Cannabis and Court Judgments – Cannabis | weed | marijuana

Cannabis and court judgments have a long, intertwined history. In Canada, for example, courts require the federal government to provide “reasonable access” to medical cannabis.

When the federal government tried to ban home growing, the Supreme Court ordered the government to back down. (Allard vs Queen)

Likewise, in Gonzales v. Raich, the United States courts ruled that the federal government had no authority to enforce drug laws against patients using medicinal cannabis in states where medicinal cannabis was legal.

Or in Conant v. Walters, where the courts ruled that a doctor’s First Amendment rights meant he could recommend medicinal cannabis without fear of losing his medical license.

Of course, not every court decision is in favor of cannabis users and medical patients. And thanks to the 19th-century judicial revolution, when you sue the government (as a taxpayer), you also pay for the other side and their appeals.

But consider how cannabis and court decisions have helped move things forward. Consider how fair and impartial courtrooms are superior to the popularity contests of democratic elections.

The case for the courts

Cannabis and court decisions have had better luck protecting the rights of medical patients and connoisseurs, which has done no harm. And it should be obvious why.

Careful consideration of evidence and precedent goes into the formation of court decisions. In contrast, political or social pressure does not bode well for individual rights.

Hold,

1. Impartiality: Courts must be impartial and base their decisions on evidence and precedent, not on political beliefs or popular opinion formed by corporate influencers. This is particularly important in cases such as medicinal cannabis or cannabis legalization where the issue is “controversial” or contentious.
2. Expertise: Courts often have access to experts and legal scholars who can provide valuable insight and information on complex issues. This expertise can help ensure that decisions are well informed and based on a thorough understanding of the relevant legal and social issues. In contrast, look at your average politician (left or right) and tell me with a straight face that they are the experts.
3. Protection of minority rights: In some cases, courts can help protect the rights of minorities who may not have a voice in the political process. We can see this in patients using medicinal cannabis. In 2014, a conservative government in Canada didn’t have to listen to medical cannabis patients with little to zero political power or influence to vote on. It was the Supreme Court that struck down the policy change that required patients to destroy their personal cannabis gardens.
4. separation of powers: The judiciary is designed to control the legislature and executive, ensuring that laws and policies are consistent with the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is particularly important in cases like cannabis, where a single “public health” ideology dominates the political narrative on both sides.

Cannabis and Court Judgments: Example from New York

Of course, we don’t need to pick up a history book to see how cannabis and court decisions intertwine. The history of cannabis legalization is happening in real time. And we have front row seats.

View the latest news from New York.

New York state legalized cannabis two years ago, despite only seven stores being open. Some blame a federal court ruling that suspended retail licensing. But the judge made that decision based on the New York Cannabis Control Board’s application process.

Both the legislature and the oversight body prioritized applicants with prior cannabis convictions (or with relatives with cannabis records) as part of their diversity, equity and inclusion model.

The New York Cannabis Control Board highlighted “communities disproportionately affected by the war on cannabis,” “minority-owned businesses,” and “women-owned businesses,” disabled veterans, and low-income residents.

One would think that allowing certain people to shorten the line based on their skin color, criminal history, or genitalia would have been enough to provoke a lawsuit. But since this is the undeniable zeitgeist of our times, the suit has taken a different direction.

New York State, the judge said, is violating interstate trade rules.

US Direct Court Judge Gary Sharpe ruled that New York’s licensing requirements “will have a discriminatory effect on out-of-state residents.”

While the case is still ongoing, the Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of the injunction. As a result, New York has approved 99 new licenses.

Cannabis and Court Judgments: The Battle of the Yukon

Cannabis and court judgments may not always be fair and impartial. Corruption can exist in the judiciary, although not as easily as in the legislature or executive.

Still, when it comes to bureaucratic regulators versus lawyers, paralegals and judges, I’ll take the latter.

Consider the case of Community Cannabis Inc. in the Yukon, Canada. Community Cannabis applied to open a retail store in Whitehorse. They competed for a seat next to Domino’s Pizza.

The Yukon regulator said no. Within 150 meters was a school. But as Community Cannabis pointed out, the “school” in question was actually a daycare. It was also not registered with the Ministry of Education.

Never mind, regulators had already told Community Cannabis that the proposed location was “suitable for the sale of cannabis.” Or that the company had already spent more than $70,000 on renovations based on that pre-approval.

Or that the authorities didn’t mark the place. It was also not listed as a “school” on the official Yukon government website.

Community Cannabis’ attorney told the media: “There is some concern here that we are treating cannabis retailers as if they were criminals or smugglers… A few liquor stores, one off-sale [government-run] Liquor stores are all in the same area over there… Maybe it’s time we really moved away from the racist origins of cannabis prohibition and accepted that it’s legal to sell cannabis here in the Yukon and in Canada in general.

Will the courts rule in favor of community cannabis?

Cannabis and court decisions are neither easy nor cheap. But it’s important to remember why we have a separate judicial body.

Of course, since the 19th-century judicial revolution, this independent branch has been slowly but surely absorbed into the halls of the top-down, bureaucratic state.

But we still have some semblance of judicial independence. Unless Yukon’s cannabis regulators have their way.

Community Cannabis is taking the cannabis regulator to court for obvious reasons. The regulator’s response?

The courts should not interfere. Courts should refer to their “findings of fact” as “administrative decision-makers”.

Disgusting. Government regulators are not above the law.

Courts play a crucial role in ensuring governments — including cannabis regulators in the Yukon — are held accountable. The Yukon Cannabis Licensing Board is not immune from legal challenge or judicial review.

In fact, judicial oversight is necessary to ensure that these regulators are acting within their powers and respecting the rights of individuals and companies affected by their decisions.

Someone should refer the Yukon Licensing Board to Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick Supreme Court of Canada 2008.

One employee challenged a regional regulator’s decision regarding his employment status. The regulator asked the court to defer its expertise. The Supreme Court said no thanks, we will apply our own standard which ensures the correct case law is applied.

use of the rule of law

Cannabis has always done better in court than in the legislative process. This trend has changed in recent years. Democratic governments are watching illicit markets and lost tax revenue and realizing they’ve been dead wrong about cannabis.

But it’s still an uphill battle. Whether it is institutional discrimination favoring some applicants over others. Or regulators intoxicated with their power and believing they could overturn centuries of Western legal tradition.

With governments legalizing based on conservative “public health” models, relying on court decisions to bring about cannabis liberalization is still an effective strategy.

Regulators and regulators had better start thinking about the legal ramifications of their actions.