersey, Inc. 844 Spruce St., Trenton, NJ 08648 609.394.2137 www.cmmnj.org [email protected]

Americans for Safe Access: November 2008 Activist Newsletter

ASA Court Win on San Diego ID Cards Affirmed

State Supreme Court Refuses Review, Patients Pressure Counties to Uphold Law

California counties will have to implement the state's medical marijuana identification program now that the California Supreme Court has refused to review a landmark case argued by Americans for Safe Access. The case stems from resistance in a handful of counties to provisions of California's medical marijuana law.

ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford

County officials in San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced counties filed suit against the State of California in February 2006, arguing that state law was preempted by federal law. That argument was rejected by the San Diego Superior Court in December of 2006, causing San Bernardino and Merced officials to drop their challenge. San Diego County appealed the ruling, only to be denied by the Fourth District Court of Appeals in July of this year and now by the state Supreme Court's refusal to hear their appeal. County officials have said they intend to attempt a challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court, though it has already ruled that state medical marijuana laws do not conflict with federal prohibition.

The San Diego lawsuit challenged the validity of the state identification card program, which was established by Senate Bill 420 in 2003, as well as the foundation of California's medical marijuana laws. But California courts at all levels have concluded that the ID card program and state law are valid and do not violate the state constitution.

"The San Diego case is now final under California law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel of Americans for Safe Access, who argued before the appellate court on behalf of patients. "The courts have made clear that federal law does not preempt state law relating to medical marijuana and that local officials must comply with California's medical marijuana laws."

In a unanimous opinion earlier this year, the Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Controlled Substances Act "signifies Congress's intent to maintain the power of states to elect 'to serve as a laboratory in the trial of novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country' by preserving all state laws that do not positively conflict with the CSA."

ASA was joined by the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project in defending the interests of patients before both the state Supreme Court and the Superior Court in San Diego. The City of San Diego registered its opposition to the County's lawsuit by filing an amicus or 'friend of the court' brief in December 2007, siding with the Attorney General and medical marijuana patient advocates in favor of implementing the law.

After the appellate court ruling, ASA put all California counties that had not yet established a voluntary patient identifcation program on notice of their obligation to implement state law, in particular the state ID card program, which both assists law enforcement and affords greater protection to patients. As a result, Fresno and Kings counties voted to issue the patient ID's almost immediately. Now, ASA is again following up with a warning for remaining California counties that refuse to obey the law.

"We expect the remaining holdout counties to implement the medical marijuana card program immediately," said Elford. "And if they continue to refuse to comply with state law, we will ask the courts to require them to do so."

For more information, see ASA's web page on the San Diego case.

 

 

 

Activists Protest Dispensary Owner's Conviction, Ask Congress to Intervene

A major protest by medical marijuana activists in Los Angeles this month demanded that Congress to do something about the conviction of a California man who was operating a cannabis dispensary.

Over 350 people attended a protest to support former Morro Bay dispensary collective operator Charles Lynch, whose case drew national attention when he was raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and prosecuted, even though he complied with state law, had a business license from the city, and was even a member of the local Chamber of Commerce.

Charlie Lynch cutting the ribbon on opening day Charlie Lynch cutting the ribbon on opening day

Organized by the Los Angeles chapter of ASA and a team of dedicated activists, the protest was attended by numerous criminal justice and patient rights organizations, and took place in front of the LA Federal Courthouse on the day Lynch was to have a hearing on a motion for a new trial. This hearing has been delayed to November 4.

Even though Lynch operated his collective within the mandates of state law and local regulation, the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff took issue with his facility and called in the DEA to close him down. Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers had been open for 11 months when federal agents raided it on March 29, 2007.

As a result of that raid, San Luis Obispo Sheriff Pat Hedges is being sued by a former patient of Lynch's for seizing her medical records and violating her privacy.

During a widely watched trial, that included segments on Reason.TV by the television host Drew Carey, the Morro Bay mayor and city attorney testified on behalf of Lynch, and he took the stand himself to describe attempts he made to operate within even federal law.

Lynch was found guilty of five federal felonies. Defense attorneys will file a motion for a new trial on November 17. Sentencing is currently scheduled for November 24 in Los Angeles.

ASA Joins Legal Fight Against Dispensary Bans

Files Amicus Brief in Suit Against Anaheim

Americans for Safe Access has thrown its support behind a dispensary that has challenged a city ban on medical marijuana patient collectives. ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, fresh off victory in the San Diego case, is filing an amicus or friend of the court brief on behalf of patients in the appeal of Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim. This marks the first appeal of a dispensary ban challenge.

