How is your state fairing on the marijuana issue?

After the latest defeat in our position concerning HF2508 and rescheduling of MMJ in Minnesota I spoke about earlier the MnNorml email chain has been a little hot. So fucking glad we have brainpower on our side in this State.


I've enclosed a rant from a fellow member that spells out exactly why rescheduling is so important to our cause. It's long and in it's entirety because I couldn't pick one thought out that wasn't relevant and could be edited. . All links in this post are safe for download. (checked them myself).


As a side note...you'll notice how MJ is being lumped with all the synthetic "bath salts" drugs. Another mischaracterization that MnNORML tried to address but was ignored. Mn Representative BOB BARRET CAN SUCK MY BALLS.


Support You local NORML chapter. These are the guys doing the work to change each of our personal levels of risk as growers whether you want to realize it or not.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


[mnNORML] Video: Cannabis' classification discussed on the MN House Floor


On March 28th, 2012 on the floor of the Minnesota house of representatives the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I Controlled Substance in Minnesota was discussed. Here's the video link http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/ls87/hfsA032812.asx The bill, HF2508 starts being discussed at 41:46.


At minute 51:20, my representative, Karen Clark, asked HF2508 Author Bob Barrett if the bill increased "the penalties for the medicinal use of marijuana". This was a very stupid question, since there is no "medical use of marijuana" allowed in Minnesota. He responded that the bill doesn't change the felony charge at all for marijuana possession and that marijuana is a Schedule I drug in Minnesota, just like the synthetic drugs will be if the bill passes. He then goes on to state the 3 criteria of Schedule I substances.


How did no one speak up and suggest that cannabis be taken out of Schedule I? Especially my own representative? Maybe it is because she ignores everyone one of my calls and emails. It's amazing how non-responsive she is to my requests to dialogue. In any case, you should then watch Rep Tom Rukavina shame these guys for saying that this bill will cost the state nothing. I call BULLSHIT!


When someone is arrested for a crime, they ought to have the presumption of innocence. "Innocence until proven guilty" and proof beyond "reasonable doubt" are part of what is called "due process under the law". It is the job of the judicial branch to make sure that every single defendant before them has this presumption of innocence by declaring certain laws and procedures as being unconstitutional.


When someone is arrested for possessing cannabis in this state though, the jury is instructed that this is a criminal act, possession of a Schedule I controlled substance. Well if the inclusion of cannabis in the list of Schedule I substances is based upon faulty inferences, then the court is not giving the individual due process, which our state and federal constitutions require.


When the premise that cannabis has "no accepted medical use in the United States" was attacked in the Minnesota Supreme Court the last time in 1985 by Gordon Hanson http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13422227957573415343, the court cited heavily from US v. Fogarty to assert its position that the premises that result in cannabis being a Schedule I substance are still rational and hence there is no violation of "due process".


United States v. Fogarty, 692 F. 2d 542 - Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit 1982


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4686137256864154058


First, the ongoing vigorous dispute as to the physical and psychological effects of marijuana, its potential for abuse, and whether it has any medical value, supports the rationality of the continued Schedule I classification. See National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Bell, 488 F.Supp. 123, 128-30, 136, 139-40 (D.D.C.1980) (Three Judge Court) for Judge Tamm's excellent discussion of the current state of medical and scientific knowledge concerning the uses and effects of marijuana.


[We now have 16 state laws and the D.C. with congressional approval that say that cannabis is a medicine. This isn't about "the current state of medical and scientific knowledge" anymore. It's not about opinions, it is about facts. These 16 states are firmly in the United States and hence cannabis has accepted medical use in the US]


Furthermore, the three statutory criteria for Schedule I classification set out in § 812(b)(1) — high potential for abuse, no medically accepted use, and no safe use even under medical supervision — should not be read as being either cumulative or exclusive. Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that marijuana has some currently accepted medical uses, the Schedule I classification may nevertheless be rational in view of countervailing factors such as the current pattern, scope, and significance of marijuana abuse and the risk it poses to public health. See 21 U.S.C. § 811©(1)-(8).


This doesn't apply anymore to Minnesota because the edits made to MN Statutes 152.02 in HF57 last year prevent the Board of Pharmacy from looking at the 8 factors in relation to any Schedule I substances. Only the three factors apply. Here's the relevant language


Subd. 8.Add, delete, or reschedule substances.


The state Board of Pharmacy may, by rule, add substances to or delete or reschedule substances listed in this section. The Board of Pharmacy may not delete or reschedule a drug that is in Schedule I, except as provided in subdivision 12. In making a determination regarding a substance, the Board of Pharmacy shall consider the following: {the 8 factors}.


https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=152.02


Finally, it should be noted that under Section 811 Congress has provided a comprehensive reclassification scheme, authorizing the Attorney General to reclassify marijuana in view of new scientific evidence. In establishing this scheme, Congress provided an efficient and flexible means of assuring the continued rationality of the classification of controlled substances, such as marijuana.


