JnEverett

Judge rejects counties' challenge to California marijuana law
12-06-06 l SFGate l Allison Hoffman

A state judge on Wednesday upheld California's law permitting the use of medical marijuana for medical purposes, rejecting a lawsuit by three counties challenging the decade-old statute.

The counties, led by San Diego, argued that local governments shouldn't be bound to uphold state laws that are weaker than the federal blanket ban on marijuana.

San Diego County sued California and its health services director in February over a state requirement that counties issue identification cards for medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards. San Bernardino and Merced counties joined the suit.

State attorneys responded that California was entitled to pass its own laws suspending state prosecution for medical marijuana use, and to legislate programs enabling qualified users to access the drug.

Marijuana users in California can still be prosecuted under federal drug laws.

Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr., wrote in his ruling counties would not be breaking federal law by giving out state identification cards.

"Requiring the counties to issue identification cards for the purpose of identifying those whom California chooses not to arrest and prosecute for certain activities involving marijuana use does not create a 'positive conflict,'" Nevitt wrote.

The ruling affirmed a tentative judgment Nevitt issued in November.

The judge emphasized that he was not weighing in on the question of whether marijuana has medical benefits.

Since 55 percent of California voters approved the law in a 1996 vote, 10 other states have adopted measures protecting qualified patients from prosecution. They are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Thomas Bunton, a county attorney who argued the case, said no decision had been made whether to seek an appeal.

Nevitt's ruling stopped short of forcing the counties to begin issuing the cards. Fewer than half of California's 58 counties have so far complied with the state program.

TheNewGuy

What the crap, this is California we're talking about, and only 58% of the people want the law? Looking at the 40% that voted for total legalization in Colorado makes California look like a bunch of damn neo-cons.

__________________
"Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~P.J. O'Rourke

Buzzby

Proposition 215 was passed in 1996 when no other state had a medical marijuana law. It was a pioneering effort and a 55% vote was a breakthrough. (Where did you get "58%"?) Considering that in 2006 78% of voters surveyed across the nation favor medical marijuana I'd guess that the current approval figure in California is at least that high.

__________________

TheNewGuy

Typo.

Forgot about how long its been, my bad.

vladimir

this is very good news, as i'm sure this would have led straight to a supreme court decision on the legitimacy of state medical marijuana laws, the last of which didn't work out in patients' favor.

__________________
If a drug (or technique or process) were ever to be discovered which would consistently produce a plus four experience in all human beings, it is conceivable that it would signal the ultimate evolution, and perhaps the end of, the human experiment.

Buzzby

The Raich decision very specifically avoided declaring that it was unconstitutional to have state laws allowing for medical marijuana. All it did was reiterate the federal government's power to enforce its marijuana laws even if there were state laws permitting its use, maintaining the status quo. I don't think the Supreme Court is interested in challenging states' rights - that would open a can of worms that could shake up the whole system. From a federal POV, ruling in favor of Raich, et. al. would have brought the enforcement of a whole range of federal laws into question