Supreme Court Won't Rehear Challenges to California Medical Marijuana Law

By Jeralyn, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Mon May 18, 2009 at 11:16:54 AM EST
Tags: medical marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Some good news in the medical marijuana area today. The Supreme Court has refused to hear challenges by San Diego and San Bernadino counties to California's medical marijuana law.

The high court on Monday refused to hear appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties, which say the justices have never directly ruled on whether California's law trumps the federal controlled substances laws.

[More...]

San Diego and San Bernardino counties argued that issuing identification cards to eligible users, as required by the 1996 state law, would violate federal law, which does not recognize the state measure.

A federal appeals court ruled that ID card laws "do not pose a significant impediment" to the federal Controlled Substances Act because that law is designed to "combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices."

California voters passed the medical marijuana law in 1996. Hopefully, this will deter counties in the other states that have legalized medial marijuana from making similar challenges.

< Group Seeks Disbarment of 12 Bush Lawyers Over Torture Policies | Monday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Supreme Court Won't Rehear Challenges to California Medical Marijuana Law | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Could the justices be... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by kdog on Mon May 18, 2009 at 12:15:03 PM EST

as sick of this debate as I am?

Let freedom ring already...from sea to shining to sea.

A swing and a miss... (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 18, 2009 at 04:58:36 PM EST

Didn't Nixon study this? (none / 0) (#10)
by CST on Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:04:44 PM EST

I thought they did this whole scientific study that showed exactly that - when they were trying to show the opposite.

Perception isn't the only thing.

How many people overdose on pot every year?


Another swing and a miss. (1.00 / 1) (#11)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:07:07 PM EST

Hint: I don't need to be convinced.


Yea (none / 0) (#12)
by CST on Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:10:33 PM EST

I guess it's weird because it's so regional.

Where I live - no one needs to be convinced. So I haven't got a clue what everyone else is(nt) thinking.

Pot beat Obama in my state on the ballot, by a good margin. And Obama won in a landslide.

Don't ask me...


I'll tell ya what some may be thinking.... (4.00 / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Mon May 18, 2009 at 06:57:40 PM EST

"Legal reefer? What about my job in the tyranny industry?"


: exactly...our society works ass-backwards... (none / 0) (#23)
by of1000Kings on Mon May 18, 2009 at 10:43:52 PM EST

we think about the immediate future, not the future we will have in 20+ years...
whats good for me today, this specific day, is what is good for society on the whole (at least it seems that way)
I always go back to the great writer Kahlil Gibran on this issue...his story about the priest who has a chance to eradicate a severely defeated devil is spot on...
instead of killing the devil right there and ending all the grief in the world, and all the evil, the priest is persuaded that without the devil he doesn't have a job...
what's more important?
morality, logic and conscious say that eradicating evil for good would be the greater benefit, but as humans we choose to be shortsighted (especially Republicans--just look at Afghanistan and the situation there from the 80's....no foresight) and decide that what benefits us today is more important than thinking about the society as a whole...
I think it's a christian fault, considering christians (and evangelicals especially) are taught to not worry about this world's future at all (drill baby drill), for it will be gone soon enough...all we have to do is start a war with Iran...but it may be just a human fault in general...we don't care about other people as much as we like to think we do...
the prison unions, the privatized prisons (one of the more influential lobby groups in the US right now--considering all the former republican politicians that work for privatization lobby groups), and the law enforcement unions are going to be against legalizing for no other reason than it preserves their paycheck (whether or not it's best for society doesn't matter, we as humans are capable of convincing ourselves that our intents are more moral than they actually are)...

Medical benefits (none / 0) (#2)
by lentinel on Mon May 18, 2009 at 03:24:21 PM EST

I wonder if all this bullsh-t was necessary when the prohibition against alcohol ended. If marijuana is good for the eyes, great... but really....

When the debate was going on to end prohibition, did we hear:
Oh yeah. Gin -it provides the medical benefits afforded by the inclusion of juniper berries.

And wine: it (hic) has undisputed health benefits. It (hic) protects against certain cancers and heart disease, and can have a positive effect on (hic) cholesterol levels and blood pressure.

Thank you, Doctah.

Were these arguments necessary or did people just say, "Enough already!"

The medical use only debate... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by kdog on Mon May 18, 2009 at 04:32:00 PM EST

was/is a total waste of time...as if the right to imbibe anything on this green earth is negotiable...it isn't, it is inalienable, imo.

Then again, the laws in California and other states with legal medicinal reefer have gotten John Law off the backs of the sick at least a little bit, which can't be called anything but a good thing. Though I wonder if the medicinal use only debate hurts the greater goal of liberty for all to eat/drink/smoke whatever the hell they want for whatever reason they want.


I think (none / 0) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Mon May 18, 2009 at 04:35:33 PM EST

its the proverbial camels nose under the tent.
its basically available for recreational usage in CA. you just have to pay a doctor to give you a script.
I agree that should not be necessary.

but . . . . .


: Oh Doctor... (none / 0) (#16)
by lentinel on Mon May 18, 2009 at 06:43:53 PM EST

I don't feel so good...

