Pubdate: Tue, 19 May 2009
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Page: B - 1
Copyright: 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact:  http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Note: The ACLU's opposition brief to the Court 
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/39603lgl20090415.html
Note: The Americans for Safe Access page on the case 
http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/article.php?id=4405
Cited: San Diego County Board of Supervisors 
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/general/bos.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Proposition+215
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/San+Diego+County+supervisors

U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS PROP. 215 CHALLENGE

SAN FRANCISCO -- California's medical marijuana law survived its most 
serious legal challenge Monday as the U.S. Supreme Court denied 
appeals by two counties that argued they were being forced to condone 
violations of federal drug laws.

The justices, without comment, denied a hearing to officials from San 
Diego and San Bernardino counties who challenged Proposition 215, an 
initiative approved by state voters in 1996 that became a model for 
laws in 12 other states. It allows patients to use marijuana for 
medical conditions with their doctor's recommendation.

The counties specifically objected to legislation requiring them to 
issue identification cards that protect holders from arrest by state 
or local police for possessing small amounts of marijuana for medical use.

The cards are objectionable because "the state law authorizes 
individuals to engage in conduct that the federal law prohibits," 
said Thomas Bunton, a lawyer in the San Diego County counsel's 
office. "We are disappointed that the court did not take the case to 
resolve what we believe was a conflict between federal and state law."

Medical marijuana advocates were relieved.

"This was the most threatening case to state medical marijuana laws, 
the only one that tried to invalidate state laws," said attorney 
Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented 
patients and advocacy groups in the case.

"No longer will local officials be able to hide behind federal law 
and resist upholding California's medical marijuana law," said Joe 
Elford, lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, which also took part in the case.

He said the order should strengthen his group's case against the two 
counties and eight others that have refused to issue the 
identification cards. Bunton said San Diego County supervisors would 
take up a resolution approving the cards in light of Monday's order.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can enforce 
its laws against marijuana to prosecute users and suppliers of the 
drug in California and the other 12 states. The Obama administration 
has said it will target only traffickers who violate state as well as 
federal laws, although it has not stopped U.S. attorneys from raiding 
dispensaries that operate with local government approval.

Prop. 215 remains in effect despite federal enforcement efforts that 
began as soon as it passed. In the counties' case, the court left 
intact a state ruling last year that said California remains free to 
decide whether to punish drug users under its own laws.

"The purpose of the (federal law) is to combat recreational drug use, 
not to regulate a state's medical practices," the Fourth District 
Court of Appeal in San Diego said in the July 31 decision.

The cases are San Diego County vs. San Diego NORML, 08-887, and San 
Bernardino County vs. California, 08-897.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake