U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Dopers Meet Reality - U.S. v. Walsh. 6th Cir. (29 Jun 2016
Source:
U.S. Ct. App., 6th Circuit
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 29, 2016
Author: JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge
Post Date: 2016-08-25 14:19:08 by nolu chan
Keywords: None
Views: 2279
Comments: 13
Dopers Meet Reality - U.S. v. Walsh. 6th Cir. (29 Jun 2016) http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/15-1569/15-1569-2016-06-29.pdf?ts=1467216038 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1569 (6th Cir. Jun 29, 2016) United States v. Walsh JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN OPINION BEFORE: KEITH, COOK, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Phillip Joseph Walsh and Betty Lee Jenkins appeal the final judgments against them on one count of conspiracy to manufacture 100 or more marijuana plants and eleven counts of maintaining drug-involved premises. They raise several common claims on appeal, largely based on the district court's in-limine order precluding the defendants from introducing evidence regarding their compliance with Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). Jenkins also separately challenges the district court's denial of her motions to suppress statements and evidence collected during the search of her properties and challenges the reasonableness of her sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the orders of the district court. Walsh and Jenkins were charged as co-conspirators (along with several others) and tried as co-defendants. On appeal, their cases were consolidated for the purposes of briefing and submission. [...] A. Claims Related to the District Court's In-Limine Order Walsh and Jenkins contend that the district court's order precluding them from arguing or introducing evidence related to their compliance with Michigan medical marijuana laws violated their due process right to present a defense. In light of Section 538 of the 2015 Appropriations Act, they contend that compliance with state law provides immunity and an affirmative defense against federal marijuana charges. In evaluating the charges against them, Walsh and Jenkins assert that the jury should have considered whether their manufacture of marijuana conformed to the MMMA. They further contend that the Government failed to comply with the district court's in-limine order to such an extent that it constituted prosecutorial misconduct. The Government responds that Walsh and Jenkins have waived these arguments, as they made no objection during trial and the arguments are raised for the first time on appeal. Even if they were not waived, the Government maintains, these claims afford no relief. 1. Evidence Relating to Michigan's Medical Marihuana Act A motion in limine is "made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence is actually offered." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984). It is "designed to narrow the evidentiary issues for trial and to eliminate unnecessary trial interruptions." Louzon v. Ford Motor Co., 718 F.3d 556, 561 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 913 F.2d 1064, 1069 (3d Cir. 1990)). The district court granted several of the Government's motions in limine, including motions to prevent Walsh and Jenkins from arguing or introducing evidence to suggest (1) marijuana has medical value, (2) their erroneous belief that their conduct was lawful, or (3) compliance with state law. As for the last, the Government cited People v. Redden, 799 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (P.J. O'Connell, concurring), for the proposition that Michigan courts have "cautioned citizens and legal counsel not to rely upon the MMMA even for protection against criminal charges arising under state law." That concurring opinion advised that "[u]ntil our Supreme Court provides a final comprehensive interpretation of [the MMMA], it would be prudent for the citizens of this state to avoid all use of marijuana if they do not wish to risk violating state law." Redden, 799 N.W.2d at 204 n.10. In considering these motions, the district court noted that while conspiracy is a specific intent crime, conspirators must only have the "specific, willful intent to enter into the agreement with others and achieve the objective of the conspiracy," in this case, growing marijuana. The Government need not show that Walsh and Jenkins "intended to willfully violate federal drug laws or knew that their actions violated the Controlled Substances Act." The district court determined that a good faith belief in the legality of the operation was therefore irrelevant and, while this ruling hindered the ability of the defense to paint a complete picture, "irrelevant evidence is never admissible." Concluding that "the only reason to discuss compliance with Michigan's medical marijuana laws [was] to encourage jury nullification or establish a defense that [was] not valid," the court granted the Government's motion on this subject. [...] b. Analysis Marijuana is designated as a Schedule I drug by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) due to its "high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005) (citing 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(b)(1) & (c)). By the terms of the Act, marijuana is "contraband for any purpose," and, "if there is any conflict between federal and state law" with regard to marijuana legislation, "federal law shall prevail" pursuant to the Supremacy Clause. Id. at 27, 29. The Supreme Court has further clarified that there is no medical necessity exception to the CSA prohibition on cultivation and distribution of marijuana. See United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 486 (2001). "Although state law may permit marijuana use for medicinal purposes under defined circumstances, federal law treats any possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana as a federal offense, and medical necessity is not a defense to a federal criminal prosecution for manufacturing or distributing marijuana." United States v. Brown, 801 F.3d 679, 693 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U.S. at 493-94). In Gonzalez v. Raich, the Supreme Court held that the CSA's prohibition of the manufacture and distribution of marijuana was a valid exercise of congressional power pursuant to the Commerce Clause. 545 U.S. at 29. The commerce power is "superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants, however legitimate or dire those necessities may be." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). This precedent proved fatal as applied to a case similar to the one now before us, where defendants challenged their federal conviction for manufacturing more than 100 marijuana plants on the basis that the CSA was "unconstitutional as applied to caregivers operating in compliance with the MMMA." United States v. Marcinkewciz, 543 F. App'x 513, 516 (6th Cir. 2013). There, we determined that defendants had offered no way to distinguish their arguments from those rejected by the Supreme Court, and we held them foreclosed by Raich. Id. Walsh and Jenkins contend that Section 538 of the 2015 Appropriations Act changed the legal landscape in which Raich was decided. In support, Walsh cites United States v. Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, a civil case from the Northern District of California that interpreted Section 538 to preclude enforcement of a permanent injunction prohibiting distribution of medical marijuana by a dispensary to the extent that it complied with California law. No. C 98-00086 CRB, 2015 WL 6123062, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2015). Section 538 states in relevant part: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, § 538, 128 Stat. 2130 (2014) (extended until Dec. 11, 2015, by the 2016 Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 114-53, § 103, 129 Stat. 502 (2015)). After considering this plain language, and the relevant legislative history, the Marin Alliance court interpreted Section 538 to provide an exception to the rule that state law offers no defense to violations of federal marijuana law. The court acknowledged that "[t]he CSA remains in place" and committed to "enforce it to the full extent that Congress has allowed in Section 538, that is, with regard to any medical marijuana not in full compliance with 'State law [ ] that authorize[s] the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.'" Marin All., 2015 WL 6123062, at *4 (citing 2015 Appropriations Act § 538) (alterations in original). Walsh and Jenkins argue that Section 538 changed the legal environment surrounding medical marijuana, by "prohibit[ing] the Government from prosecuting individuals who are acting in accordance with their state's medical marijuana laws." Therefore, they conclude, the district court "violated Defendant's due process right to present a defense" by granting the relevant motion in limine, and by failing to "reconsider its decision in light of the enactment of Section 538," which deprived them of the opportunity to establish immunity or an affirmative defense under the MMMA. To demonstrate immunity, which Walsh contends is a question of law, "a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the charged offense the defendant possessed a valid registry card, no more medicine than allowed under section 4, that the plants were kept locked in an enclosed facility, and that the charged conduct was for medical use." (Walsh Appellant Br. at 23) (citing People v. Hartwick, 870 N.W.2d 37, 42 (Mich. 2015)). For cases that fall outside of the immunity parameters, Walsh argues that Section 8 of the MMMA can provide an affirmative defense if a defendant establishes the existence of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the amount of marijuana was an amount reasonably necessary to prevent an interrupted supply, and that the alleged conduct was for medical use. (Walsh Appellant Br. at 24) (citing Mich. Comp. L. § 333.26428). He contends this is a question of fact. Id. (citing Hartwick, 870 N.W. at 56). We cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion by precluding evidence of compliance with Michigan medical marijuana laws. Though the legal treatment of marijuana, both medical and recreational, has continued to change in the ten years since Gonzalez was decided, it remains good law. The district court granted the motions in limine on the basis that the manufacture and distribution of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, is prohibited under the terms of the CSA. The district court explained that satisfaction of state law is not a defense to breaching federal law; thus, compliance with Michigan law is irrelevant when considering a