marijuana law

hypothetically speaking, suppose someone was busted with simple possession. Instead of contesting the charge or pleading guilty, what if that person instead challenged the law itself? What would be the process for doing so? Does anyone know if there is a precedent to this?

This is the only legitimate one that I know of, it's in Canada.

He says that his use of Cannabis is for religious purposes.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/node/24540

I don't neccessarily mean on religious grounds, although that really is the only precedent that I can find.

I mean specifically challenging the law in an attempt to change the law. Marijuana prohibition is clearly unconstitutional imho; I'm curious if a Norml lawyer would take a case like this and what the channels would be to challenge a law. I think this would be similiar to civil rights laws that were challenged during the 60s.

Jury nullification was used often during alcohol prohibition.

interesting. I just found a couple of cases of jury nullification in drug trafficking, but nothing concerning simple possession.

I'm surprised that marijuana laws haven't really been challenged with the exception of challenging them on religious grounds. It seems like an obvious course of action to me.

It all depends.

One guy successfully beat a tax evasion case by saying that federal taxes are unconstitutional -- but he was in hot water all the way up until the Supreme Court (which ruled in his favor, while making no new laws)

You could of course, challenge that "even if you did smoke" prohibition is unconstitutional, so therefore it wouldn't be an illegal action, and then plea the fifth if asked any direct questions; and then rely on the jury/judge.

This was in 2003

Marijuana legal in Ontario

Marijuana advocates across Canada are celebrating a May 16 Ontario court decision, which effectively legalized possession in Canada's largest province.
On Friday, May 16, Ontario Superior Court Justice Steven Rogin upheld the lower court ruling of Justice Philips, concerning a case of pot possession in Ontario.

Justice Rogin agreed that the federal government had failed in its obligation to change the law to allow for medical use of marijuana, and so the entire law was void.

This decision is binding on Ontario's lower courts, which means that no-one can be convicted of pot possession in Ontario. This effectively means that marijuana is now legal in Canada's largest province.


http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2958.html

I've seen someone get away with shipping a lb of hydro a week from Oregon to Tx. So its a possibility. I dont condone in it or support the idea but it is a possibility.

the constitution is a tourist attraction.. It dont mean fuck. Unless you pay the fee at the door to see it..

Remember that thing died long time ago.. Around the time they built the automobile.

I'm glad someone dug this thread up. I actually recently contacted a local marijuana defense lawyer about this and this was his reply:

First and foremost, I will give you the real world answer. Simple possession is a magistrate level offense. All a person needs to be a magistrate is a GED and a political connection. As such, things are done the way they have always been done and no magistrate is going to rock the boat. On other legal issues, I have shown magistrates the law as printed in their very own handbook and been ruled against anyways. It's bullshit, but it is what it is. In order to win on a constitutional ground, supposing that one did exist, a person would have to go through the appeals process, spend many thousands of dollars, and have a drug charge on their record for the years it takes to ultimately win in court. Once someone does win that battle, the floodgates of appeals will be opened and the courts will be so clogged with appeals that the system would stop. By analogy, imagine if you beat a speeding ticket on constitutional grounds. Every speeding ticket ever written would have to be challenged. Courts are good at covering their own ass in these situations.

As to any constitutional grounds, the government has many ways of bypassing the Constitution. The prime example is the Commerce Clause and the drinking age. See Wikipedia for a general discussion of how that works. Many people have fought this fight before and lost. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 narcotic, which means it has a high potential for abuse and zero medicinal value. This is horseshit as Marinol is the prescription form of THC which is given to cancer patients, so clearly it has medicinal value. This is the hypocrisy that I face every day. Conspiracy theories abound as to the reasoning behind the Sched. 1 classification, but it is what it is and in this country logic took a back seat to politics decades ago.

The best way to challenge the laws is with dollars. I feel that marijuana will remain illegal as long as law makers and law enforcement think it is a harm to society. But as we all know, politicians will sell their soul for a few measly bucks. Believe it or not, Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds are going to be the keys to winning this battle. As cigarette sales decrease every year, profit margins shrink. Once these companies realize that their machines can stuff paper tubes with green plants as easily as brown, and as tobacco farmers realize that marijuana grows in the same climate, I expect lobbyists to start throwing massive amounts of money towards legalization.

To reach our ultimate goal, we need to become more active in the public eye in order to change public perception. Look at how far we have come in the past few years with medicinal marijuana. As society realizes that a joint won't make you rape babies, it becomes easier for the politicians and lobbyists to push forward with change.

I hope this provides a primer on the topic for you, and again please feel free to ask more questions. I might not have the answers, but those are the best ways to stimulate thought.