Medical Marijuana: ASA Files Lawsuit Against California DMV Over Patient Drivers' License Revocation
The medical marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the California Department of Motor Vehicles after it revoked the license of a medical marijuana patient solely for being a medical marijuana patient.
[inline:driving.jpg align=left]The plaintiff is Rose Johnson, 53, of Atwater. Johnson, a registered medical marijuana patient, had a clean driving record and no accidents in 37 years behind the wheel. But the DMV refused to renew her license on July 26 after obtaining her medical records and finding out she used marijuana medicinally.
According to the DMV, Johnson's license was revoked "because of...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."
ASA said Johnson is not alone in losing her license. Suspension or revocation of drivers' licenses for qualified medical marijuana patients has occurred in at least eight California counties, including Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, and Sonoma.
The DMV justifies its license revocations of medical marijuana patients by calling them "drug abusers" despite no evidence to back that claim. The DMV has not taken similar blanket action against people prescribed opiates, barbiturates, sedatives, tranquilizers, or stimulants.
State and local police in California have been instructed by Attorney General Jerry Brown to respect the state's medical marijuana laws and not arrest medical marijuana patients or take 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 was filed in Merced Superior Court. It is expected to be heard sometime in the next few months.
Comments
Driver's License is a Myth
It is hard to understand why MOST AMERICANS disregard their Constitutional "Right to Travel" & accept a de facto govt. "Driver's License" which is clearly an "Occupation License".
I DO NOT HAVE or MAINTAIN A TEXAS DRIVER'S LICENSE as I DO NOT NEED A DRIVER'S LICENSE & WILL NOT GET A DRIVER'S LICENSE UNLESS I AM ENGAGED IN COMMERCE OR TRADE.
Here is the Texas Statue that supports my position & several cases that recognize the statute. As I have the "right to travel" freely within the United States of America - IFF I chose to visit your state - I will NOT have a Driver's License as I choose to respect the law of the de facto "The State of Texas".
In accordance Chapter 521. Driver's Licenses & Certificates
Texas Trans. Code § 521.001. Definitions.
(a) In this chapter:
(3) "Driver's license" means an authorization issued by the
department for the operation of a motor vehicle.
The term includes:
(A) a temporary license or instruction permit; &
(B) occupational license.
W. Lee Hassell v. The State, 149 Tex. Crim. 333; 194 S.W. 2d 400. “An information alleging that the defendant operated a motor vehicle upon a highway without a “drivers license†was held insufficient to charge an offense since driver’s license is not known to law.†And… "There being no such license as a "driver's" license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense."
Keith Brooks v. State, 158 Tex. Crim. 546; 258 S.W. 2d 317.
“An information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a driver's license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver's license known to the law."
Per Frank John Callas v. State, 167 Tex. Crim. 375; 320 S.W. 2d 360. "The court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a "driver's license."
Claude D. Campbell v. State, 160 Tex. Crim. 627; 274 S.W. 2d 401. “We have held that there is no such license as a driver's license known to our law."
What makes this scheme more fantastic is THAT we have been lied to regarding the registration of our "private vehicles" which allows LAW ENFORCEMENT to entrap US under a "false flag" operations to extort unlawful funds (aka Federal Reserve Notes) pursuant to TCCrP 43.02, 12 USC 152, 12 USC 411, et.al.
Texas Trans. Code Chapter 501. Certificate of Title Act
Texas Trans Code § 501.002. Definitions
(14) "Motor vehicle" means: (A) any motor driven or propelled vehicle
required to be registered under the laws of this state;
According to Texas Trans Code § 501.004. Applicability.
(a) This chapter applies to a motor vehicle owned by the state or a
political subdivision of the state.
(b) This chapter does not apply to;
(3) a motor vehicle while it is owned or operated by the United
States;
Don't TRUST ME - TRUST YOURSELF & DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
Is it possible for someone of the opposite sex to lie to you?
Is it possible that an ATTORNEY wouold lie to you?
All "Private For Profit STATE BAR Courts" are willfully, knowingly, intentionally, engaged in "Malicious abuse of legal process.
Here's another tip - Speed Signs DO NOT APPLY to most of US according to the following statutes.
Texas Trans. Code § 201.904. Speed Signs.
The department shall erect & maintain on the highways & roads of this state appropriate signs that show the maximum lawful speed for commercial motor vehicles, truck tractors, truck trailers, truck semitrailers, & motor vehicles engaged in the business of transporting passengers for compensation or hire (buses).
Texas Trans. Code § 545.351. Maximum Speed Requirement.
(a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable &
prudent under the circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable
& prudent under the conditions & having regard for actual &
potential hazards then existing; &
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as necessary to avoid
colliding with another person or vehicle that is on or entering
the highway in compliance with law & the duty of each person
to use due care.
NOW YOU KNOW MORE!
DMV
The DMV should not break CA law.
Somebody is surprised... that's so funny!
