Round Two Begins in Legal Fight to Force Feds to Honor States’ Medical Marijuana Laws (1/31/2006)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: media@aclu.org
ACLU and Others Ask Federal Court to Approve City of
Santa Cruz Plan to
Provide Medical Marijuana Directly to
Patients
SAN JOSE, CA – The city of Santa Cruz, California and a collective of Santa
Cruz medical marijuana patients today asked a federal court to approve the
city’s
plan to provide medical marijuana directly to patients. The American
Civil Liberties Union, Bingham McCutchen LLP, the Drug Policy Alliance
and
others filed legal documents setting out new claims based on an
ordinance
recently enacted by the Santa Cruz City Council that
establishes the provision
of medical marijuana as an official city
government function. The legal papers
were filed in County of Santa
Cruz v. Gonzales.
The U.S. Constitution permits states to determine for themselves what is
legal and what is illegal under state law, according to today’s
filing. In
the case of medical marijuana, the plaintiffs argue
that the federal government
has intentionally sabotaged this process,
selectively utilizing arrests,
prosecutions and other means in an
effort to thwart state medical marijuana
laws.
“The White House wants California to march in lockstep with its misguided
prohibition of medical marijuana, but the Constitution says otherwise,”
said
Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project.
“The federal
government cannot force California or the city of Santa
Cruz to make medical
marijuana use a crime, nor can the federal
government use the threat of criminal
prosecution to intentionally
sabotage state and local laws that it does not
like.”
In addition, the group points out that federal government interference with
the ability of seriously ill, in many cases terminal, patients to use
medical
marijuana deprives them of basic due process rights in the
Constitution -
denying patients access to the only medicine that
addresses otherwise fatal
symptoms of their conditions.
County of Santa Cruz v. Gonzales originated in 2003 when Bingham
McCutchen
LLP and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), along with private
attorneys Gerald F.
Uelmen and Benjamin Rice, sued the federal
government for raiding a Santa
Cruz-area medical marijuana cooperative,
the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical
Marijuana (WAMM). The case was
delayed pending the outcome of last summer’s U.S.
Supreme Court ruling
in Raich v. Gonzales, in which the Court held that the
federal
government maintains power to enforce federal marijuana laws even in
states that have made medical marijuana legal under state law.
However, the Raich decision left intact the ability of individual states to
enact and implement their own medical marijuana laws. Responding to
local
patients, Santa Cruz enacted a first-of-its-kind ordinance to
provide medical
marijuana as a city function.
“We are asking the court to recognize the individual constitutional rights of
patients, along with the city’s right to implement California’s medical
marijuana laws,” said Frank Kennamer, an attorney with Bingham
McCutchen who
represents WAMM and individual patients in the lawsuit.
“The Santa Cruz
ordinance represents the city’s sincere attempt to
provide patients with a safe
and legal source of medical marijuana
without exposing them to the danger of
federal criminal prosecution.
These patients have a constitutional right to
their medicine.”
California passed Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act, ten
years ago, making medical marijuana legal under state law. Eleven
other
states have since enacted similar measures. Today’s legal
papers state
that, “the federal government’s campaign against
California’s medical marijuana
laws has continued unabated” and that
the federal government “continues to
purposefully interfere with
California and other states’ medical marijuana laws,
intending to
coerce states to recriminalize medical marijuana.”
The legal papers cite as evidence of the federal government’s “campaign”
against state medical marijuana laws federal interference in state
legislative
decisions to legalize medical marijuana, federal law
enforcement decisions to
focus on medical marijuana users to the
exclusion of similarly situated
non-medical marijuana users and federal
threats to doctors who recommend medical
marijuana to patients.
“The Santa Cruz case not only raises fundamental constitutional claims never
before decided by the judiciary in the context of medical marijuana,
but also
offers some of the most compelling facts ever presented by
patients to the
courts,” said Daniel Abrahamson, Director of Legal
Affairs for DPA. “At the
heart of the Santa Cruz case are patients
using marijuana to stay alive and to
live out their last days with
dignity, control and comfort. Their stories and
their plight underscore
the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans by their
constitution -
freedoms that federal officials are trying to squash.”
County of Santa Cruz v. Gonzales is currently before the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. In
addition to
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the lawsuit names
as defendants U.S.
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents
involved in the raid of WAMM, DEA
Administrator Karen Tandy and Office
of National Drug Control Policy Director
John Walters.
The group’s amended complaint is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/23992lgl20060130.html
A profile of WAMM cofounder Valerie Corral is at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/19898res20050922.html
|