ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance Threaten To Sue Schwarzenegger Administration

[IndianaToker]

By Kelly Davis
Source: Los Angeles City Beat

California -- In an all-out assault on patients who use state-legalized medical marijuana, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday, December 6, to challenge Proposition 215, the 1996 Compassionate Use Act. Only days later, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency methodically raided every medi-pot dispensary in the county. The supervisors have an historic antipathy to the dispensaries, having gone on record in November that they would fight SB 420, the 2004 state Senate bill that ordered counties to provide ID cards to medical-marijuana patients.

Now they intend to challenge the legality of the Compassionate Use Act, a voter-approved initiative that says chronically ill people with a doctor’s recommendation can use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Prop. 215 won by a 12-point margin statewide and even garnered majority support in traditionally conservative San Diego County.

County Counsel John Sansone said his office expects to file the lawsuit in federal court sometime after the first of the year. The lawsuit, he said, will argue that the Controlled Substances Act, the federal law passed by congress in 1970 that classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug – in the same category as PCP, LSD, and heroin – supercedes any state law that legalizes marijuana for medical use. Schedule I drugs are considered to have no medical value.

“The question is whether or not [Prop. 215] is written in such a way that it conflicts with federal law,” Sansone said. “Our argument is going to be that we believe they conflict to the point of crossing the line.”

Sansone said he advised the supervisors on the pros and cons of filing such a lawsuit but wouldn’t comment further, citing attorney-client privilege. He said that from the beginning, when the supervisors were only going to challenge SB 420, he’d told them it would be an “uphill battle.”

“But we’ve had difficult uphill battles before and won them,” Sansone said, adding that his own staff would handle the case. “Taxpayers aren’t going to pay any more or any less for the attorney staff time.”

A spokesperson for the state attorney general’s office, which would be defending the law, declined to comment on the case until she saw the actual complaint. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, however, has supported Prop. 215 in the past, arguing that the Controlled Substances Act is an antiquated law, passed before “the ravages of AIDS.”
“States are in, by far, the best position to determine whether and under what circumstances the use of cannabis by seriously ill patients should be permitted,” Lockyer wrote in a 2003 legal brief.

Proposition 215, however, has always been on shaky ground. Poorly defined from its inception and passed on Dan Lungren’s watch – he former state attorney general who vehemently opposed the ballot measure – medical-marijuana supporters and patients have looked to state and local officials to give the law some structure: How much marijuana can an individual possess?

How is law enforcement to handle a person possessing or growing marijuana for medical use? And, more importantly, how are people with a doctor’s recommendations supposed to get marijuana when its sale and purchase remains illegal under state law? Cannabis dispensaries are regularly subjected to raids, evident in the December 12 afternoon raids of 13 San Diego County dispensaries by a swarm of federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents with the aid of local law enforcement

See Accompanying Story: http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.ph...8&IssueNum=133
But despite his disdain for the bill, Lungren never sought to overturn it. Dale Gieringer, who heads California NORML (National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws), said that when Prop. 215 passed, Lungren consulted with federal officials and ultimately decided not to challenge the law. “Lungren declared that 215 was constitutional, since states have a right to decide which laws to enforce,” Gieringer said.

He added that a subsequent challenge targeting doctors who recommended marijuana to patients (Conant v. Walters) was struck down in federal court in 2002. In 2003, Angel Raich and Diane Monson sued the federal government to block DEA agents from seizing marijuana from qualified patients. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s right to do so, but, said Randy Barnett, a Boston University law professor who was on Raich and Monson’s legal team, the ruling in no way affected California’s medical-marijuana laws.

The county supervisors’ pending lawsuit will be the first that seeks to kill the Compassionate Use Act wholesale, said Hilary McQuie, spokesperson for American for Safe Access, a national organization that seeks to protect patients’ rights to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Despite the Bush administration’s opposition to state medical-marijuana laws (10 states currently have such laws), Glenn Smith, a professor at San Diego’s California Western School of Law, said a challenge to a state law must come from within the state. “The federal government can’t bring a lawsuit to stop an unconstitutional state law. It has to be somebody who is affected by that law and injured by it.”

Smith said the latter point can’t be a theoretical one – the supervisors will have to prove someone is, in fact, negatively affected by the law. They could argue, he said, that “they’re being required to spend money by this state law in a way that is a waste to taxpayers’ money.”

Supervisor Bill Horn, easily the board’s most vocal critic of medical marijuana, has said that any support for Prop. 215 or SB 420 would send the wrong message, especially to kids. He went so far as to compare the supervisors’ stand against medical-marijuana laws to Rosa Parks’ stand against segregation laws. In June, however, the county grand jury slammed the supervisors for failing to implement SB 420, saying the board had been “blinded by its prejudices against medical marijuana.”