I'm sorry, but, this is too funny to be too upset about...
People who are labelled criminals by their governement, and are routinely hunted down and incarcerated by this governmnent then voluntarily put their names on the list of that malignant government... then act surprised when that governement persecutes them... that is hilarious... somehow thinking they were more special... under the law!
Just another failure of another 'Compromised Solution'.
Driver's license a myth
Regarding the comment from the person from Texas. In Oregon you must have a driver's license to drive on the roads of the state. It must either be issued by Oregon if you are a resident or by another state or country if you are not a resident or have been a resident for less than 30 days. Below are the relevant sections of the Oregon Revised Statutes.
Regarding speeding:
Again, Oregon law addresses this specifically and does not rule out non-commercial vehicles. Oregon does have a Basic speed rule which states that you should not drive faster than a speed which is reasonable and prudent. It also specifies maximum speeds. So if you come to Oregon and get caught speeding you will get a ticket.
807.010 Operating vehicle without driving privileges or in violation of license restrictions; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of vehicle operating without driving privileges if the person operates a motor vehicle upon a highway or premises open to the public in this state and the person does not have an appropriate grant of driving privileges from this state in the form of a license, driver permit, endorsement or statutory grant of driving privileges
allowing the person to engage in the particular type of operation.
(2) A person to whom a license or driver permit is issued commits the offense of violating license restrictions if the person operates a motor vehicle in any manner that violates restrictions that are placed upon the person?s driving privileges by the Department of Transportation under ORS 807.120 or 807.122, by a court under ORS 809.210 or
809.270, or by the vehicle code.
(3) Nothing in this section is applicable to a person who is driving while suspended or revoked in violation of ORS 811.175 or 811.182. Persons who violate ORS 811.175 or 811.182 are subject to the provisions and penalties provided therein and are not subject to the penalties and provisions of this section.
(4) The offense described in subsection (1) of this section, vehicle operating without driving privileges, is a Class B traffic violation.
(5) The offense described in subsection (2) of this section, operating in violation of license restrictions, is a Class B traffic violation. [1985 c.608 §5 (enacted in lieu of 1983 c. 338 §299); 1987 c.730 §10; 1999 c.328 §6; 2003 c.14 §467]
807.020 Exemptions from requirement to have Oregon license or permit. A person who is granted a driving privilege by this section may exercise the driving privilege described without violation of the requirements under ORS 807.010. A grant of driving privileges to operate a motor vehicle under this section is subject to suspension and revocation
the same as other driving privileges granted under the vehicle code. This section is in addition to any exemptions from the vehicle code under ORS 801.026. The following persons are granted the described driving privileges:
(1) A person who is not a resident of this state or who has been a resident of this state for less than 30 days may operate a motor vehicle without an Oregon license or driver permit if the person holds a current out-ofstate license issued to the person. For the purpose of this subsection, a person is a resident of this state if the person meets the
residency requirements described in ORS 807.062. To qualify under this subsection, the person must have the out-of-state license or driver permit in the person?s possession. A person is not granted driving privileges under this subsection:
(a) If the person is under the minimum age required to be eligible for driving privileges under ORS 807.060;
(b) During a period of suspension or revocation by this state or any other jurisdiction of driving privileges or of the right to apply for a license or driver permit issued by this state or any other jurisdiction; or
(c) That exceed the driving privileges granted to the person by the out-of-state license or driver permit.
(2) A person in the Armed Forces of the United States may operate a motor vehicle without an Oregon license or driver permit if the person:
(a) Has a current out-of-state license or driver permit issued by the Armed Forces; and
(b) Is operating an official motor vehicle in the course of the person?s duties in the
Armed Forces.
(3) A person without a license or driver permit may operate a road roller or road machinery that is not required to be registered under the laws of this state.
(4) A person without a license or driver permit may temporarily operate, draw, move or propel a farm tractor or implement of husbandry.
(5) A person without a license or driver permit may operate a motor vehicle to demonstrate driving ability during the course of an examination administered under ORS 807.070 for the purpose of qualifying for a license or driver permit. This subsection only applies when an authorized examiner is in a seat beside the driver of the motor vehicle.
SPEED
(Basic Rule)
811.100 Violation of basic speed rule; penalty.
(1) A person commits the offense of violating the basic speed rule if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to all of the following:
(a) The traffic.
(b) The surface and width of the highway.
(c) The hazard at intersections.
(d) Weather.
(e) Visibility.
(f) Any other conditions then existing.
(2) The following apply to the offense described in this section:
(a) The offense is as applicable on an alley as on any other highway.
(b) Speeds that are prima facie evidence of violation of this section are established by ORS 811.105.
(c) This section and ORS 811.105 establish limitation on speeds that are in addition to speed limits established in ORS 811.111.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, violation of the basic speed rule by exceeding a designated speed posted under ORS 810.180 is punishable as provided in ORS 811.109.
