Bill  Montgomery, Maricopa County’s attorney, filed the request Friday with the state’s highest court after a lower court ruled that Arizona’s medical marijuana law was constitutional. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled last month that federal drug laws don’t stand in the way of public officials implementing Arizona’s law.

The case started over a dispute, whether Maricopa County had to approve zoning for a dispensary in Sun City. White Mountain Health Center, the proposed dispensary, is the subject of the court fight. More than 30,000 people already have cards authorizing them to possess and use medical marijuana in Arizona. Maricopa County is asking the Arizona Supreme Court to decide if federal drug laws pre-empt Arizona’s medical marijuana laws. Source

SPOILER ALERT! The answer is, NO! It’s unconstitutional!

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge, Michael Gordon, ruled against Montgomery last month and ordered the county to provide the required zoning information. He was absolutely right in doing so! Judge Gordon has pointed out in the past to Montgomery and Attorney General Tom Horne the reasons for his stance. In previous rulings, Gordon has said, “that 18 states and the District of Columbia already have enacted laws permitting some form of legal marijuana use. I’m not about to declare Arizona’s own version invalid.” Also stating, “this court will not rule that Arizona, having sided with the ever-growing minority of states and having limited it to medical use, has violated public policy.”

Responding to Montgomery and Horne’s argument, Gordon also pointed out that, “a conviction under federal law for aiding requires proof the person assists or participates in committing the crime.” He said, “that’s not the case with public workers. Their specific intent is to perform their administrative tasks.”

Gordon then stated, “they have no interest in whether the dispensary opens, operates, succeeds or fails.” Gordon continued saying, “the workers are wholly unconnected to and separate from the people who actually will be selling the drugs. These employees cannot be held accountable for conduct that they anticipate will occur, but could care less if it actually does.”

This seems to be a never ending battle. The people that are fighting against the judges decision, always refer back to federal power over the states. The supremacy clause, which is regularly cited among them, is only relevant when the issue in question is in Pursuance thereof  the constitution. It’s up to the states to decide their law outside of it making Montgomery and Horne’s case unconstitutional. Besides, the people are the ones that hold the power, and if the people want medical marijuana in their state, the people will have medical marijuana in their state.

Let’s take the fact that even after the 18th amendment was introduced, the people still engaged in activities involving alcohol. It didn’t even matter to the people that it was ratified, and eventually the 18th amendment was repealed because of non-compliance. An unjust law is no law at all, plain and simple! But even using the constitution as a guide, there’s nothing in there about regulating marijuana or what one does with their own bodies.

If we are to believe that federal law is always right and supreme in their rulings. And that this is the case in every circumstance and that it supersedes states’ rights, then let me refer you to Dred Scott v Sanford. In this case, the Supreme court ruled that black people did’t have rights, even though slave laws didn’t exist in his state, making federal law null and void! Are we to take the side of the federal ruling in this case as well? Are we to elect representatives that believe all federal rulings are supreme, despite the will of the people? This is a perfect example of when a supreme court decision is wrong!

When a law is unjust or unconstitutional,  it’s the duty of the states, or when regarding state law, the people, TO RESIST!

Adam Henriksen