“For millions of patients, cannabis is a legitimate therapeutic option. More and more, lawmakers, regulators, and the courts are recognizing this fact and evolving their opinions and policies accordingly.”
Category: LITIGATION
“[T]he mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports,” the Court determined. “The mere use of marijuana does not indicate that someone is in fact dangerous” or has a “proclivity for violence.”
“Because the use of marijuana under AMMA ‘must be considered the equivalent of the use of any other medication under the direction of a physician,’ the exposure of [the plaintiff’s] infant to marijuana resulted from medical treatment and did not constitute neglect under A.R.S. § 8–201(25)(c).”
“Legalization opponents cannot succeed in the court of public opinion or at the ballot box,” NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. “Thus, they are now petitioning the courts to overturn the will of the people. Whether or not one supports marijuana legalization, Americans should be deeply concerned by this trend and by the outcome of this case.”
Proponents of Measure A, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, say that they will appeal the ruling to the state’s Supreme Court. In a Facebook post, the group stated: “This is not over. We will appeal. We will prevail.”
“The only resolution to this constitutional conflict is for the Supreme Court to invoke the doctrine of estoppel to prevent the federal government from reversing course and retroactively penalizing that which it has protected in fostering state cannabis programs and effectively legalizing it.”
John Knock, now 72 years old, has been in custody and already served 24 years towards his interminable bit of two life sentences plus twenty years for his first offense and involvement in a non-violent marijuana distribution conspiracy.
Justices opined, “Because we conclude the order does not require [employers] to possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana, but only to reimburse petitioner for his purchase of medical marijuana, we discern no conflict between the CSA (federal Controlled Substances Act) and MMA (the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act).”