Dans une brève Reuters reproduite ci-dessous, on apprenait mi-février que la Cour fédérale de Justice en Californie du District de Sacramento prendrait prochainement une décision symboliquement forte en ce qui concerne la classification du cannabis au tableau 1 des Stupéfiants et plus généralement pour l’ensemble des personnes vivant dans les 23 Etats US disposant de législations rendant légal l’utilisation de cannabis thérapeutique.
Selon cet article, la juge Mueller devait rendre son verdict le 25 mars.
Sur son blog, John Balazs qui suit l’affaire en tant que mandataire, nous informe que l’annonce de ce verdict vient d’être reporté par la juge au 15 avril à 9h. (NDLR : Comme un beau symbole pour commémorer la disparition de Jack Herer en 2010 !)
Elle devrait annoncer que la loi fédérale est inconstitutionnelle en Californie !
En effet, suite aux auditions du procès de plusieurs personnes jugées dans le cadre d’une affaire de production de cannabis, les avocats de la défense, Zenia Gilg et Heater Burke, ont fait prendre en compte dans leur plaidoirie la décision du Ministère de la Justice US de "ne pas intéférer dans les Etats qui disposent de législation garantissant un accès au cannabis thérapeutique", ce qui par évidence est une reconnaissance du potentiel thérapeutique du cannabis.
Brève REUTERS
A federal judge in a case out of California about illegal marijuana growing may rule in favor of the defendants by declaring federal marijuana prohibition unconstitutional. This could have major implications !
In their case before Mueller in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, defense lawyers have argued that U.S. law classifying pot as a Schedule One drug, which means it has no medical use and is among the most dangerous, is unconstitutional, given that 23 states have legalized the drug for medical use.
Lawyer Zenia Gilg, who represented defense attorneys for all of the men during closing arguments, pointed to Congress’ recent decision to ban the Department of Justice from interfering in states’ implementation of their medical marijuana laws as evidence of her contention that the drug’s classification as Schedule One should be overturned.
"It’s impossible to say that there is no accepted medical use," said Gilg, who has argued that her client was growing pot for medical use.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Broderick said that it was up to Congress to change the law, not the court. He said that too few doctors believed that marijuana had medical uses for the drug’s definition to change under the law.
"We’re not saying that this is the most dangerous drug in the world," Broderick said. "All we’re saying is that the evidence is such that reasonable people could disagree."
The defendants, he said, were illegally growing marijuana on federal land.
"They had weapons," Broderick said. "These guys were not producing medicine."