Proud Sponsors of:
New Mexico has had a medical marijuana program since 2007. But the
question of how the legalization of medical pot could affect workplace
policies against drug use is just now coming to the fore.
In August, a woman who worked in the state government
Thank you to the show Parenthood for your portrayal of someone becoming a medical marijuana patient.
During the Thanksgiving holiday, my procrastination on home projects
led me to getting caught up on the fall season of a few shows, including
NBC’s Parenthood.
I was moved to watch the main characters Kristina and Adam Braverman
and their family struggling with her cancer and all that the disease
brings. At my patients’ advocacy organization, Americans for Safe Access (ASA),
we see thousands of our members and families embark on a similar
struggle. The story of Kristina Braverman’s cancer spills into several
story lines as the family experiences the news in their own ways.
In the episode "One More Weekend with You," aired November 20,
Kristina Braverman’s character, played by Monica Potter, tries to stay
strong for her family, but becomes violently ill after receiving
chemotherapy. Her husband Adam, played by Peter Krause, finds her on the
bathroom floor and panics. He cleans her up and then packs all the kids
into the car to visit his musician-producer brother, the first person
he could think of who might have marijuana. His brother produces some
from his sock drawer and warns that it was not the same pot from when
they were kids, it was "genetically engineered" (a common
misunderstanding of the decades of modern breeding of the plant for
human consumption).
In the next scene Kristina Braverman’s character is laying in bed
smoking a joint. She is visibly better. She says it is strong and puts
it out, saying "Save that for later." Her husband asked if it helped,
and he is visibly relieved to see her smile. She acknowledges the relief
she’s found from marijuana, and says her husband will need to get "a
lot more." She settles back into her pillow and finally sleeps.
This episode reflects a situation that thousands of cancer patients
and their caregivers are experiencing, but not always with the same
ending. As a medical cannabis advocate I see this story play out in many
ways. Many caregivers don’t have a pot-smoking brother and instead find
themselves asking for marijuana from friends, family members or even
their children. Over the past decades I have heard heartbreaking stories
of people having no idea where to look and who to ask for this
medicine.
But even for those patients who can find a supply of marijuana for
their needs, many questions still arise. What if their source runs out?
What if their source gets into a legal entanglement? What if there is
mold or mildew on the medicine? What should they do if they live in
public housing?
These experiences and these questions are what voters and legislators
are trying to answer by passing laws in 18 states and the District of
Columbia. These laws don’t make marijuana medicine — cannabis is a
plant that has been used medicinally for thousands of years. The laws
are an attempt to reconcile the legal system with the reality of sick
patients seeking effective medicine. For patients and government
officials in medical cannabis states, it is now federal law that is
creating the most significant hurdle.
As 2012 comes to a close, there is a focus on what the government can
accomplish in the coming years. As Americans become more aware of the
struggles patients must go through in order to find relief, it is time
for the federal government to bridge the gap, with science and
overwhelming public support on one side and our current, harmful federal
policy on medical cannabis. Instead of denying there is any medical use
for cannabis, trying to dismantle state programs that are creating
access, and throwing providers like Montanan Chris Williams
in jail for life, the federal government should be figuring out how to
get doctors to recommend this treatment before their patients end up on
the bathroom floor.
This is not the first time we have seen medical cannabis as a
sideline topic on television or in the movies and it won’t be the last.
The arts tell the stories of our society, and with one million legal
medical cannabis patients and over one hundred million Americans living
in states with medical marijuana laws, there are many stories to tell.
I’ve told my own story of becoming a medical cannabis patient and
struggling with a lack of safe access to medicine in Washington D.C.,
most recently to the Washington Post.
If you are a medical cannabis patient or caregiver, I invite you to
tell your story in the comments, and to bravely tell your story to your
friends, family, and to your local, state and federal representatives.
Another way to get the word out is by joining Americans for Safe Access in our effort to change public health laws across the country.
Join me as well in thanking the writer of the Parenthood episode
that dealt with medical cannabis, Monica Henderson, for her thoughtful
portrayal of this difficult experience. We will encourage Hollywood to
tell more of these stories. Cancer is not going away, and neither is
cannabis. What we can change is the federal government’s lack of
compassion, and telling our stories is one way to do that.
In an attempt to get some regulation on the
books, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission on Thursday adopted a
measure granting limited immunity from enforcement to some medical
marijuana clinics in the city.
The panel’s 5-0 vote keeps in place restrictions prohibiting
dispensaries from being within 1,000 feet of residential areas, schools
and religious institutions. The city approval will allow some clinics
not in those areas to operate with immunity from local enforcement.
Special assistant city attorney Jane Usher, however, said it
would not prohibit enforcement by federal or state law enforcement
agencies.
"This is no way interferes or alters other law enforcement practices," Usher said. "It is the city standing down."
Usher said the measure was developed at the direction of the
City Council, which passed a total ban on pot shops in July but then
rescinded the law in October after dispensary supporters qualified a
referendum for the ballot seeking to overturn the ban.
Now, medical marijuana supporters are collecting signatures to
put two other initiatives on the May 21 ballot that would adopt more
lenient dispensary requirements, which could be changed only by a future
vote of the public.
Under the proposed ordinance passed by the Planning Commission
on Thursday, the city would allow dispensaries that have been in
operation since September 2007, have registered with the city, pay taxes
and agree to limits on hours of operation and location.
Fewer than 182 dispensaries meet those requirements, according to the City Attorney’s Office.
In addition, collectives of three or fewer people would be exempt, as are the caregivers of patients needing medical marijuana.
The Planning Commission agreed to allow the City Attorney’s
Office to make some technical changes to the measure before submitting
it to the City Council for consideration.
The medical marijuana community praised the Planning Commission’s decision.
"We think this is the best way to go," said Don Duncan,
California director of Americans for Safe Access. "We would urge there
be more time granted to relocate the clinics."
Aaron Green, who represents Angelenos for Safe Access that
includes 97 dispensaries, called it a "quality ordinance" that provides
access to medical marijuana for those who need it, but warned it could
be overruled this spring by voters in favor of more lenient dispensary
rules.
Usher said the measure took into consideration all the legal
actions filed against the city on medical marijuana over the past
several years.
And, she cautioned that another element could upend all the work on the issue.
"At this point, we are disappointed that the California
Supreme Court has yet to schedule arguments," Usher said. "So this is an
awkward time to bring you legislation. If it is adopted, I still would
expect it to be subject to lots and lots of lawsuits."
The city has been grappling with how to manage medical
marijuana dispensaries since the number of pot shops exploded several
years ago. It has been estimated there are between 700 to 1,000
dispensaries operating in the city, although the federal government and
the Los Angeles Police Department have sought to close many.
L.A.’s attempts to draft a law regulating when and where
dispensaries may operate have been stymied by lawsuits and court
rulings.
Washington, D.C. — District voters overwhelmingly passed the
Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative nearly 15
years ago in 1998, but after passing several hurdles the law will
finally go into effect early next year, only weeks away. In
anticipation of this quickly approaching milestone, the country’s
leading advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access (ASA), and its D.C. chapter are teaming
up with the District Department of Health for a Town Hall forum to
answer questions about implementation of the law. Patients, in
particular, will benefit by finding out how they can speak to their
doctor about medical marijuana therapy, and whether they are
qualified to become patients under the new program.
What: Town Hall Meeting — D.C. Medical Marijuana
Patients Forum
When: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 7:30pm
Where: National City Christian Church, 5 Thomas
Circle NW, Washington D.C. (in the Community Room)
The D.C. Medical Marijuana Patients Forum will feature ASA Executive
Director Steph Sherer and Dr. Feseha Woldu from District Department
of Health, and will cover such topics as: what conditions are
eligible for medical cannabis therapy, how an eligible patient
registers with the Department of Health, how registered patients are
expected to acquire medical marijuana legally in the District, and
how patients can work with the local government to make the program
work best for District residents.
"It’s important to have medical marijuana patients, the ones most
affected by the law, be directly involved in the implementation
process," said Steph Sherer. "Patients should not only begin a
dialog with their doctors about medical marijuana, they should also
clarify their needs and contribute to the development of the program
— this is one of their chances to do that."
In addition to the December 12th Town Hall forum, patients will have
another opportunity to assist with the implementation of the program
through an online patient survey that is being conducted by ASA. The
survey asks prospective patients about their current knowledge and
previous experience with the therapeutic use of marijuana. Survey
data is collected confidentially and only anonymous survey results
will be shared with the Department of Health as well as local medical
marijuana cultivators and providers so they can best tailor and
modify the program to suit the needs of District patients.
The survey can be accessed at: http://www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/DC-survey.
After a Congressional ban was lifted in 2010, implementation of the
D.C. medical marijuana law began in earnest. First, the District
Council approved a new law and set of regulations, which allowed the
Department of Health to start accepting proposals for the production
and distribution of medical marijuana. Now, more than two years
later, with six cultivators and four dispensaries granted
conditional permits, the program is close to operational, and the
ability of local patients to utilize the District’s medical
marijuana law is finally in sight.
Mendocino County officials are under federal orders to surrender
records from their now-suspended medical marijuana permitting program,
raising questions about the fate of growers named in the permits as well
as more than $800,000 in fees collected from pot farmers.
But Sheriff Tom Allman, whose department was tapped to run the
program approved in March 2010, said the exercise may be worthwhile if
it brings some clarity to a murky legal area in which state and federal
law conflicts.
With the passage of a ballot initiative this month, Massachusetts became the latest state to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes, joining 17 others and the District.
But for patients who use marijuana to alleviate chronic pain,
nausea or to stimulate their appetite, among other uses, legalizing
marijuana is only part of the battle. Health insurance rarely if ever
covers its use; some patients spend hundreds of dollars a month or more
on the drug. The situation may not change anytime soon, some experts
say.
Along with heroin, LSD and some other drugs, marijuana is classified as a Schedule 1 substance
under the federal Controlled Substances Act. That means the drug is
considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for
abuse.
In October, consumer advocates presented oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
to remove marijuana from that list. Reclassification would make it
easier to conduct research on therapeutic uses for marijuana, say
advocates, and ultimately make the drug more accessible to patients.
Last year, the Drug Enforcement Administration denied a request to reclassify the drug, following an evaluation by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Proponents of medical marijuana argue that research shows marijuana to be effective
or show promise in treating a variety of medical problems, from cancer
pain and nausea to spasticity caused by multiple sclerosis. They point
to the drug Marinol,
which is approved to stimulate appetite in patients with AIDS and
contains a synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), one of the
active ingredients in marijuana. But health insurers remained
unconvinced.
There are
In October 2010, with a quixotic marijuana initiative leading in
California polls, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder answered an urgent
letter from retired heads of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.
"Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19," Holder wrote, declaring he would "vigorously enforce" federal law if California voters passed the measure, which would have legalized recreational marijuana use for adults over 21 and allowed retail sales of pot.
This
year, Holder notably declined to respond as the retired DEA
administrators sent him another anxious letter expressing opposition to
marijuana legalization efforts. This time, voters in two states,
Washington and Colorado, voted 55 percent to 45 percent to legalize
marijuana beyond medical use, upping the stakes in America’s marijuana
debate.
California, which passed America’s first medical marijuana initiative
in 1996 and pushed the envelope on legalization in 2010, has become an
also-ran in the discussion. The state also lags in regulation of medical
cannibis.
"It feels like you guys are still going through the
awkward step of adolescence, and Colorado and Washington have gone on to
the next step," said Sam Kamin, a professor at the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law who researches marijuana policy.
In
California, where Holder’s letter was widely publicized and flipped the
polls as Proposition 19 went down to defeat, marijuana advocates hope
successful legalization votes elsewhere will at least persuade the
Legislature to regulate the state’s existing medical marijuana industry,
which operates in an amorphous legal haze.
"This is called a game-changer," said Ellen Komp, California deputy director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
The group backed failed legislation this year to license California
medical marijuana dispensaries and growers in hopes that stricter state
oversight would help repel an ongoing federal crackdown.
"No one
thought we were going to get a full legalization measure anywhere
Aaron Sandusky’s potential
sentence of 10 years to life for growing, possessing and intending to
sell marijuana may seem severe, but his is one of only a handful of
similar cases to have made it to the courtroom.
Sandusky, president of a medical marijuana dispensary based in
Upland, was convicted in October in federal court of eight drug charges.
Proponents of medical marijuana say Sandusky’s case is one of
only four in recent years where the defendant has fought prosecutors to
trial.
According to Kris Hermes, spokesman for Oakland-based
Americans for Safe Access, only three similar cases have been tried in
recent years – Charles C. Lynch of Arroyo Grande, a former Morro Bay
medical marijuana dispensary owner; Montana resident Christopher
Williams; and Michigan father and son Gerald and Jeremy Duval.
"Very few cases go to trial," Hermes said.
That being the case, it’s difficult to predict just how much time Sandusky might get.
Former U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Larson cited federal
sentencing guidelines and suggested that in a case like Sandusky’s the
sentence will likely be closer to the minimum.
He noted, however, that federal judges have considerable latitude in meting out sentences.
"I’m not predicting what the federal judge is going to do," he said.
He also noted that unlike most crimes, which carry a maximum
but no minimum sentence, drug offenses often carry mandatory minimum
sentences.
"The particular charges for Mr. Sandusky, conspiracy to
manufacture marijuana plants, possession with intent to distribute and
other charges, those charges carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 10
years in prison," Larson said.
Lynch, the former Morro Bay medical marijuana dispensary
owner, faced up to 20 years for selling more than $2.1 million in
marijuana in one year at the Central Coast Compassionate Caregivers
dispensary.
Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided Lynch’s medical
marijuana dispensary in March 2007 after he operated it for 11 months.
He and his employees were also charged with selling marijuana to 281
minors during the same year.
U.S. District Judge George Wu sentenced him to a reduced term
of a year and a day in prison in June 2009 after finding that Lynch
merited an exception to a mandatory minimum five-year sentence as
prescribed by the sentencing guidelines.
Wu added he was bound by law to give at least a one-year sentence.
The conviction on five marijuana-related offenses was one of
the first in the nation to be challenged in federal court after U.S.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced earlier that year that the
federal government would only target medical marijuana dispensaries when
it appeared they were using state law as cover for illegal narcotics
operations.
During the case, Wu indicated that the Justice Department’s
clarification of its newly stated position on medical marijuana
prosecutions would not change Lynch’s conviction but could affect his
sentence.
Additionally, Wu seemed to ponder whether Lynch could be
sentenced for an activity that he believed to be legal under Morro Bay
municipal codes.
Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los
Angeles, said both sides are appealing the Lynch verdict, with federal
prosecutors appealing the sentence and the defense appealing the
conviction.
As in Lynch’s case, Larson said it’s possible Sandusky’s judge
could disregard the statutes and guidelines and make his own sentence.
"Ultimately, a federal judge will impose the sentence they
feel," he said. "If it’s contrary to the statute, the government will
appeal and go to the appellate court. But at the end of the day, federal
judges are independent."
In Montana, where medical marijuana is also legal, federal
prosecutors successfully charged Christopher Williams, who was convicted
in September of eight counts of conspiring to grow and distribute
marijuana, possession with intent to distribute and possession of a
firearm during a drug-trafficking offense.
Williams faces a mandatory minimum sentence of more than 80 years in prison.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office has offered to dismiss six of the
eight counts, which would lower Williams’ minimum sentence to 10 years,
but has demanded in return that Williams waive his right to appeal the
remaining convictions.
Williams has rejected the offer. His attorney, Michael
Donahoe, a senior litigator for the Federal Defenders of Montana,
declined to comment for this report.
In Michigan, father and son Gerald and Jeremy Duval were
convicted of growing marijuana in greenhouses, and while they claimed it
was for medicinal purposes, the judge at sentencing found their
operation suggested otherwise.
"When you’re in compliance with state law I believe they
should leave you alone," Gerald Duval said of the federal government on
Wednesday in a phone interview while waiting to be imprisoned.
Gerald Duval, 52, said he uses medical marijuana for diabetes,
glaucoma and other health problems. He was sentenced to 10 years in
prison.
His caregiver son, 30-year-old Jeremy, was sentenced to five years in prison.
"We were convicted because the jury was instructed to follow
this violation of federal law," Gerald Duval said. "During jury
selection, every juror was asked, `Can you find them guilty for
violating federal law?’ Even though there is licensed medical marijuana
in Michigan. Manufacturing over 100 plants, that carries a mandatory
five years. That’s why Jeremy got five years. I got 10 years because I’m
an ex-felon. I was convicted of cocaine charges in the mid ’80s."
Hermes said the Duvals were complying with state law and were
cultivators for a handful of patients when they were caught up in "what
amounts to a series of federal attacks across the country on marijuana.
Well over 200 raids have been conducted by the DEA since (President
Barack) Obama took office and those raids have resulted in around 100
indictments."
While Aaron Sandusky and his supporters contend he committed no crime
under California state law, he stands to spend many years — and
possibly the rest of his life — behind bars.
Sandusky was president of Upland-based G3 Holistic, a medical marijuana dispensary, which in California, is legal.
In October, however, he was convicted in federal court of
eight counts related to growing, possessing and intending to sell
marijuana for profit.
His case, one of a handful in which federal prosecutors have
charged and convicted purveyors of medical marijuana in states where
such use is legal, highlights a fundamental conflict between state and
federal law at a time when public opposition to marijuana is waning.
"It really goes to the heart of federalism and the
relationship between state government and state rights and federal
government and federal power," said former U.S. District Court Judge
Stephen Larson. "It’s a classic contest between states’ rights and
federal power, and that contest needs to be resolved in courts and in
Congress."
While no meaningful challenge to federal law has been mounted,
18 states permit medical marijuana, and in the Nov. 6 election,
Colorado and Washington legalized recreational use of marijuana.
Still, dispensaries and their owners find themselves in the crosshairs of law enforcement.
California’s four U.S. attorneys in September announced they were taking aim at large-scale growers and dispensary owners
who falsely claim that their operations comply with state law. Many such
owners throughout Los Angeles County have found themselves caught in
this spotlight as has been the case for the past several years.
The conflict over state and federal law has led to confusion and
frustration by dispensary owners who believe what they are doing is
legal.
Perhaps Sandusky thought he was safe from federal prosecution
after President Barack Obama said the Attorney General would not
prosecute marijuana cases in states that had legalized it.
His attorney, Roger Diamond, attempted to make that argument in his defense, but the judge refused to consider it.
On Oct. 12, Sandusky was convicted of conspiracy to grow
marijuana, to possess marijuana with intent to distribute it and to
maintain a drug-related premises. He was also convicted of one count of
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.
He faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison
and could receive as much as a life sentence, said Bruce Riordan,
assistant U.S. attorney.
His girlfriend, Darlene Buenrostro of Rancho Cucamonga, said
Sandusky is being held in Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles.
"He has good and bad days," Buenrostro said. "He was just
shocked and didn’t anticipate (his conviction). I don’t know if you
could read the look on his face. He was still feeling positive. But once
the verdict was handed down, he was deflated."
Sandusky’s story is not a simple one.
He opened G3 Holistic in Upland in November 2009, six months
after Obama, in a well-publicized interview with the Oregon
Mail-Tribune, said the government would not aggressively pursue medical
marijuana cases in states that had legalized it.
