Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Drug & Device News
Despite Federal Law, DOJ Vows to Continue Marijuana Prosecutions
The federal spending bill passed by Congress in December 2014 contained a little-discussed provision that is now causing new controversy between the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the one hand, and defendants and their legal counselors on the other. Named for its Congressional sponsors, the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment made it illegal for the federal government to spend any funds to prosecute users or sellers of medical marijuana in those states that have legalized such use, as long as they are in compliance with state law. However, in a statement given to The Los Angeles Times for an article published there on April 2, DOJ spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said the Justice Department has interpreted the law as merely a prohibition on its interfering with the states in carrying out their own medical marijuana laws; as for individuals and businesses that use, manufacture or sell marijuana, the DOJ still reserves the right and intends to prosecute. This announcement brought a rebuke from the amendment's authors, Dana Rohrabacher (D-Ca.) and Sam Farr (D-Ca.), in a letter sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on April 8, stating: “As the authors of the provision in question, we write to inform you that (DOJ's) interpretation of our amendment is emphatically wrong.” Further, the letter writers asserted that few things could impede the right of states to carry out their own laws concerning medical marijuana more than prosecuting those states' law-abiding citizens who are acting in accordance with those laws.
'
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.