Court Victory Allows Arizonans to Use Marijuana Extracts for Medical Conditions Like Seizures
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, 602-492-8540, skilar@acluaz.org
PHOENIX – The Maricopa County Superior Court ruled late Friday in favor of five-year-old Zander Welton, finding that his parents and physicians could resume treating his seizure disorder with a marijuana extract. Judge Katherine Cooper found that the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA), approved by voters in 2010, allows patients to use marijuana extracts without fear of prosecution. In October, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Arizona sued the county on behalf of Zander and his parents, Jennifer and Jacob Welton, because Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery and other Arizona law enforcement agents had asserted that the AMMA does not sanction the use of marijuana extracts and threatened criminal charges for patients who used extracts.
"We are thrilled by this decision," said Jennifer Welton. "I am so relieved that we can give Zander the right form of this medication – the form that will provide him with the best benefit and help him have a fuller life. We hope this battle is over and that county officials will stop trying to keep Zander from his medicine."
Jennifer and Jacob Welton had been successfully treating their son's seizures with a combination of CBD oil, a non-psychoactive hemp extract, and marijuana. But fear of prosecution forced the Weltons to stop using the CBD oil and use only marijuana. The marijuana by itself in plant form was less effective for Zander and is difficult to properly dose and administer.
"Maricopa County had placed a cruel obstacle between Zander and the medicine that had drastically reduced his seizures. Now, thanks to this ruling, the county can no longer interfere with sick patients' access to marijuana in the form that best suits their medical needs," said ACLU Staff Attorney Emma Andersson. "This is precisely what Arizonans intended when they voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative: compassion over criminalization."
Judge Cooper was unequivocal: Nothing in the AMMA "limits the form in which patients may use medical marijuana.… The AMMA authorizes qualifying patients to use extracts, including CBD oil, prepared from the marijuana plant."
Judge Cooper's ruling permits the Weltons to resume the use of CBD oil or another marijuana extract for Zander. Zander has severe epilepsy and has suffered from debilitating seizures for most of his life. Before trying medical marijuana, Zander had two unsuccessful brain surgeries and tried numerous pharmaceutical medications. Since he started using medical marijuana in September of last year, he has experienced an unprecedented period of relief.
In her decision, Judge Cooper recognized that marijuana extractions "facilitate proper dosing" and "make it feasible for patients who cannot consume the medicine in plant form to receive it another way."
"It makes no sense to interpret the AMMA as allowing people … to use medical marijuana but only if they take it in one particular form," Judge Cooper wrote. "Such an interpretation reduces, if not eliminates, medical marijuana as a treatment option for those who cannot take it in plant form, or who could receive a greater benefit from an alternative form."
ACLU of Arizona Legal Director Dan Pochoda said, "The court recognized the clear language and intent of the voters to enable relief for seriously ill people through the use of marijuana plants and their extracts. County Attorney Montgomery should end his politically motivated attempts to thwart this intent. Young Zander Welton and others deserve the possibility of a full life absent constant pain and seizures without threat of prosecution."
In addition to Andersson and Pochoda, the Weltons' legal team has included Ezekiel Edwards of the ACLU, Kelly Flood, formerly of the ACLU of Arizona, and Tim Eckstein and Joe Roth of Osborn Maledon.
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Welton v. State of Arizona
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Welton v. State of Arizona
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.