|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
US: Defendant On Trial For Cannabis Delivery Argues The Controlled Substances Act Is Unconstitutional Emily Earlenbaugh Forbes Thursday 12 Nov 2020 But despite the unprecedented level of support and freedom to use cannabis in many parts of the country, in some states, cannabis remains highly illegal to possess, grow, manufacture, sell or transport. Those who get caught with cannabis can face serious charges. Casey Hardison, a man on trial for charges of delivering cannabis in Wyoming, is one such case. But unlike many in his position, he’s making a constitutional argument in his own defense. Specifically, Hardison is arguing that his case should be dismissed because the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional. If his argument were to succeed it would set a precedent that could apply not only to cannabis, but to all controlled substances. Hardison, 49, is a chemist who has been previously convicted in UK (and celebrated by some) for his work producing psychedelic drugs like LSD and MDMA. Now he is facing cannabis related charges in the U.S. and arguing that his charges should be dismissed. Hardison’s argument rests on the claim that both the federal and Wyoming Controlled Substances Acts violate the Constitution by applying unequally to different people. Specifically, while these Controlled Substances Acts are written to apply to those involved in commerce around any controlled substance, they provide special protections to those involved in tobacco or alcohol commerce. Hardison argues that this violates articles 1 § 34, and 3 § 27 of the Wyoming Constitution. The former says that "all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.” The latter specifies that the legislature can’t pass “special laws”, granting any person special or exclusive privilege or immunity. It says that “in all cases where a general law can be made applicable no special law shall be enacted." Hardison argues that the Controlled Substances Acts’ exclusion of tobacco and alcohol violates these articles because they offer special immunity and privileges to engage in commerce of a controlled substance - as long as the substance is tobacco or alcohol. Hardison explains that “that exception causes the operation of the offenses under the act to operate unequally - contrary to the equal protection provisions and the due process provisions of both the Wyoming Constitution and the Federal Constitution.” He drives this point further by offering the concept of drug orientation. “People have different drug orientations” he argues. “There is an irrational division between substances, to isolate out alcohol and tobacco and say these are the good drugs and the other drugs are bad.” Tobacco and alcohol are both drugs with potential for abuse, which have no known medical uses, and can cause death for those who use them. But for some reason, they are excluded from the Controlled Substances act, while cannabis is not. Hardison argues there is no good justification for making the exception with these drugs, beyond their general cultural acceptance. “It gets back to the concept that my choice, my preference, my orientation is somehow a suspect in the eyes of the moral majority” Hardison explains. “That moral disapproval is not, in any case, justification for deprivation of fundamental rights.” Hardison specifically argues that the Act violates his fundamental right to free thought, something that usually protects your right to your own personal beliefs and religious views. But Hardison interprets this as the right to alter his own mental functioning as he sees fit - as long as it doesn’t harm others. He says that while tobacco and alcohol users are permitted to alter their mental functioning - he is prohibited from doing so with cannabis and other drugs. “What we have is a law that says it's OK to alter your mental functioning with alcohol and tobacco, but it's not OK to alter your mental functions with the substances controlled under the Act” Hardison argues. “So it's an unequal deprivation of a fundamental liberty to freedom of thought.” Ultimately, the crux of his argument is that offering tobacco and alcohol users and manufacturers special protections and immunities, while arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning those who engage in the same activities with cannabis or other drugs violates the constitutional provisions that laws should apply equally. Hardison has largely written these arguments himself, but he is working with two public defenders on the case. One defender was originally assigned to his case, and another requested to join his legal team after hearing about his creative defense. Hardison says he’s been studying these arguments for 16 years. In fact, Hardison has used similar arguments in the past. In 2004 he was arrested in the UK for manufacturing controlled substances including MDMA and LSD. In that case, he represented himself and made similar arguments about his rights to freedom of thought. Ultimately, those arguments were rejected. Hardison was found guilty and sentenced to 20 years. He served a partial sentence and was then released and deported back to the U.S. in 2013. Hardison will be presenting his arguments at his upcoming hearing on November 17th. It’s an open question how the court will respond to his motion to dismiss the case - but if they were to agree with his points and dismiss it, it would set an important precedent that could impact drug policy for years to come. https://www.forbes.com/sites/benjaminadams/2020/11/12/california-governor-issues-39-pardons-commutations-and-reprieves-mostly-cannabis-and-other-drug-convictions/?sh=77e707a7517e
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!