First Medical Marijuana Federal Preemption Challenge
MMJ patients need help to pay for the precedent setting litigation we presently have in front of the Colorado Supreme Court that will impact everyones relationship with cannabis.
1. For the first time ever a high court will consider and RULE on IF federal law (Controlled Substances Act, CSA) preempts state medical marijuana laws, in this case the Colorado Constitution.
Federal premeption- The invalidation of US state laws that conflict with federal laws.
2. For the first time in Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court will decide if medical marijuana patients have rights, not merely privileges.
Both issues will have national impact. The High Court intends to rule sometime in June-July 2014.
The PCRLP cannot/has not hindered this ruling with our amicus. Without it patients lose their chance to even argue they have rights before bad case law is set.
Amicus curiae-Latin, a friend of the court brief. A way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal affects of a court decission will not depend soley on the parties directly involved in the case. Amicus brings new perspective into an existing case. It's acceptance lies soley on the discretion court. The PCRLP amicus has been accepted by the court.
All monies collected will go towards legal expenses for the PCRLP.
More on both issues:
Federal Preemption: The feds have spent the last 18 years since Prop 215 passed telling everyone that the CSA trumps state MMJ programs, yet there is no case law that confirms that. Raich confirmed the feds trump on inter-state commerce, not medical marijuana. Pro cannabis attorneys, drug 'reform' groups, law enforcement and government offices across the country have conceded that the feds trump and patients have no rights. The Patient and Caregiver Rights Litigation Project (PCRLP) believes differently.
On Patient Rights: This will be the third time this issue has been brought to the CO Supreme Court by the PCRLP since the passage of HB10-1284 gutted Colorado's Constitutional patient/caregiver medical marijuana model passed in 2000.
Implications: If the court rules patients have rights and federal law does not trump state MMJ rights (what the PCRLP is hoping for which would mean they would overturned the lower court rulings in Coats v Dish) then people who use medical marijuana:
If the court agrees with the lower courts and rules patients do not have rights and federal law does preempt then everything above will still be a risk for medical patients, except patients and caregivers deciding their own plant count under state law, which is Constitutional but still needs to be addressed by a high court now that the CDPHE believes they have a right to limit plants (limit medicine quantities) and any plant count would remain at risk from the feds.
If the court rules patients have rights but federal law preempts, than anything related to federal aid, federal housing, banking, student loans, organ transplants or cultivation/possession/use will still be at risk.
In our opinion, the court will most likely not rule against patient rights and against federal preemptionwhich would mean the patients still have all risks above at a state level, but not at a federal level.