The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas has ruled that banning cannabis users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional. The court also said the legal principle applies to the sale and transfer of guns. The win was delivered through Paola Connelly, an El Paso resident convicted of separate charges for possessing and transferring a firearm in 2021 while admitting to consuming cannabis.

This recent case in Texas is one of at least four active federal cases surrounding the government’s policy on cannabis and gun ownership.

Under current federal law, cannabis consumers are prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms because they are “an unlawful user or addicted to” a controlled substance. It’s a ban that applies to all cannabis users, including those in states with legal medical and/or recreational cannabis laws.

Another Federal Ruling Against the Ban

Judge Kathleen Cardone granted a motion to reconsider the case, and charges were ultimately dismissed last week. The court had previously issued a conviction, though it said a more recent ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit merited another look. That case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, found that any firearm restrictions must be consistent with the Second Amendment’s original 1791 ratification.

“Quite simply, there is no historical tradition of denying individuals their Second Amendment rights based solely (or even partially) on the use of marijuana,” the case filing states.

Judge Cardone often disputed the Justice Department’s attempts to fall back on its typical arguments around cannabis consumption and gun ownership, like comparing the ban to laws against operating a firearm under the influence of alcohol or gun possession by “unvirtuous” people. She also cited President Biden’s 2022 decision to mass pardon people with federal cannabis possession charges.

“…Even if Connelly were convicted of simple marijuana possession, that conviction would be expunged by the blanket presidential pardon of all such marijuana possessions that, like Connelly’s, took place before October 6, 2022,” the ruling states, even though Biden’s clemency action didn’t actually expunge records.

Dismantling the DOJ’s Argument in Texas

The court added that, since cannabis possession would only rise to a misdemeanor under federal law, “any historical tradition of disarming ‘unlawful’ individuals does not support disarming Connelly for her alleged marijuana use.” The court challenged the Justice Department’s argument in favor of the ban given that the defendant wasn’t ever convicted of a cannabis offense. Rather, she just admitted to using cannabis.

“In short, the historical tradition of disarming ‘unlawful’ individuals appears to mainly involve disarming those convicted of serious crimes after they have been afforded criminal process,” the ruling reads. “Section 922(g)(3), in contrast, disarms those who engage in criminal conduct that would give rise to misdemeanor charges, without affording them the procedural protections enshrined in our criminal justice system. The law thus deviates from our Nation’s history of firearm regulation.”

The court also challenged the assertion that cannabis users are inherently dangerous, citing the fact that more than 20 states now have legal adult-use cannabis and it’s now a regularly used substance by millions of Americans.

“It strains credulity to believe that taking part in such a widespread practice can render an individual so dangerous or untrustworthy that they must be stripped of their Second Amendment rights,” Cardone said.

Similar Ruling From a Neighboring State

The case follows another recent Oklahoma City ruling in February, where a federal judge similarly ruled that the firearm ban on cannabis users is unconstitutional and must not be enforced by prosecutors.

That case involved Jared Michael Harrison, who was arrested by police in Lawton, Oklahoma after officers found cannabis and a loaded revolver in his car during a traffic stop. Harrison told police he was heading to work at a legal medical cannabis business but did not have a state-issued ID card showing he was authorized to use medicinal cannabis.

Harrison’s attorneys challenged the charge, similarly arguing that the firearm ban is not consistent with the country’s tradition of regulating firearms, also citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick similarly rejected the argument that Harrison’s status as a cannabis user “justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm” and ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership “is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison.” Wyrick added that cannabis use “not in and of itself a violent, forceful or threatening act.”

The federal court’s full ruling in the Texas case is available here.

The post Texas Federal Court Rules Firearm Ban on MJ Users Unconstitutional appeared first on High Times.

The post Texas Federal Court Rules Firearm Ban on MJ Users Unconstitutional appeared first on Paradise Found.

Florida-based medical cannabis doctor, Dr. Joseph Dorn, is suing state health officials for attempting to strip him of his medical license, prohibit him from prescribing medical cannabis, and charge him a $10,000 fine.

Dorn was the target of an investigation in 2018, where two undercover state health department agents were referred to as “Patient O.G.” and “Patient B.D.” made appointments posing as patients to investigate Dorn’s practice, according to Health News Florida. Both agents made claims that they suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, which Dorn conducted a review and prescribed medical cannabis to ease those symptoms.

“The two undercover employees consulted with Dr. Dorn under their aliases, lied to his face, and were intentionally evasive so that they could obtain a medical marijuana recommendation from Dr. Dorn. Ultimately, Dr. Dorn recommended medical marijuana for both patients, believing that they qualified,” the lawsuit explained of the investigation.

Administrative Law Judge W. David Watkins cleared Dorn of wrongdoing in March 2022, stating the Dorn has fully complied with state law. “The evidence of record undermines DOH’s argument that Dr. Dorn’s practice is nothing more than an ‘open gate’ to medical marijuana. In the case of both O.G. and B.D. (and presumably the other 28 patients examined), Dr. Dorn conducted a detailed and thorough assessment of the patient’s condition prior to prescribing medical marijuana,” Watkins wrote last year.

Now Dorn is suing the Florida State Health Department, as well as the two involved officers, for $50,000 in damages. The lawsuit claims that the agents “grossly exceeded their authority and violated state and federal law along the way,” and that the event caused Dorn to “[suffer] millions of dollars of damages due to loss of revenue and the damage to his reputation due to the actions and inactions.”

“Despite substantial testimony in the proceedings before the Florida Board of Medicine, no evidence whatsoever was found which would support a finding of probable cause for an action to revoke Dr. Dom’s medical license,” the lawsuit states.

Not only has Dorn been a practitioner in Florida for more than 30 years, but he was also one of Florida’s first physicians to prescribe medical cannabis to patients. This became possible when voters passed a constitutional amendment back in 2016. A law was also passed in 2017 to implement a foundation for the medical cannabis industry, including guidelines for patients and doctors.

The lawsuit claims that the health department agents did not provide any explanation as to why they targeted Dorn in the first place, according to Attorney Ryan Andrews. “The predicate for why they visited Dr. Dorn’s office unannounced was so lacking that calling it a ‘hunch’ would be gratuitous,” Andrews said. “DOH [Department of Health] had no basis to visit Dr. Dorn.”

Andrews called the investigation “indefensible.” “I can’t wait to hear their defenses, because I don’t think they have any,” he concluded.

While litigation on this case continues, the state of Florida continues to see a lot of progress both in medical cannabis and recreational cannabis. On April 10, regulators released new medical cannabis rules, which includes up to 22 retail medical cannabis licenses, and also increases the renewal fee required by all license holders every two years from the current fee of $60,000 to more than $1 million.

Advocates with Smart and Safe Florida are hard at work collecting signatures to add a recreational cannabis amendment to the ballot in 2024. So far, they’ve gathered more than 420,000 of the required 891,589 signatures to be placed on the ballot. The signature collecting campaign began in 2022, and has received a large amount of funding from companies such as Trulieve, which provided $5 million.

The post Florida Medical Cannabis Doctor Sues State Health Department appeared first on High Times.

The post Florida Medical Cannabis Doctor Sues State Health Department appeared first on Paradise Found.

Connecticut’s chief prosecutor announced last week that state’s attorneys have dismissed more than 1,500 pending cannabis-related criminal cases involving offenses that are no longer against the law. In a letter sent to a Connecticut legislative committee on March 31, Chief State’s Attorney Patrick J. Griffin reported that prosecutors had reviewed more than 4,000 pending drug possession cases and dropped the charges for 1,562 of them.

In June 2021, Connecticut lawmakers passed legislation to legalize personal quantities of marijuana and to regulate commercial cannabis production and sales. The possession provisions went into effect one month later, and dispensaries began regulated sales of recreational marijuana in December 2022. 

The legalization statute also included provisions for the expungement of past cannabis-related convictions in cases involving up to four ounces of cannabis. In January, Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont announced he had “erased 42,964 cannabis convictions” as a result of the legislation. But the expungement provisions did not explicitly clear charges for pending marijuana possession cases, a point that was later clarified by lawmakers. 

“The legislature made clear to the Division of Criminal Justice that it intended for the new cannabis laws to apply to people who had charges pending on the date the law went into effect,” Griffin said in a statement cited by CTInsider. “Understanding the intent of the legislature, the division undertook an expedited review of its files to respect the legislature’s wishes. The state’s attorneys and their offices should be commended for their efforts and their commitment to addressing these cases in such a timely manner.”

More Than 4,000 Pending Drug Possession Cases Reviewed

The charges dropped by prosecutors represent cases that were pending when the legalization bill went into effect. In addition to the 1,562 dropped charges, about 600 more that involved multiple charges were modified to remove cannabis charges from the case. Griffin reported to lawmakers that his office had to review each of more than 4,000 pending cases individually, citing state law that combines cannabis with other controlled substances such as heroin and cocaine.

“It has been the shared position of this committee and the division that persons charged with a possession of a cannabis-type substance offense that has subsequently been decriminalized should not be prosecuted for that offense,” Griffin wrote in his letter to lawmakers last week. “Thus, identifying these cannabis cases could not be accomplished merely by conducting a computerized review of pending cases.” 

“This was no small task and quite labor intensive,” he added.

Griffin sent his letter to the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee, which was last week considering a new bill directing state’s attorneys to end prosecutions for cannabis possession cases. The bill, HB-6787, also creates a process for automatic sentence modification of all eligible marijuana convictions identified by prosecutorial officials and instructs courts to determine if release or sentence modification is warranted. The measure was approved by the panel by a vote of 27-10, although Representative Steve Stafstrom, the co-chair of the committee, said that the bill is likely to be amended as it continues through the legislative process.

“This clears up confusion that may have been created under the legalization-of-cannabis process, whereby certain offenses that were pending before cannabis legalization remained pending even after that legislation was adopted,” Stafstrom said on March 31. “I want to specifically thank the office of the Chief State’s Attorney, who I know heard the concerns, the bipartisan concerns of this committee at the public hearing in terms of getting those cases dismissed.”

Connecticut Activists Applaud Dropped Charges

Griffin’s move to drop the pending marijuana cases was warmly received by cannabis policy reform advocates including Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

“Hundreds of thousands of Americans unduly carry the burden and stigma of a past conviction for behavior that most Americans, and a growing number of states, no longer consider to be a crime,” Armentano said in a statement from the cannabis policy reform group. “Our sense of justice and our principles of fairness demand that public officials and the courts move swiftly to right the past wrongs of cannabis prohibition and criminalization.”

Sarah Gersten, executive director and general counsel of the Last Prisoner Project, a nonprofit group dedicated to securing the release of all cannabis prisoners, praised Griffin’s move and urged lawmakers to approve HB-6787.

“We applaud Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin for dismissing more than 1,500 pending cannabis cases and modifying approximately 600 others. This announcement marks a tremendous step towards achieving justice in Connecticut,” Gersten wrote in an email to High Times. “However, HB-6787’s passage is still crucial to ensure those currently incarcerated have the same opportunity to have their sentences reviewed and potentially terminated. It is unconscionable that some in Connecticut remain incarcerated for cannabis while others are profiting from the exact same activity.”

The post Connecticut Prosecutors Drop 1,500 Cannabis Charges appeared first on High Times.

The post Connecticut Prosecutors Drop 1,500 Cannabis Charges appeared first on Paradise Found.

A federal judge in Oklahoma City ruled last week that a federal law that prohibits cannabis users from owning firearms is unconstitutional and must not be enforced by prosecutors. Citing a ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year that dramatically expanded gun rights, U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick dismissed a federal indictment charging an Oklahoma man with violating the ban, ruling that the prohibition denied the defendant of his right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Under current federal law, people who use cannabis are prohibited from owning or purchasing firearms because they are “an unlawful user of or addicted to” a controlled substance. The ban applies to all cannabis users, including those who use marijuana products that are legal under state law and the Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms for all Americans.

In May 2022, Jared Michael Harrison was arrested by police in Lawton, Oklahoma after officers found marijuana and a loaded revolver in his car during a traffic stop. Harrison told police he was on his way to work at a legal medical marijuana business, although he did not have a state-issued identification card authorizing him to use cannabis medicinally. Federal prosecutors subsequently charged Harrison under the nationwide ban on gun ownership by marijuana users.

Harrison’s attorneys challenged the gun prohibition for cannabis users, arguing that the ban is not consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of regulating firearms. The challenge cited a ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that set new standards for interpreting the Second Amendment. Under that ruling, gun restrictions enacted by the government must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” 

Judge Cites Recent Supreme Court Ruling

Wyrick, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, agreed with Harrison’s attorneys and ruled on Friday that the ban is unconstitutional, writing that “the mere use of marijuana carries none of the characteristics that the Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation supports.” The judge rejected the argument of federal prosecutors that Harrison’s status as a marijuana user “justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm” and ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership “is not a constitutionally permissible means of disarming Harrison.” 

Wyrick also noted that the use of cannabis is “not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act” and that Oklahoma is one of many states that permit the medicinal use of marijuana, despite the continued illegality of cannabis at the federal. Oklahoma voters legalized medical marijuana in 2018, and the state has more than 2,000 licensed dispensaries where patients can obtain medical cannabis.

Laura Deskin, a public defender representing Harrison, said the ruling was a “step in the right direction for a large number of Americans who deserve the right to bear arms and protect their homes just like any other American.”

Brian Vicente, a founding partner of the cannabis and psychedelics law firm Vicente Sederberg LLP, said last week’s court decision in Oklahoma “is a significant expansion in the rights of cannabis consumers.”

“For decades, and across various states, medical cannabis patients have been asked to choose between participating in their state’s legal cannabis program or owning a firearm,” Vicente wrote in an email. “This federal court decision secures the rights of adults to both use cannabis and own guns and effectively removes the restriction, and associated stigma, that these adults face. This is part of a broader trend of conservative states embracing marijuana policy, with both Alabama and Mississippi establishing medical cannabis programs in 2022 and Oklahoma poised to legalize cannabis on March 7 of this year.”

The post Federal Judge Rules Gun Ban for Weed Smokers Unconstitutional appeared first on High Times.

The post Federal Judge Rules Gun Ban for Weed Smokers Unconstitutional appeared first on Paradise Found.

Brittney Griner, the American basketball star who has been held in a Russian prison since her February arrest over drug smuggling charges, appeared in a Moscow court for the start of her trial on Friday.

Griner was arrested at a Moscow airport on February 17 after being accused of carrying cannabis oil in her luggage.

“Being sufficiently aware that the movement of narcotic drugs is not allowed… no later than February 17, 2022 at an unspecified location under unspecified circumstances from an unidentified person [Griner] bought two cartridges for personal use, which contained 0.252 grams and 0.45 grams of hash oil, totaling 0.702 grams,” a prosecutor said in court on Friday, according to CNN.

CNN reported that the “prosecution argues that Griner intended to import the drugs into Russia’s territory and put the prohibited substances into a backpack and a suitcase,” and that cannabis oil “is subject to control in Russia and is classified as a narcotic drug.”

The trial is scheduled to resume next Friday. Griner faces up to 10 years in prison.

Griner, one of the most decorated women’s basketball players in history who stars for the Phoenix Mercury of the WNBA, has become a symbol in the deteriorating relationship between the United States and Russia. Her detention, coinciding with Russia’s internationally-condemned invasion of Ukraine, is widely seen as being politically motivated.

In May, the United States reclassified Griner as “wrongfully detained.”

There is growing speculation that Russia could be angling for a prisoner swap with the U.S., with The New York Times reporting that the Kremlin appears to be linking Griner’s fate with that of Viktor Bout, a Russian arms dealer currently serving a 25-year federal prison sentence in the United States.

That could put President Joe Biden in a diplomatic quandary, according to the Times.

“The vast disparity between the cases of Brittney Griner and Viktor Bout highlights the extreme difficulty President Biden would face if he sought a prisoner exchange to free Ms. Griner, the detained W.N.B.A. player, from detention in Moscow. The Biden administration, reluctant to create an incentive for the arrest or abduction of Americans abroad, would be hard-pressed to justify the release of a villainous figure like Mr. Bout,” the Times reported.

But the Biden administration is facing mounting pressure to secure Griner’s freedom. Her peers in the sporting community have expressed support for her, while urging the U.S. to do something to end her detention.

LeBron James’s brand, Uninterrupted, issued a message last month calling on Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to continue to work for her release.

“For over 100 days, BG has faced inhumane conditions in a Russian prison and has been denied communications with her family and loved ones,” the message read. “As a decorated Olympian and member of an elite global sport community, BG’s detention must be resolved out of respect for the sanctity of all sport and for all Americans traveling internationally. It is imperative that the U.S. Government immediately address this human rights issue and do whatever is necessary to return Brittney home.”

Griner was arrested as she was returning to Russia to complete her season with UMMC Ekaterinburg. Like many American women’s basketball players, Griner has long competed in Russia during the WNBA’s offseasons.

Although she was arrested in February, her detention was not made public until several weeks later.

“We are aware of the situation with Brittney Griner in Russia and are in close contact with her, her legal representation in Russia, her family, her teams and the WNBA and NBA,” Griner’s agent, Lindsay Kagawa Colas, said after Russian authorities announced her arrest in March. “As this is an ongoing legal matter, we are not able to comment further on the specifics of her case but can confirm that as we work to get her home, her mental and physical health remain our primary concern.”

The post Brittney Griner Goes to Trial in Moscow Court Over Drug Charges appeared first on High Times.

The post Brittney Griner Goes to Trial in Moscow Court Over Drug Charges appeared first on Paradise Found.

The post Barcelona’s Cannabis Clubs in Limbo After Abrupt Court Ruling appeared first on Paradise Found.