(4) The offense described in this section, violating the basic speed rule, is a Class B traffic violation if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed that is not reasonable and prudent under the circumstances described in subsection (1) of this section even though the speed is lower than the appropriate speed specified in ORS 811.105 as prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule. [1983 c.338 §563; 1987 c.887 §9; 1989 c.592
§4; 1991 c.728 §5; 1999 c.1051 §229; 2003 c.819 §5]
811.105 Speeds that are evidence of basic rule violation. (1) Any speed in excess of a designated speed posted by authority granted under ORS 810.180 is prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule under ORS 811.100.
(2) If no designated speed is posted by authority granted under ORS 810.180, any speed in excess of one of the following speeds is prima facie evidence of violation of the basic speed rule:
(a) Fifteen miles per hour when driving on an alley or a narrow residential roadway.
(b) Twenty miles per hour in a business district.
(c) Twenty-five miles per hour in any public park.
(d) Twenty-five miles per hour on a highway in a residence district if:
(A) The residence district is not located within a city; and
(B) The highway is neither an arterial nor a collector highway.
(e) Fifty-five miles per hour in locations not otherwise described in this section. [1983
c.338 §564; 1985 c.16 §286; 1987 c.887 §10; 1989 c.592 §5; 1995 c.558 §3; 1997 c.404 §5; 1997 c.438 §3; 2003 c.397 §6; 2003 c.819 §6; 2007 c.367 §3]
More information available at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/forms/vehiclecodebk.shtml
Drive safe, support legalization of marijuana, and be educated.
Moderator?
Way too much spam!
Extremely long rants drive away readers.
Draconian California DMV Tactics...glad I moved out of state!
Proposition 215 allowed for medical marijuana use. It is ridiculous that marijuana is treated worse than alcohol and tobacco, both of which are proven to be deadly killers. If the DMV can take away a driver's license, solely based on medical records, then that opens the way for other medically based license revocations. Now, I was under the impression that America was the Land of the Free, not the home of petty dictatorships. Legalize Marijuana! This is a plant, created by God Herself, for the use of Mankind. It does not kill. It does not maim. It does not cause domestic violence. It is a healing plant, with properties that have been shown in various tests and studies to improve the appetite, to relax the body, and to help cure spiritual malaise when used in moderation. If some of these reactionary idiots would just think about it, legalizing marijuana would help the economy of the state and the nation. Grow it, tax it, market it, and keep it for the 21 and over crowd, and reap the monetary windfall that would come.
Don't be stupid, legalize it!
Is it a normal proceedure
Is it a normal proceedure for the DMV to obtain your medical records before issuing a license? If not isnt that illegal? We have laws that are suppose to protect us from any one person obtaining medical records. And dont you have to give consent
or sign a release form? Why dont they just leave people alone. We have more important issues in this country and they have to bother the people that smoke marijuana legally. What has marijuana ever done to anyone that was so terribly
bad? Nothing, nothing at all.....go figure. The goverment cant controll it so they make it out to be some kind of horrible drug that kills, and will destroy your life. ( give me a break )
Why dont they go bother the crack dealers that are on every corner in America.
And Now UnControl
A Govt, totally out of control. Breaing the law, at will, by the DMV will not persist. We got some strange people in Govt agencies twisting and breaking the Compassionate Use Law.
Don't ever register for anything not needed.
Preserve your brain. Cannabis is neuroprotective.
Good Luck
forgiveness
everybody deserves a 2nd chance! EVERY BODY DESERVES A 2ND CHANCE !!!
The Constitution of the USA
I must point out what I have learned from Dr. E. Rivera; The state laws are for the government of said state and it's employees.
I point you to a couple of letters sent to congressmen and here is their answer. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6331.html IRS notice of levy; Okay this blog will not let me paste the picture of the letter. I hope I am allowed to put the link to the letter here. It backs up the statement about law being made for government and not the people. http://www.losthorizons.com/images/althertel.jpg This letter written by Congressman Dennis Hertel when he was representing the 14th District of Michigan is worth a look: I will have one from my state US representative and senator soon, I do ask that each of us the owners of the government put together letters to help stop the ruining of the people who love this land, but have a government that is moneymongers. Here is another link that E. Clay Shaw Jr. sent from his office in the U.S. House of Representatives. More is needed to stop the onslaught of abuse to the American people. We all must become involved to make the laws enforced upon those it is meant to restrain and govern. Oh yea Dr. Rivera teaches that for a United States drug law to be enforced the law breaker must be upon land owned by the United States or land ceded to the United States by the state. If your one who downloads music and your not on federal land, then your not legally breaking a U.S. law. Disclaimer: Please do your own study, find an organic law teacher as I have, and several sites have months of information to study; links like www.sedm.org or www.edrivera.com and for common law help www.1215.org .
We must bring the truth to their system of injustice and their desire to destroy this wonderful land and people.
Add new comment