ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance Threaten To Sue Schwarzenegger Administration

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

 

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

 

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/medmarijuana/23581lgl20060123.html

An initial letter sent by the ACLU to the San Diego Board of Supervisors: http://aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/23565lgl20060119.html

The legal complaint filed by the San Diego Board of Supervisors is available: http://aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/23911lgl20060120.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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

By Ken McLaughlin, Mercury News
Source: Mercury News

Santa Cruz, CA -- The city of Santa Cruz and a local medical marijuana collective on Tuesday asked a federal court in San Jose to approve the city's plan to provide marijuana directly to sick and dying patients.
The amended complaint represents a renewed legal fight to force the U.S. government to honor medical marijuana laws passed by California and 11 other states.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Alliance, the national law firm of Bingham McCutchen and a handful of private attorneys filed legal documents outlining new constitutional arguments based on an ordinance recently enacted by the Santa Cruz City Council creating the first medical marijuana department in the country.

The department is known as the Office of Compassionate Use, but the city has made clear it has no intention of actually distributing marijuana unless it wins the legal battle.

Californians in 1996 voted to allow the use of medicinal marijuana. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in June that the federal government had the right to enforce its own drug laws. Lawyers for medicinal marijuana patients, however, remain hopeful they can still press ahead in the courts because the Supreme Court chose not to address some constitutional issues in last year's ruling.

The U.S. Constitution permits states to determine for themselves what is legal and what is illegal under state law, lawyers argued in Tuesday's filing. In the case of medical marijuana, the plaintiffs argue that the federal government has attempted to sabotage state laws through arrests, prosecutions and other means.

"The White House wants California to march in lock step with its misguided prohibition of medical marijuana, but the Constitution says otherwise,'' said Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project, based in Santa Cruz.

The case originated in 2003 when medical-marijuana groups and others sued the federal government for raiding a Santa Cruz medical marijuana cooperative, the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana.

Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Author: Ken McLaughlin, Mercury News
Published: Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Copyright: 2006 San Jose Mercury News
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.mercurynews.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21541.shtml

 

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

Santa Cruz, CA -- An area medical marijuana cooperative should be free from harassment by federal agents as should the city's recently enacted ordinance that would establish a compassionate use office for the drug, an amended federal court complaint filed this week contends.
Attorneys for the city and county of Santa Cruz and the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana filed the amended complaint in U.S. District Court in San Jose.

It is basically an updated version of a lawsuit filed in 2003.

The suit contends that the state, county and city have the right to establish medical marijuana policies under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Essentially, we're arguing that the federal government is interfering with the city's and county's right to regulate the health and welfare of its own citizenry," said Gerald Uelmen, law professor at Santa Clara University and one of a string of attorney's working for the plaintiffs.

Uelmen is joined by Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice as well as lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Drug Policy Alliance, the firm of Bingham McCutchen and Santa Cruz City Attorney John Barisone.

The suit also centers, in part, on the argument that a person has a right to manage her or his illness and death.

"We're dealing with how do you convince the federal government the harm they are creating is much worse than the harm they are trying to prevent," said Valerie Corral, co-founder of WAMM.

The issue not in the suit is that of interstate commerce, which was part of the original complaint. That concept led to an appeals court ruling that individuals in states with medical marijuana laws may supply for each other as long as money doesn't change hands and the pot doesn't cross state lines.

Though an appeals court went along with that argument, it was later rejected in June by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Raich v. Gonzales.

WAMM was joined by the city and county in filing the suit back in 2003 and inlcuded that argument as part of the suit, months after federal agents raided the cooperative's Davenport garden and uprooted 167 plants. Corral and husband Mike, also a co-founder of the group, were briefly jailed but have not been charged.

The suit seeks an injunction against future raids, as well as a judicial declaration that medical marijuana use is necessary for the sick plaintiffs and their caregivers to manage their disease and that city or county employees are not subject to prosecution for helping to implement local medical marijuana policies.

A call to the National Office of Drug Control Policy, also known as the Drug Czar, in Washington, D.C., was not immediately returned late Tuesday afternoon.

Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)
Author: Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer
Published: February 1, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Santa Cruz Sentinel
Contact: editorial@santa-cruz.com
Website: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21549.shtml

 

By Leyna Krow
Source: Metro Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz, Calif. -- Will locals vote to put pot-related enforcement at the bottom of the cops' to-do list?
The city of Santa Cruz sure does love its dope. At least that's the assumption Santa Cruz Citizens for Sensible Marijuana Policy are banking on as they work to get an initiative on November's ballot that would make marijuana-related crimes the lowest enforcement priority for Santa Cruz police.

"I don't think that responsible adults should be punished for recreational use. And the vast majority of citizens in this city seem to feel the same way," said initiative proponent Craig Reinarman.

The initiative follows over a decade's worth of pro-marijuana legislation in the city of Santa Cruz. Measure A, passed in 1992, set the groundwork for medical marijuana cooperatives such as the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM). In 2003, following the aptly numbered statewide bill, A.B. 420, which allows cities to set their own regulations regarding just how much pot patients can possess at any one time, the city of Santa Cruz passed an ordinance allowing card-carrying medical marijuana users up to 3 pounds of cannabis.

According to Reinarman, "Santa Cruz has voted in the past in very powerful majorities in favor of medical marijuana and decriminalization."

This most recent initiative is designed to protect adult users, be they medical marijuana patients or simply recreational enthusiasts, from arrest and prosecution. If enacted, a "community oversight committee" would be formed to which Santa Cruz police would submit biweekly accounts of all marijuana-related arrests. The committee would then decide whether or not the arrest had been in keeping with the spirit of the law.

According to Theodora Kerry of Santa Cruz CSMP, "The oversight committee is what will gives this policy teeth. This is what will make police accountable."

Offenses not protected by the initiative include selling to minors, sales or distribution on public property, and driving under the influence.

Santa Cruz CSMP modeled their initiative after Measure Z, which Oakland passed in 2004. Concerned that tax dollars which could be spent on social programs were instead going to waste enforcing unpopular regulations, the people of Oakland voted by a sizable majority in favor of low priority enforcement of marijuana-related crimes. It is the hope of the Santa Cruz CSMP that Santa Cruz voters will do the same.

"This would free up police to focus on legitimate safety concerns in the community," said Kerry. "Nobody is safer because someone doesn't get to smoke a joint tonight."

Santa Cruz CSMP will begin collecting signatures for the initiative in early February. Supporters are required to gather 3,423 signatures by April 20, 2006, in order for the initiative to be on the November 2006 ballot.

For more information about Santa Cruz Citizens for Sensible Marijuana Policy, call 831.420.2772 or stop by the Compassion Flower Inn at 216 Laurel St., Santa Cruz.

From the February 1-8, 2006 issue of Metro Santa Cruz.

Source: Metro Santa Cruz (CA)
Author: Leyna Krow
Published: February 1-8, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Metro Publishing Inc.
Contact: msc@metcruz.com
Website: http://www.metroactive.com/cruz/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21552.shtml

 

Agreed, this will be very interesting to follow indeed.

 

By Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

California -- Supervisor Jeff Stone wants Riverside County to join its neighbors to the north and south in attempting to overturn California's medical marijuana law.
At Stone's urging, the Board of Supervisors is expected to discuss in closed session Tuesday whether to join San Diego and San Bernardino counties in suing the state over the 9-year-old "Compassionate Use Act" ---- Proposition 215 ---- which allows the "seriously ill" to obtain and use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Stone, a pharmacist, said Prop. 215 contradicts a federal law that classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.

"I believe that the federal law trumps the state law," Stone said. "All of the federal laws have to be equally or more adhered to because the federal laws supersede all other laws in the United States of America."

San Diego County officials filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Jan. 20 making the same argument. It is believed to be the first lawsuit that seeks to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws approved by voters in 11 states.

The suit argues that states have to bow to a federal law that makes all marijuana use illegal and says it has no medicinal value. It cites Article VI of the U.S. Constitution ---- known as the "Supremacy Clause" ---- which makes the Constitution and federal laws "the supreme law of the land."