“These people are not in the times; they’re living in the Reefer Madness days,” said Mark Bluemel, a San Diego attorney who’s worked on medical-marijuana cases, including that of Steve McWilliams. McWilliams, perhaps San Diego’s most outspoken proponent of medical marijuana, committed suicide in July after a federal judge, under terms of McWilliams’ bail, denied him the ability to use marijuana.
McWilliams was severely injured in a 1992 motorcycle accident that left him with chronic migraines and neck pain. He was arrested by DEA agents in 2002 and charged with growing 25 marijuana plants in his backyard, some of which belonged to his partner, Barbara MacKenzie, who suffers from degenerative spinal disorder.

Marijuana Policy Project spokesperson Bruce Mirken said that even though the Raich ruling said state medical-marijuana laws don’t offer protection from federal prosecution, “that’s a very different thing from saying states are obligated to enforce federal medical-marijuana laws.

“So far as we can tell, the county is whistling in the dark,” Mirken said of the challenge to Prop. 215. “But I think the bigger question is why the county supervisors think that they should defy the will of their own voters?

“We have cases that date back to the fugitive slave law, back to the pre-Civil War days in which there were disputes over whether states … had to carry out federal statutes, and it’s always been very clear that they don’t. State and local laws can go in opposite directions.”
Barnett, the Boston law professor, called the supervisors’ argument “frivolous.”

“No federal court would sustain it,” he said, “and I would ask for sanctions against anyone who raised it.”

Note: San Diego County goes on the warpath against popular medical marijuana.

Source: Los Angeles City Beat (CA)
Author: Kelly Davis
Published: December 22, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Southland Publishing
Contact: deank@lacitybeat.com
Website: http://www.lacitybeat.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21405.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

San Diego, CA -- Most county voters support California's 9-year-old medical marijuana law and oppose San Diego County supervisors' plan to sue to overturn it, according to a survey released Monday. In addition, the survey said most respondents would vote to replace the supervisors over the issue.
The $15,000 telephone survey of 500 randomly selected county voters ---- 100 from each of the county's five districts ---- was commissioned by the Marijuana Policy Project, a national nonprofit group that wants to decriminalize all marijuana use.

County supervisors immediately suggested the survey was politically motivated by a pro-marijuana organization, and repeated that federal law still considers marijuana an illegal drug without medical benefit, and should take precedence over California's law.

"What do they say? 'Figures lie and liars figure?'" said Supervisor Pam Slater-Price, who has served as the board's chairwoman for the last year. "My first reaction is they've asked more people who support marijuana use."

Marijuana Policy Project officials, meanwhile, said the survey was an objective and valid sampling of the county's 1.379 million registered voters. They also said the group was considering mounting an initiative drive in San Diego County to ask voters to impose term limits on county supervisors. Sixty-two percent of respondents said they'd vote to replace their supervisors if they knew they supported overturning the medical marijuana law.

"The message is very clear," project spokesman Bruce Mirken said, "the voters don't want the board of supervisors to pursue this (lawsuit). They're comfortable with Proposition 215 (California's medical marijuana law). And they feel that rather than conducting a war on patients, the board should be defending the patients there are in the county."
Supervisors announced in December that they planned to sue the state to overturn Prop. 215, California's "Compassionate Use Act."

The law, passed in 1996, said "seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes" when recommended by a doctor.
San Diego County supervisors ---- who have steadfastly called the law a "bad" one that could increase marijuana abuse ---- voted in November to defy a separate state law that ordered the county to create an identification card and registration program for medical marijuana users.

In December, the board voted unanimously in closed session to sue to overturn Prop. 215 itself, on the basis that it should be pre-empted by federal law.
Slater-Price and the other supervisors said they could not in good conscience support Prop. 215 because federal drug enforcement agents could still arrest and prosecute California residents regardless of the state's law.

"I feel derelict in my duty to tell you it's OK, to do something when you could then go out and be arrested," Slater-Price said.

In fact, federal agents raided 13 San Diego-area marijuana dispensaries Dec. 12, including two in North County, and seized large quantities of the drug, computers and records in one of the largest crackdowns of its kind in the state.
Federal officials said the dispensaries were "fronts" for distributing the drug.
Marijuana advocacy groups called the raids outrageous, cowardly acts of an administration out of touch with voters.

The Marijuana Policy Project's survey, released Monday, reported:
- 67 percent of respondents supported Prop. 215.
- 70 percent said the county should follow state law and create the identification card program.
- 78 percent of respondents said supervisors "should not be wasting taxpayer money suing the state to try to overturn California's medical marijuana law."

However, some of those numbers could be misleading.
Sal Vescera, an analyst with the opinion and research firm that conducted the survey ---- Seattle-based Evans McDonough Company ---- said the survey had a 4.38 percent margin of error, meaning the real percentages could swing by that margin in either direction.
In addition, the overall percentages of support were combinations of strong and mild support.

For example, of the 67 percent who reported supporting Prop. 215, only 44 percent "strongly" supported the law. Another 23 percent "somewhat" supported the law, yielding the 67 percent overall support.

Likewise, 50 percent strongly agreed that supervisors should create the identification card program; while 20 percent "somewhat agreed."

However, 62 percent said supervisors "should not be wasting taxpayer money suing the
state to overturn California's medical marijuana law. Sixteen percent "somewhat agreed."
Complete Title: Marijuana Group's Survey Says Voters Oppose Supervisors' Lawsuit

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Published: January 10, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: editor@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21467.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press

San Diego, CA -- San Diego County will file a lawsuit that challenges a voter-approved California law allowing marijuana use for medical purposes, county officials said Thursday. County Counsel John Sansone said the county will file a complaint Friday in U.S. District Court in San Diego against the state of California. It will ask a federal judge to decide whether federal law outlawing marijuana use for any purpose trumps the state’s decade-old Compassionate Use Act that allows sick people to smoke pot.

In November, San Diego became the first county in California to defy a state-ordered medical marijuana identification card and registry program, ignoring a warning from their own attorneys that the action would lead to costly litigation.

The Board of Supervisors voted the next month to sue the state rather than follow Proposition 215, which legalized marijuana in California with a physician’s supervision.

“What the Board of Supervisors did is what I think is the responsible thing to do: If you think a law is not valid then you challenge it,” Sansone said.

The American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday that it was drafting a letter to the county warning that it would intervene to force the county to follow Proposition 215, which was approved by 55 percent of the voters.


“For this one county to decide to go against the will of California voters, it’s unprecedented and it’s unconstitutional,” said the ACLU’s Anjuli Verma.
Sansone said a half-dozen California counties, which he declined to name, had come forward with offers of support, although it was not clear whether they would intervene.

The county’s decision to defy the state prompted medical marijuana activists to announce Wednesday that they would begin gathering signatures for a voter initiative to impose term limits on the five county supervisors, all of whom have served for at least 12 years.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Published: January 19, 2006
Copyright: 2006 The Associated Press

Link t article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21499.shtml

[UniXelation]

Man those dumb fucking ID supervisors. Why cant they listen to the people, why do they have to listen to the GOVERNMENT? Democracy is the voice of the PEOPLE!

I'm sick of these fucking assholes.

[IndianaToker]

By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

San Diego -- County officials formally filed a precedent-setting lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Friday that could overturn California's 9-year-old medical marijuana law ---- a suit that has angered marijuana advocates here and around the state.
The seven-page lawsuit argues that California's 1996 voter-approved "Compassionate Use Act" ---- Proposition 215 ---- should be pre-empted by federal law, which says all marijuana use is illegal and that the drug has no medicinal value.

County officials and marijuana advocacy groups said the lawsuit was the first that would try to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws that voters have approved in 11 states.

John Sansone, the county's top lawyer, said there was no word on when the courts might begin listening to arguments in the lawsuit. Sansone and others expect the suit to make its way eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court.

San Diego County supervisors ---- all of whom were on the board when Prop. 215 was approved in 1996 ---- have always opposed the measure, and have often called it a "bad
law" that could lead to drug abuse.

They decided to challenge the law in December, a month after the state ordered counties to create identification cards and a registration program to support Prop. 215.
Prop. 215 states that "seriously ill" people have a right to "obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes" when recommended by a doctor.

Despite their general opposition to the law ---- which was passed by 55 percent of state voters in 1996 and registered a 74 percent support level statewide in a 2004 Field Poll ---- the San Diego supervisors have repeatedly said they only want to settle the contradiction between Prop. 215 and federal law.

"We opposed Prop. 215 when it came up; that isn't the point," Bill Horn, the board's chairman, said this week. "The issue is, the state's asking the county to do something here that they know darn well is illegal ... don't ask us to break federal law."

However, the lawsuit the county filed Friday in San Diego asks the courts to ban the state from enforcing Prop. 215, essentially erasing it.

