Could Part of Prop 203 be Unconstitutional

L

LEAPSpeaker

Active Member
Back in 1968 Dr. Timothy Leary got caught with some marijuana. If you don't know who Timothy Leary is, look it up, he's important in drug reform.

Anyway, after Mexico wouldn’t let him in, he tried to get back into the U.S., but he was searched and they found the marijuana. The government charged him with not purchasing a Marijuana tax Stamp, but in court he argued that to buy a Marijuana Tax Stamp he would have to incriminate himself by giving his name.

The Supreme Court agreed with Dr. Leary, and ruled unanimously that laws cannot be used to force marijuana users into incriminating themselves, saying, “Compliance with the transfer tax provisions would have required petitioner unmistakably to identify himself as a member of [a]…’selective’ and ’suspect’ group, we can only decide that when read according to their terms these provisions created a ‘real and appreciable’ hazard of incrimination.”

So does this mean that if the Department of Health requires patients to put their names on medical marijuana ID cards, will it be unconstitutional and cause expensive lawsuits?

U.S. Supreme Court LEARY v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 6 (1969)
395 U.S. 6, Argued December 11-12, 1968. Decided May 19, 1969.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=395&page=6

I write about law a lot in my posts, that's because I'm a former cop, today I'm a speaker for LEAP or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition www.CopsSayLegalzeDrugs.com If you want to know more look at our web page, or my bio on the speakers page, I'm the only LEAP speaker in Arizona.

Jay
 
YThor

YThor

Well-Known Member
Most of the Constitution has been trashed anyway. It would take years for this sort of thing to wend its way through the court, and between Scalia and Alito, the deck has been stacked against it. The court has changed a lot since 1969.

I'm more interested in HIPAA and medical marijuana in Arizona. Too much insecure record-keeping, too many fingerprints (the word "fingerprint" appears 28 times in the draft rules since, you know, fingerprints *totally* work to keep pot off the streets), to many SSNs ("Social Security Number" appears 9 times), date of birth, and some form of ID (passport, state ID, whatever).

All those nice, juicy records- complete with photo IDs, fingerprints, SSNs, state-issued IDs- along with how much, what, and when the stuff was purchased. Just what the DEA needs to prosecute: one court order, and it could be delivered as one big, fat data file.
 
brownbearclan

brownbearclan

Active Member
Hmm yeah that does bring up an interesting conundrum. From everything I've heard about various states and how they do their MMJ most people would prefer to just stay illegal as they feel it's safer!
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
LEAPSpeaker said:
Back in 1968 Dr. Timothy Leary got caught with some marijuana. If you don't know who Timothy Leary is, look it up, he's important in drug reform.

Anyway, after Mexico wouldn’t let him in, he tried to get back into the U.S., but he was searched and they found the marijuana. The government charged him with not purchasing a Marijuana tax Stamp, but in court he argued that to buy a Marijuana Tax Stamp he would have to incriminate himself by giving his name.

The Supreme Court agreed with Dr. Leary, and ruled unanimously that laws cannot be used to force marijuana users into incriminating themselves, saying, “Compliance with the transfer tax provisions would have required petitioner unmistakably to identify himself as a member of [a]…’selective’ and ’suspect’ group, we can only decide that when read according to their terms these provisions created a ‘real and appreciable’ hazard of incrimination.”

So does this mean that if the Department of Health requires patients to put their names on medical marijuana ID cards, will it be unconstitutional and cause expensive lawsuits?

U.S. Supreme Court LEARY v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 6 (1969)
395 U.S. 6, Argued December 11-12, 1968. Decided May 19, 1969.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=395&page=6

I write about law a lot in my posts, that's because I'm a former cop, today I'm a speaker for LEAP or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition www.CopsSayLegalzeDrugs.com If you want to know more look at our web page, or my bio on the speakers page, I'm the only LEAP speaker in Arizona.

Jay
Click to expand...
Interesting but Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And by registering under state law it is legal.

So, as screwed up as it is... I would say that yes, the state could require you to register even though it is still illegal federally.
 
4

420Az

Member
The way I understand & read the lawsuit & possibly halting of Prop 203 is that Brewer wants assurance that patients & employees will not be prosecuted for participating in the MMJ program. It seems she wants the feds to say to Az what they said to Cal - that they will prosecute any illegal activities but patients are ok as long as they follow the law.

