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.
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:
Marijuana laws have been challenged and taken to the supreme court here in canada, and they have (in recent history) always ruled in favor of marijuana. Unfortunately, they do not make laws. They only examine the validity of those laws that the politicians put forth. So, like in our current situation with the conservative government being against marijuana in all forms, they will pass more and more restrictive laws against it. These laws WILL be challenged and taken to the supreme court, and if the court has the members it has now, they will once again rule in favor of marijuana, forcing the government to re-write the laws, which starts the whole process over again. Unfortunately, our current government will be replacing 3 or 4 of the supreme court justices in the next little while. If they stack the deck, we could all be fucked.
I wouldn't attack it on the grounds of the constitution. I would contest marijuana being a schedule 1 substance, because it very clearly does NOT fit the requirements to be schedule 1. (and if it does, so does aspirin, as we all know) However, I think unless you can get the jury to nullify you, you're shit out of luck, the court is there to determine if you broke a law, not what the law should be. Maybe how to apply the law, as per common law, but not IF it should be applied if you're clearly guilty. Unless you get to the very top. And in many states, like mine, if you attempt to tell the jury about their ability to do this it's a mistrial, and/or contempt of court and a lot of other things-they won't take jurors who admit to even knowing what jury nullification is in my state. I think there's 2 states where jurys are officially supposed to judge the law AND the alleged lawbreaker, one of them being maryland, if I remember right. And in those states, judges still will put up a fight if you try to explain this to the jury.
well i check all law information here, on this RC state law... but i havent seen any positive information..
You are sharing very informative information. I really enjoy reading your post. you can also share more information from http://www.fancyweed.com/articles/medical-marijuana-laws Articles.