: True... (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Mon May 18, 2009 at 06:56:10 PM EST

and you can go do Dr. Feelgood for your speed and painkillers "legally" as well in every state in the union...but as always I have to ask, why do we play these games? To pacify the wanna-be tyrants and puritans? F*ck them:)

To you, MJ (none / 0) (#5)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 18, 2009 at 04:37:48 PM EST

is the same as alc and it's illegality is as absurd as Prohibition was. I think what you fail to realize is alc and MJ are not equivalent in the opinion many/most people.


I'd be interested to (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by jondee on Mon May 18, 2009 at 04:52:41 PM EST

see the results of a poll inquiring into which of the two the average person thinks is more harmful.

Just using the measure of the incidence of acts of violence, traffic fatalities, domestic abuse etc under the influence, its hard to believe it would even be close.


I'm not sure that (none / 0) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 18, 2009 at 04:57:54 PM EST

the general public accepts as fact what you and lentinal and many others accept as fact.

Perception is reality.


Perception is reality (none / 0) (#15)
by lentinel on Mon May 18, 2009 at 06:40:46 PM EST

but perception can be changed.

We can be made to hate some foreign country one minute, and the next minute think they're OK. It depends on what our government is putting out there to influence our opinion.

"Afros" are the look one day.
Shaving the head is the way to go the next.

The most outrageous example of perception being skewed by power was the designation of Henry Kissinger as the "sexiest man alive" at one time. Here's a guy who would make anyone's flesh crawl being perceived as sexy.

When the people who control pot distribution figure that they can make more money if it were legal, the campaign to enhance its' image would begin in earnest and would succeed in a matter of weeks - or days.


: "perception can be changed." (none / 0) (#21)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 18, 2009 at 09:12:08 PM EST

that is exactly my point.
Instead of saying "woe is me when will people just say enough already" about the issue, get out there and educate the people. w/o it perceptions will never be changed.

My guess is you'd get a lot more (none / 0) (#13)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:35:26 PM EST

"not sure" answers than you think. People aren't tested for MJ on traffic stops, or in the act of many other violent crimes. So, anyone who doesn't smoke might not want to answer what is unknown to them.


actually arrestees are usually required to submit (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Mon May 18, 2009 at 07:24:00 PM EST

To tests for BA and controlled aubstances including THC.


For traffic stops? (none / 0) (#22)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 18, 2009 at 09:17:20 PM EST

Only if arrested. (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Mon May 18, 2009 at 11:38:21 PM EST

: Ah, yes. That makes sense. (none / 0) (#26)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 19, 2009 at 12:40:30 AM EST

That may be true... (none / 0) (#14)
by lentinel on Mon May 18, 2009 at 05:51:25 PM EST

but a lot of what people think is determined by the information they are given. When people are portrayed as getting a wee bit tipsy after hoisting a few, they are portrayed as sympatico.
From Ralph Kramden, to Leon Errol, to Dean Martin etc.

So there is bound to be a sympathetic response to a question about booze.

At present, we have comics like Leno making allusions to pot and getting applause and laughter from his audience. That's about as far as it goes. What it says is that vast vast numbers of people smoke pot and enjoy it.

The truth is, as Lenny Bruce said almost fifty years ago, people can smoke pot all their lives and at worst, they develop a little bronchitis. You can spot someone with a drinking problem a mile away. It attacks the vital organs if imbibed excessively. The face gets puffy. You can't even stand up.
But drunks aren't portrayed that way - as self-destructive or violent or dangerous. I'm not saying they should be, but the fact is that the image of the drinking person is benign.

Most people can have a drink or two and enjoy it. It is sociable. It goes well with food. It used to be illegal. The same can be said for pot.

If the media started to depict the pot smoker as someone who liked to come home from work, watch a movie on tv, listen to good music, eat with friends, laugh with friends and generally have a good time, it would influence public opinion - don't you think?


Med MJ Reform (none / 0) (#20)
by MortgageMama on Mon May 18, 2009 at 08:38:16 PM EST

My brother is about as dumb as a person can come from frying his brain cells from smoking pot excessively and I criticize him for it every chance I can because he wasted a multitude of great life opportunities. But if it were legal regardless of the use for which it is being consumed, imagine how much money the various forms of government could make off of it. Im sure its not enough to get us completely out of debt from China, but its a start. The drugs that need to be watched are things made from drain or floor cleaner etc or in someones bathtub out in the woods, not a green fuzzy plant. More people kill others and commit crimes on cocaine or Meth or X or even alcohol than the subject at hand. How many people have you heard of getting into an accident while being stoned because they were driving too fast or wrecklessly...personally I havent a single one...Chances are they didnt get the car out of the driveway and got side tracked by the Twinkies in the kitchen on the way to the door. Im not promoting drug use or abuse even, Im just trying to be proactive about solutions for things that we should all be worrying about like our taxes going up to payoff our national debts to other countries.

Traffic risk? (none / 0) (#24)
by Che's Lounge on Mon May 18, 2009 at 11:34:38 PM EST

Everyone knows a drunk will go right through a stop sign while a stoner will patiently wait for it to turn green.