Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Medical pot activist may sue over bust at airport
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com ^ | August 20, 2005 | BRIAN SEALS

Posted on 08/21/2005 10:03:51 AM PDT by freepatriot32

SANTA CRUZ — A well-known local medical marijuana advocate is considering a lawsuit after getting caught with the drug at a Southern California airport in late July.

Valerie Corral said she was at Bob Hope Airport in Burbank when security officials found about "5 or so grams" of pot in her bag. She had a Santa Cruz County medical identification card and a doctor’s recommendation, she said.

That didn’t keep her from being detained for about 45 minutes, having her pot taken and getting a citation.

Corral, co-founder of Santa Cruz’s Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, said she is fighting the charge, and may sue to ensure state medical marijuana laws are followed in the city. She is getting help from the Drug Law Reform Project of the American Civil Liberties Union based in Santa Cruz.

"We intend to plead not guilty," said ACLU staff attorney Christina Alvarez of Santa Cruz.

A court hearing on the misdemeanor charge is set for Aug. 29. Alvarez said a decision on a civil suit would be made after that.

"Our primary concern is the police appeared to be under the impression the Compassionate Use Act was no longer in effect in California," Alvarez said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the federal government can charge people for marijuana possession even if they have a doctor’s recommendation and live in a state that has approved medical marijuana.

After the ruling, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued a statement saying the ruling had no impact on the validity of the California law.

Calls to the Burbank Police Department were referred to Bob Hope Airport, which has a separate police force. An airport spokesman declined comment, except to say citations issued by airport police are forwarded to city police.

Corral said she typically takes marijuana with her when traveling in California, but not to other states.

After a bust of WAMM’s Davenport garden in September 2002, the group sued the U.S. Attorney General’s office in U.S. District Court in San Jose, eventually winning an injunction barring raids on its Davenport garden by federal agents.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: activist; airport; at; billofrights; bongbrigade; bust; california; constitutionlist; donutwatch; govwatch; jackbootedthugs; libertarians; may; medical; medicalmarijuana; over; pot; statesrights; sue; tsa; wodlist
I hope she wins but even if she does the supreme court will just overturn the verdict so no other peons would get uppity with thier masters.
1 posted on 08/21/2005 10:03:52 AM PDT by freepatriot32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

ping


2 posted on 08/21/2005 10:04:12 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Deep within every dilemma is a solution that involves explosives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
3 posted on 08/21/2005 10:04:40 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Deep within every dilemma is a solution that involves explosives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Gee whiz! Keep us posted on these interesting developments.


4 posted on 08/21/2005 10:06:47 AM PDT by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

More liberal "we are above the law and we define the law by law suit".


5 posted on 08/21/2005 10:06:53 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Medical pot activist may sue over bust at airport

I have a bust of Julius Caesar in my office.

6 posted on 08/21/2005 10:10:53 AM PDT by DeeOhGee (Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
More liberal "we are above the law and we define the law by law suit".

No you have that exactly backwords.The police where acting above the law in this case.They illegally took her medical marijuana at gunpoint and issued her a citation even though the state attorney general said that the medical marijuan law was still valid as long as you are not holding federal case amounts of marijuna. 5 grams is not at the federal levels so she was under the state law that the cops ignored because they didnt like it. they decided to define the law by the barrel of a gun

7 posted on 08/21/2005 10:14:19 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Deep within every dilemma is a solution that involves explosives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Your a**hole government at work keeping you safe and the Drug War Warriors employed!


8 posted on 08/21/2005 10:17:25 AM PDT by jackieaxe (English speaking, law abiding, taxpaying citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Yes you liberals like to believe that you are allowed to break the law at will, but others cannot.

So you of course blame the police or whomever you can to shirk responsibility for your own actions.

9 posted on 08/21/2005 10:22:50 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer issued a statement saying the ruling had no impact on the validity of the California law

The states are perfectly within their rights to refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws, according to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. It is a necessary - nay, critical - part of states' rights and the sovereignty of the individual states defending against an encroaching federal government.

10 posted on 08/21/2005 10:31:50 AM PDT by DeeOhGee (Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

"Yes you liberals like to believe that you are allowed to break the law at will, but others cannot."

YOU are the liberal here.

After all, you approve of the Federal Government regulating things which are delegated to the States.


11 posted on 08/21/2005 11:32:18 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

The State law says her actions were legal. State LEO's had no right to arrest her. You're being purposely ignorant, though I may be giving you too much credit.


12 posted on 08/21/2005 12:34:10 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
First let me say I've never smoked marijuana in my life, but I'm still in favor of the state law allowing marijuana for medical use, and I see the Federal ruling as an infringement on state's rights. That being said, we're all blowing smoke unless we know what code section she was cited for violating. Unfortunatley, the newspaper report, in the typical manmer of MSM, failed to include that crucial detail.
13 posted on 08/21/2005 12:56:21 PM PDT by RLM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackieaxe
Your a**hole government at work keeping you safe and the Drug War Warriors employed!

More drug war lunacy here:

Tic Tac Search Of Student Leads to Suit

The parents of a Taylor Middle School student who was pulled off a school bus and searched after sharing orange Tic Tacs with his friends have filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force.

