Medical Marijuana Victory for ACLU


December 14, 2017 Press Release for ACLU
PHOENIX –Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery has decided not to challenge the most recent ruling upholding Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act, as the deadline of December 11 to seek review by the United States Supreme Court has passed. In 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals found in favor of a Sun City medical marijuana dispensary, ruling that federal law prohibiting marijuana does not void Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act and that the county and state should therefore allow the dispensary to continue operating. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona represented the White Mountain Health Center on this issue of federal preemption.

Emma Andersson, the ACLU’s lead attorney on White Mountain Medical Center v. Maricopa County and staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project, had this response:
“From the beginning, Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery was clear about his intentions with this case—he wanted to shut down medical marijuana in Arizona and throughout the country. He spent five years in litigation, trying to use federal law as a cudgel against the will of voters in his own state and across the country. His effort failed.

“As he waged his futile battle in the drug war, White Mountain and Arizona’s other dispensaries continued their good work, providing crucial medicine to people with debilitating conditions. That is what Arizonans wanted when they voted for medical marijuana access in 2010. Today, finally, medical marijuana is safe in Arizona.”

For the 2016 Arizona Court of Appeals ruling and other information about White Mountain Medical Center v. Maricopa County:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/white-mountain-health-center-v-maricopa-county
For more information about the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform
For more about the ACLU of Arizona:
https://www.acluaz.org/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Courts Tell Georgia: Stop Charging People to Read the Law

In a victory for the people of Georgia, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the state can no longer charge individuals hundreds of dollars to see the laws that govern them. To get there, the court relied on a central tenet of American democracy: The government works on behalf of the public. Quoting the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit wrote, “The concept of popular sovereignty is deeply rooted in our politics, our law, and our history. The seminal statement of America’s political creed boldly proclaims that ‘[g]overnments ... deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed.’” For decades, Georgia ignored this reality. Rather than make the text of the law freely available, the state pay-walled access to the statutes, court opinions, and annotations that make up its official law. In 2013, a nonprofit called Public.Resource.Org paid for a copy of the state’s official code and posted it online for free. The state respond…
Read more

ACLU Fights for Voter Rights in Georgia

ATLANTA — The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Georgia filed a lawsuit today against Secretary of State Brian Kemp and all county registrars demanding they provide due process for Georgia voters whose absentee ballots or applications are being rejected due to an alleged mismatch of signatures.

The case was filed on behalf of the Georgia Muslim Voter Project. At issue is a state law that allows election officials — who have no handwriting-analysis expertise — to reject an absentee ballot if they think there is a signature mismatch in the voter’s paperwork, without giving prior notice to the voter or an opportunity to contest that determination.

The ACLU is seeking a temporary restraining order requiring election officials to provide absentee voters the opportunity to confirm their identity or otherwise resolve the alleged discrepancy.

The lawsuit notes that a voter’s signature could vary for a “variety of reasons, both intentional and unintentional. Unintentional factors includ…
Read more