Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
16. here's a link
Tue May 8, 2012, 09:10 PM
May 2012
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/congress_oks_medical_marijuana_everywhere_with_dc.php

D.C.'s medical marijuana law was the first time that the United States Congress had ever given its explicit assent to any state or local law that permits the medicinal use of marijuana -- and, according to a California attorney who specializes in health care compliance, that is enormously significant under the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

​In 2009, noting that it was "allowing" the voters of Washington, D.C., to vote on and implement that city's Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law, Congress approved medicinal cannabis in the federal District of Columbia, over which it has all governmental power.

Matthew Pappas: "Congress has turned over the area of medical marijuana to state and local governments"
​On December 2, 2011, in anticipation of the opening of medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation centers, the District's mayor released final rules for the program. Last month, the D.C. Council compromised on medical marijuana cultivation centers, a compromise agreement that limited the number of centers in each ward to six. The District of Columbia's medical marijuana program is now being implemented.

"States with medical marijuana programs should now be free from federal interference since Congress has allowed local control," attorney Matthew Pappas at Pappas Law Group, based in Long Beach, California, told Toke of the Town Monday afternoon. "Congress being the legislative branch of the federal sovereign and the only body that can change these laws has now done so by recognizing the voting rights of Washington, D.C., citizens."


This is something that would have to be argued - but it would be an "easy" way for Congress to deal with this issue without actually dealing with it - to say... oops. I guess that bad policy and law can no longer be upheld. Not that I think that will happen...

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What next? Gay marriage? MannyGoldstein May 2012 #1
Now if we can just get the feds to quit ignoring state laws. Lionessa May 2012 #2
Sadly, this administration shares that knack with its predecessors villager May 2012 #3
The executive branch and Congress need to respond to the will of the American people RainDog May 2012 #4
i agree but not because a majority of people, that's a slippery slope I won't go near. Lionessa May 2012 #5
I agree - but the reason a majority want the law to change is because of the science RainDog May 2012 #6
Well we hope that's the reason, but in the end it doesn't matter, Lionessa May 2012 #7
Since the govt can no longer control information about this topic RainDog May 2012 #9
Thanks for fighting the good fight RainDog. iscooterliberally May 2012 #24
thanks for those kind words RainDog May 2012 #26
That's pretty much what Arizona is arguing at the SC in regard to SB1070 CactusJak May 2012 #8
Yes, however the OPs title is inaccurate. Fed law does outrank State law for Lionessa May 2012 #10
it is indeed a very tough road to walk - if you are a federal truedelphi May 2012 #14
Arizona is arguing against human rights RainDog May 2012 #11
You say: truedelphi May 2012 #15
here's a link RainDog May 2012 #16
I see this as a win for human rights, not because of the origin of the law. I'm encouraged by it. freshwest May 2012 #12
Same hear. And a big shout out to raindog for truedelphi May 2012 #13
It's from Dec. 2011 RainDog May 2012 #17
I'd have never known if you hadn't. This is the first I heard. Thanks! freshwest May 2012 #20
Misleading headline -- Actually, as stated in the story, "The U.S. Supreme Court REFUSED TO REVIEW AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #18
Excuse me but doesn't the USSC refusal to review a case mean bupkus May 2012 #21
Of course that's what that means. In contrast, it does not mean (as improperly implied by the AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #23
Does This Mean DallasNE May 2012 #19
Federal agencies can make arrests in states. RainDog May 2012 #22
Even though Meiko May 2012 #25
Do you know that Arizona has had to vote for the same law three times? RainDog May 2012 #27
kick b/c I'm so pissed at what is going on now. n/t RainDog Dec 2012 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Drug Policy»U.S. Supreme Court: Feder...»Reply #16