Arlette and Dennis Mills, parents of 13-year-old Scott Mills, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque last month against the city, police officer Rudy Llamas, Durham D&M LLC bus company and a bus driver identified only as "Darlene Doe."

According to the lawsuit, Scott Mills, then a seventh-grader, was riding bus No. 225 on May 5 when he offered other bus riders some of his breath mints.

When the bus arrived at the first stop, the driver ordered Scott's seatmate off the bus to be searched for drugs.

Scott was then ordered off the bus and was searched by a man the complaint says turned out to be Llamas, an off-duty police officer.

14 posted on 08/21/2005 1:06:01 PM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Here's the correct link:

Tic Tac Search Of Student Leads to Suit

15 posted on 08/21/2005 1:09:43 PM PDT by ActionNewsBill ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
Cindy Sheehan contingent wants to have their dope and be above the law.
16 posted on 08/21/2005 3:10:57 PM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

"Cindy Sheehan contingent wants to have their dope and be above the law."

Wannabe conservatives are dopes who support autocratic federal power over federalism and separation of powers between states and the fed gov.


17 posted on 08/21/2005 3:14:41 PM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
I see the WODerator has memory-holed this thread.
18 posted on 08/21/2005 5:06:55 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

"Yes you liberals like to believe that you are allowed to break the law at will, but others cannot."

What law was being broken in this article?


19 posted on 08/22/2005 6:44:18 AM PDT by CSM ( If the government has taken your money, it has fulfilled its Social Security promises. (dufekin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
"Our primary concern is the police appeared to be under the impression the Compassionate Use Act was no longer in effect in California," Alvarez said.

Figures.

20 posted on 08/22/2005 6:46:56 AM PDT by FOG724 (RINOS - they are not better than leftists, they ARE leftists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
"Corral said she typically takes marijuana with her when traveling in California, but not to other states."

Then how "medically necessary" can it be?

What a joke.

21 posted on 08/22/2005 7:07:32 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"Corral said she typically takes marijuana with her when traveling in California, but not to other states."

Then how "medically necessary" can it be?



Then how can it be a matter of Interstate Commerce?


22 posted on 08/22/2005 7:26:29 AM PDT by CSM ( If the government has taken your money, it has fulfilled its Social Security promises. (dufekin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CSM
"Then how can it be a matter of Interstate Commerce?"

It's not. Who said it was?

23 posted on 08/22/2005 7:59:58 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

The Feds, that's who. Don't you agree with them?


24 posted on 08/22/2005 8:18:08 AM PDT by CSM ( If the government has taken your money, it has fulfilled its Social Security promises. (dufekin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: CSM
"Don't you agree with them?"

It's not a matter of whether I agree with them or not.

Congress is constitutionally regulating the commerce of drugs "among the several states". According to their findings in the Controlled Substances Act, it is necessary and proper for them to legislate intrastate activity since, "(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances" and "(5) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic."

Did you think Congress was regulating the intrastate commerce of drugs? They're not allowed to do that under the constitution.

25 posted on 08/22/2005 8:34:25 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CSM

Laws concerning posession of marijuana.


26 posted on 08/22/2005 8:36:48 AM PDT by tallhappy (Juntos Podemos!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Ah, yes, when you can't get actual constitutional legislation passed, just fall back on the "might" harm the neighboring states so we have to monitor behaviour in the states.

Sorta the same logic behind keeping abortion legal at the Federal level.....


27 posted on 08/22/2005 9:11:53 AM PDT by CSM ( If the government has taken your money, it has fulfilled its Social Security promises. (dufekin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy

"Laws concerning posession of marijuana."

Please be more specific.


28 posted on 08/22/2005 9:12:25 AM PDT by CSM ( If the government has taken your money, it has fulfilled its Social Security promises. (dufekin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CSM
"just fall back on the "might" harm the neighboring states"

Their finding is that this intrastate activity has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating.

As to "might harm", do you think the legalization of recreational drugs in Ohio would have no effect on your state? Do you really believe the drugs would remain in Ohio?

29 posted on 08/23/2005 6:21:16 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights

The WODerator deserves to have some drugs planted on him and get dimed out.


30 posted on 08/26/2005 11:57:17 AM PDT by Spike Spiegel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Do you really believe the drugs would remain in Ohio?

Should alcohol be banned nationwide since some counties wish to be 'dry'?

31 posted on 08/26/2005 6:13:06 PM PDT by Know your rights (The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Know your rights
"Should alcohol be banned nationwide since some counties wish to be 'dry'?"

The states decided, by the 21st amendment, to regulate alcohol on a state-by-state basis.

If you're going to compare the potential fallout from this decision (ie., a state or county remaining 'dry') to marijuana, then I assume you support a similar amendment for marijuana?

Certainly you don't propose turning the drug legalization decision over to the states without the states having a say-so? We didn't do that with alcohol.

32 posted on 08/27/2005 8:18:26 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
So you of course blame the police or whomever you can to shirk responsibility for your own actions.

I see this incident as an indicator that the police budget where that airport is located has way too much fat in it this year. Time to cut back.

33 posted on 09/23/2005 10:19:59 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson