Pubdate: Sat, 04 Aug 2012
Source: Kingsport Times-News (TN)
Copyright: 2012 Kingsport Publishing Corporation
Contact: http://www.timesnews.net/lettertoeditor.php
Website: http://www.timesnews.net/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1437
Author: Matthew Lane

CITIES, COUNTY SEEK DISMISSAL OF SYNTHETIC DRUG LAWSUIT

GREENEVILLE - Since the state of Tennessee passed legislation banning 
synthetic drugs, Kingsport, Bristol and Sullivan County say a federal 
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the local bans has become moot.

Which is why the three governments are seeking once again to have the 
federal case dismissed.

Earlier this year, Ultimate Smoke of Kingsport, Cloud 9 Emporium of 
Bristol, and White Cloud Emporium and Hard Packs - both in Sullivan 
County - filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Greeneville 
challenging local bans of synthetic drugs by the three governments.

The bans were approved in late 2011 in response to the growing number 
of people using synthetic marijuana and so-called "bath salts" in the 
Tri-Cities.

Kingsport, Bristol and Sullivan County filed motions to dismiss the 
lawsuit earlier this year and more recently made a renewed attempt 
for dismissal, stating that the case has become moot since Tennessee 
approved laws in April and May banning the sale and use of synthetic drugs.

In addition, Kingsport and Sullivan County have rescinded their 
respective bans on synthetic drugs.

As a result of these motions, Judge Leon Jordan ordered a show cause 
hearing for July 20, asking the smoke shop owners to show why the 
case should not be dismissed.

In a brief filed that day, the smoke shop owners claim the 
governments' argument for dismissal is "nothing more than a hasty 
misconception that improperly shifts the focus away from other 
aspects of the (lawsuit)."

The brief further states that the lawsuit contains nine separate 
causes of action and seeks both injunctive relief and compensation 
for damages caused by Kingsport, Bristol and Sullivan County for any 
violations that allegedly occurred while the local bans were in effect.

In the lawsuit, the smoke shop owners allege multiple constitutional 
violations by the defendants, including due process, interference 
with private contracts, equal protection and the Commerce Clause. The 
lawsuit claims the bans are vague and overly broad and provide no 
ascertainable standard for determining what substances are actually banned.

The smoke shop owners note their stores were raided and property 
seized by local law enforcement agencies prior to the enactment of 
the state laws and that the matter is still under investigation and 
no indictments have been issued.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom