Pubdate: Sat, 18 Aug 2012
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: John Ingold

Medical-Marijuana Ruling

FEDERAL POT LAW VOIDS STATE LAW, JUDGE SAYS

A state court ruling in a legal dispute between a medical-marijuana 
grower and a dispensary has laid bare an argument that could be the 
undoing of Colorado's medical-marijuana system.

Grower Quincy Haeberle sued Blue Sky Care Connection and its manager, 
Laura Lowden, after saying he delivered $40,000 worth of marijuana to 
the business and wasn't paid. The grower wanted a judge to tell Blue 
Sky Care Connection to pay up.

But, in an order issued this month, Arapahoe County District Court 
Judge Charles Pratt found in favor of the dispensary. Because all 
marijuana sales are illegal under federal law, Pratt reasoned that 
the contract between grower and dispensary was void - in line with 
longstanding legal precedent that contracts concerning illegal 
activities are invalid.

Deeper into the ruling, Pratt made an even more significant 
conclusion: Colorado's entire medical-marijuana law is invalid 
because it is trumped by federal law.

"(A)ny state authorization to engage in the manufacture, distribution 
or possession of marijuana creates an obstacle to full execution of 
federal law," Pratt wrote. "Therefore, Colorado's marijuana laws are 
preempted by federal marijuana law."

Haeberle is decidingwhether to appeal, his attorney said.

The ruling, which was first reported by Westword, was a jolt to 
Colorado's cannabis cognoscenti, even though it is uncertain how 
widespread its impact will be. Because the order was issued by a 
District Court judge, it does not count as legal precedent that other 
judges must follow.

A spokeswoman for the Colorado attorney general's office said the 
office was monitoring the case but did not have any comment.

Sean McAllister, a lawyer who specializes in medical-marijuana law 
but was not involved in the case, said the ruling would be 
detrimental to medical-marijuana businesses if adopted by other 
judges. But McAllister said he thinks Pratt overlooked several 
important decisions-such as a U.S. Supreme Court decision not to take 
up a case where the California Supreme Court had found that federal 
law does not override state medical-marijuana law.

"I think it's a very poor decision by the judge," McAllister said. 
"It's not one that I believe will be widely adopted."

Yet University of Denver law professor Sam Kamin said the question of 
federal pre-emption remains in play across the country.

This month, for instance, Arizona's attorney general issued a legal 
opinion saying much of that state's medical-marijuana law was 
invalidated by federal law. Whenever a state law authorizes a 
violation of a federal law, that opinion argued, it is trumped by the 
federal law.

"We are heading, inevitably, to a collision between state and federal 
law," Kamin said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom