Montana cannabis law headed for appeal

In defiance of federal law, Montana voters passed an initiated change to the state's constitution in 2004 that legalized the cultivation, distribution, and medical use of cannabis. Last year, that state's earth hater legislature gutted most of the law and Governor Schweitzer allowed the changes without signing the bill.

Now the legal cannabis industry is all but dead in Montana after raids on dispensaries and arrests of growers. One courageous former caregiver, Montana Cannabis, is appealing a lower court decision upholding the federal prohibition of the herb.

The Lee-owned Helena Independent Record has gone behind a paywall for frequent readers but AP writer, Matt Volz, brings the story anyway using the malapropism "pot" (Gerard O'Brien) in his piece to describe medicine:
...Chris Williams is stepping up his challenge of the federal operation that changed the face of the industry in the state. The March 2011 raids resulted in the prosecution of dozens of providers, shut down their businesses and caused many others to shut their doors out of fear that they would be next. Several other marijuana providers joined his lawsuit, as did the Montana Cannabis Industry Association, which also is suing to overturn the new restrictive state law and is backing a referendum asking voters to repeal the law in November’s election.
This interested party has voiced frustration with Democrat Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, Steve Bullock, because of his public silence on the issue. My guess is that the plaintiffs will lose this case.

New Mexico, on the other hand, has been virtually free from federal crackdowns. Considered the most restrictive medical cannabis law in the US, that state currently issues 21 permits per 100,000. New Mexico's earth hater governor recently signed additional coverage for cannabis patients. The law was hammered out in legislative committee instead of being codified by the passing of a voter-written initiative.

It has been fascinating watching the fascist right haranguing the President for what it calls his "regulatory tyranny stifling economic growth" while selectively ignoring the Obama administration erasing a promising industry and effectively chilling civil liberties.

On what grounds would SCOTUS choose to hear an additional appeal of the Montana law if it gets that far, especially in light of the Court hearing testimony on provisions of health insurance reform?

No comments: