addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [tcCannabisClub] Bad precedent

From: Aspen G.
Sent on: Thursday, January 5, 2012 2:24 AM
Arizonas governor had her lawsuit tossed out of federal court today. Said she was neglecting patients rights.  Seems Ohio's measure is based on this language.  Might be something to help your efforts.  Keep up the great effort and work.  It will be worth it.
Steve in Az
 
In a message dated 1/3/2012 2:32:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, [address removed] writes:
Hey Chris,

I don't know if this will make you sleep any better at night, but I think I have good news for you.

You said in an email that you made cannabis more illegal by going to trial than it had been previously. I didn't know what you meant, so I read through your case for the third or fourth time. It had been a little while since I had looked at it. For those following along at home, the case is State v. Wright, 588 NW 2d 166 - Minn: Court of Appeals 1998 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16471122288682915391 Here's what the decision says:

"Because we conclude that Minn.Stat. § [masked], subd. 1(5) is a valid exercise of this state's police power notwithstanding Article 13, Section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution, we affirm appellant's conviction."

In your case you were challenging the criminal penalties associated with distributing cannabis. I think that the court said that since that was illegal, there is no license that you could even get, so just because the garden was occupied and cultivated by you, the police could still arrest you.

I did a search today to see if any other cases in minnesota that dealt with the constitutional protection that your attorney cited in your case,

"Any person may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining a license therefor." Minn. Const. art. XIII, § 7.

There aren't a lot, but I did find this one. It seems to say a similar thing that your case did. Since this case is from a higher court, I'm pretty sure that this is the case that sets the dumb precedent now, not yours:

State v. Hartmann, 700 NW 2d 449 - Minn: Supreme Court 2005
http://www.scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17834597192167867153

One Love,
-kurt




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Kurt ([address removed]) from Twin Cities Cannabis Club.
To learn more about Kurt , visit his/her member profile
To unsubscribe or to update your mailing list settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York[masked] | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy