Phases if at First You Don t Succeed Try Try Again

Equally an attorney, I am always disappointed that the courts in this country – both at the country and federal level – have refused to get involved in the efforts to end marijuana prohibition and stop the do of treating responsible marijuana smokers as criminals. Only that is the reality.

While the courts in this country take played a leading part in ending racial discrimination, in guaranteeing women the right to obtain a legal ballgame, in protecting the rights of the LGBT community, and in many other areas involving the protection of personal freedom, they have consistently rejected attempts to declare country and federal anti-marijuana laws equally unconstitutional.

But that does non hateful that nosotros should give up the fight in the courts, and rely just on voter initiatives and elected officials to fix this problem. Equally long equally there are new legal arguments to be made, and fresh and hopefully more than disarming facts to exist argued, nosotros must proceed to engage the courts in this struggle for personal freedom.

Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al

One such legal challenge, Washington, et.al v. Sessions, et.al, was recently filed in United states District Courtroom in the Southern District of New York by lead chaser Michael Hiller, with NORML Legal Commission (NLC) attorneys David Holland and Joseph Bondy serving as co-counsel. The full complaint can be found here.

Individual plaintiffs in the suit were two immature children, an American military veteran, and a retired professional football role player, all of whom are medical marijuana patients; and a membership organization alleging their minority members have been discriminated against by the federal Controlled Substances Human activity.

Seeking to overturn the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, plaintiffs asking a announcement that the CSA, as it pertains to the nomenclature of Cannabis every bit a Schedule I drug, is unconstitutional, because it violates the Due Procedure Clause of the Fifth Amendment, an assortment of protections guaranteed by the Beginning Amendment, and the central Right to Travel. Further, plaintiffs seek a declaration that Congress, in enacting the CSA equally it pertains to marijuana, violated the Commerce Clause, extending the breadth of legislative ability well beyond the scope contemplated past Article I of the Constitution.

Named as defendants in the case are Attorney General Jeff Beauregard Sessions, Acting Administrator of the DEA Chuck Rosenberg, the Justice Department, the DEA and the Federal Authorities.

In their Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the federal authorities does not, and could not possibly, believe that Cannabis meets the definition of a Schedule I drug, which is reserved for the about dangerous of substances, such every bit heroin, LSD, and mescaline; and that classifying Cannabis every bit a "Schedule I drug," is and so irrational that information technology violates the U.Due south. Constitution.

Among the other claims in the lawsuit are that the CSA: (i) was enacted and implemented in gild to discriminate against African Americans and to suppress people's First Subpoena rights; and (two) violates plaintiffs' constitutional Right to Travel.

Joseph Bondy, a federal criminal defence force attorney and legalization abet, explained he felt information technology was important to "question the agenda of those who continue to push for enforcement of the CSA, given its unlawful and discriminatory impact and that so few in America support such an effort." Co-counsel David Holland, a litigator and Executive Manager of Empire State NORML, noted that "the efforts to criminalize Cannabis are relatively recent and were largely underwritten by racial and ethnic animus," referring to recent findings that African Americans and other persons of colour are 4 times as likely to exist arrested under the CSA than white Americans, even though marijuana is used equally by people of colour and Caucasians.

Perhaps the federal courts volition surprise us at long terminal and finally take a critical look at marijuana prohibition, and find the courage to declare the CSA to be unconstitutional. That would be an enormous step forward in ending marijuana prohibition altogether. But regardless of the outcome of this particular suit, it is encouraging to come across the criminal defense bar go along to push the legal envelope, and to advance the best and latest legal and factual arguments. At some betoken, the courts will take no choice just to strike down prohibition equally a violation of our personal freedom.

yeagerimat1987.blogspot.com

Source: https://norml.org/blog/2017/07/25/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed-try-try-again/

Share this post