ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance Threaten To Sue Schwarzenegger Administration

For Immediate Release
Source: ACLU

Sacramento -- The American Civil Liberties Union and the Drug Policy Alliance threatened today to sue the Schwarzenegger administration unless it reverses its illegal suspension of California's Medical Marijuana Program. “Governor Schwarzenegger took an oath of office to uphold state laws, not hijack them,” said Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. “California voters and the legislature have rejected the federal war on medical marijuana patients, and the governor must respect that judgment.”

Governor Schwarzenegger's Director of Health Services halted the program last Friday, blocking medical marijuana patients from obtaining registration cards to which they are entitled under California law. The governor's action came on the eve of the program's scheduled expansion from a four-county pilot program to a statewide system designed to protect patients from arrest and seizure of their medicine.

In shutting down the program, Director of Health Services Sandra Shewry claimed the need for the state attorney general to confirm that state and county employees who continue to issue cards would not be subject to prosecution by federal authorities. The ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance (The Alliance) rejected this rationale as groundless.

In a letter to the Director of Health Services today, the ACLU and the Alliance pointed out that state attorney general, Bill Lockyer, has already made clear in one of many recent bulletins on the issue that state officials “…may not refuse to abide by the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act on the basis that this Act conflicts with federal law.” The letter further explained that the state constitution and the state's highest court explicitly prohibit the Governor from ignoring state law, even if he believes it conflicts with federal law.

The ACLU and the Alliance previously won a federal court victory establishing that federal law stands as no barrier to California physicians who certify a patient who has legitimate need for medical marijuana. By the same logic, state officials are free to issue registration cards vouching for the legitimacy of a physician's certification.

Attorneys general in Oregon and Hawaii similarly upheld their states' medical marijuana programs, despite the federal laws that criminalize medical marijuana. The Oregon Attorney General's formal statement clarified that, “…Because the Act [Oregon's medical marijuana law] remains valid state law, DHS [Oregon Department of Human Services] continues to be responsible for maintaining the issuance of the cards…”

“It is shameful that a court may have to order the state to reopen the doors to its medical marijuana program, but this will be the inevitable result unless the Governor backs down from this unfounded assault on legitimate medical marijuana patients,” said Daniel Abrahamson, Legal Affairs Director for The Alliance.

To read the letter sent by the ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance, see: http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=18687&c=81

For more information on other states' responses to Gonzales v. Raich see: http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicylist.cfm?c=81 and http://www.drugpolicy.org/

Complete Title: ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance Threaten to Sue Schwarzenegger for Suspending California's Medical Marijuana Law

Note: Governor Must Reverse Illegal Denial of Medical Marijuana Cards to Patients or Face Lawsuit

Newshawk: VitaminT
Source: ACLU (NY)
Published: July 12, 2005
Copyright: 2005 ACLU
Contact: media@aclu.org
Website: http://www.aclu.org/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20948.shtml

 

By Brendan Coyne
Source: NewStandard

California -- Citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that federal laws barring the use, distribution or possession of marijuana trump state statutes allowing the medicinal use of the drug, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) halted a medical marijuana ID pilot program Friday. The action comes a month after a five-to-four Supreme Court ruling found that federal interstate commerce laws can be used to prosecute medical marijuana users even if medical use has been legalized by the state, no monetary exchange takes place, and the plant never crosses state lines.

California's health director, Sandra Shewry, asked the state Attorney General's office to review the state's medicinal marijuana law in light of the decision before the Department will issue any new ID cards, the Associated Press reported Friday. According to the CDHS, cards have been issued to 123 people since the pilot program started in May.

In a statement, the Department noted it was concerned that by issuing the cards, which were meant to protect patients using marijuana at the behest of their doctors from arrest, the state was in violation of federal law and could put Californians at risk of prosecution.

"I am concerned about unintended potential consequences of issuing medical marijuana ID cards that could affect medical marijuana users, their families and staff of the California Department of Health Services," Shewry said in the statement.

Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the advocacy group Drug Policy Alliance issued a statement threatening to sue the state to reinstate the program. A letter the two organizations sent to the governor and health director states that the CDHS does not have the power to suspend state law.

"It is shameful that a court may have to order the state to reopen the doors to its medical marijuana program, but this will be the inevitable result unless the governor backs down from this unfounded assault on legitimate medical marijuana patients," the Alliance's legal affairs director, Daniel Abrahamson, said in the statement.

In fact, California's attorney general already sent a letter to all state law enforcement agencies in the wake of the June 6 Supreme Court ruling, stating that the ruling did not affect the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the popularly-enacted California law that allows patients to use marijuana medicinally at a doctor's discretion.

The new ID program was part of medical marijuana legislation signed into law by former Governor Gray Davis in October 2003. It arose out of the recommendations of a 1999 state task force commissioned by Attorney General Bill Lockyer to help implement the Compassionate Use Act.

Implementing the photo ID program was intended to aid law enforcement officials and medical professionals in separating medical marijuana users from those who are breaking the law by using or possessing the herb without a doctor's permission, according to a statement posted to the Program's website.

Complete Title: California Medical Marijuana Program Halted, Suit Threatened

Source: NewStandard (NY)
Author: Brendan Coyne
Published: July 13, 2005
Copyright: 2005 The NewStandard
Website: http://newstandardnews.net/
Contact: ed-letters@newstandardnews.net
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20949.shtml

 

By Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Source: Oakland Tribune

California -- Medical marijuana advocates are mounting a double-barreled attack this week on what they say is California's reticence to uphold its own compassionate use law, putting Attorney General Bill Lockyer in the hot seat. On one front, Oakland-based Americans For Safe Access filed papers Wednesday in Alameda County Superior Court seeking an injunction to halt the California Highway Patrol's policy of seizing marijuana from qualified patients, even if those patients have county-issued ID cards or a doctor's recommendation.

The ASA says the CHP blatantly ignores a state Supreme Court decision that said an officer's probable cause to seize marijuana depends on facts such as presentation of documents identifying the person as a qualified patient.

It also notes that Lockyer - whose office defends the CHP in this lawsuit - issued a formal opinion June 23 saying cities can prohibit their police from seizing medical marijuana but can't automatically seize marijuana from or arrest people who don't have voluntary ID cards because that would directly contradict state law.

"The CHP policy of seizing marijuana from qualified patients even when they present a valid identification card is even more at odds with state law, since no amount of proof can avoid a mandatory seizure," the ASA's filing says.

And the filing says the CHP ignores bulletins Lockyer issued to California law enforcement agencies lastmonth after a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the federal marijuana ban. In those bulletins, Lockyer wrote that California's law still stands and police should avoid making seizures and arrests when it seems someone is legitimately using a medically authorized, reasonable amount of marijuana under state law.

So who's right, the lawyer or the client? Lockyer spokeswoman Teresa Schilling would only say Wednesday that the attorney general is duty-bound to defend the state and its agencies against lawsuits; she referred further questions to the CHP.

CHP spokesman Lt. Joe Whiteford said the CHP will honor only the 123 voluntarily-sought medical marijuana identification cards issued so far by the Department of Health Services under a 2003 state law. Officers will keep seizing marijuana from anyone else. He wouldn't comment on the apparent conflict with Lockyer's bulletins.

Meanwhile, two other national groups - the Drug Policy Alliance and the American Civil Liberties Union - wrote to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday with a threat to sue the state for suspending the very ID card program the CHP says it's honoring.

The ID card program was just about to expand from a four-county test run to statewide implementation. But state Health Services Director Sandra Shewry last week halted it, saying the need for Lockyer to confirm that employees who issue the cards won't be subject to federal prosecution following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The DPA and ACLU also cite Lockyer's bulletins that state officials "may not refuse to abide by the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act on the basis that this Act conflicts with federal law." DPA legal director Daniel Abrahamson of Oakland said it's "shameful" that court action might be needed to force the state to honor its own laws.

The groups' letter said they'll sue if the ID card program isn't reinstated by the close of business Tuesday. Schilling said Wednesday that Lockyer's office is working "as fast as we can" to issue an opinion on the program.

Note: Compassionate use law is put to the test.

Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)
Author: Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Published: July 14, 2005
Copyright: 2005 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact: triblet@angnewspapers.com
Website: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20951.shtml

 

By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press

California -- State officials revived California's medical marijuana identification card program Monday, saying state employees weren't violating federal law by issuing pot ID cards. "The state attorney general has reviewed this concern and said that California can issue ID cards to medical marijuana users without state employees facing prosecution for assisting in the commission of a federal crime," state Health Director Sandra Shewry said in a statement.

Shewry's office shuttered the pilot program 10 days ago, citing concerns over a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Last month, the court ruled that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain or other conditions can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws.

The ruling did not strike down laws in California and nine other states that permit medical cannabis use, but said federal drug laws take precedence.

In a legal review sought by Shewry, Attorney General Bill Lockyer said that employees issuing the IDs could not be prosecuted for aiding or abetting the violation of a crime.

Lockyer's office also said that the information collected from applicants could be obtained by federal authorities and used to identify and prosecute medical marijuana users.

Health department spokesman Ken August said he was not aware of federal agents requesting such information.

Shewry said a new program application would state clearly that information submitted could be turned over to federal authorities and that possession of marijuana remains a federal crime.

The 123 people who already have been issued the IDs will be also be contacted, August said.

Complying with a state mandate that lawmakers passed after California voters approved a medical marijuana law in 1996, the state Health Department in May launched the pilot pot card program in Amador, Del Norte and Mendocino counties.

One purpose of the cards is to give medical pot users a way to show they have a legitimate reason for possessing pot if they are stopped by law enforcement.

The pilot program will is scheduled to be complete by the end of the month and expand statewide on Aug. 1.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Published: July 18, 2005
Copyright: 2005 The Associated Press
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20972.shtml

 

Local News
Source: Times-Standard

Sacramento -- California Health Director Sandra Shewry announced Monday that the state has resumed its Medical Marijuana ID Card program. After receiving legal advice from the California attorney general that operating the pilot program would not aid and abet marijuana users in committing a federal crime, Shewry directed staff of the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) to resume operations that were suspended on July 8.

"The state attorney general has reviewed this concern and said that California can issue ID cards to medical marijuana users without state employees facing prosecution for assisting in the commission of a federal crime," Shewry said. "Today (Monday) the state resumed operating the Medical Marijuana ID Card program."

But the attorney general also said that information received from applicants for medical marijuana ID cards may be obtained by federal officials to identify them for prosecution.

In response, CDHS will be modifying the ID card application to inform applicants that possession of marijuana remains a federal crime and information provided by them could be used for federal prosecution, Shewry said.

Shewry added that CDHS will ask the three counties that have issued state ID cards to notify all card-holders of their risk for federal prosecution.

The Medical Marijuana Identification Card Program was designed to provide patients an ID card that could be used as evidence that they had received a recommendation from their physician to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The card can assist law enforcement officials in determining whether an individual using marijuana meets the requirements of the Compassionate Use Act, which says that with the recommendation of a physician, a patient may obtain and use marijuana for personal medical purposes.

On June 6, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two California women who sought a decision that the federal government does not have jurisdiction to enforce federal law against individuals growing marijuana for their personal medical use. The court, however, determined that Congress does have the authority to prohibit local cultivation and use of marijuana.

Although the court's decision did not directly affect California's Compassionate Use Act, approved by voters in 1996, and state law, the decision raised questions about whether the state can legally conduct a program that assists in the violation of federal law. In an effort to clarify the issue, CDHS sought legal advice from the attorney general.

CDHS began pilot testing an identification card and registry system in three counties -- Amador, Del Norte and Mendocino -- in May. To date, 123 cards have been issued. With the resumption of the program, the pilot testing is scheduled to be completed at the end of this month and the program expanded statewide beginning Aug. 1.

Source: Times-Standard (CA)
Published: Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Copyright: 2005 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact: editor@times-standard.com
Website: http://www.times-standard.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20974.shtml

 

By Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
Source: Los Angeles Times

\t\tCalifornia has long been at the center of the medical marijuana debate. \t\tIn June, the state drew attention after a U.S. Supreme Court decision \t\tdenied two California women protection against federal prosecution for \t\tusing medicinal cannabis.
\t\t
\t\tFallout from the court case has been widespread. Some dispensaries shut \t\tdown growing operations, and supporters held protests.
\t\t
\t\tQuestion: When did the controversy over medical marijuana begin?
\t\t
\t\tAnswer: For years an accepted part of Western medicine, cannabis has \t\tbeen out of the mainstream since the 1930s. But in recent decades, \t\tmarijuana reemerged as an alternative therapy, particularly among AIDS \t\tpatients, who said it helped stem the wasting effects of the disease.
\t\t
\t\tThe biggest shift toward public acceptance came in 1996, when California \t\tvoters approved Proposition 215 with 56% of the vote. The measure made \t\tit legal for doctors to recommend marijuana to patients with serious \t\tillnesses. But the measure conflicted with federal law, which prohibits \t\tthe use of cannabis for any purpose other than scientific research.
\t\t
\t\tOpponents said the measure would invite abuse of a drug that had not \t\tbeen proved medically effective and would create confusion for law \t\tenforcement.
\t\t
\t\tBut the state's voters decided otherwise, igniting a trend. Nine other \t\tstates have also legalized medical marijuana.
\t\t
\t\tQ: What did the Supreme Court do?
\t\t
\t\tA: Angel Raich, an Oakland mother who uses medical marijuana for a \t\tvariety of illnesses, joined with another patient, Diane Monson of \t\tChico, to sue the federal government, hoping to win protection from \t\tfederal prosecution.
\t\t
\t\tIn a classic states' rights argument, the women said that their donated \t\tmedical marijuana was grown in California and therefore not a product of \t\tintrastate commerce subject to federal jurisdiction.
\t\t
\t\tThe Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, didn't buy the argument and upheld the \t\tfederal government's power to seize and destroy marijuana used as \t\tmedicine by seriously ill patients.
\t\t
\t\tIn their dissent, some justices suggested that Congress or health \t\tregulators should revisit U.S. laws regarding marijuana as a medicine.
\t\t
\t\tQ: What has the decision meant for California?
\t\t
\t\tA: The case didn't address the constitutionality of California's law, so \t\tmedical marijuana remains on the books in the state. Federal officials \t\tcould conceivably arrest anyone for a marijuana violation, but the U.S. \t\tDrug Enforcement Agency almost always focuses on raiding big \t\tcannabis-growing operations. There are exceptions.
\t\t
\t\tSteven McWilliams came to the attention of federal officials in 2002 \t\tthrough an act of civil disobedience - distributing medical marijuana at \t\tSan Diego City Hall.
\t\t
\t\tMcWilliams was arrested and convicted of cultivating 25 plants for his \t\tsmall medical marijuana collective and was facing jail time because the \t\tSupreme Court ruling undermined his appeal.
\t\t
