A federal judge has dismissed a case in which multiple marijuana companies were challenging the U.S. prohibition on marijuana, while stating that the nation’s marijuana laws deserve “reexamination.”
Judge Mark G. Mastroianni of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s Western Division has dismissed a case brought by CANNA PROVISIONS, Gyasi Sellers, Wiseacre Farm, and Verano Holdings, who were suing the U.S. attorney general, claiming marijuana prohibition is unconstitutional.
The judge stated that the relief sought is inconsistent with binding Supreme Court precedent and, therefore, beyond the authority of the court to grant. He also noted that the plaintiffs do not provide a basis for the court to disregard the broad reading of the Commerce Clause.
Despite throwing out the case, Judge Mastroianni said there’s “persuasive reasons for a reexamination”. The judge also stated that “Plaintiffs assert that marijuana has been miscategorized and, at the motion to dismiss stage, the court accepts as true their assertions about the safety of marijuana and its therapeutic benefits”.
In January the Justice Department sought to have the case dismissed. The dismissal request was rejected by the courts, allowing oral arguments to take place in May.
The lawsuit claimed that continuing marijuana prohibition, in particular enforcing federal marijuana policy on states that have legalized the plant, is unconstitutional and harms public safety.
“What was once a single-minded federal crusade against the cannabis plant has been replaced with an ambivalent set of inconsistent policies, some aimed at reducing federal interference with state efforts to regulate marijuana,” said the lawsuit. “In short, the federal government has long ago abandoned the goal of eliminating marijuana from commerce. Nor does Congress have any comprehensive—or even consistent and rational—approach to marijuana regulation. This inconsistent, patchwork approach to marijuana regulation provides no basis for Congress to regulate intrastate marijuana.”
The lawsuit states that “prohibition is to the detriment of the states, their citizens, and Plaintiffs. Not only do Plaintiffs face the potential risk of enforcement, their businesses also face numerous hurdles that result directly from the CSA’s treatment of intrastate marijuana.”
