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"Our primary concern is the police appeared to be under the impression the Compassionate Use Act was no longer in effect in California," Alvarez said.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.
Then how "medically necessary" can it be?
What a joke.
"Corral said she typically takes marijuana with her when traveling in California, but not to other states."
Then how "medically necessary" can it be?
It's not. Who said it was?
The Feds, that's who. 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.
Laws concerning posession of marijuana.
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.....
"Laws concerning posession of marijuana."
Please be more specific.
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?
The WODerator deserves to have some drugs planted on him and get dimed out.
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.
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.
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.