I have to respectfully disagree with Ms. Pepper’s analysis on this point. First of all, under federal law, there is no such thing as “medical use” and the cases that have found no preemption don’t rely on the medical/recreational distinction. It is clear that medical cannabis remains illegal under federal law. Rather, there is no federal preemption because the laws do not conflict. A conflict of laws only occurs when one cannot follow one law without necessarily violating the other. For example, if California passed a law making it mandatory to possess cannabis there would be a conflict. If a person followed state law and possessed, they would be in violation of fed law. If a person followed fed law and refrained from possession, they would be in violation of California’s mandatory possession law. Under such circumstances, the feds could sue the state and invalifdate the state mandatory possession law. But Prop 19 does not require anyone to possess cannabis. As such there is no conflict with fed law. Of course, possession still would remain illegal under federal law and Prop 19 would not provide a defense in federal court.
In response to Letitia Pepper’s latest tin-foil hat conspiracy that somehow medical use can be legalized and adult use somehow cannot because she has a WHOLE DIFFERENT copy of the Constitution than everyone else….
“One of the huge problems with Prop. 19 on which I didn’t concentrate — I was mainly trying to figure out what its actual terms did to patients’ rights — is that it purports to legalize recreational use. But while medical use can be legalized under state law and also federal law, recreational use remains totally illegal under federal law, which cannot be so easily trumped by a state law legalizing recreational use.”