Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

You are using software which is blocking our advertisements (adblocker).

As we provide the news for free, we are relying on revenues from our banners. So please disable your adblocker and reload the page to continue using this site.
Thanks!

Click here for a guide on disabling your adblocker.

Sign up for our daily Newsletter and stay up to date with all the latest news!

Subscribe I am already a subscriber

US (MA): 1st circuit court hears that US Government to stop regulating cannabis as Schedule I substance

The eyes of the cannabis industry in Massachusetts and beyond will be on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 5 as a group of businesses tries to revive a case premised on the belief that it is long past time for the federal government to exit the realm of regulating cannabis as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act.

In Canna Provisions, Inc., et al. v. Garland, the plaintiffs, who operate Massachusetts cannabis businesses, are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional as applied to the intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession and distribution of marijuana. They are also asking the court for a permanent injunction prohibiting the federal government from enforcing the CSA in a manner that interferes with their tightly regulated state markets.

In the court below, U.S. District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni said he felt constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the 2005 case Gonzalez v. Raich, which involved the cultivation and possession of marijuana that never entered the stream of commerce and was prescribed by a doctor and consumed in compliance with state law.

The facts were "troubling," the Supreme Court acknowledged in Raich. However, it added that "case law firmly establishes Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce."

Read more at Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Publication date: