allenlovesgreen

Supreme Court upholds California medical pot law
Justices turn down appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties seeking to throw out the state's 13-year-old medical marijuana law.
5/18/09|Los Angeles Times| by David G. Savage



Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals from two hold-out counties in Southern California that objected to the state's 13-year-old medical marijuana law and claimed it should be struck down as violating the federal drug control act.

Without comment, the court turned down the pair of appeals.

The action probably will clear the way for patients in San Diego and San Bernardino counties to seek county-issued identification cards that show they are eligible to possess and use marijuana.

The identification cards have been required under state law since 2004, but the two counties have refused to issue them. Their lawyers said the state's authorization for using medical marijuana conflicted with the zero-tolerance policy set by federal law.

"Our theory is that a state law which authorizes people to violate federal law is preempted" and, therefore, unconstitutional, Thomas Bunton, a deputy county counsel in San Diego, said last week.

Federal officials have maintained that all marijuana use is illegal, even in states such as California. But Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said recently that the federal government would not devote great effort to prosecuting low-level marijuana cases.

Lawyers for San Diego and San Bernardino counties had gone to court seeking a clear ruling on whether the state law violated the federal drug law. San Diego NORML, or National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, had threatened to sue the county in 2005 for not complying with the state law by refusing to issue identification cards.

Last year, a state appeals court upheld the California medical marijuana law and said it was not rendered void by the federal drug law. The California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the two counties.

The counties then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Reform Law Project, said Monday's order "marks a significant victory for medical marijuana patients and their advocates nationwide." It dispels any remaining doubts that the state laws are valid, he said, and it "leaves ample room for states to move forward . . . with independent medical marijuana policies."

Since California's voters adopted the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, 12 other states have approved measures permitting medical use of marijuana: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The New Hampshire Legislature passed a similar measure recently that awaits action by the governor.

The federal government, however, has maintained that the sale or use of marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. The 1970 law designates marijuana as a Schedule I drug that has "no currently accepted medical use" in the U.S.

Federal authorities say they can arrest and prosecute all who use or sell marijuana in California and other states that have authorized medical use of the drug.

Four years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress and the federal government had the constitutional authority to regulate the sale and use of marijuana under its power over interstate commerce. The 6-3 decision, in the case of Gonzales vs. Raich, rejected the claim that personal use of homegrown marijuana was off-limits to federal authority. But the court did not rule on whether a state's law allowing medical use of marijuana was void because it conflicted with the federal drug control law.

In their appeal, San Diego County's lawyers had questioned whether the California law authorizing medical use of marijuana was "preempted under the Supremacy Clause" of the Constitution by the federal law forbidding all use of marijuana.

DoobieBrother

WOOHOO!!!

Man...this stuff is aaaaaaaaaall over the news today. It's pretty mind blowing and it's really hitting me hard right now. State law trumps Federal law when it comes to the legality of medical marijuana!!

This is really big and it's freaking me out.

Everywhere I look today I read "the case is now closed" and "appeal refused". You can't go anywhere beyond the U.S. supreme court, can you?

__________________
We must do everything we can to keep Republicans out of office. If they ever regain majority, Republicans will erase everything we've worked for and put us right back where we started.

sterbo

Sure, back to a given State with a binding referendum or initiative...

__________________

LowRider

they just refused to hear it. it does nothing in the long run. If another state takes it there and the supreme court does hear it, and vote in favor of states rights then we have a true winner and should celebrate. this is temporary so don't get ahead of yourself.

Victor_vicious

They did not and would not say State Law trumps Federal Law. By refusing to hear the case, they have said , 'You are in this State, you follow State Law'.
The Federal Authorities can still arrest you, they just don't intend to, as long as you are abiding by the laws of your State. VV

nornerator

There seems to be so much confusion, even within the government itself, as to the authority of the supreme court.

The supreme court ruled that federal law trumps state law when it comes to raiding medical marijuana dispensaries.

By dismissing this case, are they simply avoiding making a controversial "State Vs. Federal" ruling? In this way they can avoid taking heat from the press and not really make any clear statements about the separation of powers.

Basically they are saying "State laws are allowed to contradict federal law, but if the feds want to bust you, they can"

Its insanity! How can your actions be both legal and illegal at the same time? All your friends, family, neighbors, and local government think you are a law-abiding citizen, and federal agents think you are a criminal worthy of a jail cell. Hypocrisy!

DoobieBrother

ugh, now I'm confused, you guys.

DoobieBrother

You're right. Good point. Noted.

Buzzby

The Supreme Court decided this issue with its June 6, 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich. They said that federal law enforcement can arrest people for violation of federal drug laws even if the defendant's actions are legal within the state. They did not say that this made the state's laws invalid or unconstitutional, which they could have done had they believed it to be true.

Sorry, but it doesn't say that at all. In fact, nothing has changed. They didn't rule, they merely refused to hear the case. The DEA still has the power to arrest anyone violating a federal drug law in any state. The only reason that they aren't prosecuting dispensaries and medical marijuana patients is the Attorney General's directive not to do so unless they are also violating state laws.

__________________

claygooding

Not a win,just a delay tactic. By refusing to listen to the case,they have slid it on the back burner,and with no definitive ruling issued,they are not setting a precedent or
guideline for any case later they might have to listen too. We are now in judicial limbo
and second guessing is hazardous to your freedom,if they come out later with a ruling
in favor of federal law.