"I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try
to circumvent state laws on this issue," Obama said in March 2009.
In the same month, the Justice Department issued its own
policy statement, in which Attorney General Eric Holder said federal
investigators would only target suspects who appeared to be using
medical marijuana laws as a shield for illegal distribution, non-licensed distribution.
Whatever his intent, Sandusky did not receive a warm welcome in Upland.
The city, citing zoning laws banning dispensaries, sought and
obtained an injunction, forcing G3 to close less than a year after it
opened. Upland has a zoning ordinance on the books that bans
dispensaries. The city’s authority to ban dispensaries is being
challenged in state Supreme Court.
Undeterred, Sandusky opened additional clinics in nearby Colton and Moreno Valley, even as he appealed Upland’s injunction.
A few months later, in February 2011, he filed a federal
lawsuit, accusing Upland’s mayor, John "JP" Pomierski, of extortion,
bribery and racketeering.
In March, federal agents arrested Pomierski and charged him
with conspiracy, bribery and extortion, accusing him of demanding bribes
from unnamed Upland businesses that appeared to be G3 and a local
restaurant that also had filed claims against the city.
Sandusky continued to fight the city, winning a stay on the injunction from an appellate court in June 2011.
In November 2011, the court ruled that the city’s injunction
was valid on the grounds that the dispensary violated the city’s zoning
ordinances.
In December, G3 re-opened in Upland pending appeal to the state Supreme Court based on Diamond’s interpretation of the law.
A start date for the trial has not been set.
Over the past year, the dispensary has closed and opened
several times, as motions fly back and forth between the city and
Sandusky’s attorney, who contends Upland’s goal is to ban dispensaries
entirely, which is contrary to state law.
"Aaron wants that case to be pursued and I’m going to pursue
it," Diamond said in October shortly after his client was found guilty
and added nothing had changed.
"We’re waiting for oral arguments" in Supreme Court.
As for the mayor, Pomierski ultimately accepted a plea bargain
before his case could go to trial and he was sentenced in August to two
years in prison for accepting a $5,000 bribe in return for the city’s
granting of a permit to a local business.
Pomierski’s successor, Ray Musser, sought federal assistance
in the city’s fight against Sandusky, writing on May 5, 2011, to U.S.
Attorney Andre Birotte, Jr., asking the federal government to help the
city "prohibit the commercial cultivation and dispensing of `medical
marijuana."’
Agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency raided G3 in March,
and in June Sandusky and five of his employees were arrested on
suspicion of violating federal drug laws.
While his employees pled guilty to lesser charges, Sandusky maintained the prosecution was unjust.
U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson refused, however, to admit
evidence or testimony related to conflicts between state and federal law
or to consider statements made by the president or the Justice
Department. Anderson refused because the matter was a federal case.
In October, Sandusky was found guilty.
Sandusky’s conviction drew national attention and coverage from
publications as diverse as the Washington Times, Huffington Post and any
number of medical marijuana niche publications.
Kris Hermes, spokesman for Oakland-based Americans for Safe
Access, the largest national member-based organization promoting safe
and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research, said the
manner in which courts consider evidence is a roadblock to a fair trial
in cases such as Sandusky’s.
Federal law is such that the government doesn’t recognize the
medical value of medical marijuana, and there is no distinction between
medical use and non medical use, Hermes said.
Without that distinction, the government can effectively
exclude any evidence of medical use even if people being tried are in
compliance with local and state laws.
"That’s the situation with Aaron Sandusky," Hermes said. "As
with really every defendant that’s tried in federal court, the lack of a
defense is a huge problem. We’ve tried to introduce legislation on
several occasions to help a defendant with a reasonable defense but we
haven’t been successful on that front yet."
Hermes said his group has a lawsuit in Washington D.C. federal
court challenging the government’s position that marijuana has no
medical value and oral arguments for it were recently made.
"We’re hopeful that will begin a process that if we prevail in
court of establishing a more sensible health policy for medical
marijuana," Hermes said.
Larson, the retired federal judge, declined to speak
specifically about Sandusky’s case, but noted that in federal court,
it’s not unreasonable or unusual for arguments based on state law to be
prohibited.
"State law does not govern in federal court," Larson said.
"State law would not be admissible. It’s something the U.S. Congress
needs to resolve. The states cannot force the federal government to
change their law. This is something federal law will have to
accommodate."
Lanny Swerdlow, a Palm Springs resident and local advocate for
medical marijuana, believes that if courts could consider medicinal use
of marijuana or state laws, cases like Sandusky’s would end very
differently.
"That is the biggest," Swerdlow said of allowing the prohibited testimony.
"There is more of a likelihood that a defendant in federal
court could be acquitted by a jury if they’re allowed to present
evidence of medical necessity or compliance of state law. But it’s just a
formality for the court to side with the federal prosecution. The U.S.
Supreme Court has indicated no difference between medical and non
medical use of marijuana."
The important issue Sandusky’s case reveals is not limited to medical marijuana, Larson said.
"I would hope that the courts and Congress take a longer view
on this issue and look beyond the particulars of whether or not medical
marijuana dispensaries are going to be lawful and consider the impact
this has for our constitutional form of government and what role the
states continue to play in that framework," Larson said.
Besides medical marijuana, there are numerous issues, such as
gay marriage, immigration, healthcare and energy that fall under the
same umbrella, Larson said.
"We saw that play out big time, and we see it going forward in health care," Larson said.
"The passage of Obamacare and challenge of states by the
mandatory nature of it. The federal government, the Supreme Court, found
that the tax and spending power of the federal government trumped
states rights. If you take an overview of the history of the U.S. since
the founding constitution, a general erosion of states rights and growth
of federal power, that’s been the general trend for 225 plus years. But
there are instances where there’s adjustments. It’s interesting to see
how this plays out."
Sandusky will be sentenced Jan. 7 in U.S. District Court.
Diamond, Sandusky’s attorney, said his client’s spirit was not broken despite the case.
"He feels strongly about the importance of providing medical
marijuana to people who need it," Diamond said. "He is extremely sincere
in his beliefs. And he has faith in the appellate system. I do, too."
Father
and son Gerald, right, and Jeremy Duval of Michigan were convicted in
May of conspiring to manufacture more than 100 marijuana plants,
manufacturing marijuana plants with intent to distribute them and
maintaining a place to distribute marijuana.
Sentence: They received 10 years in prison.
Charles
C. Lynch was convicted in 2009 of five marijuana-related offenses for
running a medical marijuana dispensary collective in San Luis Obispo.
Sentence: One year
Aaron
Sandusky of Upland was convicted in October on violating two counts of
federal marijuana laws and conspiracy to manufacture marijuana plus
intent to distribute.
Sentence: He is in custody awaiting sentencing in January, facing 10 years prison.
Christopher
Williams of Montana was convicted in September 2012 of eight counts of
conspiring to grow and distribute marijuana, possession with intent to
distribute and possession of a firearm during a drug-trafficking
offense, despite medical marijuana being legal in the state.
Sentence: Minimum of 92 years in prison.
La Mesans will have the chance to vote on a medical marijuana
dispensary ordinance, after the city council voted 4-1 Tuesday to
approve a resolution adding it to the ballot in November 2014.
The ordinance is based upon a certified petition that was filed with
the city clerk last month. It contains the requisite number of
signatures (3,041) needed to submit it to voters in the next statewide
election.
The council was given three options on what to do with the ordinance:
immediately enact it into law, choose to place it on the ballot for the
next election, or order a report compiled by the City Attorney with
information on the impact the ordinance would have for the City of La
Mesa.
They chose not to order a report, deeming it unnecessary and
redundant based on similar reports that already existed for other county
municipalities.
The council heard from two medical marijuana advocates, who
encouraged the council to enact the resolution right away, and to
provide safe access to medical marijuana for patients that need it.
