Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 2008
Source: Press Democrat, The (Santa Rosa, CA)
Copyright: 2008 The Press Democrat
Contact: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/services/feedback.html
Website: http://www.pressdemo.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348
Author: Mike Geniella, The Press Democrat
Referenced: The court ruling 
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B195624.PDF
Cited: The No on B campaign http://www.nomeasureb.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Marijuana - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Proposition+215
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)

RULING CLOUDS MENDOCINO POT MEASURE

UKIAH -- A new state appellate court ruling may undermine a Mendocino 
County drive to repeal liberal local marijuana standards in favor of 
more restrictive state guidelines.

At issue is whether Mendocino voters in next week's election can 
adopt state standards that were just declared unconstitutional by a 
state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles.

State attorneys want the state Supreme Court to review last week's 
ruling, but in the meantime, it leaves uncertain whether state or 
counties have any authority to define how much marijuana individuals 
should be allowed for medical reasons.

"It's a major, major legal victory for the California medical 
marijuana movement," said Alex Coolman, a San Francisco lawyer 
specializing in criminal appeals.

The Los Angeles court ruled that the state Legislature acted 
improperly in 2003 by adopting specific standards for Proposition 
215, a landmark voter-approved initiative that decriminalized 
marijuana use for medical reasons. Lawmakers waited to act seven 
years after the landmark legislation decriminalizing marijuana for 
medical use was approved in 1996.

The appellate court ruling is an unexpected twist in one of the most 
heated Mendocino County elections in recent memory.

Measure B proponents want Mendocino voters to roll back the current 
25-plant limit now in place in favor of state guidelines of six 
plants. They blame Mendocino's more lax standards for acting as a 
magnet to commercial marijuana growers from across the country.

Ross Liberty, spokesman for Yes on Measure B, said critics' claims 
that the local initiative has been legally undermined by the 
appellate court ruling are "absurd."

Liberty noted that Measure B has two key elements that are 
independent of each other: repeal of a 2000 local measure that 
established current local standards, and the requirement that local 
rules conform to state standards.

"All we've ever wanted is uniformity statewide, so whatever the 
outcome is at the state level, that's where we want Mendocino County 
to be," said Liberty.

Liberty accused Measure B critics of trying to convince local voters 
the initiative itself is unconstitutional.

"This is just a continuation of the campaign of intentional deception 
that we have seen from the beginning," said Liberty.

But Laura Hamburg, coordinator of the opposition campaign, said the 
new appellate court ruling directly affects Measure B.

"It very much undermines Measure B. In fact it whacks it off right at 
the knees in the final stretch of the race," said Hamburg.

Susan B. Jordan, a noted Mendocino County attorney who opposes 
Measure B, agreed.

Jordan said Proposition 215 when passed by voters defined the 
standard as "what's medically necessary," and deliberately avoided 
adopting any specific number.

"The court rightly ruled that neither the legislature nor any other 
body politic gets to arbitrarily overrule what voters enact," said Jordan. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake