U.S. Judge Debates Whether Marijuana Should Be Considered Among Most Dangerous Drugs

February 12, 2015
Los Angeles

By Sharon Bernstein
SACRAMENTO, Calif., Feb 11 (Reuters) – A sovereign decider conference a box of 9 group indicted of illegally flourishing pot in California pronounced Wednesday she was holding really severely arguments by their attorneys that a sovereign supervision has improperly personal a drug as among a many dangerous, and should chuck a charges out.
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller pronounced she would order within 30 days on a request, that comes amid looser coercion of U.S. pot laws, including moves to legalize a recreational use in Washington state, Colorado, Oregon and Alaska.
“If we were swayed by a defense’s argument, if we bought their argument, what would we remove here?” she asked prosecutors during shutting arguments on a suit to boot a cases opposite a men.
The group were charged in 2011 with flourishing pot on private and sovereign land in a Shasta-Trinity National Forest in Northern California nearby a city of Redding.
If convicted, they face adult to life seizure and a $10 million fine, and damage of skill and weapons.
In their box before Mueller in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, invulnerability lawyers have argued that U.S. law classifying pot as a Schedule One drug, that means it has no medical use and is among a many dangerous, is unconstitutional, given that 23 states have ratified a drug for medical use.
Lawyer Zenia Gilg, who represented invulnerability attorneys for all of a group during shutting arguments, forked to Congress’ new preference to anathema a Department of Justice from interfering in states’ doing of their medical pot laws as justification of her row that a drug’s sequence as Schedule One should be overturned.
“It’s unfit to contend that there is no supposed medical use,” pronounced Gilg, who has argued that her customer was flourishing pot for medical use.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Broderick pronounced that it was adult to Congress to change a law, not a court. He pronounced that too few doctors believed that pot had medical uses for a drug’s clarification to change underneath a law.
“We’re not observant that this is a many dangerous drug in a world,” Broderick said. “All we’re observant is that a justification is such that reasonable people could disagree.”
The defendants, he said, were illegally flourishing pot on sovereign land.
“They had weapons,” Broderick said. “These guys were not producing medicine.” (Editing by Eric Walsh)

Article source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/12/federal-marijuana-law_n_6666044.html?utm_hp_ref=los-angeles&ir=Los+Angeles