Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Drug Policy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
Tue May 8, 2012, 08:04 PM May 2012

U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Law Does Not Pre-empt State MMJ Law [View all]

http://www.thedailychronic.net/2011/7350/supreme-court-state-medical-marijuana-laws-not-preempted-by-federal-law/

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.”

“The source of local law enforcement’s resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana,” said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes.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.”
28 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What next? Gay marriage? MannyGoldstein May 2012 #1
Now if we can just get the feds to quit ignoring state laws. Lionessa May 2012 #2
Sadly, this administration shares that knack with its predecessors villager May 2012 #3
The executive branch and Congress need to respond to the will of the American people RainDog May 2012 #4
i agree but not because a majority of people, that's a slippery slope I won't go near. Lionessa May 2012 #5
I agree - but the reason a majority want the law to change is because of the science RainDog May 2012 #6
Well we hope that's the reason, but in the end it doesn't matter, Lionessa May 2012 #7
Since the govt can no longer control information about this topic RainDog May 2012 #9
Thanks for fighting the good fight RainDog. iscooterliberally May 2012 #24
thanks for those kind words RainDog May 2012 #26
That's pretty much what Arizona is arguing at the SC in regard to SB1070 CactusJak May 2012 #8
Yes, however the OPs title is inaccurate. Fed law does outrank State law for Lionessa May 2012 #10
it is indeed a very tough road to walk - if you are a federal truedelphi May 2012 #14
Arizona is arguing against human rights RainDog May 2012 #11
You say: truedelphi May 2012 #15
here's a link RainDog May 2012 #16
I see this as a win for human rights, not because of the origin of the law. I'm encouraged by it. freshwest May 2012 #12
Same hear. And a big shout out to raindog for truedelphi May 2012 #13
It's from Dec. 2011 RainDog May 2012 #17
I'd have never known if you hadn't. This is the first I heard. Thanks! freshwest May 2012 #20
Misleading headline -- Actually, as stated in the story, "The U.S. Supreme Court REFUSED TO REVIEW AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #18
Excuse me but doesn't the USSC refusal to review a case mean bupkus May 2012 #21
Of course that's what that means. In contrast, it does not mean (as improperly implied by the AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #23
Does This Mean DallasNE May 2012 #19
Federal agencies can make arrests in states. RainDog May 2012 #22
Even though Meiko May 2012 #25
Do you know that Arizona has had to vote for the same law three times? RainDog May 2012 #27
kick b/c I'm so pissed at what is going on now. n/t RainDog Dec 2012 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Drug Policy»U.S. Supreme Court: Feder...»Reply #0