U.S. Judge Considers Argument that Cannabis Law is Unconstitutional, Decision Expected in March

marijuana card

U.S. Judge Considers Argument that Cannabis Law is Unconstitutional, Decision Expected in March

By Reuters

A federal judgecannabis24 hearing the case of nine men accused of illegally growing marijuana in California said Wednesday she was taking very seriously arguments by their attorneys that the federal government has improperly classified the drug as among the most dangerous, and should throw the charges out.

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller said she would rule within 30 days on the request, which comes amid looser enforcement of U.S. marijuana laws, including moves to legalize its recreational use in Washington state, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska.

“If I were persuaded by the defense’s argument, if I bought their argument, what would you lose here?” she asked prosecutors during closing arguments on the motion to dismiss the cases against the men.


Delta Extrax


The men were charged in 2011 with growing marijuana on private and federal land in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in Northern California near the city of Redding.

If convicted, they face up to life imprisonment and a $10 million fine, plus forfeiture of property and weapons.

In their case before Mueller in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, defense lawyers have argued that U.S. law classifying pot as a Schedule One drug, which means it has no medical use and is among the most dangerous, is unconstitutional, given that 23 states have legalized the drug for medical use.

Lawyer Zenia Gilg, who represented defense attorneys for all of the men during closing arguments, pointed to Congress’ recent decision to ban the Department of Justice from interfering in states’ implementation of their medical marijuana laws as evidence of her contention that the drug’s classification as Schedule One should be overturned.

“It’s impossible to say that there is no accepted medical use,” said Gilg, who has argued that her client was growing pot for medical use.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Broderick said that it was up to Congress to change the law, not the court. He said that too few doctors believed that marijuana had medical uses for the drug’s definition to change under the law.

“We’re not saying that this is the most dangerous drug in the world,” Broderick said. “All we’re saying is that the evidence is such that reasonable people could disagree.”

The defendants, he said, were illegally growing marijuana on federal land.

“They had weapons,” Broderick said. “These guys were not producing medicine.”

6 Comments

  • Paul Shively
    February 12, 2015

    The federal enforcement of bans on Cannabis is archaic in this day and age. Just as the views of the people changed just prior to the repeal of Prohibition. Just as alcohol was believed to be the evil of the time and is now acceptable in almost all social circles, Cannabis someday will be also
    The will of the people is evident as legalization spreads across this great nation.

  • Anonymous
    February 12, 2015

    If it doesnt have medicinal qualities then what is merinal? Pharmacy’s answer to marijunia?

  • Corey Miller
    February 12, 2015

    Guns and Marijuana don’t mix!

    • mike keen
      February 13, 2015

      i would rather be around stoned people an guns SEEMS more people shot n killed by there drunk hunting buddy do your resurch violence on mmj is very very rare booze they do shit they loose control but thats acceptable ?? i can tell you never smoked or you wouldnt say this

  • Jeremy cooper
    February 20, 2015

    I have two things to say. First the us government can not deny the medical benefits of marijuana when they are the ones holding the patent to the medical benefits of marijuana. You can not patent something that does not exist. Second the tenth ammendment prevents the federal government for making any law not pertaining to what is already in the constitution. That is why they needed the eighteenth ammendment to make alcohol illegal.

  • Mannie
    March 29, 2015

    I have a broader question: What gives the Federal Government the right to regulate Marijuana at all? It too a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit alcohol.

Post a Comment