"The issue is, the state's asking the county to do something here that they know darn well is illegal," San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn said at the time.

It took a week for San Bernardino County supervisors to decide that they wanted to file their own lawsuit. It is expected that the two suits will be consolidated and that Riverside County's ---- if ultimately filed ---- would join them.

Area medical marijuana advocates could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Stone said the lawsuit would ultimately settle what has been a confusing situation for counties, which have had to regulate medical marijuana use while questions regarding its legality have gone unanswered.

"Hopefully, this lawsuit will give the counties some guidelines as to how to move forward," he said.

Rather than wait and see what happens with the suits filed by the other counties, Stone said Riverside County should jump in so that judges who decide the case can see that there are many counties in the state that are grappling with the issue.

If the county goes ahead with the lawsuit, he said, it will not suspend a state-mandated identification card program that prevents someone from being arrested for possessing medical marijuana.

Eighty-five cards have been issued through the program since it began in December, county public health officials said Wednesday.

The Board will consider the matter Tuesday at the County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside.

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer
Published: February 02, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21554.shtml

 

On January 20, 2006, San Diego County filed a lawsuit claiming the state's voter-enacted medical marijuana law is pre-empted by federal law - a suit even the county's lawyer has characterized as an "uphill battle." A month earlier, the county board of supervisors refused to implement the state-mandated medical marijuana ID card program, which reduces hassles for patients by making it easy for police to verify that they qualify to use medical marijuana. MPP commissioned a poll that found that 80% of county voters think the suit is a waste of money and 70% want the supervisors to implement medical marijuana ID cards.

In the face of the county's outrageous action, MPP has teamed up with local activists to term-limit the county supervisors out of office. A medical marijuana patient who was burned in the cedar fires, a nurse practitioner specializing in pain management, and another local resident submitted the term limits initiative on January 18, and MPP and Americans for Safe Access have pledged to help gather signatures.

In the video below, you can watch MPP's Rob Kampia speaking to San Diego's KUSI-TV about the initiative.


http://mpp.org/streaming/Rob_in_SD_20060128.html

 

By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

San Diego, CA -- San Diego County leaders have abruptly switched their precedent-setting lawsuit to overturn California's medical marijuana law from federal to state court this week.
County officials denied that they moved their lawsuit ---- which has angered medical marijuana patients and advocacy groups ---- because they feared the lawsuit would be thrown out of federal court.

They said that going through the state court system could be a winning legal strategy ---- by still leaving the option of getting to the U.S. Supreme Court and avoiding the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been friendlier to marijuana advocates than opponents.

"This could still take us to the U.S. Supreme Court," County Counsel John Sansone said. "And if it avoids the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so be it."

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, who were seeking court permission to oppose the county's federal lawsuit, said they would do the same in the state system.

"Tell them, 'I guess we'll see you in court,' " ACLU attorney Allen Hopper said.

Both the county and marijuana advocacy groups say the county's challenge is precedent-setting because it is the first to try to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws that voters have approved in 11 states.

The county, pushed by a 4-0 vote in December by its Board of Supervisors, with Supervisor Ron Roberts absent, filed a lawsuit seeking to overthrow California's medical marijuana law on Jan. 20.

The lawsuit wants the courts to invalidate the 9-year-old, voter-approved "Compassionate Use Act" ---- Proposition 215 ---- on the grounds that it should be pre-empted by federal law, which says that all marijuana use is illegal and that marijuana has no medicinal value.

But Sansone said Thursday that after more research, county attorneys filed essentially the same lawsuit in state Superior Court on Wednesday, and withdrew its federal filing.
Hopper and state health department officials said last week that they thought the U.S. District Court might throw out the county's federal lawsuit before it was even heard ---- because it lacked legal "standing."

Hopper said counties are not allowed to sue states in federal court over federal law.

On Thursday, Sansone said that suggestion had nothing to do with the county's decision to take the state court route.

"We believe we would have prevailed on that 'standing' issue," Sansone said. "But, for a whole lot of other issues relating to legal strategy, we think this case is best suited to the state courts."

Hopper, meanwhile, suggested that if the county was trying to avoid the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because it feared the judges there would not side with them, it could backfire.

Hopper said the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was "one of the most often reversed" courts in the country. He said that if the 9th Circuit judges had ruled against the county's challenge, it would almost guarantee a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"If the 9th Circuit says, 'The sky is blue,' they (the Supreme Court) would want to review the decision and actually say the sky is gray," Hopper said.

The county's new lawsuit uses the same pre-emption argument as the federal suit they withdrew. But it expands the scope of the suit somewhat.

The federal lawsuit was filed against the state and Sandra Shewry, director of California's Department of Health Services. The state lawsuit also names the San Diego chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws to the list.

Sansone said NORML sent a letter to county supervisors threatening to sue them because the county had refused a state order in November to create an identification card and registration program for medical marijuana users, to help implement Prop. 215.

The new lawsuit alleges that the county believes its defense against the group's threatened lawsuit is that Prop. 215 should be overturned because it clashes with federal law.

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

Complete Title: County Moves Medical Marijuana Challenge To State Court

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Published: February 03, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21558.shtml

 

By Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

California -- Before the county Board of Supervisors has even begun to discuss the matter, opponents to a supervisor's recent call for Riverside County to join an effort to overturn the state's medical marijuana law are lining up.
Medical marijuana advocates were joined Thursday by Supervisor Bob Buster in publicly disagreeing with Supervisor Jeff Stone, who earlier this week stated that he believes the county should join San Diego and San Bernardino counties in suing the state over the 9-year-old "Compassionate Use Act."

Approved by 55 percent of the voters in 1996, the law ---- Proposition 215 ---- allows the "seriously ill" to obtain and use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Stone, a pharmacist, argues the state is flouting federal laws that make marijuana an illegal drug.
But Buster said the county would be overstepping its duties and wasting taxpayer money by spending thousands of dollars in legal fees if it jumped on board with the challenge.


The county is not in a position to question what the voters of California have decided they want, he said.

"We don't represent state voters who voted for this thing," he said. "I do not support it from a humanitarian standpoint nor do I think it's really any of the board's business to attempt (to challenge the law). I think it's well out of our jurisdiction."

The money the county would spend on the suit would best be used on other drug programs, Buster said.

Lanny Swerdlow, director of the Palm Springs-based Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project, denounced Stone's call for Riverside to join the two other counties in challenging the medical marijuana law.

Californians have made it clear, he said, that they approve of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

"This is not only what the people of the state want, this is what the Constitution of the state of California requires," Swerdlow said. "For a local supervisor to advocate the use of taxpayers' money to file a suit that would allow the federal government to overrule state and local governments on what is best for their own citizens is mind-boggling."
San Diego County officials filed their suit in U.S. District Court on Jan. 20, but withdrew it Thursday and filed it instead in San Diego Superior Court. If the case were to go to the district court, it would likely move on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court the county's lawyers said they want to avoid because it has been more friendly to medical marijuana.

The suit, which is believed to be the first that seeks to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws approved by voters in 11 states, argues that any state laws should bow to federal laws that make all marijuana use illegal. It cites Article VI of the U.S. Constitution ---- known as the Supremacy Clause ---- which makes the Constitution and federal laws "the supreme law of the land."

San Diego County supervisors have said they think the state is asking them to break federal law by forcing them to issue identification cards that prevent medical marijuana users from being arrested.

It appears the counties have a tough legal battle ahead of them.

According to David B. Cruz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California, the courts have already ruled that counties can't raise this kind of challenge.

And, he said, the Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that doctors are not breaking federal laws if they recommend to patients that they use marijuana.

"So it is fairly clear that issuance of the identification card that memorializes such a recommendation would not violate state law," he said. "If the federal government lacks either the resources or the political commitment to prosecute bona fide users of medical marijuana under California's compassionate use law, then in practice there would be no problem with California's doing what the voters have authorized."

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer
Published: February 03, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21559.shtml