\t\tMcWilliams committed suicide by overdosing on prescription drugs July \t\t11. Americans for Safe Access, an Oakland group, staged memorial \t\tservices for McWilliams in San Diego, Los Angeles and other cities \t\tacross the country Tuesday.
\t\t
\t\tQ: What does research show?
\t\t
\t\tA: Federal regulators consider marijuana a Schedule 1 drug without \t\tmedical benefit and susceptible to abuse. But medical marijuana \t\tactivists have petitioned the government to have it reclassified as a \t\tSchedule 2 or 3 drug so doctors might eventually be allowed to prescribe \t\tit.
\t\t
\t\tProponents say there are thousands of scientific papers underscoring \t\taccepted and promising medicinal benefits.
\t\t
\t\tBut there are very few large clinical studies that prove a medicinal \t\tbenefit.
\t\t
\t\tPot supporters contend the dearth of such research is the fault of a \t\tresistant federal government, which acts as a gatekeeper to such \t\tresearch. Federal authorities dispute such claims.
\t\t
\t\tQ: Have doctors embraced marijuana for the masses?
\t\t
\t\tA: Not exactly. Pharmacies don't carry it, and any doctor who writes a \t\tprescription could jeopardize his or her federal license to administer \t\tdrugs. Instead, doctors make recommendations, much as they might discuss \t\ta dietary supplement with a patient.
\t\t
\t\tBut many physicians still avoid recommending cannabis. Some don't \t\tbelieve it works.
\t\t
\t\tOthers worry about the potential for abuse or fear retaliation from the \t\tfederal government. Many are bothered by the absence of dosage and \t\tquality standards.
\t\t
\t\tQ: Since pharmacies don't have it, where do patients get their cannabis?
\t\t
\t\tA: Some of California's estimated 100,000 medical marijuana patients \t\tcultivate their own marijuana. But many others don't have the expertise, \t\tspace or, in the case of the very ill, the strength to cultivate the \t\therb.
\t\t
\t\tAs a result, many patients have turned to storefront dispensaries or \t\tcollectives that sell to patients with written recommendations.
\t\t
\t\tThis medical cannabis can come in a variety of forms - liquid tinctures, \t\tcandies, brownies and the regular leafy herb. Many patients use \t\tvaporizers, which allow them to inhale cannabis without having to \t\tbreathe in carcinogenic smoke.
\t\t
\t\tThe dispensaries have become a target for federal raids, and in some \t\tcases, operators have been arrested.
\t\t
\t\tQ: Has law enforcement been confused by Proposition 215?
\t\t
\t\tA: Many officers and drug agents were confused early on. Since then, a \t\tseries of state court cases has helped define the limits of the law. In \t\turban areas, such as the Bay Area and Los Angeles, the issue has mostly \t\treceded as a policing priority. In rural areas, officers are more apt to \t\tmake arrests and confiscate marijuana from people who claim patient \t\tstatus.
\t\t
\t\tMedical marijuana supporters have also been troubled that California \t\tHighway Patrol officers have made similar seizures, and have filed suit \t\tto block that practice.
\t\t
\t\tQ: Why did the state create photo IDs for users of medical marijuana?
\t\t
\t\tA: The cards were intended to give patients a way to avoid trouble with \t\tpolice.
\t\t
\t\tIn the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling, the state Health \t\tDepartment this month suspended the project out of fear the cards could \t\tmake patients or the state a target for federal prosecution.
\t\t
\t\tBut the program was restarted Monday after Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer \t\tadvised health officials that state employees were not at risk. But \t\tLockyer had less encouraging news for patients considering getting a \t\tcard - the information could potentially be used by federal officials in \t\ta prosecution.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
Published: July 20, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Link to article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/seeds.htm