The suit contends that the city of Anaheim cannot legally ban all patient collectives. ASA's brief argues that such bans on medical marijuana collectives are wrong on two counts.

The first reason is that conflict with California state law, and, as a result of that conflict, local bans are preempted because the state has clearly expressed an intent that dispensaries be considered legal entities.

The second reason is that interpreting state law as requiring cities and counties to tolerate dispensaries does not create a conflict with federal law. The ruling in the case of San Diego's challenge to California's medical marijuana law makes it clear that state and federal law are separate.

"Federal authorities will do what they will do," said Elford. "But they can't conscript the state to do their work for them."

The case will be heard by the 4th Appellate District, the same court that made the landmark finding in the Garden Grove case, which established that law enforcement must return cannabis seized from qualified patients.

So far, 35 cities and counties have filed amicus briefs against Qualified Patients Association, as has the California Peace Officers Association and the California Sheriff's Association. But ASA's Elford remains confident. He believes that the decisions in Garden Grove and San Diego mean that federal pre-emption only exists when there is a positive conflict, as would be the case if state law required someone to violate the federal prohibition.

"This is yet again an example of local officials wishing to enforce federal instead of state law," said Elford. "You don't have to regulate dispensaries. You just can't ban them."

A study of local communities conducted by ASA found that not only do dispensaries pose negligible problems for the communities in which they operate, they serve a critical function for the most seriously ill of California's medical marijuana patients. That report can be downloaded at www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/dispensaries.pdf.

A decision in the case of Qualified Patients Association v. City of Anaheim is expected within the next few months.

Medical Marijuana Heading for Big Win in Michigan

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   
NOVEMBER 4, 2008

Medical Marijuana Heading for Big Win in Michigan
Federal Shift Seen as One in Four Americans Now Live in a Medical Marijuana State

CONTACT: Bruce Mirken, MPP director of communications ............... 415-668-6403 or 202-215-4205
                   Dan Bernath, MPP assistant director of communications ..........................202-462-5747 x2030

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Medical marijuana supporters hailed apparent passage of Michigan's medical marijuana initiative, Proposal 1, as an important harbinger of a national shift on the issue. With Michigan becoming the 13th medical marijuana state, one in four Americans now live in a state where medical marijuana patients with a physician's recommendation are protected by law.

    AP called the race at just after 9 p.m. EST, and with eight percent of precincts reporting, Proposal 1, the Marijuana Policy Project's Michigan medical marijuana initiative, was leading, 60 percent to 40 percent. Outgoing White House drug czar John Walters personally campaigned against the measure.

    "Michigan voters just dealt a fatal blow to the federal government's cruel, dishonest war on medical marijuana and sent a stunning message to the new presidential administration and Congress," said MPP executive director Rob Kampia. "One in four Americans now live in a medical marijuana state, and the federal government has no business fighting a war against a quarter of our citizens. It may take a year or two, but the federal war on medical marijuana is dead. Finished. Over."

    With more than 25,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit http://MarijuanaPolicy.org.

####

Medical marijuana patients attacked in new ad

Dear friends:

Michigan's medical marijuana initiative is under attack.

With just five days remaining until Election Day, prohibitionists are running this fear-mongering TV ad, which shows “footage” of a child trying to go in a medical marijuana dispensary and “patients” assaulting an elderly woman.

Attacking medical marijuana patients is a truly despicable tactic. Medical marijuana patients aren't thugs. They're seriously ill doctors, teachers, nurses, plumbers, and other upstanding Americans — who don't want to fear arrest and jail for using the medicine their physicians have recommended.

Here's a look at one of them:

Will you please help protect people like Dr. Wagoner and his wife from arrest and jail?

Not only is the opposition lying to voters about the face of medical marijuana, but they're lying about the initiative too. Michigan's initiative wouldn't even allow dispensaries; it simply permits private marijuana use by patients with a doctor's approval.

If this turns your stomach like it does mine, please turn your anger into action: Help the campaign win here.

Time is running short. Even a donation of $10 to the campaign committee will help ensure that sick and dying patients no longer must fear arrest.

Thank you,
Kampia signature (e-mail sized)

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

P.S. As I've mentioned in previous alerts, a major philanthropist has committed to match the first $3.0 million that MPP can raise from the rest of the planet in 2008. This means that your donation today will be doubled.

Subscribe to Medical Marijuana