T
The420Guy
Guest
A San Jose federal judge, expressing sympathy for the suffering of
terminally ill patients, asked medical marijuana advocates Monday for
a legal "hook" to grant an injunction halting federal raids against a
free Santa Cruz pot cooperative.
During arguments before U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, patient
advocates said their case was unique among federal-state pot
skirmishes. It is the first time local government officials have
joined in a legal battle to stop federal drug agents from raiding a
medical marijuana operation.
In this case, officials of the city and county of Santa Cruz have
joined in seeking to stop a repeat of the controversial September
crackdown on Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, during which the
cooperative's entire 2002 pot crop was seized.
Fogel said he was moved by accounts of how 15 patients had swiftly and
painfully died since the raid deprived them of their pain-relieving
pot, but he warned that federal law and court precedents don't allow
exceptions for marijuana use even for medical necessity.
In December, Fogel rejected a request by WAMM founders Mike and
Valerie Corral to force the federal government to return the 160 pot
plants that were seized.
"Frankly, I'm looking for a hook that's very different from the one
I've looked at and been forced to reject," said Fogel, who vowed to
issue a quick ruling on the injunction request. "I would need
something new and different other than someone saying: 'Judge you got
it wrong last time.' "
County of Santa Cruz vs. Ashcroft names Attorney General John
Ashcroft, federal drug czar John Walters and the Drug Enforcement
Administration as defendants.
WAMM advocates call the federal government's ban on medical pot an
illegal "crusade to disrupt WAMM's lawful activities and to deprive
these patients of their medicine," protected by Proposition 215, the
state's 1996 voter-approved medical marijuana initiative.
"What we're asserting here is the basic, fundamental right of local
government and state government to control the health and safety of
its citizens," Santa Clara University law Professor Gerald Uelmen, a
member of WAMM's legal team, said after the hourlong hearing packed by
patients and their supporters.
He called the cooperative a model program for chronically and
terminally ill patients who freely grow and share their crop. The
Corrals had been deputized by city officials to run the marijuana
cooperative.
In a city where a whopping 81 percent of voters backed Prop. 215, the
federal bust sparked a firestorm of protest. Within days, local
elected leaders defied the federal government by joining 1,000
residents at a medicinal pot giveaway in the City Hall courtyard.
Federal attorneys are pushing for a dismissal of the case against
them, stating in court papers that federal narcotics laws override
state law, and "there is no fundamental right to distribute,
cultivate, or possess marijuana or other unapproved and unproven
medical treatments."
During Monday's hearing, Uelmen invoking the 15 patient deaths.
"There's no question that those deaths were more agonizing, they were
more painful than they needed to be because of an inability of WAMM to
respond fully to the patients needs for medical marijuana," he said.
Co-Counsel Neha Nissen also argued that the program stands outside
federal jurisdiction over interstate drug trafficking, because the
patients are raising the plants for local personal use, and no pot is
sold.
U.S. Department of Justice senior counsel Mark Quinlivan said WAMM's
creative arguments ignored years of rock-solid court precedents
affirming federal narcotics laws.
"What the Supreme Court made quite clear is that there's no medical
necessity exception in the Controlled Substances Act," Quinlivan argued.
But WAMM patients and attorneys left court optimistic.
"I think the judge is looking for hooks that have not been presented
to the courts before and we have them in this case," Uelmen said.
Pubdate: Tue, 08 Jul 2003
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Webpage: Judge seeks help from pot advocates / Hunting for a legal 'hook' for injunction
Copyright: 2003 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: letters@sfchronicle.com
Website: Home
terminally ill patients, asked medical marijuana advocates Monday for
a legal "hook" to grant an injunction halting federal raids against a
free Santa Cruz pot cooperative.
During arguments before U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel, patient
advocates said their case was unique among federal-state pot
skirmishes. It is the first time local government officials have
joined in a legal battle to stop federal drug agents from raiding a
medical marijuana operation.
In this case, officials of the city and county of Santa Cruz have
joined in seeking to stop a repeat of the controversial September
crackdown on Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, during which the
cooperative's entire 2002 pot crop was seized.
Fogel said he was moved by accounts of how 15 patients had swiftly and
painfully died since the raid deprived them of their pain-relieving
pot, but he warned that federal law and court precedents don't allow
exceptions for marijuana use even for medical necessity.
In December, Fogel rejected a request by WAMM founders Mike and
Valerie Corral to force the federal government to return the 160 pot
plants that were seized.
"Frankly, I'm looking for a hook that's very different from the one
I've looked at and been forced to reject," said Fogel, who vowed to
issue a quick ruling on the injunction request. "I would need
something new and different other than someone saying: 'Judge you got
it wrong last time.' "
County of Santa Cruz vs. Ashcroft names Attorney General John
Ashcroft, federal drug czar John Walters and the Drug Enforcement
Administration as defendants.
WAMM advocates call the federal government's ban on medical pot an
illegal "crusade to disrupt WAMM's lawful activities and to deprive
these patients of their medicine," protected by Proposition 215, the
state's 1996 voter-approved medical marijuana initiative.
"What we're asserting here is the basic, fundamental right of local
government and state government to control the health and safety of
its citizens," Santa Clara University law Professor Gerald Uelmen, a
member of WAMM's legal team, said after the hourlong hearing packed by
patients and their supporters.
He called the cooperative a model program for chronically and
terminally ill patients who freely grow and share their crop. The
Corrals had been deputized by city officials to run the marijuana
cooperative.
In a city where a whopping 81 percent of voters backed Prop. 215, the
federal bust sparked a firestorm of protest. Within days, local
elected leaders defied the federal government by joining 1,000
residents at a medicinal pot giveaway in the City Hall courtyard.
Federal attorneys are pushing for a dismissal of the case against
them, stating in court papers that federal narcotics laws override
state law, and "there is no fundamental right to distribute,
cultivate, or possess marijuana or other unapproved and unproven
medical treatments."
During Monday's hearing, Uelmen invoking the 15 patient deaths.
"There's no question that those deaths were more agonizing, they were
more painful than they needed to be because of an inability of WAMM to
respond fully to the patients needs for medical marijuana," he said.
Co-Counsel Neha Nissen also argued that the program stands outside
federal jurisdiction over interstate drug trafficking, because the
patients are raising the plants for local personal use, and no pot is
sold.
U.S. Department of Justice senior counsel Mark Quinlivan said WAMM's
creative arguments ignored years of rock-solid court precedents
affirming federal narcotics laws.
"What the Supreme Court made quite clear is that there's no medical
necessity exception in the Controlled Substances Act," Quinlivan argued.
But WAMM patients and attorneys left court optimistic.
"I think the judge is looking for hooks that have not been presented
to the courts before and we have them in this case," Uelmen said.
Pubdate: Tue, 08 Jul 2003
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Webpage: Judge seeks help from pot advocates / Hunting for a legal 'hook' for injunction
Copyright: 2003 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: letters@sfchronicle.com
Website: Home