 

By Ronald Fraser, Ph.D.
Source: San Francisco Examiner

USA -- Californians spend about $981 million each year to enforce state and local marijuana laws. What are these taxpayers getting for their money? Not much, according to a recent study. Jon B. Gettman, a senior fellow at George Mason University's School of Public Policy, prepared the study, titled "Crimes of Indiscretion: Marijuana Arrests in the United States," for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

"Marijuana arrests," says Gettman, "are instruments of a supply-reduction policy. But, he adds, "The doubling of marijuana arrests in the 1990s has produced the opposite of the intended effect in every major indicator. An increase in arrests should produce a reduction in use and the availability of marijuana. However, during the 1990s both use and availability of marijuana increased."

Marijuana possession arrests in the U.S. totaled 260,000 in 1990. By 2003, that figure topped 662,000.

Even failed public policies, however, can cost a bundle.

Who pays: Californians are, in effect, paying for Washington's marijuana prohibition policies.

Boston University economics professor Jeffrey A. Miron estimates that nationally, state and local officials spend about $5 billion per year enforcing marijuana laws. California's share of this multibillion-dollar handout to Uncle Sam includes $228 million for police services, $682 million for judicial services and $71 million for correctional services.

Individual costs: The thousands of people arrested on marijuana possession charges in California each year - especially teenagers - pay extra. "Marijuana arrests," Gettman stresses, "make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Indeed, the primary consequence of marijuana arrests is the introduction of hundreds of thousands of young people into the criminal justice system."

Once a teenager has a criminal record, a number of other penalties often follow. In California, for example, employers can ask job applicants about arrests leading to a conviction, and a criminal record may bar a person from public housing.

Taking a close look at marijuana arrest patterns, Gettman notes that young people are disproportionately targeted. "The brunt of marijuana law enforcement," he says, "falls on both adolescents and the youngest adults - on teenagers. Nationally, almost 17 percent of all persons arrested for possession of marijuana were between 15 and 17 years old. Another 26 percent were age 18-20."

Marijuana use: And what do Californians get for these financial and personal costs? In 2002, there were 47,988 marijuana possession arrests in California compared to 37,246 such arrests in 1995. But the number of users keeps going up. While 6.0 percent of California's population was estimated to be monthly users in 1999, in 2002 the estimate stood at 6.8 percent.

Nationally, monthly users went from 4.9 percent in 1999 to 6.2 percent in 2002.

The basic problem, says Gettman, is that "overall supply of marijuana in the U.S. is far too diversified to be controlled by law enforcement."

If the current marijuana policies are both costly and ineffective, what is the next best strategy? Because marijuana is so widely used, Gettman recommends treating marijuana like a pharmaceutical product subject to Federal Drug Administration testing and regulatory requirements.

By shifting to a policy that treats and taxes marijuana like tobacco and alcohol, Californians could gain the following benefits: a decrease in illegal activities surrounding drug sales; government control of marijuana quality; better control of underage access to marijuana; and the removal of the profit motive that attracts sellers, including a substantial number of teenage sellers who most frequently supply other teenagers.

On top of that, Miron estimates a marijuana sales tax would replace the $981 million a year California taxpayers are now spending to enforce unenforceable laws, with a new revenue pipeline bringing in $96 million a year.

Ronald Fraser, Ph.D., writes on public policy issues for the DKT Liberty Project, a Washington, D.C.-based civil liberties organization.

Newshawk: Mayan
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Author: Ronald Fraser, Ph.D.
Published: Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Copyright: 2005 San Francisco Examiner
Contact: letters@sfexaminer.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20977.shtml

 

Fox News Story
Source: Fox News Network

Washington, D.C. -- San Diego County is just saying "no" to enforcing a California law passed last December that requires counties to give ID cards to registered patients who use medical marijuana so they won't get busted for having pot. "To use medical marijuana cards and at the same time go after gangs and what they're doing, it's absolute hypocrisy to me," said San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn.

In 1996, Californians were the first in the nation to pass an initiative legalizing marijuana for medical purposes.

"Patients ought to be able to have access to medical marijuana. Everyone agreed by vote that's what we want," said Jerry Meier, chairman of the county's Medical Marijuana/Cannabis Task Force.

Thumbing their noses at Sacramento, earlier this month county supervisors voted three to two against issuing pot ID cards. The supervisors plan to sue the state, arguing that any marijuana use violates federal law.

County attorneys have warned that litigation will be costly and likely lose in court. The supervisors' response - they're up for the challenge.

"We think the federal court has to make that decision. Who's right, who's wrong. I mean, you put us in the middle here," Horn said.

Medical marijuana advocates say the voters have spoken and counties should listen. They add that they worry innocent patients will face prosecution.

"You could have someone coming down here from up north with their card, getting pulled over by a sheriff ... and it costs you in the county thousands of dollars in a lawsuit because they weren't enforcing the state card program," Meier said.

For now the lawsuit shapes up as San Diego County versus the state of California, but legal experts say it's unlikely to remain within state borders and could wind up in federal court, another test of whether the central government or the states have the right to decide if medical marijuana is legal.

Complete Title: San Diego Refuses To Administer Medical Marijuana Cards

Source: Fox News Network (US)
Published: Thursday, November 17, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Fox News Network, LLC.
Website: http://www.foxnews.com/
Comments: foxnewsonline@foxnews.com
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21319.shtml

 

By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

San Diego, CA -- County supervisors decided behind closed doors Tuesday to sue to try to overturn California's 9-year-old medical marijuana law ---- the "Compassionate Use" initiative in which voters statewide said it was OK for seriously ill people to use marijuana to ease their pain.

Supervisors announced last month they would sue the state because they did not want to create registries and identification cards to help medical marijuana users. But they left open the question of whether they would try to overturn Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act.

On Tuesday, the board made it official, voting 4-0, with Supervisor Ron Roberts absent, to challenge the initiative.


"It just seemed logical to us," Supervisor Bill Horn said Tuesday afternoon. "Why Mickey Mouse around about it?"


Horn and other supervisors have said repeatedly that they think Prop. 215 is a "bad law," and that supporting it would tell children that marijuana was OK, and would increase drug abuse.


But the board will officially try to overturn the initiative on the grounds that the state's proposition should be superseded by federal law ---- which considers marijuana illegal. John Sansone, the county's lead attorney, said the suits would be filed in federal court sometime this month, and that the challenge could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.


Although 11 states have passed medical marijuana laws, the federal government still categorizes marijuana as a "Schedule 1" drug ---- meaning that it has no recognized medical value, putting it in the same classification as heroin, mescaline and LSD.
Ironically, the federal Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the active ingredient in marijuana ---- tetrahydrocannabinol, or "THC" ---- has medicinal value and allows it to be sold as a prescription drug, but only if it is produced synthetically, rather than grown.
California voters, meanwhile, voted by 55 percent in 1996 to allow people with serious or chronic diseases, with a doctor's recommendation, to grow or use marijuana to ease pain and other ailments.


San Diego-area nurse practitioner Claudia Little is on the medical advisory board of Americans for Safe Access, a national organization in support of medical marijuana patients. A month ago, Little and others pleaded with the county not to challenge the state's request that it create a registry for medical marijuana users.

Tuesday night, reached at home, Little sighed heavily upon learning that the county was planning to take the state to court over the voter-approved law itself.


"It's totally political," Little said. "The population is in favor of medical marijuana. The politicians are so far behind the curve here, it's ridiculous. The politicians aren't representing the people, they are just representing a handful of outspoken opponents."


Some of those who pleaded with county supervisors to reconsider their decision to challenge the medical marijuana issue in recent weeks said they were mothers, grandmothers, military veterans and other upstanding citizens who found that marijuana helped them where popular prescription drugs failed.


Marijuana has been known to reduce eye pressure in glaucoma cases. And proponents have said it has been known to increase appetites of cancer and AIDS patients, and to ease pain in many chronic diseases.


Horn, however, id supervisors believe the federal government's stance ---- that grown marijuana has no medical value and should be illegal ---- is right.

Now, they need a court's ruling.


"We need a federal judge to tell us, 'Yes, you do this (state law),' or 'No, you don't,' " Horn said.


Staff writer Teri Figueroa contributed to this story.
Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Published: Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Copyright: 2005 North County Times
Contact: editor@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21363.shtml

 

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.php?id=3048&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

 

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

 

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

 

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