Local patients who use marijuana to ease pain and national marijuana advocacy groups have blasted the board. Several speakers, including Rudy Reyes, a burn victim of the 2003 Cedar fire who uses marijuana for pain management, asked supervisors to reconsider filing the lawsuit in recent board meetings.

On Wednesday, Reyes and other angry medical marijuana advocates, with the backing of the Marijuana Policy Project ---- a national group that would like to see marijuana regulated on a par with alcohol ---- filed letters of intent seeking to impose two-year term limits on supervisors, saying they had "lost touch with constituents."

On Friday, Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, also criticized the supervisors.

"It's probably the first time that anyone has found a board so ignorant of constitutional law that they'd waste taxpayer money on a challenge," Gieringer said. "I think the county counsel knows that it's a waste of taxpayer money, ordered by a very ignorant board of supervisors that is clearly in over its head."

But Sansone, who initially told supervisors that he thought any challenge of Prop. 215 would be a "difficult, uphill battle," said Friday that he believes the county has a good argument.

The lawsuit's basic contention is that federal law, which outlaws all marijuana use, should pre-empt California's law.

The suit cites Article VI of the U.S Constitution ---- the "Supremacy Clause" ---- which states that the constitution and federal laws "shall be the supreme law of the land" over state laws.

However, in addition, the suit cites a 1961 international treaty that the United States signed with 150 other countries ---- the "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" ---- that also specifically outlawed marijuana use.

Sansone said Prop. 215 not only stands in contradiction to federal law, but violates the 1961 international treaty signed by the United States.

"Can you imagine what it would be like if each state got to decide to things in violation of international treaties?" Sansone asked. "I think this is an issue that is going to grab the attention of a lot of people."

Anthony Green is a lawyer and vice president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a nonprofit organization dedicated to "increasing public understanding of, and appreciation for, the constitution, its history and relevance."

Green said the issue at the heart of the county's lawsuit is federalism, which has been a major debate rumbling in the Supreme Court for decades: "Who has the powers? The state or federal governments?"

Supreme Court justices ruled on a medical marijuana issue last year. In a June 2005 decision, the justices ruled 6-3 that medical marijuana users in California and the other 10 states that have medical marijuana laws could still be arrested and prosecuted by federal law enforcement agents.

In fact, federal agents raided 13 San Diego-area marijuana dispensaries Dec. 12, including two in North County. They seized large quantities of the drug, computers and records in one of the largest crackdowns of its kind in the state. Federal officials said the dispensaries were "fronts" for distributing the drug. Marijuana advocates attacked the raids as "cowardly."

Complete Title: County Files Suit To Overturn California Medical Marijuana Law

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Published: Friday, January 20, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: editor@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21503.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel

Santa Cruz -- Everyday about 2 p.m. Hal Margolin puts a small amount of marijuana into a pipe, then takes a few puffs. Slowly, the pain he feels no longer preoccupies his thoughts, he says, and he can get on with his life.
"It distracts me from obsessing," said Margolin, 73. But while his body may be taking comfort, the same can't be said of his mind.

The medical marijuana movement in California has faced setbacks during the past year. Many users say they are leery of federal raids and other challenges to state medical pot policy.

Six months after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling essentially saying the federal government could enforce its drug regulations even in states that have medical
marijuana laws, another challenge of California's law is brewing.

On Friday, San Diego County said it would file a federal suit challenging the validity of the state's medical marijuana law that was approved by voters in 1996 under Proposition 215.
Whatever the outcome of the San Diego case, concerns are heightened among an already distraught group who use medical pot.

Since June's Supreme Court ruling, Santa Cruz County medical marijuana users say they are conserving their medicine, not knowing what the future holds.

Valerie Corral, co-founder of the Santa Cruz-based Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, said group members are using more pharmaceutical medications instead of marijuana, which is pinching them financially.

The group has also changed the way it operates, Corral says. It no longer has a collective garden, fearful of a federal raid like one that happened in September 2002, and now individual members grow for themselves and others.

"We're asking community members to be caregivers and grow for our patients," she said.

Margolin, for example, said he has cut back to about 5 grams per week compared with up to 8 grams per week before the ruling. That means living with the pain and nausea through the morning and waiting until the afternoon to smoke, he says.

"I worry about it almost every day," Margolin said. "I don't know what we are going to do once we run out of medicine."

In November, San Diego County said it would not abide by a state identification care program mandated by state law.

That has sparked yet another debate about the state's decade-old law.

"It's the will of the people," said Corral. "Really it's just short of fascism to go around the will of the people."

San Diego County officials say they are simply seeking an order freeing them from having to comply with state law requiring counties to issue medical marijuana identification cards.

"The Board of Supervisors here did not believe the state should be mandating them to issue these cards when federal law says marijuana is illegal," said John Sansone, San Diego County counsel.

The federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 considers marijuana to be a drug with no medicinal value.

A ruling in favor of San Diego County could apply to other jurisdictions who didn't want to follow the state's medical pot laws, he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union plans to intervene in the federal suit filed by San Diego County, said Anjuli Verma, spokeswoman with the group's Drug Law Reform Project in Santa Cruz.

"We think San Diego County is hiding behind this false fear about the identification cards because they politically disagree with medical marijuana," Verma said.

Whether it would overturn the state's law altogether — affecting places like Santa Cruz County where officials have readily accommodated patients who use pot — remains to be seen.

"It really depends on how the court is going to rule," Sansone said.

The San Diego suit names the state of California and state Department of Health Services Director Sandra Shewry.

The department had no comment on the suit, said spokeswoman Lea Brooks. The department has issued 779 medical marijuana identification cards in 15 counties, she said. That does not include Santa Cruz County, which has its own medical marijuana ID card program.

Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)
Author: Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer
Published: January 21, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Santa Cruz Sentinel
Contact: editorial@santa-cruz.com
Website: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21504.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

San Diego, CA -- Several groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, plan to demand today that county supervisors drop their legal challenge of California's 9-year-old medical marijuana law.
Kevin Keenan, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, said the groups plan to petition county supervisors to start issuing identification cards and registering medical marijuana users ---- actions county supervisors already defied when ordered by the state.

Keenan said if the supervisors refuse to withdraw their lawsuit, the ACLU would immediately ask federal judges for permission to join the lawsuit as an opponent ---- permission that may or may not be granted.

Officials from the marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, the Drug Policy Alliance, and local patients who use marijuana as a medicine are also expected to attend today's county board meeting, which begins at 9 a.m. at the County Administration Center in San Diego.

There isn't expected to be much interplay between supervisors and the visiting groups because the issue is not on the board's agenda, meaning supervisors can listen but cannot debate the issue.

On Friday, the county, after a unanimous vote by supervisors in December, filed a precedent-setting lawsuit to overturn California's voter-approved medical marijuana law, Proposition 215, the "Compassionate Use Act."

Supervisors say Prop. 215 should be pre-empted by federal law, which deems all marijuana use illegal and does not recognize the drug as having any medicinal value.
Supervisors have opposed Prop. 215 since it was proposed and passed by voters in 1996. In recent months, they have repeatedly said they just want to settle the contradiction between state and federal law. Prop. 215 legally allows seriously ill Californians to use "obtain and use" marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. But they can still be arrested and prosecuted by federal drug agents.

Marijuana advocacy groups and county officials said Friday that the lawsuit was the first to attempt to overturn any of the voter-approved medical marijuana laws that have been passed in 11 states.

Keenan, meanwhile, said the ACLU was ready to file an "intervention" motion asking to become part of the county lawsuit, to "represent" sick patients who use marijuana as medicine.

The county's lawsuit was filed against the state and Sandra Shewry, director of California's Department of Health Services.

"We will file a motion to intervene and become a party to the lawsuit," Keenan said. "Under the current suit, the county would be represented, and the state would be represented, but there wouldn't be an advocate for the sick and dying people who use medicinal marijuana. And we would make sure that their voices and situations are understood."

Keenan said the ACLU has been following the county's medical marijuana drama with interest, although the group had not testified to the board about it from the time the board publicly decided to sue in December, and when they filed their lawsuit Friday.

The county's lawsuit cites the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" ---- Article VI, which states that the constitution and federal law would be the "supreme" law of the land ---- and a 1961 international treaty as its argument that Prop. 215 should be pre-empted.

The "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" treaty, signed by the United States and 150 other nations, ruled marijuana illegal.

Keenan, however, said recent case law ---- such as last week's decision to indirectly uphold Oregon's assisted-suicide law ---- illustrate that the county's pre-emption argument is hollow.

"This (county lawsuit) is being done for bad political reasons and not good legal reasons," Keenan said.

John Sansone, the county's top lawyer, disagreed, saying the county believes its pre-emption argument is correct.

"That's why there are courts to decide these issues," Sansone said.

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Published: Monday, January 23, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: editor@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21511.shtml

[IndianaToker]

For Immediate Release
Source: ACLU

San Diego, CA -- The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) announced today that they would intervene in the San Diego County Board of Supervisors’ federal lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s Compassionate Use Act.

The Act permits patients to use, and doctors to recommend, medical marijuana under the explicit protection of state law. The groups plan to file a motion to intervene in federal court on behalf of medical marijuana patients and their doctors by the end of the day.

"The stakes are too high for medical marijuana patients to depend on Governor Schwarzenegger and the Department of Health Services to defend their interests in court," said Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. "These patients and their doctors need to know that someone is looking out exclusively for their interests."

At this morning’s Board of Supervisors meeting, local medical marijuana patients demanded that the Supervisors drop their lawsuit and begin issuing medical marijuana identification cards in compliance with state law. The ACLU, ASA and DPA joined patients in criticizing the Supervisors’ lawsuit as baseless and promised at the meeting to immediately intervene in federal court unless the Supervisors complied with the demands.


The Supervisors refused.

"The Supervisors have turned a deaf ear to the pleas of sick and dying people, and now they have shown that they are equally willing to ignore the law," said Joe Elford, chief counsel for ASA.

According to a letter the groups delivered to the Supervisors at this morning’s meeting, the law is clear that the county’s lawsuit will soon be thrown out of federal court based on the fact that San Diego County has no standing to sue the state in federal court.

"The Supervisors’ decision to continue with the suit shows blatant disregard for the law and the will of their constituents," said Margaret Dooley of DPA. "We expect the court to dismiss their lawsuit in short order."

Several individuals are represented by the ACLU, ASA and DPA in today’s motion to intervene. Among them are:

* Wendy Christakes, a 29-year-old mother and San Diego resident who has been using medical marijuana since December 2003 to treat chronic pain resulting from herniated discs and the removal of a portion of her backbone;

* Pamela Sakuda, a 58-year-old stage-four rectal cancer patient who uses medical marijuana on the recommendation of her physician; and

* Norbert Litzinger, the husband and legal primary caregiver of Pamela Sakuda.

In addition to patients, the groups are representing Dr. Stephen O’Brien, who specializes in HIV/AIDS treatment in Oakland, California. Many of Dr. O’Brien’s patients experience AIDS-related nausea, wasting syndrome and severe pain, and find prescription drugs to be ineffective in reducing their symptoms. Dr. O’Brien believes that a significant subset of his seriously ill patients benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

"Medical marijuana patients are running out of time," said Christakes. "While the Supervisors play politics and waste our money on frivolous lawsuits, we have to find a way to survive."

Today’s demand letter is available online at: http://aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmariju...l20060123.html

An initial letter sent by the ACLU to the San Diego Board of Supervisors: http://aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmariju...l20060119.html

The legal complaint filed by the San Diego Board of Supervisors is available: http://aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmariju...l20060120.html

Note: National Patient Advocacy and Civil Liberties Groups Announce Federal Court Intervention in Supervisors’ "Doomed" Lawsuit.

Complete Title: Medical Marijuana Patients Serve San Diego Supervisors a Taste of their Own Medicine

Source: ACLU (NY)
Published: January 24, 2006
Copyright: 2006 ACLU
Contact: media@aclu.org
Website: http://www.aclu.org/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread21512.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Elliot Spagata, The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press

San Diego, CA -- Medicinal marijuana advocates on Tuesday challenged a San Diego County lawsuit that seeks to overturn a state law permitting the use of pot for medical purposes.
The county sued the state of California and its director of health services on Friday in federal court, saying federal law that prohibits marijuana use trumps state law that allows it. California approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes with the passage of Proposition 215, which won 55 percent votes cast in 1996.

San Diego is the only California county that has refused to provide identification cards to registered medical marijuana users.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access and the Drug Policy Alliance filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit on behalf of patients including Pamela Sakuda, 58, who uses marijuana to treat side effects of chemotherapy for rectal cancer. The San Diego woman said the drug has quelled nausea and stimulated her appetite.

"The supervisors have turned a deaf ear to the pleas of sick and dying people, and now they have shown that they are equally willing to ignore the law," said Joe Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access.

According to the ACLU, 11 states have approved marijuana for medical purposes. California was first, followed by Montana, Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and, most recently, Rhode Island.

The county's five Republican supervisors were mostly silent as several marijuana users urged them Tuesday to drop the lawsuit filed last week in San Diego. One supervisor, Ron Roberts, garnered applause when he said he opposed the lawsuit.

"Your actions are unjust, unlawful and un-American," said Wendy Christakes of La Mesa, an east San Diego suburb, who has used marijuana since 2003 to treat a back injury. She used a cane to step up to the microphone.

Rudy Reyes, 28, said marijuana has allowed him to sleep after massive wildfires in 2003 burned 75 percent of his body and put him in the hospital for eight months. He said doctors at University of California, San Diego Medical Center recommended the drug after his body rejected morphine.

"I don't have flashbacks, I don't have those middle-of-the-night terrors," he said in an interview after urging the supervisors to drop their fight.

Last year, a 3-2 board majority voted to ignore a state requirement that counties issue identification cards for medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards. The move came despite a warning from the county counsel that the move would likely result in costly litigation.

Complete Title: Medical Marijuana Advocates File Challenge To San Diego County

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Elliot Spagata, The Associated Press
Published: Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Copyright: 2006 The Associated Press
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread21513.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

San Diego, CA -- Flanked by frustrated cancer, car-accident and burn victims who use marijuana to ease their pain, a collection of legal and marijuana advocacy groups said Tuesday that they would seek court permission to oppose the county of San Diego's challenge to California's medical marijuana law.
County officials formally filed a precedent-setting lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Friday seeking to overturn California's 9-year-old "Compassionate Use Act," Proposition 215 ---- on the grounds that it should be pre-empted by federal law, which says all marijuana use is illegal.

Tuesday, after unsuccessfully lobbying county supervisors to drop the lawsuit, unhappy patients and officials from three groups ---- the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access, and the Drug Policy Alliance ---- said they would seek permission to challenge the county's lawsuit.

Kevin Keenan, executive director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial counties, said the groups would do that by immediately filing a request in federal court to join the county lawsuit as an opponent ---- permission that may or may not be granted.

Frustrated and angry patients, meanwhile, said during and after the county meeting that they could not understand why county supervisors were challenging California's medical marijuana law ---- even though supervisors have repeatedly said they are uncomfortable with supporting Prop. 215 when it contradicts federal law.

"I don't get where you guys are coming from," said La Mesa resident Rudy Reyes, who has been using medical marijuana to alleviate the pain of third-degree burns he suffered during the 2003 Cedar fire. "You guys are just hurting people."

Prop. 215, passed by 55 percent of voters statewide in 1996, states that "seriously ill" people have a right to "obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes" when recommended by a doctor.

But the federal government still classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug on a par with heroin, LSD and mescaline, and says that it has no medicinal value.

Vista resident and businessman Craig McClain said Tuesday that he had been using medical marijuana for years to alleviate his pain ---- after "crushing" his spine in car accident in 1992 ---- and campaigned for Prop. 215 in 1995 and '96.

"When we passed the initiative, I thought we (patients) were safe," he said. "I no longer have that feeling of being safe. I want you to really think about what you're doing because you're opening a gate to cause a lot of damage to a lot of people."

San Diego resident Pamela Sakuda told supervisors that she was dying from colorectal cancer, but that she still wanted to fight the disease through chemotherapy. She said that marijuana was the only drug that has helped quell her nausea and allow her to eat enough to keep up her strength.

Sakuda's husband, Norbert Litzinger, offered the most tortured testimony.

"We've been married 28 years," he said, speaking slowly. "She is the standard by which I measure everything in my life. By your acts ... you are attempting to deny her access to a legal medicine.

"If you succeed," Litzinger said, "you will increase her pain. You will increase her suffering. And you will hasten her death. That is wrong. It is gravely wrong."

Meanwhile, Keenan and Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access said they hoped that the courts would allow the groups to join the county lawsuit in order to represent patients and their testimony.

The county lawsuit was filed against the state and Sandra Shewry, director of California's Department of Health Services.

Keenan said Tuesday that he thought the federal courts might throw out the county's lawsuit because it lacked legal standing ---- because, he said, counties cannot sue states over federal law.

He also said he did not think the county's argument that Prop. 215 should legally be pre-empted by federal law would be upheld by the courts.

The county's argument cites the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" ----- which states that the Constitution and federal law should be "supreme" ---- and a 1961 U.S. treaty
with 150 other nations that states marijuana is illegal.

Keenan said case law ---- such as last week's decision to indirectly uphold Oregon's assisted suicide law ---- illustrates that the county's argument is hollow.
But the county's top lawyer, John Sansone, said the county believes it has a good argument.

Officials said there is no timetable on when the courts might hear the arguments on either side.

Complete Title: Groups Want To Oppose County's Medical Marijuana Lawsuit

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21516.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Tracie Troha, Staff Writer
Source: Daily Press

San Bernardino, CA -- The County of San Bernardino has joined a lawsuit against the state to clarify the legality of medical marijuana. The lawsuit was filed in federal court by the County of San Diego in an effort to address the confusion between state and federal laws regarding the drug.
San Bernardino County Counsel Ron Reitz said under federal law, it is illegal to be in possession of marijuana, regardless of whether it is designated as "medical" or not.

For nearly 10 years Californians have had the right to use medical marijuana if recommended by their doctor. In 2003, California Legislature enacted a requirement that counties must issue identification cards to patients authorized to use medical marijuana or the patient's caregiver.

"The federal and state governments put us in a conflicting situation," Third District Supervisor Dennis Hansberger said. "We need to get a single answer so the state can get in accordance with federal law. Let's make it consistent."

Board Chairman Bill Postmus said the county is in opposition to state's medical marijuana laws because of the problems faced by law enforcement officers.

"There needs to be clear resolution because its difficult for the sheriff and deputies to do their job," Postmus said. "I for one am against it (medical marijuana). By joining in the
lawsuit, we looking for a resolution to this."

Reitz said Sheriff Gary Penrod will also be adding his name to the lawsuit.

"I refuse to have law enforcement encounter more crime in implementing this (state) ordinance," Fifth District Supervisor Josie Gonzales said. "I don't want law enforcement to be trapped between a rock and a hard place."

Gonzales said she was also concerned about the identification card requirement and the possibility of fraud.

Reitz said so far San Diego and San Bernardino are the only two counties filling a lawsuit against the state in the medical marijuana matter.

Note: San Diego County files suit against state over legality of drug program.

Source: Daily Press (Victorville, CA)
Author: Tracie Troha, Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Daily Press
Website: http://www.vvdailypress.com/
Contact: http://www.vvdailypress.com/contact/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21518.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

San Diego, CA -- Following the lead of San Diego County supervisors, the County of San Bernardino has decided to sue to try to overturn California's nine-year-old medical marijuana law, the "Compassionate Use Act."
San Bernardino County supervisors voted in closed session Tuesday to file their own lawsuit over the issue, and officials said Wednesday they expect the courts to consolidate the two legal actions.

San Diego officials filed their own precedent-setting lawsuit in U.S. District Court Friday, arguing that the 1996 voter-approved, Compassionate Use Act ---- Proposition 215 ---- should be pre-empted by federal law, which makes all marijuana use illegal and states that the drug has no medicinal value.

Bill Horn, chairman of the San Diego County board of supervisors, said Wednesday that he was not surprised that San Bernardino supervisors also decided to sue, and said he thought other counties would follow suit.

San Diego County Supervisors have been sharply criticized by local patients who use marijuana to ease pain and by marijuana advocacy groups.

On Tuesday, even as San Bernardino supervisors were voting to file their own lawsuit, three groups in San Diego ---- the American Civil Liberties Union, and drug advocacy groups, Americans for Safe Access, and the Drug Policy Alliance ---- said they would ask court permission to oppose San Diego County's suit.

ACLU officials said Wednesday that the courts have set a March 13 date to hear the group's arguments that it should be allowed to join the San Diego County lawsuit, and oppose it, on behalf of medical "un-represented" medical marijuana patients.

San Diego County's lawsuit cites the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause," which states
that the federal Constitution and federal law should be "supreme," and to a 1961 U.S. treaty with 150 other nations outlawing marijuana as proof that Prop. 215 should be pre-empted by federal law.

Ruth Stringer, an assistant county counsel for San Bernardino County, said the county expected to file its lawsuit in the same federal court soon.

"We'll be filing something similar to what San Diego filed," Stringer said. "They're the
same issue."

But ACLU attorney Allen Hopper said he expects federal judges to throw out San Diego County's lawsuit before it is ever heard. Hopper and other ACLU officials said previous court rulings have established that counties cannot sue their respective states over federal law.

But Horn and other San Diego County officials feel they have sound legal arguments that the courts will favor.

"I think we have the law on our side," he said. "If (the ACLU) is worried about going to court and the outcome, I think we're on the right track."

Complete Title: San Bernardino Joins SD County Medical Marijuana Lawsuit

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21519.shtml

[streetpharmacy]

im buying a bear hunting rifle

[streetpharmacy]

i still dont see how medical marijuana can be outlawed, even if it only helped one person in ca then it should be legal i am a living proof tha mj has medical purposes i suffe from severe adhd due to being on adderall, amphetamine, for years while my brain was still developing and now i am not taking it any more and i CAN NOT concentrate on anything because my brain developed with the "concentration chemical" (adderall) being there and the rest of my brain grew thinking my chemical balances were normal and now adderall is gone and my brain is fucked unless i take small doses om marijuana which i swear by and it does work as long as i do not get stoned i can concentrate i dont care what the government says im gonna take it regardless what some pig says

[HerbsINtheBurbs]

sometimes you think that on the application to be a brown-nosing federal wannabee includes a box marked sadist.