Medical marijuana user who lost rental assistance files suit

 

By Katharhynn Heidelberg
Daily Press Senior Writer
Published/Last Modified on Saturday, July 4, 2009 4:11 AM MDT

MONTROSE — The medical marijuana user and dispenser who lost his Section 8 housing voucher now says the housing authority may be in contempt of court.

William Hewitt, who is licensed to use medical marijuana under Colorado law, filed suit in district court in April, after the Montrose County Housing Authority yanked his voucher because he was using pot contrary to federal regulations for the voucher program.

Hewitt is seeking the voucher’s reinstatement, a prohibition against future cancellation based on medical marijuana use, and findings that Montrose County Housing Authority staff members failed to comport with due process of law, as well as abused their discretion.

Advertisement
The MCHA’s response says Hewitt didn’t state a claim for which relief can be granted; that the local court lacks jurisdiction and the pre-emption of federal over state law bars him from recovering the voucher.

Housing authority attorney John Fleming’s response confessed that medical marijuana is legal under Colorado’s constitution, but said that “such use is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and such use violates federal law and the federal regulations governing the housing program.”

Hewitt lost his housing voucher in March over his medical marijuana use, and his appeal to the housing authority failed. According to court records, he now lives in a fifth-wheel trailer.

———

For the full story, see today's print edition. The online story may not reflect all relevant information that was reported. We encourage readers to obtain the full story by reading the print edition or our e-edition, To subscribe, call (970) 252-7081 or click on the subscription link on the main page.
 

¤ Please read our Disclaimer and Privacy Policy before participating in our online community.

Comments

    Hellena handbasket wrote on Jul 10, 2009 11:25 AM:

    " Well said, Chickeman. Mr Hewitt, respect to you for standing up. I hope soon this incongruity between state and federal law is resolved. "

    Dumb wrote on Jul 4, 2009 7:13 PM:

    " Typical stoner...Knows the rules but breaks them anyway. Gets thrown out and now needs to support himself instead of living on the public's dole. Now back in the trailer down by the river. It's all good.... "

    Follow the rules wrote on Jul 4, 2009 5:39 PM:

    " If you violate the regulations of Section 8, you are out, plain and simple. There are various rules and regulations in Section 8, and if you don't want to follow them, don't sign up for a voucher. One says you can't run a business out of your taxpayer subsidised rental home. You want to grow, SELL (to other legal medical mj users,) and use legal medical mj, then pay your own rent. "

    Thanks California for setting us straight wrote on Jul 4, 2009 3:49 PM:

    " Richard,
    Thank you so much for setting us backwood idiots in montrose straight. Maybe you should worry about californias inability to balance a checkbook before you worry about good old montrose. "

    chickenam wrote on Jul 4, 2009 2:21 PM:

    " Before you all get on this person all over again, remember this is medicenal, and this fella is not out for profit. If he really was out for the money he would not need a HUD voucher, would not be living in a 5th wheel trailer, would not have gone public, which was a mistake. So think about whats really going on. His use and possible distrubition to other patients is really none of your bussiness...Peaceoutchickenman "

    Richard P Steeb wrote on Jul 4, 2009 12:18 PM:

    " The Federal ban on cannabis is predicated on a most thin and brittle stretch of "The Commerce Clause".

    What ever happened to the 14the Amendment, "Equal Protection Clause"?

    WE simply demand "Equal Protection"-- with Irv Rosenfeld, Elvy Musikka and George McMahon.

    Richard P Steeb, San Jose California "


Post a comment


READER COMMENTS 

• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.

• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point. 

• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.

Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.

DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.

Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.

Thank you for your comments!

(optional)