(October 23, Helena) The Montana Supreme Court today denied a motion filed by the Montana Cannabis Industry Association in its constitutional challenge of the state’s medical marijuana law. The motion asked the Supreme Court to reconsider a recent decision overturning significant parts of a lower court’s injunction against the law.
As a result of the September 11 ruling overturning the injunction, the provisions in the current medical marijuana that limit providers to no more than 3 patients and prohibit them from recouping back end operational costs are now in full effect according to the state’s Attorney General’s office. Until the injunction was overturned, the average provider had 16 patients, and the average production cost covered by registered patients was approximately $240 per ounce.
In response to the ruling, the Department of Public Health and Human Services is sending notice to nearly 5,500 of the state’s 8,849 patients cancelling their licensed medical marijuana provider and giving them 30-day notice to either find a different provider or begin growing marijuana for themselves.
“Given that most patients are too ill, marijuana cultivation is costly, and landlords must sign an affidavit giving renters permission to grow marijuana in the home, I do not expect many will be able to actually grow their own medical marijuana,” said Chris Lindsey, president of the Montana Cannabis Industry Association. “And since providers are already scarce and they can no longer recoup costs, few patients will be able to find anyone to help them,” he said.
In the closing days of last year’s session, legislators passed a medical marijuana law that repealed the popular voter-approved program and replaced it with a new, stricter law that advocates and even legislators who supported the new law say was designed to effectively end medical marijuana in the state. “The current law as written makes it as hard as possible for people to be in compliance under the best of circumstances. Without the protections in place from our lawsuit, the legislature will finally get what it was aiming for – a poorly regulated system designed to end the voter-approved program.”
An initiative referendum called IR-124 appears on the ballot this year which allows voters to either keep the current medical marijuana law or overturn it. A vote for SB423 keeps the current law in its entire form, and a vote against SB423 restores the previous law along with the several recent rulings by the Supreme Court which create numerous limitations on activities under the former law. Several candidates this year, including Attorney General Steve Bullock in his campaign for governor, have come out in opposition to the current law and believe it should be overturned.
“My heart goes out to the thousands of patients who won’t have reasonable, regulated access to medical marijuana. In the rush to get as close to repeal as possible, our elected officials seem to have forgotten our state’s most vulnerable citizens,” said Lindsey.
James Goetz, the attorney for the MTCIA, will seek a temporary restraining order and a second preliminary amended injunction to block the provisions the Supreme Court evaluated – this one under the new standard of review established by the Court in its recent ruling.
vote NO on IR – 124.
It isn’t fair to deny patients their right for relief. Where’s the crime? Where’s the social disintegration? I’ll tell you where… they just put those poor souls back at the mercy of the drug cartels that kill people.
vote NO on IR – 124
Back in black.
here is a point to ponder…..ive been saying this for months……if Montana becomes the first state to let their government rape them with a sandpaper condom, it sets a precedent, how many other states will try to do the same thing?
So does that mean dispensaries are to be closed now ? Or do we have to wait until the case is again remanded to the district court?
No more than 3 patients and no thing of value for compensation. If you want a storefront/dispensary and you can afford it under those ridiculous conditions, no problem, unless it is banned by the city or county.
What about all the votes cast in favor of overturning SB-423? Are those votes inconsequential? If the measure was on the ballot, how can the Supreme court’s action be applicable? The voters’ actions would outweigh the Supreme Court’s, right?
Signed, a poor confused patient
We are on two tracks at the same time – court challenge to the existing law and a voter initiative/election to overturn that law completely. The Supreme Court ruled on SB423 as it currently operates. If the voters overturn it by voting No on IR-124, then the Court’s ruling is moot.
And if (heaven help us ) IR124 is approved, can MTCIA still continue to fight its unconstitutionality ?
MTCIA has always been in the constitutional fight. There are no plans to draw it down.
And if they are to be closed right now, how long will it take Goetz to file a temporary restraining order? OMG, how stupid is our court. For God’s sake, we have 2 weeks for the VOTERS to decide…oh but that’s right..we no longer have rights in this state.
No on IR-124
Goetz will be filing a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in the morning, followed by a motion for a new injunction. The TRO is like the Dutch Boy sticking his finger in the dam – it a quick and dirty solution that just gets us to a hearing on an injunction. The injunction is the the engineers showing up and patching the dam. This is the same thing we did last year when we first challenged the law. I will be in touch with his office to see how things are going. I hope to have an update on the TRO and motion for injunction by the call tomorrow night. If I get anything juicy during the day, I will post it on the blog.
Thanks Chris for the info…so as far as you are concerned any current caregivers will be illegal (essentially) in the morning if they have more than 3 patients (because obviously you would have the legal amount for each patient available which now would be an illegal amount)..or will it be like the last go around where we all shut down for a day until everyone figured out what was going to go on.
Well its messy. The injunction is really “all or none” in terms of its effectiveness. There is no grace period. Now, will law enforcement be banging on doors at 8:00 in the morning? Maybe in Ravalli =) I don’t get the sense there is any effort at all to go after people to catch them during a transition, but law enforcement is not pulling any punches either. As an attorney, I would say be absolutely within the requirements of SB423 until Goetz can get this managed.
To the people who will vote yes to IR-124 I want to take this chance to thank you in advance for my soon to be addiction to narcotics. And when my doctor prescribed narcotics no longer work and Iam a strung out pill head and dope sick I hope your doors are locked. Maybe then you will see the criminals that you will be helping to make….VOTE NO ON IR-124
If there is a silver lining here, at least the press and public might get some insight into what SB423 was actually designed to do.
I am appalled! Why did we vote? This all is our State and, Government saying ….F*CK you….The will of the people does not matter. I do NOt take ANY pills of ANY kind…and …I never will. I REFUSE to take your POISON!
Yep. You can thank the state legislature, your elected representatives.
If our legislators in the State of Montana keep ignoring 2/3rds of the voters, they’re going to find themselves out of a job. Our votes can vote them out of office as easy as we voted for medical marijuana.
I think it is time politicians quit practicing medicine without a license!
Any more, when I have health problems, I don’t know if I should see my doctor, or my politician… Maybe I’ll get my next haircut from my plumber; or buy clothes from an electrician… Hard to tell who’s who in today’s political jungle…
what about all the meth that is out there and no one cares clean that up first and leave the pot smokers alone that is there medicine meth kills people and theres alot right here in the bitterroot
Please vote. We need to bitch slap these assholes back to the rock they crawled out from under. The court has turned it’s back on the people. Over reaching politicians making political bank on the misery of our most vulnerable citizens. This is an outrage. Even if you don’t support medical mj the idea that these legislators and the court would turn so sharply on the voters is shameful. These people don’t deserve the office. They have misused their power to inflict harm on Montanan citizens.
Oh Awesome!!!! ya know, I almost killed my son on checmical prescriptions. 2 pills once a day. I lost it and fractured his sternum. THAT WAS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS!!!!!!! Give me my medical marijuana!!!!!!! I want those around me to not be at risk because I am taking those infamous checmicals that are suppose to work so wonderful!!!! yea, give them to all of us and see who we kill?????MARIJUANA DOEN’T MAKE YOU WANT TO KILL PEOPLE!!!! REALLY???????
I might not be able to buy medicine, but in the free market whatever is a fair price to both seller and buyer is legal. So, what’s to stop me from paying my provider nothing for medicine but agreeing to pay $240 for a ziplock bag, if I want to pay that for a zip lock bag?
@ tvorsky ….. Ur right. I moved to Montana from Cali, where the dispensaries must be “non-profit”. Organize with tax exempt status so ur just making a donation to a non-profit that just happens to give u medicine if u happen to have a doctors recommendation. That way, everyone can pull an honest wage and u prevent the “Pablo Escobar” types. Why is the Montana legislature so short sighted and close minded? The city of San francisco collects a tax on the sale of medical cannabis. Therefore the city is profiting from a federally illegal activity, ……….. Why does everyone wonder why the Feds never bother San francisco? The city is using medical cannabis to pay the mayor and every other expense! Montana needs jobs, well here is a great opportunity!