Political stunts mocking the integrity of the judicial system. Who’da thunk it possible…
Recently, Arizona’s Governor filed a lawsuit against the federal government, claiming that she is “concerned” that state workers could end up in legal trouble federally for implementing Arizona’s medical marijuana program. It’s definitely not because she opposed Proposition 203 in the first place.
It’s not. Trust her.
See, Governor Brewer apparently is worried about “people winding up in legal trouble.” Never mind the suffering that implementation of medical marijuana will save sick patients in her state…we’ve gotta “follow the law!”
(Hint, hint, Governor Brewer: your failure to remove marijuana from Schedule I, and petition the federal government, is the only thing putting patients at risk of federal prosecution in your state. If you want to follow the law, file for federal removal of marijuana from Schedule I based on state sovereignty. You’re welcome for the tip.)
Today, Arizona’s weak lawsuit against the federal government was shown for what it is: a massive, epic failure to assert state sovereignty. Shame on you, Governor Brewer, for your thinly veiled political stunt. Patients deserve better representation from elected representatives.
At page 2, footnote 1, of the U.S. Attorney’s Motion to Dismiss the case today, the federal attorneys arguing the case pointed out what Iowa already knows: it’s the Controlled Substances Act, stupid!
Congress found that “[a]ny attempt to authorize under State law an activity prohibited under . . . the Controlled Substances Act would conflict with that . . . Act,” and expressed its sense that “the several States, and the citizens of such States, should reject the legalization of drugs through legislation, ballot proposition, constitutional amendment, or any other means.” Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. D, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-758 (1998).
–Page 2, Footnote 1, Arizona v. United States of America, 11-01072, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona (Phoenix).
Wow. Case law, explaining legal arguments. I wonder if Governor Brewer read that case (or even did any research whatsoever) before filing her political stunt…I mean, lawsuit…for the federal government.
Wait, did I say lawsuit for the federal government? My tongue must have slipped in the slippery semantics. I apologize.
The ACLU, whose arguing against this lawsuit, pointed out that “states shouldn’t be able to challenge the legality of their own laws in federal court.” If Governor Brewer truly wanted to stop the threat of federal interference, she would assert her state sovereignty by suing the federal government for failure to remove marijuana from Schedule I.
Schedule I is the only impediment to state medical marijuana laws receiving Constitutional protection from federal oversight. See, Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 258 (2006):
(“The Attorney General has rulemaking power to fulfill his duties under the CSA. The specific respects in which he is authorized to make rules, however, instruct us that he is not authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law.”)
Descheduling/rescheduling/unscheduling marijuana is the only thing that will solve federal interference with state laws. When will states stand up for their rights and utilize their due process? Ignoring this legal strategy at the detriment of patients is morally reprehensible; patients are suffering as a result.
If you live in a medical marijuana state, pay attention to Iowa’s work: we’re doing it right, and winning, in a state with no medical marijuana access. Get educated, study the law…AND USE IT!!!
It’s really quite simple.