Drug War Issues
Politics & Advocacy
A Santa Cruz medical marijuana cooperative that was raided by the DEA in 2002 was dealt a setback August 28 when a federal judge granted a US Justice Department motion to stop them from suing it. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) and the city and county of Santa Cruz sought to sue US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to prevent his office from continuing raids on medical marijuana providers in California.
2005 WAMM march, downtown Santa Cruz (courtesy santacruz.indymedia.org)
"Naturally, we're disappointed. I had hoped for something better," said Mike Corral, who, along with his wife Valerie, were cofounders of WAMM.
WAMM and Santa Cruz may be down, but they're not out just yet. Judge Fogel left two of the county's claims intact: a 10th Amendment argument that the states -- not the federal government -- have say over marijuana, and an argument that medical necessity trumps federal drug laws. The county's legal team says it will continue to argue those claims while trying to build a stronger case that the federal government is improperly intervening in areas that should be the purview of the states.
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.
Comments
Santa Cruz attorney's working
I realize that for the Community as a whole, this suggestion could be construed as shooting yourself in the foot. But, I think that we (the movement collectively) should find away to file in state court against any renegade police departments which choose to put their personal opions and concenrs abot what they were hired to do. Enforce the law of the state that pays them. So like the smart ass cops in Texas who despite the recent "lowest priority" initive of the legislature, they choose to substitute their own personal and uninformed opinion for that of the majority of voters who pay the tab. So, proposal, if a police department paid by local and state citizens, choose to devote time, dept resources, and cooperation with the dEA, then they should be billed for the $$ involved. Of course they won't pay, but there exist laws on the Feds pushing off unfunded mandates on the locals. Further, if a police department actively seeks to undermine the will of the voters who pay its salary, by using men, equipment, etc. in the furtherance of the DEA policy to override, states rights, medical laws, and to knowingly subvert referred scientic fact for political expediency, that the amount of $$ spent by such local department will be removed from their budget. Further any asset forfiture will NO longer accrue to the benefit of the police department. All funds will be used in the health services for drug treatment. And lastly the policy chief of said district should be required to answer to his electorate and face the vote for a recall or vote of no confidence on the police chief. This would go along way toward cleaning up this mess created by the lies of Anslinger , Hearst and their many like.
Add new comment