But in 1999, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed a patent for cannabis claiming the plant had “been found to have antioxidant properties,” making cannabis useful “in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases.”

You've been telling us this for years.

"the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services filed a patent for cannabis"

No, they didn't. They filed a patent for the cannabinoids found in cannabis. The government has never said cannabinoids don't have medical use.

In your quest for legalized pot, you might want to check out U.S. v. McIntosh, No. 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug. 2016)

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/16/15-10117.pdf

The 9th Circus speaking of a rider to a funding bill.

At 29-30:

We also consider the context of § 542. The rider prohibits DOJ from preventing forty states, the District of Columbia, and two territories from implementing their medical marijuana laws. Not only are such laws varied in composition but they also are changing as new statutes are enacted, new regulations are promulgated, and new administrative and judicial decisions interpret such statutes and regulations. Thus, § 542 applies to a wide variety of laws that are in flux.

Given this context and the restriction of the relevant laws to those that authorize conduct, we conclude that § 542 prohibits the federal government only from preventing the implementation of those specific rules of state law that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. DOJ does not prevent the implementation of rules authorizing conduct when it prosecutes individuals who engage in conduct unauthorized under state medical marijuana laws. Individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and prosecuting such individuals does not violate § 542. Congress could easily have drafted § 542 to prohibit interference with laws that address medical marijuana or those that regulate medical marijuana, but it did not. Instead, it chose to proscribe preventing states from implementing laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana.

So? They knocked down only the most ambitious of the defense claims before them, to wit, that 'if the federal government prosecutes individuals who are not strictly compliant with state law, it will prevent the states from implementing the entirety of their laws that authorize medical marijuana by preventing them from giving practical effect to the penalties and enforcement mechanisms for engaging in unauthorized conduct. Thus, argue the Kynaston Appellants, the Department of Justice must refrain from prosecuting “unless a person’s activities are so clearly outside the scope of a state’s medical marijuana laws that reasonable debate is not possible.”'

So? They knocked down only the most ambitious of the defense claims before them, to wit, that 'if the federal government prosecutes individuals who are not strictly compliant with state law, it will prevent the states from implementing the entirety of their laws that authorize medical marijuana by preventing them from giving practical effect to the penalties and enforcement mechanisms for engaging in unauthorized conduct. Thus, argue the Kynaston Appellants, the Department of Justice must refrain from prosecuting “unless a person’s activities are so clearly outside the scope of a state’s medical marijuana laws that reasonable debate is not possible.”'

You quote from a recitation of the appellant argument, not the panel conclusion.

Try to read the opinion again. They did not strike down the defense/appellant claim, they upheld it. They VACATED the District Court's orders and REMANDED to the District Court.

Read the SUMMARY AT 6-7.

Criminal Law

In ten consolidated interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus arising from three district courts in two states, the panel vacated the district court’s orders denying relief to the appellants, who have been indicted for violating the Controlled Substances Act, and who sought dismissal of their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015), that prohibits the Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their medical marijuana laws.

The panel held that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to consider the interlocutory appeals from these direct denials of requests for injunctions, and that the appellants have standing to invoke separation-of-powers provisions of the Constitution to challenge their criminal prosecutions.

The panel held that § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws and who fully complied with such laws. The panel wrote that individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and that prosecuting such individuals does not violate § 542.

Remanding to the district courts, the panel instructed that if DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions, the appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law. The panel wrote that in determining the appropriate remedy for any violation of § 542, the district courts should consider the temporal nature of the lack of funds along with the appellants’ rights to a speedy trial.

See the conclusion of the Opinion at 33:

V

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the orders of the district courts and remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Appellants have complied with state law.

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

At 11-12, the Court quoted the rider which prohibits DOJ expenditure of funds to prevent States from implementing their own State laws. This is upheld and enforced.

B

In December 2014, Congress enacted the following rider in an omnibus appropriations bill funding the government through September 30, 2015:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, § 538, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (2014). Various short-term measures extended the appropriations and the rider through December 22, 2015. On December 18, 2015, Congress enacted a new appropriations act, which appropriates funds through the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and includes essentially the same rider in § 542. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332–33 (2015) (adding Guam and Puerto Rico and changing “prevent such States from implementing their own State laws” to “prevent any of them from implementing their own laws”).

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/home/id=1202765260857/Feds-Cant-Prosecute-Fully-Licensed-Pot-Providers-9th-Circuit-Rules?mcode=1202617074964&curindex=1&slreturn=20160719113324

Feds Can't Prosecute Fully Licensed Pot Providers, 9th Circuit Rules

Ross Todd, The National Law Journal

August 16, 2016

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday that Congress has forbidden the U.S. Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute individuals who are complying with state medical-marijuana laws.

