Pubdate: Fri, 22 Jan 2010
Source: Union, The (Grass Valley, CA)
Copyright: 2010 The Union
Contact: http://apps.theunion.com/utils/forms/lettertoeditor/
Website: http://www.theunion.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/957
Author: Kyle Magin
Referenced: The Supreme Court Ruling http://mapinc.org/url/SkEZh5HU
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis - Medicinal - U.S.)

COURT RULING WON'T CHANGE LOCAL POT GUIDELINES, DA SAYS

A state Supreme Court decision to strike down a law that limits
medical marijuana got a mixed reaction in Nevada County.

The California Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled state
lawmakers were wrong to change provisions of the voter-approved
Proposition 215. The 1996 measure allows people with a doctor's
recommendation to possess an unspecified amount of marijuana.

The Legislature, seeking to give law enforcement guidance on when to
make marijuana possession arrests, mandated in 2003 that each patient
could have a maximum of 8 ounces of dried marijuana.

Nevada County took advantage of a provision in the mandate allowing
counties to set more generous guidelines. Under the guidelines, which
are not law, county residents are advised they may possess up to 2
pounds of processed marijuana and up to six plants without
interference from law enforcement.

This is called a "safe haven," though it isn't binding, and each
possession case is judged individually, said District Attorney Cliff
Newell.

"The officers in the field have a lot of discretion based on each
case," Newell said. "Our drive is to allow patients with a medical
purpose to have as much as is reasonable."

The ruling doesn't change Nevada County's safe haven guidelines,
Newell added.

But the ruling could change the outcome in "quite a few" possession
cases, said Steven Munkelt, a Nevada City-based defense attorney who 
has argued in favor of medicinal
marijuana.

County prosecutors sometimes used the 8-ounce mandate to prove the
defendant was committing a crime, Munkelt said.

"It will be harder for the prosecution to prove now," Munkelt
said.

Jim Henry, a county resident who operates a marijuana dispensary in
Colfax, was unavailable for comment.

The high court's decision had nothing to do with the debate over the
merits and effects of medical marijuana.

Instead, justice ruled only voters can change amendments that they
have added to California's constitution through the initiative
process. The ruling by Chief Justice Ron George left in place the
portion of the new law that protects patients possessing a state-issue
medical marijuana identification card from arrest. George did note,
though, that police were still authorized to make arrests if they
believe the cards to be forgeries or reasonably suspects a crime has
been committed.

Left open to interpretation: What amount of marijuana is for
legitimate personal medical consumption and how much constitutes
illegal trafficking?

"The California Supreme Court did the right thing by abolishing limits
on medical marijuana possession and cultivation," said Joe Elford, the
top lawyer for the marijuana advocacy group Americans for Safe Access.
"At the same time, the Court may have left too much discretion to law
enforcement in deciding what are reasonable amounts of medicine for
patients to possess and cultivate."

The Supreme Court's decision upholds a lower court ruling that tossed
out the conviction of Patrick Kelly, a Southern California man who was
arrested for possession of 12 ounces of dried marijuana and seven plants.

The ruling was widely expected because the California Attorney
General's office largely agreed with the position of Kelly's
court-appointed attorney Gerald Uelman, a Santa Clara University law
professor.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake