Op ed in Press Herald

[tet1953]

This guy Michael Dee from Windham wrote an op ed in this morning's Press Herald.

In response to "Judge: Federal law trumps Montana's medical pot law" (23 Jan.):

What trumps federal law is the federal Constitution.
I claim the federal classification of marijuana as a controlled substance is arbitrary and violates due process of law. Marijuana does not meet all three criteria to be a controlled substance: potential for abuse, medicinal use and safety of use. Federal laws say safety of use determines medicinal use. Marijuana is safe to use without medical supervision. Marijuana is not dangerous or life threatening.
I claim criminalizing marijuana is an unreasonable and unnecessary regulation of my fundamental rights to liberty, property and privacy, and contravenes the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Criminal laws present a case or controversy under Article III. Being arrested is deprivation of liberty, seizing marijuana is deprivation of property, and a search warrant is an invasion of privacy.
Due process of law requires the deprivation of fundamental rights be justified by a compelling state interest to show the law is reasonable and "necessary" to protect public safety. The private cultivation and sale of marijuana to adults does not threaten the rights of others. There is no victim of a crime.
Every defendant in a motion to dismiss has standing to make these claims in court.
Judges can't do their job until lawyers do their jobs. It's against a lawyer's self-interests to protect fundamental rights from unreasonable laws.
Michael J. Dee is a resident of Windham.

 

[Maine Brookies]

It seems to me that there is a very strong 14th Amendment argument as the feds legally supply cannabis to a limited number of patients approved in the 1970's. Other than that, this rant does more to further the stereotype of cannabis users as scatterbrained stoners than to lay out a coherent argument for legalization.

 

[unohu69]

What part of that did you not understand? It was actually very well written.

 

[Maine Brookies]

I understood it all.

He is making a claim that is specious on it's face. It's a matter of settled law that drug prohibition has no Constitutional shortfalls. He may disagree with the rulings but they make up settled law that will not be changed by arguing Constitutional protections.

On top of that it's a mess grammatically. And he uses the word "marijuana" instead of "cannabis".

 

[cerberus]

i agree with brookies on this. he doesn't base his arguement on law, or legal president. imprisonment is unlawful, because there is no victim? your lawyer would go from defending a canabis case to trying to over turn a federal law, that has been tested in curts time and time again.. much like citizens united, i don't agree with the law BUT if congress writes it, the president signs it, and the supreme court holds it up, its law. That's how our laws are constructed and you don't repeal laws in court, its just not how are system works. as a matter of historic fact, even if they do away with a law, ALL people convicted under that law previous to the over turn will still have to serve their time and have the penalty on their case, because it WAS law when they broke it..

I like where he is coming from, but its weak. its weak on its front and it's weak in terms of legal standing.. :/ it would have been great as a forum post, but sending out to the public? i imagine it's poor grammer and weak platform is a reason why the paper printed it..

 

[Maine Brookies]

i imagine it's poor grammer and weak platform is a reason why the paper printed it..

This. Exactly.

 

[unohu69]

I get what your saying. I believe the original idea tet was conveying is the fact that the Satute they wrote is null based on the unconstitutionality of it. So they should stop wasting everyones time and just own up to it, and stop busting everyones balls.

 

[Maine Brookies]

I don't disagree with that interpretation. But he does a pretty good job of not quite getting the point across.

 

[tet1953]

I get what your saying. I believe the original idea tet was conveying is the fact that the Satute they wrote is null based on the unconstitutionality of it. So they should stop wasting everyones time and just own up to it, and stop busting everyones balls.

Minor clarification: I wasn't conveying anything. Saw the op ed in the paper and did a copy/paste. I have yet to offer an opinion on the piece, actually

 

[our4th]

I have poor grammer. running of sentences? does that includes spelling? See above " his arguement" or "tested in curts"Please give a court citation that reviews the marijuana laws by a compelling state interest test besides Ravin v Alaska (1975).I do not know how many are in this forum so I am not going to waste my time with it. Go to www.ursm.us if any of you want to seek a court solution.The problem I have had as pro se is the Courts are saying I claiming marijuana is a fundamental and that is a lie.

 

[tet1953]

Welcome to RIU our4th

 

[cerberus]

I have poor grammer. running of sentences? does that includes spelling? See above " his arguement" or "tested in curts"Please give a court citation that reviews the marijuana laws by a compelling state interest test besides Ravin v Alaska (1975).I do not know how many are in this forum so I am not going to waste my time with it. Go to www.ursm.us if any of you want to seek a court solution.The problem I have had as pro se is the Courts are saying I claiming marijuana is a fundamental and that is a lie.

see how my not reading over what i wrote, and letting spell checker (or worse none at all) made my point look weak? that is what i was saying about the op ed. secondly, what? I'm guessing this is in refference to me, i had to read the other posts for the quoted text to deduce that, but I did and here we are.. what are you saying eaxactly?