The court's ruling appeared to be limited to users and providers who "strictly comply" with all state licensing rules. But the decision could force the Obama administration to reconsider how it's handling such cases, one of the defense attorneys who argued the case said.

At least two dozen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws allowing marijuana to be sold and used for medical purposes. Although the drug remains outlawed under federal law, Congress has included language in appropriations bills since late 2014 barring DOJ from using funds to prevent states from implementing their own medical -marijuana laws.

Tuesday's opinion springs from a batch of 10 consolidated appeals brought by medical-marijuana growers and dispensary operators in California and Washington state who claim that federal prosecutors should be forced to drop their cases given the funding ban.

Federal prosecutors, in turn, have argued their prosecutions of individuals don't interfere with the states and that Congress' funding ban only applies to legal actions against the states themselves.

Writing on behalf of a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain was unpersuaded by the government's position.

[snip]

You quote from a recitation of the appellant argument, not the panel conclusion.

Yes, to note what was the only argument they rejected.

Try to read the opinion again. They did not strike down the defense/appellant claim, they upheld it.

They rejected the argument I quoted, with the text YOU quoted in introducing this ruling to the thread. Evidently I;ve read the opinion better than you have.

[ConservingFreedom at #4] They knocked down only the most ambitious of the defense claims before them, to wit, that 'if the federal government prosecutes individuals who are not strictly compliant with state law, it will prevent the states from implementing the entirety of their laws that authorize medical marijuana by preventing them from giving practical effect to the penalties and enforcement mechanisms for engaging in unauthorized conduct.

[ConservingFreedom at #7] They rejected the argument I quoted,

The barred federal prosecutions for state-law-authorized medical marijuana. Keep reading that until it sinks in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/08/16/ninth-circuit-bars-federal-prosecutions-for-state-law-authorized-medical-marijuana/?utm_term=.c8b06c77297f

Ninth Circuit bars federal prosecutions for state-law-authorized medical marijuana

By Eugene Volokh
The Volokh Conspiracy
August 16

This is big. Starting in December 2014, Congress has provided that “[n]one of the funds made available … to the Department of Justice may be used … to prevent [various] States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana” (§ 542 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act). Today, the Ninth Circuit held (in United States v. McIntosh) that federal judges should enforce this law by stopping prosecutions for conduct that is authorized by state medical marijuana laws:

[snip]

- - - - - - - - - -

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2016/08/ninth-circuit-panel-rules-appropriations-rider-precludes-federal-prosecution-of-individuals-in-compl.html

August 16, 2016

Ninth Circuit panel rules appropriations rider precludes federal prosecution of individuals in compliance with state medical marijuana laws

[snip]

The barred federal prosecutions for state-law-authorized medical marijuana. Keep reading that until it sinks in.

I never said nor implied otherwise. Keep reading my posts until it sinks in.

Keep reading my posts until it sinks in.

Please quote the portion of the court opinion that did the alleged striking down of whatever you think was requested and struck down.

With the court having barred federal prosecution for state-law-authorized medical marijuana in the listed places, what's left?

If state law authorizes possession of 100 grams and your medicinal dope distributor has a kilo of marijuana, federal prosecution for possession of a kilo does nothing to infringe upon a state law that authorizes 100g. If State law authorizes possession of three (3) plants and your medicinal dope distributor has a farm full of plants, federal prosecution for possession and/or cultivation of hundreds or thousands of marijuana plants does not interfere with the possession and/or cultivation of three (3) plants.

Federal law holds illegal the possession or sale of any amount of marijuana. The impediment to prosecution is the budget rider which withdraws funding for prosecution if the medical marijuana is authorized by state law. It does not protect ordinary dope dealers and pot heads. It is specifically addressed to medical marijuana.

The rider (Sec. 538, 128 Stat. 2217) stated that "None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of [list of states] to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana."

A reauthorization (Sec. 542, 129 Stat. 2332-33) stated, "None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the States [list of states], or with respect to the District of Columbia, Guam, or Puerto Rico, to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana."

As the Court barred federal prosecutions for state-law-authorized medical marijuana, what do you claim they missed? To what holding of the court do you refer? What prosecution does it allow? Quote what the Court said.

In McIntosh, the defendants "were indicted for manufacturing 1000 or more marijuana plants."

In Lovan, "Officials allegedly located more than 30,000 marijuana plants on this property. Four codefendants were indicted for manufacturing 1000 or more marijuana plants and for conspiracy to manufacture 1000 or more marijuana plants."

In Kynaston, the defendants "were indicted for conspiring to manufacture 1000 or more marijuana plants, manufacturing 1000 or more marijuana plants, possessing with intent to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a Title 21 offense, maintaining a drug-involved premise, and being felons in possession of a firearm."

Why Cannabis Users Are Writing This Number on Their Hands and Posting It Online

Because they are high and stupid?

Please quote the portion of the court opinion that did the alleged striking down of whatever you think was requested

What was requested - at 28: 'if the federal government prosecutes individuals who are not strictly compliant with state law, it will prevent the states from implementing the entirety of their laws that authorize medical marijuana by preventing them from giving practical effect to the penalties and enforcement mechanisms for engaging in unauthorized conduct. Thus, argue the Kynaston Appellants, the Department of Justice must refrain from prosecuting “unless a person’s activities are so clearly outside the scope of a state’s medical marijuana laws that reasonable debate is not possible.”' (quoted by me in post #4)

The striking down - at 29-30: 'Individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and prosecuting such individuals does not violate § 542.' (quoted by you in post #3)

[tpaine #4]

So? They knocked down only the most ambitious of the defense claims before them, to wit, that 'if the federal government prosecutes individuals who are not strictly compliant with state law, it will prevent the states from implementing the entirety of their laws that authorize medical marijuana by preventing them from giving practical effect to the penalties and enforcement mechanisms for engaging in unauthorized conduct. Thus, argue the Kynaston Appellants, the Department of Justice must refrain from prosecuting “unless a person’s activities are so clearly outside the scope of a state’s medical marijuana laws that reasonable debate is not possible.”

The Kynaston five were indicted as felons in possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a large quantity with intent to distribute. The defense attempt to insert a medical marijuana argument is a sham.

The Court struck down Federal prosecutions for state-law-authorized medical marijuana, based on a Federal funding law provision.

The 9th Circuit barred prosecution of fully licensed, state law abiding, pot possessors and providers. Nobody qualifies for protection under RCW 69.51A.040 as the terms and conditions have never been possible to meet, such as entering a registry. RCW 69.51A.043 provides an affirmative defense for unregistered people, which is everyone in the State of Washington. However, an affirmative defense admits the defendant committed a criminal act but pleads an excuse for doing so. The only defense available to the Kynaston five is an affirmative defense pursuant to RCW 69.51A.043 (or the I Didn't Do It defense).

The 9th Circuit did not bar prosecution on the basis of State law. The theory provided by the Kynaston defendants is contrary to court opinions in every year since 2012.

The 9th Circuit remanded once again ordering the District Court to hold hearings to determine whether Appellants have complied with state law.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.51A.043

RCW 69.51A.043

Failure to enter into the medical marijuana authorization database—

Affirmative defense.

(1) A qualifying patient or designated provider who has a valid authorization from his or her health care professional, but is not entered in the medical marijuana authorization database and does not have a recognition card may raise the affirmative defense set forth in subsection (2) of this section, if:

(a) The qualifying patient or designated provider presents his or her authorization to any law enforcement officer who questions the patient or provider regarding his or her medical use of marijuana;

(b) The qualifying patient or designated provider possesses no more marijuana than the limits set forth in RCW 69.51A.210(3);

(c) The qualifying patient or designated provider is in compliance with all other terms and conditions of this chapter;

(d) The investigating law enforcement officer does not have probable cause to believe that the qualifying patient or designated provider has committed a felony, or is committing a misdemeanor in the officer's presence, that does not relate to the medical use of marijuana; and

(e) No outstanding warrant for arrest exists for the qualifying patient or designated provider.

(2) A qualifying patient or designated provider who is not entered in the medical marijuana authorization database and does not have a recognition card, but who presents his or her authorization to any law enforcement officer who questions the patient or provider regarding his or her medical use of marijuana, may assert an affirmative defense to charges of violations of state law relating to marijuana through proof at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she otherwise meets the requirements of RCW 69.51A.040. A qualifying patient or designated provider meeting the conditions of this subsection but possessing more marijuana than the limits set forth in RCW 69.51A.210(3) may, in the investigating law enforcement officer's discretion, be taken into custody and booked into jail in connection with the investigation of the incident.

Quite so.

13. To: ConservingFreedom (#12)

[tpaine #4]

So? --- nolu spam

Quite so. ---- ConservingFreedom

I concur...