High court won’t hear county’s marijuana challenge
via SignOnSanDiego.com

The U.S. Supreme Court will not take up San Diego County’s challenge to state medical marijuana laws.

For more than three years the county has been fighting in court to overturn state laws that require counties to issue medical marijuana identification cards. The county contends federal law, which does not recognize medical marijuana usage, trumps the state law.

The county has lost that argument in state trial and appellate courts, and the state Supreme Court declined to take up the case, too. The county’s last, long-shot chance was to have the U.S. Supreme Court take up the case.

San Bernardino and Merced counties initially joined the suit, but Merced eventually dropped out. The high court also rejected San Bernardino’s petition to take up the case.

In other words, the oft-heard prohibitionist refrain that federal law trumps state medical marijuana laws has no legal merit.

None. Nada. Zero.

To anyone who has followed the unethical actions of the San Diego and San Bernardino Supervisors over the past three years, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear their appeal shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, the counties’ vapid arguments had previously been struck down — unanimously — by the Superior Court of the state of California the 4th District Court of Appeals.

In addition, the Legislative Counsel of California, the state Attorney General’s Office, and a majority of the California legislature had also previously determined that local politicians and law enforcement were obligated to uphold the provisions of California’s medical marijuana laws.

Finally, California’s constitution is also quite clear on this point — mandating that police have a sworn duty to uphold state law, not to enforce federal statutes.

Let’s be blunt: San Diego and San Bernardino’s protracted lawsuits — lawsuits that arguably cost county taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and jeopardized the health and safety of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of citizens — were never about resolving legal ambiguity.

Rather, it was about the arrogance and recalcitrance of those who willfully chose to abuse their power and position to hamstring the will of the voters, the legislature, and the courts.

And while this particular legal battle is now over, our outrage shouldn’t be.

Pot Dispute Still Unresolved
via The San Bernardino County Sun

If state Attorney General Jerry Brown’s medical-marijuana recommendations released this week were meant to clarify a muddied issue caused by conflicting state and federal law, not all local officials saw the light.

… San Bernardino County and its Sheriff’s Department are challenging Brown’s recommendations with a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We still think the recommendation is in direct conflict with federal law,” said San Bernardino County sheriff’s spokeswoman Arden Wiltshire. “Our sheriffs believe federal law supersedes state law.”

… “I’m not sure if the new determinations make a difference or not, it’s too soon to tell,” said Fontana police Sgt. Jeff Decker. “We still treat a violation of marijuana possession as a violation of the federal law.”

This, of course, would be humorous if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Let’s review shall we.

The voters of the state of California approved legislation to exempt qualified medical marijuana patients from state arrest and prosecution in 1996 — that’s 12 years ago.

Since then, the Legislative Counsel of California, the state Attorney General’s Office, the Superior Court of California, the 4th District Court of Appeals, and a majority of the California legislature have all determined that local politicians and law enforcement are obligated to uphold the provisions of California’s medical marijuana laws.

California’s constitution is also quite clear on this point — mandating that police have a sworn duty to uphold state law, not to enforce federal statutes.

In short, there is no ‘confusion’ regarding the legality of California’s pot laws.

There is only arrogance and recalcitrance on the part of those who have chosen to abuse their power and position to hamstring the will of the voters, the legislature, and the courts.

The California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, ruled yesterday that the state law requiring counties to issue identification cards to authorized medical marijuana patients is constitutional and must be implemented by the counties.

The suit had been brought by the County of San Diego against San Diego NORML and the state of California, alleging the provisions included in SB 420, adopted by the legislature in 2003, were preempted by federal law and were therefore unconstitutional. San Diego NORML had been named as a defendant, because they had publicly threatened to sue the county if they refused to implement the patient identification cards.

In a unanimous 39-page decision issued by Justice Alex McDonald, the three-judge panel undertook a thorough analysis of the legal doctrine of federal preemption, finding SB 420 was not in direct conflict with federal law, and rejected the county’s challenge.

The court found that a local government entity “charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing a statute generally does not have the authority, in the absence of a judicial determination of unconstitutionality, to refuse to enforce the statute on the basis of the (entity’s) view that it is unconstitutional.”

The court continued, “We conclude the identification card laws do not pose a significant impediment to specific federal objectives embodied in the CSA. The purpose of the CSA is to combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state’s medical practices. The identification card laws merely provide a mechanism allowing qualified California citizens, if they so elect, to obtain a form of identification that informs state law enforcement officers and others that they are medically exempted from the state’s criminal sanctions for marijuana possession and use. ”

The court further ruled, “Congress does not have the authority to compel the states to direct their law enforcement personnel to enforce federal laws.”

San Diego NORML is represented in this matter by Adam B. Wolfe, Esq., staff counsel with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project out of Santa Cruz, CA.

San Diego NORML had been named in the lawsuit because the group had publicly threatened to sue the county for failing to implement the state’s medical marijuana law, Proposition 215 and SB 420. San Diego NORML was represented in this matter by Adam Wolfe, Esq., staff attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project based in Santa Cruz, CA.

At the trial court level, Superior Court Judge William Nevitt, Jr., dismissed the challenge brought by the two counties, finding the state had the authority to legalize the medical use of marijuana despite federal law.

“California has the sovereign authority to not criminalize sick and dying patients,” said ACLU attorney Wolfe. “This case is really a matter of life and death for patients around the country.”

“What is important is that the patients who need medical marijuana have legal protection to use it, and they do under state law,” said NORML Legal Counsel Keith Stroup. “It is incredible that these two California counties would attempt to disrupt this important state program. Fortunately it appears the state courts will not allow this to happen.”

No decision is expected in this matter for a few months.