San Francisco
Federal Judge May Order Jury Trial On Medical Necessity;
Rules Against Both Oakland And Narks
(Ed. note: A Federal jury trial on medical
marijuana in the Bay Area is a serious threat to the prohibitionists.)
August 31, 1998Associated Press
By Bob Egelko, Associated Press Writer
JUDGE REJECTS CITY RUN CANNABIS CLUB BUT DENIES IMMEDIATE SHUTDOWN
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) –
A federal judge on Monday rejected Oakland’s attempt to
shield its medical marijuana club from federal drug laws by making it part of city
government, but refused to order the immediate shutdown of clubs in Oakland and two other
cities.
See
Using Federal Law
Legalizing Drug Dealing By Narks, Oakland Makes Cannabis Club Staff Agents of City –
2 Articles
Instead, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said he may allow
a jury to decide whether patients at the clubs need marijuana to relieve pain and survive
treatment for cancer, AIDS and other illnesses.
Breyer rejected both a request by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative to
dismiss the federal government’s suit and a motion by the government to declare the
clubs in contempt of court and close them without a trial. The other two clubs are in
Ukiah and the Marin County community of Fairfax.
The judge tentatively scheduled a hearing Sept. 28 on whether
there should be a trial, and allowed the clubs to remain open at least until then.
The clubs sprang up around California after passage of Proposition 215, the November
1996 initiative that allows seriously ill patients to grow and use marijuana for pain
relief, with a doctor’s recommendation, without being prosecuted under state law.
But many of the clubs have been shut down through the efforts of Attorney General Dan
Lungren, who obtained state court rulings limiting the scope of Proposition 215, and the
Clinton administration’s Justice Department, which sued six clubs to enforce federal
laws against marijuana distribution.
See
Feds Ask Judge To
Immediately Close Medical Cannabis Clubs In Oakland, And In Marin And Mendocino Counties
Breyer issued an injunction in May prohibiting the six Northern California clubs from
distributing marijuana while the government’s suit was pending. Three of the clubs
have remained open, including the Oakland club, which claims 2,000 members.
See
Under Jeff Jones, Oakland Buyers
Club Endures In Spite of Troubles Elsewhere; Peron Gives Control to Hazel Rogers, 78
"We’re going to remain open," the club’s director, Jeff Jones, said
after Monday’s hearing. "We feel what we’re doing is a necessity to these
patients."
The club had hoped to win immunity from federal prosecution as a result of Oakland’s
apparently unprecedented action Aug. 13, previously authorized by the City Council,
declaring club officials to be city agents who were distributing marijuana to patients on
the city’s behalf.
In court, the club invoked a federal drug law that protects state
and local officers from legal liability while legally enforcing drug-related laws. That
law was intended to shield police from prosecution for undercover drug transactions, but
its wording also covers city agents who distribute medical marijuana, argued Gerald
Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor representing the club.
"We’re not dealing with a subversive effort to undercut the government’s
drug war," Uelmen said. "This is a careful and good-faith effort to implement
the will of the people, consistent with federal law."
Breyer called the argument "creative" but "not persuasive." He said
club employees are not legally enforcing a drug-related law when their "purpose is to
violate federal law."
(Ed. note: In other words, Congress intended to legalize lying and
drug dealing by the police, but not honest care for seriously ill people. Oh yeah, that
Congress!)
Uelmen said the club would appeal the ruling, though he did not know whether an immediate
appeal was possible.
But Breyer rejected government lawyers’ arguments that there
was conclusive evidence the clubs were violating his injunction and should be shut down
immediately.
The judge said he may order a jury trial on the issue of "medical
necessity": the clubs’ claim that violation of a federal drug law was the only
way to pain that was serious, and in some cases life-threatening.
He did not
rule on the government’s argument that a club would have to be closed if necessity
could not be proven for every one of its patients.
Supported