Saturday, December 3, 2011

Federal Judge: Nope, States Have No Rights When Medical Marijuana is Involved

Since early October, times have been very tough for the ostensibly legal medical marijuana industry in California. Medical pot has struggled to exist in the Golden State since voters legalized it back in 1996; the law enforcement community and the politicians seeking their endorsements at election time have not, unsurprisingly, been supportive. But this was nothing compared to the war the Obama Justice Department declared on dispensaries this autumn. An estimated 2,500 jobs have been lost statewide since the federal government announced its crackdown, as many dispensaries have shut their doors.

This conflict sets up an interesting question of states' rights. On one hand, the possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is part of California's constitution; on the other hand, the federal government makes its possession and use illegal, and DC doesn't believe it has any medical value. Unfortunately, we don't live under a federal government that respects constitutional limits on its power. The first court challenge to the federal crackdown has already arrived, and the results on the states' rights side aren't encouraging. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong has turned down an injunction request from medical pot advocates, who want to halt federal raids on dispensaries until numerous lawsuits against the Justice Department are resolved. Yes, that's what a federal judge thinks of the idea that voters in a democracy have to defy the will of Washington.


  1. it is shame. So much money wasted fighting this bogus "war" .