Recently the feds bite their tongue when they said they will honor the Az MMJ program but prosecute illegal activity.. there would be no problem with the Az state law. While that happened the fed sent a letter to Az saying anyone participating in the MMJ program will be prosecuted.

The DHS website says they will still issue cards, so for the moment the program continues.



Isisyogi said:
Hijacking for a moment, but you definitely have an interest in this.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is about to file a lawsuit that will halt legalizing MMJ, please use the link below to see the details.

https://www.rollitup.org/arizona-patients/434414-az-gov-jan-brewer-filing.html#post5768833
Click to expand...
 
L

LordWinter

New Member
LEAPSpeaker said:
Back in 1968 Dr. Timothy Leary got caught with some marijuana. If you don't know who Timothy Leary is, look it up, he's important in drug reform.

Anyway, after Mexico wouldn’t let him in, he tried to get back into the U.S., but he was searched and they found the marijuana. The government charged him with not purchasing a Marijuana tax Stamp, but in court he argued that to buy a Marijuana Tax Stamp he would have to incriminate himself by giving his name.

The Supreme Court agreed with Dr. Leary, and ruled unanimously that laws cannot be used to force marijuana users into incriminating themselves, saying, “Compliance with the transfer tax provisions would have required petitioner unmistakably to identify himself as a member of [a]…’selective’ and ’suspect’ group, we can only decide that when read according to their terms these provisions created a ‘real and appreciable’ hazard of incrimination.”

So does this mean that if the Department of Health requires patients to put their names on medical marijuana ID cards, will it be unconstitutional and cause expensive lawsuits?

U.S. Supreme Court LEARY v. UNITED STATES, 395 U.S. 6 (1969)
395 U.S. 6, Argued December 11-12, 1968. Decided May 19, 1969.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=395&page=6

I write about law a lot in my posts, that's because I'm a former cop, today I'm a speaker for LEAP or Law Enforcement Against Prohibition www.CopsSayLegalzeDrugs.com If you want to know more look at our web page, or my bio on the speakers page, I'm the only LEAP speaker in Arizona.

Jay
Click to expand...
I would think that this case does not nullify the law due to the fact that medical record privacy (doctor-patient confidentiality) has federal protection that is very tough to get around, if not impossible. This being different due to the fact that income records do not enjoy such privacy protections, therefore opening up Mr. Leary to self-incrimination.

NLXSK1 said:
Interesting but Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. And by registering under state law it is legal.

So, as screwed up as it is... I would say that yes, the state could require you to register even though it is still illegal federally.
Click to expand...
Registering under state law only gives you statewide legality, though. We only have limited protection on a federal level by Obama's executive order. Though the compliance with that order by the DOJ is debateable, given all the people getting raided.
 
I

Isisyogi

Active Member
420Az said:
The way I understand & read the lawsuit & possibly halting of Prop 203 is that Brewer wants assurance that patients & employees will not be prosecuted for participating in the MMJ program. It seems she wants the feds to say to Az what they said to Cal - that they will prosecute any illegal activities but patients are ok as long as they follow the law.

Recently the feds bite their tongue when they said they will honor the Az MMJ program but prosecute illegal activity.. there would be no problem with the Az state law. While that happened the fed sent a letter to Az saying anyone participating in the MMJ program will be prosecuted.

The DHS website says they will still issue cards, so for the moment the program continues.





Click to expand...

Jan Brewer is counting on the masses believing as you do. Then she appears the champion of a worthy cause.
She isn't suing to get clarity, she is claiming that to fool the sheeple. She is suing because once she files her lawsuit, it stops the process of enacting the law. Meaning that she has exploited a loophole in order to work her own agenda. She has never hidden that she was against legalizing it. What is scary is that people believe she is filing for an honorable reason, protecting state employees, yet they weren't mentioned in the document she references. She knows that once she files her lawsuit, that will effectively halt the opening of dispensaries. This was a calculated move, don't fool yourself.

You can forget about home growing, we are talking about a full null & void situation. Not like similar hasn't happened here before. Medical marijuana was voted legal in AZ in 1996, and it's politicians like Brewer that managed to manipulate the outcome of that, relying on the distraction and sheeple factor. Its 15 years after it was originally voted legal, you want to risk another 15? Write an email, big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top