We just published a new page here on the site that is an FAQ on the law as it currently stands.  It is on the lengthy side, but well worth your time if it helps ensure that you are adhering to state law.  Check it out here.  For future reference, there will be a permanent link to the FAQ at the top of this page.

Read it, then read it again.

As many of you know, more federal raids took place in the Billings area on Wednesday, February 28^th.  We are saddened that the federal government continues to harass people who are attempting to abide by a law created and adopted by our own state legislature.  The U.S. Attorneys Office has released that searches were completed in at least four medical marijuana businesses.  The MTCIA has only been able to confirm two of those searches – one storefront and one warehouse.  Despite what some media outlets have reported, these were not just ‘inspections’ or ‘searches’.  No arrests were made, but the owners had plants, scales, and other items seized by federal agents.  Our Attorney General (Montana’s chief law enforcement officer) and our elected Sheriffs (whose law enforcement powers exceed that of any other state or federal official) continue to remain silent on the matter.

The federal government has said that they will not go after patients, but it’s a sad irony that patients are the ones that will suffer the most from this, both physically and emotionally.  Few providers have been able to survive the inhospitable atmosphere in Yellowstone County.  Considering that Billings is Montana’s largest city, it is easy to assume that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of patients without a provider.  How many of them have turned to the black market because it now seems safer and more certain than obtaining their medicine legally? Our state legislature agreed that only those that are really sick need access to medical marijuana.  The limited access that existed prior to February 28 is now much tighter.  It is patients like Jolie that will really suffer.  A stay-at-home with MS is one of the latest victims of the failing War on Drugs.

Patient Reacts to Medical Marijuana Business Raids

We find it disappointing that unlike Washington, Colorado and California, the Department of Justice has not provided any warning to providers to enable them to cease operations before raiding businesses and homes.   The primary difference between those states and Montana is that they all have solid medical marijuana laws that have substantial regulation (not one tied up in litigation).   That leaves everyone in Montana left in this industry in an especially vulnerable position.  It is more imperative now than it has ever been to strictly adhere to state law. (We will be publishing a FAQ in the near future regarding SB 423 as it currently stands to answer any questions you might have regarding the law.)

It is important to know that even if the lawsuit against the state is successful, the medical marijuana industry will continue to be vulnerable until we have a regulatory law in place to protect us.  There are still no guarantees against federal interference after that, but it is the best that we can hope to accomplish until federal laws change.

The country is reaching a tipping point in regards to marijuana.  More and more people are admitting that the War on Drugs has been a huge failure and a drain on depleting resources.  More and more people are willing to see and call out the Reefer Madness for what it is – madness.  Something is going to give in the not too distant future, but predicting when would be like pulling a number out of the air.  In the meantime, mind your p’s and q’s and keep fighting the good fight.

As many of you already know, the MTCIA initiated a constitutional challenge to the current medical marijuana law in the state last summer. Here is a recap on what has happened so far and where we are today.

In order to prevent the more offensive parts of the law from going into effect, the MTCIA and the other plaintiffs in the case asked the judge to place injunction on the new law in order to protect patients, providers and physicians. After a hearing the judge decided not suspend the entire law, but did enjoin certain parts, including 1) the ban on advertising, 2) unannounced inspections on providers by law enforcement, 3) the limit on the number of patients for which a physician could make a medical marijuana recommendation, 4) the limit on the number of patients a provider can serve, and 5) the prohibition on a provider receiving compensation from his or her patients.

Following the decision, the state’s Attorney General filed an appeal and later filed a brief in support of the appeal. In filing the appeal, the Attorney General took exception to two particular features of the decision: that providers could not be limited in the number of patients they serve and the judge’s finding that providers can receive compensation for their services from qualified patients. The other aspects of the judge’s decision were left alone.

The Attorney General’s brief in support of the appeal was filed mid November. Essentially, the Attorney General argued that Judge Reynolds did not apply the correct legal standard in making his determination and accordingly, the Supreme Court should reverse the decision, send it back to the district court in Helena, and provide a framework for Judge Reynolds to use as the case goes to trial.

On January 17, the MTCIA’s response to the Attorney General’s brief was filed with the Supreme Court. The MTCIA also filed its own appeal of some of the aspects of the decision, including Judge Reynold’s refusal to lift the ban on probationer’s use of medical marijuana while on supervision. The cross appeal also asked the Supreme Court to reconsider the standard of care that physicians are required to follow under SB423 (which was left untouched by Judge Reynolds). Finally, the MTCIA’s position in the appeal is that the new law has so many constitutional problems that the Supreme Court should make a finding that the entire law should be enjoined – not just portions of it.

Currently, the State Attorney General’s Office has until February 16 to file its own response to the MTCIA’s cross appeal. The MTCIA will then have 14 days to reply to the state’s response. Accordingly, it is likely the matter will be fully briefed with the Supreme Court by early March. At that point, likely within several weeks, the Supreme Court will decide if a panel of 5 justices can decide the matter based on the briefs, or if the entire Supreme Court should hear oral arguments by both sets of attorneys in support of their claims. It has been estimated the Supreme Court may not weigh in on these appeals until Summer or even the Fall, at which point the case, regardless of the decision by the Supreme Court, would be sent back to the district court to proceed to trial. We at the MTCIA believe that we may not see this case get resolved until some time in 2013, based on both the Supreme Court’s own schedule and that of the district court in the case.

It is important for our members and anyone participating in the medical marijuana program in the state to understand that the efforts of Mr. Goetz on our behalf do not change the Federal government’s outlook on medical marijuana. Clearly the Fed is opposed to the state’s program, and participants who wish to continue operating under the program need to be extremely cautious and understand the risks involved. Should you wish to try and participate in the state-run program, we strongly encourage you to talk with an attorney first.

Late last month, the state of Montana filed its appeal of the temporary injunction against provisions in SB 423 secured last summer in the MTCIA vs. the State of Montana.

Highlights of the state’s argument against the injunction:

• The right to pursue employment is limited to lawful activities and commercially selling marijuana is illegal under Montana and federal law.
• There “is no right to pursue health free of government regulations.”
• The “right to privacy encompasses the right to make medical decisions but that right must be balanced against the State’s police power…”
• “It is well within the State’s police powers to determine the conditions upon which it makes marijuana legal for medical purposes.”
• There is no fundamental right to use marijuana. Thus, the proper standard of  judicial scrutiny is rational basis, not strict, as was applied by District Court. (This is the crux of their argument. Definitions of strict scrutiny vs. rational basis scrutiny available at bottom of post.)

You can read the state’s appeal in its entirety here.

The MTCIA’s cross appeal and response to the state must be filed by January 17.

And now a holiday message from MTCIA, Billings. Billings has faced some of the most rabid prohibitionists in the state and stood their ground. Whether supporting the court case or collecting signatures for IR-124, Billings has always made an impressive showing.

From Billings MTCIA member Elizabeth Springman:

The MTCIA’s First annual Christmas mixer and membership drive in Billings was a great success! We had over 50 people in attendance, and I am happy to report, there were many new faces joining us. Ed sold more than 70 t-shirts and all together we managed to raise over $3,700 dollars for the MTCIA! That is amazing!

We all enjoyed a wonderful potluck dinner, great company, a gift exchange and a few brave souls even sang along with Juleen and her karaoke machine! A great time was had by all!

It was good to see so many new faces at our party. I hope all the newcomers who joined us for the festivities, will be back to join us again at our regular monthly meeting in January.

The word is getting out about the Montana Cannabis Industry Association and our continued fight for patients, providers and reliable, safe access to cannabis in Montana.

A big thank you to all who participated and helped make this night a huge success! We couldn’t do this without the support of our members.

Elizabeth P

Thanks, Elizabeth!

###

Strict scrutiny vs. Rational basis scrutiny:

Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous form of judicial review. The Supreme Court has identified the right to vote, the right to travel, and the right to privacy as fundamental rights worthy of protection by strict scrutiny. In addition, laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of race are categorized as suspect classifications that are presumptively impermissible and subject to strict scrutiny.

Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

vs.

Rational basis is the lowest level of scrutiny that a court applies when engaging in judicial review . . . The rational basis review tests whether a governmental action is a reasonable means to an end that may be legitimately pursued by the government. This test requires that the governmental action be “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest.

Medical cannabis patients are often forced to emphasize their vulnerabilities in order to prove their worthiness to access a botanical that offers them relief. Their “worthiness” is measured by legislators’ perceived degree of patient suffering rather than whether or not cannabis is effective for their condition.  This requirement to emphasize a vulnerability, however, belies patients’ strength, courage, and power. Patients were the front lines for challenging the myths and lies on which the marijuana prohibition industries were built.

Currently, in Montana, if you are a patient and you get your cannabis from a legal, registered provider, you are only able to do so because of the temporary injunction secured in the lawsuit, the MTCIA vs. State of Montana. Without this lawsuit and injunction, access to medical marijuana in Montana would be all but over.

The MTCIA would like to ask you, the patients of Montana, for your help.

All those who benefit from the lawsuit are not sharing in its cost. Many providers who make a profit from selling medical cannabis have not stepped up and supported the lawsuit that allows them to exist at all. At this time, the cost of doing business in Montana includes the cost of the lawsuit (no lawsuit = no business). If a medical marijuana provider  is not contributing to the cost of lawsuit, that provider is riding somebody else’s coattail and operating on somebody else’s dime, no different than if they were siphoning off electricity or stealing another’s supplies .

We ask patients, who hold great power as consumers, to ask your provider whether or not s/he is a member of the MTCIA and helping pull the load for all those in Montana who use or provide medical cannabis. You can also check with the MTCIA to find out whether a provider is a member (info@mtcia.org). If your provider is a member, please thank him or her for their support in protecting access for all. If your provider is not a member, please ask that they become one and pull their own weight on behalf of access in Montana.

Some MTCIA members have launched in their businesses a $1 request per transaction to offer patients an easy, painless way to contribute to the movement that makes it possible for them to secure cannabis in a safe environment. The response has been overwhelmingly positive as patients value their access and are eager and willing to help protect it, some giving beyond the $1 when they understand what’s at stake and the necessary work being done.

Thank you to all.

Patients are the market. The market decides what businesses stay and which ones go. This is the way markets should function and it’s what regulations should support – the power of the consumer. Our legislature did not provide regulations. They passed a bill meant to dismantle the system and make Montanans vulnerable to arrest for participating in a program voted in by the citizens of this state. Nor should regulations be about the government picking out the winners by awarding contracts, something done in other states. Regulations should create baseline standards that address safety, quality, and functionality. Those who can meet those baseline standards then get to compete. The market should choose the best – those who provide quality, a safe purchasing environment, and service.  

But right now, we don’t have regulations. We have obstacles and “gotcha” provisions and a  state law enforcement that is either sidelined by the feds or shilling for them – we don’t know which. Without regulations, you are needed as a patient, as a consumer -  as the market – to shape this system with your dollar.

If a provider is unwilling to participate fairly now, how will they participate in the future when laws may be getting made to the detriment of the patient-consumer? If they aren’t standing with you now to protect access, why would they stand with you later when greater profits may be at stake?

Lawmakers have pretended that SB 423, their de facto repeal legislation, is regulation, which it is clearly not. As a result, Montana is left to create our own standards within the parameters of the wreck of a law that we have, and much of the power to do this lies in your hands, the patients. Who deserves your dollars? Those contributing to protecting your access, or those profiting by the work of others?

Who do you want growing your medicine?

We can make profiteering a thing of the past.

The power is yours.

Meetings will run from 7:15 p.m. till 9:00 p.m. unless otherwise noted. In recognition of the holidays, this month’s gatherings are social and open to non-members. 

Helena member meetings to begin early next year.

Kalispell

Monday, December 12
Glacier View VFW 330 1st Ave

This month’s meeting will begin at 7:30 PM. It will be a Christmas party with a pot luck and white elephant gift exchange ($5 limit if you’d like to participate). The party will also have an ugly sweater contest with a prize to be awarded. It is a membership drive, so please bring a guest.

Missoula

Tuesday, Decmeber 13

Top Hat, 134 West Front St.
 

Bozeman

Wednesday, December 14
Best Western 1325 North 7th Avenue

This month’s meeting will be a holiday party with cocktail service to the meeting room.

Billings

Thursday, December 15
Heightened Harvest (West End location) 1415 s. 32nd

This month’s meeting will begin at 7:00 PM. It will be a Christmas party with a pot luck , white elephant gift exchange ($5 limit if you’d like to participate), BYOB, and karaoke.

Montana’s population is less than a million. In 2008, we had a 74% election turnout. Fewer than 250,000 votes won a statewide race, or with the same turnout would win a statewide referendum.

Are there 250,000 votes in Montana to toss out the unconstitutional wreck of a law (SB 423) passed by the 2011 legislature meant to dismantle medical cannabis access in the state? Are there 250,000 votes to end prohibition of the adult use of cannabis in Montana?

Start looking around and ball parking. How many in Missoula? How many in Libby? How many in Billings? Bozeman? Great Falls?

But before there’s the general election next November when the referendums will be decided, there’s the primary in June. In primaries, voters choose either the Republican or Democratic ballot and vote on who will represent each party in the general election in November.

A democrat running for a statewide office could beat his or her democrat opponent by securing just over 45,000 votes. A republican may need around 70,000 in a two-way primary, depending on turnout. Given there’s currently 8 republicans running for Governor in the primary, the republican nominee could, theoretically, get the republican spot on the ballot with fewer than 20% of the number of signatures collected for IR –124.

Given that the referendum to put the law on the ballot received over 50,000 signatures, and the ballpark figure on how many of those are newly registered voters comes in at maybe 10,000 (we should have real numbers before too long), driving the outcome of a close statewide primary shouldn’t be too difficult for the cannabis vote –

if those who want an end to the political nonsense around cannabis policy acts as a voting block.

Power’s only power if you use it.

For historical data on voter turnout in Montana, go here.