defendant's guilt or innocence under federal law. Section 538 did not render this legal standard incorrect. While, by its terms, Section 538 instructs the Department of Justice on where to spend its funds with respect to marijuana cultivation and distribution, it was not an abuse of discretion to determine that Section 538 did not require the court to halt or alter this criminal prosecution in its final stages. The district court's failure to reconsider its order regarding the Government's motions in limine on the basis of Section 538, when the 2015 Appropriations Act came into effect just weeks before the trial and no party raised the matter at trial, is not a clear error of judgment. See Louzon, 718 F.3d at 560. [snip] None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the [states with medical marijuana laws, including California and Michigan] to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nolu chan (#0)
Background on the original case: Jurors in U.S. District Court on Monday, Jan. 12, found Betty Lee Jenkins and Phillip Joseph Walsh guilty of conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and maintaining drug-involved premises following a six-day trial in Kalamazoo. The trial before Judge Paul Maloney included testimony from some co-defendants who have pleaded guilty for their roles in the operation that began in 2012. Much of the marijuana, which the government said made the conspirators $1,293,600, was sold outside of the state. The government said Jenkins and Walsh, with the assistance of eight others, grew more than 100 plants at more than 10 properties. Court documents pointed to Jenkins as the leader of the operation. The defendants contended they thought they acted within guidelines of the state’s medical marijuana law. The government alleged their claims of compliance were a "ruse to shield them from state prosecution." Maloney ruled against those who wanted to use the state’s medical marijuana law as a defense. In November 2013, officers with the Kent Area Narcotics Enforcement Team and Drug Enforcement Agency were investigating an alleged marijuana manufacturing operation run by Kathleen Anne Rosengren in Cascade Township. She told police she provided Jenkins with two large garbage bags of harvested marijuana that Jenkins took to her Kentwood home. Rosengren later pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kg of marijuana. Detectives executed a search warrant at Jenkins' home, and that raid led them to apartment buildings in Gaines Township where marijuana was being grown. Neither Jenkins nor Walsh lived at the apartment properties but allowed tenants to stay there rent free or for a reduced fee in exchange for growing marijuana, the government said. Jenkins and Walsh were arrested in April, at which time officers found the two were continuing to manufacture marijuana at three locations. In total, police seized 467 marijuana plants and 18 pounds of processed marijuana. Among the others accused of aiding the operation is Dr. Gregory Kuldanek, who admitted to certifying medical-marijuana patients and caregivers without providing medical evaluations. He pleaded guilty to manufacturing fewer than 50 marijuana plants and forfeited property in Belding, which he rented to Jenkins, according to court records. The government is seeking forfeiture of the properties where marijuana was grown as well as a judgment of $1,293,600 representing the proceeds of the conspiracy. A forfeiture hearing is set for Tuesday. http://www.mlive.co m/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/01/two_convicted_of_conspiracy_fo.html.
Elena Kagan is the circuit justice for the Sixth Circuit.[1] Michigan lesbian Sharia Law, opinion. Lesson not learned: listen to hondo68 et al, forfeit your goodies, go to prison.
You highlighted the wrong parts - this is what sealed the deal: "While, by its terms, Section 538 instructs the Department of Justice on where to spend its funds with respect to marijuana cultivation and distribution, it was not an abuse of discretion to determine that Section 538 did not require the court to halt or alter this criminal prosecution in its final stages. The district court's failure to reconsider its order regarding the Government's motions in limine on the basis of Section 538, when the 2015 Appropriations Act came into effect just weeks before the trial and no party raised the matter at trial, is not a clear error of judgment."
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. True, but I don't believe they were in compliance with Michigan law to begin with. Meaning Section 538 wouldn't have protected them. Is this the real reason people wanted "medical" marijuana? To give them cover to set up a million dollar grow operation and engage in interstate distribution for recreational use? Sure looks that way.
Maybe not; I still don't see how that adds up to the generalization "Dopers Meet Reality". Did you mean only that THESE Dopers Met Reality? I'm sure that's why some wanted it - others, like me, wanted it because there's persuasive evidence for its medical benefits: "Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." - Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999), Institute of Medicine A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Don't know. I didn't post it. But their defense was that they thought they were in compliance. That's not even close to reality.
Once again, it is you who is clueless. The cited matter of 538 was not raised at trial. It was not the Judge's duty to raise it. Matters not raised at trial normally cannot be raised on appeal. The trial court declined to reconsider after the trial. The 6th Circuit found no reversible error. On May 4, 2015, Walsh received a sentence of 168 months imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year supervised release period. On August 31, 2015, Jenkins received a sentence of 126 months and a four-year period of supervised release. The 538 argument, not raised at trial did not seal the deal. Overwhelming evidence and the lack of any real defence sealed the deal. With five co-conspirators pleading guilty, numbnuts thought it was a good idea to go to trial and argue patriotic jury nullification. As the court stated, "Michigan law is irrelevant when considering guilt or innocence under federal law." The lower court correctly decided that the pothead could not argue irrelevant Michigan law. Michigan law was irrelevant to determining the guilt or innocence of the pothead. The pothead argued that Section 538 of the Appropriations Act changed the legal landscape in which Raich [also cited as Gonzales] was decided, and that the court violated his due process rights in refusing to allow argument about Michigan law at trial. The Court of Appeals ruled that the pothead had failed to meet his burden of showing that the lower court had abused its discretion in its ruling on the exclusion of Michigan law at trial. U.S. v. Walsh, 6th Cir. (29 Jun 2015) The cited Gonzales v. Raich arose in California via the 9th Circuit Court and was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. "It remains good law" (Walsh at 9) and slaps down all state laws inconsistent with federal law. The Supreme Court clearly stated, "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 27-29 (2005) [cited by some as Gonzales, and by most as Raich. Gonzales refers to Alberto Gonzales, former U.S. Attorney General. Second, limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation “in accordance with state law” cannot serve to place respondents’ activities beyond congressional reach. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail. It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is “ ‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants,’ ” however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 196 (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U. S. 405, 426 (1925)). See also 392 U. S., at 195–196; Wickard, 317 U. S., at 124 (“‘[N]o form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress’”). - - - - - - - - - - [37] We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I. See, e. g., Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base 179 (J. Joy, S. Watson, & J. Benson eds. 1999) (recognizing that “[s]cientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation”); see also Conant v. Walters, 309 F. 3d 629, 640–643 (CA9 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (chronicling medical studies recognizing valid medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives). But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution. Respondents’ submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress’ regulatory jurisdiction.
Exactly my point. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. True, but I don't believe they were in compliance with Michigan law to begin with. Meaning Section 538 wouldn't have protected them. Maybe not; I still don't see how that adds up to the generalization "Dopers Meet Reality". Did you mean only that THESE Dopers Met Reality? Jenkins and Walsh were only two defendants at the trial, but there was a bunch who pleaded guilty. For example, the doctor pleaded guilty, testified against Jenkins and Walsh, and got a deal for three months in Federal prison, and two years supervised probation, and paid a $25,000 fine, and forfeited property. Jenkins and Walsh and Dr. Kuldanek got Federal Bureau of Prisons numbers 18094-040 and 18095-040, and 18158-040. Federal prison is pretty real. Also pleading guilty were Kathleen Rosengren, Cynthia Wessel, John Christopher Placencia, Steven Hawkins, Parker Wilcoulter Smith. - - - - - - - - - - BETTY LEE JENKINS - - - - - - - - - - PHILLIP JOSEPH WALSH - - - - - - - - - - GREGORY A KULDANEK - - - - - - - - - - http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/04/grand_rapids_doctor_sentenced.html Still, Dr. Gregory Kuldanek, 58, recognized he was breaking the law. Kuldanek was sentenced Monday, April 6, to three months in federal prison by U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney in Kalamazoo. The judge said Kuldanek will spend two years on supervised release once the prison term ends. Kuldanek was fined $25,000. He has already surrendered property at 13350 Seven Mile Road NE in Belding. [...] Kuldanek, whose practice focused on patients with HIV and AIDS, believed he was helping others by certifying patients for use of medical marijuana outside of his office. The government said he certified groups of patients at restaurants but sometimes did not meet them at all. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Courtade asked the judge to consider Kuldanek's help upon his arrest. Kuldanek testified against the alleged leaders, Betty Jenkins and Phillip Walsh, who await sentencing. [...] Perhaps it should be noted that Walsh presented no defense and called no witnesses.