Our state law used to say, "The state Board of Pharmacy, after consulting with the Advisory Council on Controlled Substances, shall annually, on or before May 1 of each year, conduct a review of the placement of controlled substances in the various schedules."


Section 5 of HF57 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0057.2.html&session=ls87 also removed this annual review process though. There is now no way to ensure that the legislature's presumption is true except for a court to look at the facts for every case that comes before them.


Every rational underpinning the reasonableness of a Schedule I classification for cannabis in Minnesota no longer exists! Juries are specifically instructed that the legislature has made the determination that cannabis is a Schedule I substance based on "proven facts". It is important to note though that the listing of cannabis as a Schedule I substance rests upon the legislature's own self imposed presumptions when they passed the CSA in 1971, that cannabis has "no accepted medical value in the United States" and that it has a "high potential for abuse".


"A criminal statutory presumption must be regarded as "irrational" or "arbitrary," and hence unconstitutional, unless it can at least be said with substantial assurance that the presumed fact is more likely than not to flow from the proved fact on which it is made to depend. And in the judicial assessment the congressional determination favoring the particular presumption must, of course, weigh heavily."


Leary v. United States, 395 US 6 - Supreme Court 1969


scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2456490274118138895


Can it "at least be said with substantial assurance that the presumed fact", that the defendant possesses a "Schedule I substance" is "more likely than not to flow from the proved fact", that cannabis is highly addictive and not a medicine in the United States? I would say that since it is not a "proved fact" that cannabis has "no medical value in the United States", the classification of cannabis is unconstitutional.


What are the results of us not attacking the constitutionality of the classification of cannabis in both Yacob's case and in civil court? Well look at what happened to Gordon Hanson, whom some of the people I am emailing this to knew, in 1991 after he lost his 1985 Supreme Court Case that I cited above...


In the trial court, "Hanson gave notice that he would present a defense of medical necessity. The state moved to exclude any evidence relevant to such a defense."


"The trial court concluded that it could not alter the legislative decision to classify marijuana as a Schedule I substance and to disallow any use other than for limited medical research."


"After Hanson moved for reconsideration of this order, he presented expert testimony from Dr. David Rosenbaum, a neurologist specializing in epilepsy, and Dr. Dennis Petro, a neurologist active in drug research and development. [...] Dr. Petro gave his opinion that cannabidiol, one of the components of marijuana, was "therapeutically useful in controlling epileptic seizures." The trial court again ruled that the defense of medical necessity could not be presented.


The MN Court of Appeals then looked at whether the trial court was correct. They stated that "The Minnesota legislature has attached criminal penalties to the possession, sale or cultivation of marijuana. Minn.Stat. §§ 152.01, subd. 7, 152.02, subd. 1 (1990), 152.09, subd. 1(1) (1988). The statutory classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance implies a determination that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use in the United States." Minn.Stat. § 152.02, subd. 7(1) (1990)."


They went on to say that "the enactment of the THC Theraputic Research Act (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=152.21), along with the implications of the Schedule I classification of marijuana, show conclusively that the possible medical uses of marijuana have been brought to the legislature's attention. [...] Because we conclude that the trial court did not err in excluding, as a matter of law, the defense of medical necessity, we need not reach the trial court's other determinations regarding the application of that defense to this case."


The trial court did not err in concluding that the medical necessity defense cannot be applied to the possession or use of marijuana.


If we don't fix this problem, people are not able to have fair trials in Minnesota. It is a travesty that patients that are dying that are arrested for having medicine can't tell a Minnesota jury the truth as to why they possessed the substance because of false presumptions. The inference of criminality in possessing cannabis is unconstitutional and it is violating our fellow citizens fair and honest trails. Let's act swiftly and wisely for justice my fellow lovers of liberty! Wrongs are not being righted and untruths are being sold as truths on the Minnesota House floor. We have the video evidence to prove it at the link above.


"At common law, presumptions, such as the inference of guilt from possession of stolen property, were developed to aid the prosecution. Around the turn of the century, legislatively-created presumptions became a popular device for aiding prosecutors. Today, statutory criminal presumptions form an integral part of our criminal law. Their popularity has been termed "an instinctive response to counterbalance the expanding constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants by the courts." This may be true. But while legislatures may be showing less concern for the reasonable doubt standard (and presumption of innocence), the Supreme Court has fairly recently reevaluated its approach to the validity of statutory criminal presumptions. This reappraisal is consistent with a current tendency to favor defendants with respect to the burden of proof.'"


Statutory Criminal Presumptions: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt? - Valparaiso University Law Review 1973


http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1751&context=vulr


Minnesota case law about this...


"This court has recognized that statutes creating conclusive presumptions of law or fact have been almost uniformly declared unconstitutional as denying due process of law. State v. Kelly, 218 Minn. 247, 250, 15 N.W.2d 554, 557 (1944)."


State v. Russell, 477 NW 2d 886 - Minn: Supreme Court 1991


http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16231087742686535576


peace and blessings,