Perspective
Apr. 7, 2015
LETTER: Let's have a real pot talk
Robert Bonner has clearly stated the correct constitutional argument given the current state of the law in his recent column. But there's a few things he neglected to mention. By Joan Aarestad
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR COLUMN
I agree that Judge Robert Bonner has clearly stated the correct constitutional argument given the current state of the law. ["Pot laws and the supremacy clause," April 2]. However, no court to my knowledge has been squarely confronted with the point that marijuana use was at one time accepted for medicinal purposes in the late 1880s and early 20th century and then was outlawed (several years after alcohol was made legal agai...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In