Just for the record, and for the 498th time- THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOLDS A PATENT ON THE MAIN INGREDIENT IN CANNABIS AND HAS SINCE 2003. THIS SAME GOVERNMENT THAT SAYS THERE IS NO MEDICAL USE FOR THIS PLANT.
United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of
Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
Abstract
Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA
receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the
treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such
as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids
are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in
limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and
trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia.
And 29 or so other patents have either been applied for or granted: US Patent 4189491 – Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in a method of treating glaucoma (1980) US Patent 4315862 – Process for preparing cannabichromene (1982) US Patent 5389375 – Stable suppository formulations effecting bioavailability of ”9-THC (1995) US Patent 5508037 – Stable suppository formulations effecting bioavailability of ”9 -THC (1996) US Patent 6132762 – Transcutaneous application of marijuana (2000) US Patent 6328992 – Cannabinoid patch and method for cannabis transdermal delivery (2001) US Patent 6383513 – Compositions comprising cannabinoids (nasal spray) (2002) US Patent Application 20050042172 – Administration of medicaments by vaporisation (2002) US Patent Application 20070151149 – Methods for altering the level of phytochemicals in plant cells by applying wave lengths of light from 400 nm to 700 nm and apparatus therefore (2004) US Patent Application 20040049059 A1 – Method for producing an extract from cannabis plant matter, containing a tetrahydrocannabinol and a cannabidiol and cannabis extracts (2004) US Patent 6713048 – ”9 tetrahydrocannabinol (”9 THC) solution metered dose inhalers and methods of use (2004) US Patent 6974568 – The invention discloses the existence of cannabinoid receptors in the airways, which are functionally linked to inhibition of cough (2005) US Patent Application 20050266108 – Methods of purifying cannabinoids from plant material (2005) US Patent 6949582 – Method of relieving analgesia and reducing inflamation using a cannabinoid delivery topical liniment (2005) Grow Hemp for the War US Patent Application 20050070596 – Methods for treatment of inflammatory diseases using CT-3 or analogs thereof (2005) US Patent 6949582 – Method of relieving analgesia and reducing inflamation using a cannabinoid delivery topical liniment (2005) US Patent 7088914 – Device, method and resistive element for vaporizing a medicament (2006) US Patent 7025992 – Administering lipophilic drug through mucous membranes(2006) US Patent Application 20060242899 – Method of cultivating plants (2006) US Patent 7109245 – Vasoconstrictor cannabinoid analogs (2006) US Patent Application 20080057117 – Pharmaceutical Composition Made Up Of Cannabis Extracts (2007) US Patent 7344736 – Extraction of pharmaceutically active components from plant materials (2008) US Patent 7402686 – Cannabinoid crystalline derivatives and process of cannabinoid purification (2008) US Patent 7399872 – Conversion of CBD to ”-THC and ”-THC (2008) US Patent 7622140 – Processes and apparatus for extraction of active substances and enriched extracts from natural products (2009) US Patent application 20100249223 New Use for Cannabis Containing Extracts (2010) US Patent application 20100239693 Cannabinoid Containing Plant Extracts As Neuroprotective Agents (2010) Cancer.gov: Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®)–Patient Version The use of Cannabis for medicinal purposes dates back to ancient times Cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory MORE: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq
Bump for Drug Warriors- where are you. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
AND HAS SINCE 2003. THIS SAME GOVERNMENT THAT SAYS THERE IS NO MEDICAL USE FOR THIS PLANT. Cannabidioils are legal and can be extracted from hemp. The exicting news is "The United States Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA, recently eased some of the regulatory requirements for those who are conducting FDA-approved clinical trials on cannabidiol (CBD)." Clinical trials to provide the medicine so many desire are being performed. http://www.google.ca/patents/US6630507 THE PATENT US 6630507 B1 Abstract Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. [...] Cannabidiol is not on the list of psychotropic substances. It is a legal. Unfortunately for dopers, it is "substantially free of psychoactive or psychotoxic effects" (it won't get you high). It can be extracted from hemp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabidiol Cannabidiol is not scheduled by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances. CBD does not cause the "high" associated with the Delta 9-THC in marijuana. As the legal landscape and understanding about the differences in medical cannabinoids unfolds, it will be increasingly important to distinguish “medical marijuana” (with noted varying degrees of psychotropic effects and deficits in executive function) - from “medical CBD” (in which the high CBD and low THC content may mitigate psychosis). Various breeds/strains of "medical marijuana" are found to have a significant variety in the ratios of CBD-to-THC and are known to contain other non-psychotropic cannabinoids. However it is only the amount of Delta 9-THC that chemically gives a legal determination as to whether the plant material(s) used for the purposes of extracting CBD are considered hemp, or considered marijuana. Any psychoactive marijuana, regardless of its CBD content, is derived from the flower (or bud) of the genus cannabis. Non-psychoactive hemp (also commonly-termed industrial hemp), regardless of its CBD content, is any part of the genus cannabis plant, whether growing or not, containing a Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of no more than three-tenths of one percent (0.3%) on a dry weight basis. Certain standards are required for the legal growth and production of hemp. The Colorado Industrial Hemp Program registers growers of industrial hemp and samples crops to verify that the THC concentration does not exceed 0.3% on dry weight basis. With Charlotte's Web bringing about increased demand for CBD-dominant cannabis, cultivating hemp has captured the attention of U.S. farmers looking to replace dwindling tobacco-growing revenues with renewed hemp "cash crops." In Kentucky, farmers are spurred on by the Industrial Hemp Research Program, established by James Comer, commissioner of agriculture. With backing from Senator Rand Paul, Comer’s legislation created regulations for farmers to legally grow hemp. Joel Stanley, CEO of Stanley Brothers Social Enterprises, said they plan to invest at least $500,000 to grow therapeutic hemp in Kentucky for their Charlotte's Web cannabidiol oil, saying, "We want to make Charlotte's Web a Kentucky Proud product." In addition, Paul and Comer were able to get a provision added to the federal Farm Bill that legalized hemp production in states like Kentucky to grow the crop. The Agricultural Act of 2014 was signed by President Obama. During recent years, there has been considerable legislative activity throughout the United States with respect to legalizing the agricultural production of industrial hemp. To date, approximately 11 states have legalized industrial hemp production, including: California, Colorado, Indiana, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, and Tennessee. Many other states have passed legislation authorizing the cultivation of industrial hemp for pilot projects or studies, including: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Utah. Additionally, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the National Conference of State Legislatures have both adopted resolutions supporting revisions to the federal rules and regulations authorizing commercial production of industrial hemp. The United States Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA, recently eased some of the regulatory requirements for those who are conducting FDA-approved clinical trials on cannabidiol (CBD). Several industrial hemp varieties can be legally cultivated in western Europe. A variety such as "Fedora 17" has a cannabinoid profile consistently around 1% cannabidiol (CBD) with THC less than 0.1%.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- Two Kent County residents have been convicted of running a medical marijuana operation that authorities say brought in about $1.3 million.
#2. To: nolu chan, 6th Circus (#0)
COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN OPINION
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#3. To: hondo68 (#2)
#4. To: nolu chan (#0)
#5. To: ConservingFreedom (#4)
"Section 538 did not require the court to halt or alter this criminal prosecution in its final stages."
#6. To: misterwhite (#5)
"Section 538 did not require the court to halt or alter this criminal prosecution in its final stages."
True, but I don't believe they were in compliance with Michigan law to begin with. Meaning Section 538 wouldn't have protected them.
Is this the real reason people wanted "medical" marijuana? To give them cover to set up a million dollar grow operation and engage in interstate distribution for recreational use?
#7. To: ConservingFreedom (#6)
"Did you mean only that THESE Dopers Met Reality?"
#8. To: ConservingFreedom (#4)
You highlighted the wrong parts - this is what sealed the deal: "While, by its terms, Section 538 instructs the Department of Justice on where to spend its funds with respect to marijuana cultivation and distribution, it was not an abuse of discretion to determine that Section 538 did not require the court to halt or alter this criminal prosecution in its final stages. The district court's failure to reconsider its order regarding the Government's motions in limine on the basis of Section 538, when the 2015 Appropriations Act came into effect just weeks before the trial and no party raised the matter at trial, is not a clear error of judgment."
We cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion by precluding evidence of compliance with Michigan medical marijuana laws. Though the legal treatment of marijuana, both medical and recreational, has continued to change in the ten years since Gonzalez was decided, it remains good law. The district court granted the motions in limine on the basis that the manufacture and distribution of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, is prohibited under the terms of the CSA. The district court explained that satisfaction of state law is not a defense to breaching federal law; thus, compliance with Michigan law is irrelevant when considering a defendant's guilt or innocence under federal law.
First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses. Moreover, the CSA is a comprehensive regulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner. Indeed, most of the substances classified in the CSA “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose.” 21 U. S. C. § 801(1). Thus, even if respondents are correct that marijuana does have accepted medical uses and thus should be redesignated as a lesser schedule drug, [37] the CSA would still impose controls beyond what is required by California law. The CSA requires manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies, and other handlers of controlled substances to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions mandating registration with the DEA, compliance with specific production quotas, security controls to guard against diversion, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, and prescription requirements. See §§ 821–830; 21 CFR § 1301 et seq. (2004). Furthermore, the dispensing of new drugs, even when doctors approve their use, must await federal approval. United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544 (1979). Accordingly, the mere fact that marijuana—like virtually every other controlled substance regulated by the CSA—is used for medicinal purposes cannot possibly serve to distinguish it from the core activities regulated by the CSA. Nor can it serve as an “objective marke[r]” or “objective facto[r]” to arbitrarily narrow the relevant class as the dissenters suggest, post, at 47 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); post, at 68 (opinion of Thomas, J.). More fundamentally, if, as the principal dissent contends, the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is beyond the “‘outer limits’ of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority,” post, at 42 (opinion of O’Connor, J.), it must also be true that such personal use of marijuana (or any other homegrown drug) for recreational purposes is also beyond those “‘outer limits,’” whether or not a State elects to authorize or even regulate such use. Justice Thomas’ separate dissent suffers from the same sweeping implications. That is, the dissenters’ rationale logically extends to place any federal regulation (including quality, prescription, or quantity controls) of any locally cultivated and possessed controlled substance for any purpose beyond the “‘outer limits’” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors, and family members) may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance. The congressional judgment that an exemption for such a significant segment of the total market would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire regulatory scheme is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. Indeed, that judgment is not only rational, but “visible to the naked eye,” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 563, under any commonsense appraisal of the probable consequences of such an openended exemption.
#9. To: nolu chan (#8)
Matters not raised at trial normally cannot be raised on appeal.
#10. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite (#6)
"Section 538 did not require the court to halt or alter this criminal prosecution in its final stages."
Register Number: 18094-040
Age: 56
Race: White
Sex: Female Located at: Hazelton FCI
Release Date: 02/25/2024
Register Number: 18095-040
Age: 56
Race: White
Sex: Male
Deceased: 08/08/2016
Register Number: 18158-040
Age: 59
Race: White
Sex: Male
Released On: 08/07/2015 GRAND RAPIDS, MI - A former Grand Rapids doctor was motivated by compassion, not greed, when he certified patients for use of medical marijuana and allowed marijuana to be grown in his home, his attorney said.
#11. To: nolu chan (#0)
US PATENT #6630507
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507
#12. To: All, Senior Blanco, Deniers (#11)
#13. To: Operation 40, misterwhite (#11)
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HOLDS A PATENT ON THE MAIN INGREDIENT IN CANNABIS
Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants
Legal status
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]