Marijuana prohibition will be ruled unconstitutional in California this month.

On March 25th to be precise. This is the date Judge Mueller who work at the Sacramento Division of United States District Court for the Eastern District of California will release her decision  for United States v. Schweder. The case that will decide the constitutionality of marijuanas Schedule I status, which is currently labeled in the same bracket as heroin.

This is the beginning of a long to fully legalize marijuana . Once the verdict is stated it will be appealed by whichever side loses and go to the 9th circuit court of appeals. If maintained, it will apply to the states that are part of the 9th circuit and if appealed from there it can wind up in the US Supreme Court which of course applies to all of the united states.

John Balazs is an attorney in Sacramento has been covering the case for the past few years:

In short, the defense brief debates that the evidence lacked a solid foundation  for the continued inclusion of cannabis in Schedule I labeled either strict scrutiny or active rational basis review and the government’s state-based enforcement of federal drug laws in cannabis cases goes against Equal Dominance.  Defense attorneys Zenia Gilg and Heather Burke show great efforts of utilizing recent federal government actions into their constitutional debates, most notably

Section 538

 of the build up and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, a document that President Obama signed into law on December 16, 2014.  This new law does not permit the use of U.S. Department of Justice money to prevent a number of listed states “from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”  This restriction not only backs the defense’s Equal Sovereignty debate, but as the defense argues, “how is it Congress can justify a finding that marijuana has no medical benefit while demanding that the distribution of medical marijuana be protected from federal government interference.  This is not only irrational, it is absurd.”  Defense Brief, at 36.

The government rebuttals that there is a balanced basis for cannabis’s continued exclusion in Schedule I, so that the defense’s equal protection dispute fails.  It also disputes that (1) the defendants lack standing to challenge pot as a Schedule I listing; (2) the D.C. Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over classification issues; and (3) the government’s behavior does not violate the ethics of Equal Sovereignty. The government predictably does not pay mind to the Section 538 amendment that prohibits funding of federal government actions to interfere with state medical cannabis rules and regulations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like