“Prior to this court ruling, dispensaries weren’t explicitly illegal, but they weren’t explicitly against the law,” says Morgan Fox, communications manager for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C. “Now that state and local law enforcement have precedent to use against dispensaries, the only protection is the fact that law enforcement can use discretion about whether or not to shut these businesses down. I hope they use that discretion wisely.”

Fox says the court ruling could deny needed medication, saying, “They need to recognize that shutting down dispensaries only hurts patients and drives more money to the illicit market. Many patients are unable to grow their own medicine, or obtain the strains that work best at treating their conditions. Taking away dispensaries leaves many patients without the best medicine, without enough medicine, and will surely put them in harm’s way by forcing them to resort to drug dealers instead of legitimate, patient-focused businesses.”

At issue in the case was whether or not Compassionate Apothecary, a Mt. Pleasant dispensary, was a legal operation under the state’s 2008 medical marijuana law. An Isabella County Circuit Court judge ruled the dispensary was legal, and declined to issue an order to shut the business down. The Isabella County Prosecutor had sought to shut the business down as a public nuisance.

But a three judge panel of the appeals court ruled Wednesday that the circuit court was wrong. The opinion was signed by Judges Joel P. Hoekstra, Christopher M. Murray and Cynthia Diane Stephens and said, in part:

Defendants’ violation of the PHC is not excused by the MMMA because defendants do not operate CA [Compassionate Apothecary] in accordance with the provisions of the MMMA. Specifically, the “medical use” of marihuana, as defined by the MMMA, does not include patient-to-patient “sales” of marihuana, and no other provision of the MMMA can be read to permit such sales. Therefore, defendants have no authority to actively engage in and carry out the selling of marihuana between CA members. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and remand for entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff.

As a result of the ruling, Lansing City Attorney Brigham Smith issued a statement on Thursday indicating that most, if not all, dispensaries operating in the city’s boundaries would run afoul of the new determination.

“It is clear that activities occurring at most, if not all, of the medical marihuana establishments operating in the City of Lansing are illegal,” Smith said in the statement. “To date, no licenses for the operation of medical marihuana establishments have been issued, and in light of the McQueen decision, the City will not be issuing any licenses at this time.”

Only weeks previously the Lansing City Council approved a controversial new ordinance to control the establishments that were popping up all over the city. A minimum of 48 businesses are effected by Smith’s ruling.

Michigan Messenger went to one dispensary on Michigan Ave. in Lansing on Tuesday evening to find the business shuttered and locked. On the window were signs encouraging patients to contact the Lansing City Council to complain about the new ordinance. But there were also signs explaining why the business was closed.

Fight for your rights

Currently no medicine available due to court ruling. Express your frustrations at the prosecuting attorneys’ office at 517 483 6108.

Fight for your rights

Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III has also opposed the dispensaries since they began popping up around the county.

And while the law continues to be in flux, many in law enforcement say off the record they have no idea what constitutes criminal activity in relation to the dispensaries. Those officials, who did not wish to be identified, also say they are uncertain whether or not they should even try to take action against a dispensary for fear of setting a new precedent.

The weary eyed view of the situation by law enforcement, however, has not calmed the nerves of those who made a living through medical marijuana dispensaries. They are planning a Sept. 7 rally at the Capitol to protest the ruling.

Marc Elias, a Democratic lawyer who’s now at Perkins Coie LLP, explains the problem:

The law is clear: federal candidates cannot raise or spend soft money. By establishing a section 527 organization that does not report to the FEC while also running for Senate, Binnie is violating a central tenet of recent federal campaign finance reform.

The full DSCC release (which is also notable for displaying how hard the committee is focusing on the bumbling Coakley campaign) is here:

As a New Hampshire Republican runs illegal ads for Scott Brown in Massachusetts, will Brown stand by his friend or denounce the ad for being illegal?

By forming a “527” issues advocacy group called Americans for Responsible Health Care to run ads for Scott Brown in Massachusetts, the New Hampshire Republican Senate candidate is breaking the law. Senate candidates are, by law, not allowed to form a “527” Issues Advocacy Group and run television advertisements for other candidates. The illegality of the ads begs the question: What will Scott Brown do? Will he stand by his Republican buddy who is illegally spending over $200,000 or will he reject the ads?

“We knew it was strange for a New Hampshire Republican to plaster himself on the Massachusetts airwaves for Scott Brown, but now we know it’s illegal,” said DSCC National Press Secretary Deirdre Murphy. “With friends like these, it’s no wonder the people of Massachusetts don’t trust Scott Brown. Will Scott Brown continue to let his Republican buddy run illegal ads for him on the air or will he denounce the ads and their message?”

“The law is clear: federal candidates cannot raise or spend soft money,” said Marc Elias, chair of the Political Law Group at Perkins Coie LLP.  “By establishing a section 527 organization that does not report to the FEC while also running for Senate, Binnie is violating a central tenet of recent federal campaign finance reform.”

As Matthew DeLong noted earlier, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri’s appeal, which questions whether the president really has the authority to hold U.S. residents indefinitely without charge. Al-Marri has been detained, mostly in solitary confinement, at a Navy brig in South Carolina since June 2003.

But there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court will never get to hear al-Marri’s appeal and rule on this critical constitutional question.  That’s because, as George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley explained on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” Friday, the Bush administration may decide to transfer al-Marri to a regular prison and charge him as a criminal — purely to keep the issue from reaching the Supreme Court, where the Bush administration may well lose the case.

That’s what the Bush administration did in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen also classified as an “enemy combatant,” who was transferred to the criminal justice system so no court could rule on the legality of the administration’s actions.

The other likely scenario is that a new Obama administration, which will presumably be gung-ho about preserving civil liberties, will take over in January and reverse the government’s position in the case and decide that al-Marri cannot be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant without charges after all. The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t hear oral arguments in this case until spring, and it’s hard to imagine that the new Justice Department, under Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder — who has  made strong statements about the illegality of Bush’s detention policies — is going to defend President Bush’s executive decision to hold al-Marri indefinitely.

While that would be a good outcome for al-Marri, it could be a loss for civil libertarians, who are hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule definitively that the president of the United States does not have the authority to detain a U.S. resident in a U.S. prison indefinitely without charge, without having to prove to some federal judge somewhere that he poses a real danger.