[hopeunlimited]

SD Supe finally admits protracted legal battle isn't about perceived
conflict with federal law, it's because he hates marijuana.

"I don't think it's right, to be honest with you," he said. "Issuing the
cards is condoning the use of marijuana. That's not a message I personally
want to send."




http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...27potsuit.html

County pursues medicinal marijuana case

Save ThisEmail ThisPrint ThisMost Popular

MEDICAL MARIJUANA
The San Diego Union-Tribune contacted each San Diego County supervisor about
the board's decision to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its challenge of
state medical marijuana laws. Here are their responses:

Greg Cox: "When you get into a conflict between state and federal law, the
only alternative is to go to court."

Bill Horn: "Whether or not (federal agents) can enforce their law, that's
their choice. My problem is I have something that's in black and white which
my attorneys tell me is in conflict."

Dianne Jacob: "Handing out ID cards at the same time the federal government
considers marijuana illegal is not fair to those who think the cards would
protect them."

Ron Roberts: Did not respond.

Pam Slater-Price: "I do not consider I would be doing my duty if I accepted
the idea that we were to issue these licenses for so-called medical
marijuana. The way the law is set up practically anything qualifies,
including having a bad hair day."


Board wants to resolve state-federal conflict

By Jeff McDonald
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
October 27, 2008
Despite batting .000 against a lineup of lawyers and judges across
California, San Diego County is pressing its long-shot lawsuit against state
medical marijuana laws toward the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Board of Supervisors voted to petition the nation's top court even
before the California Supreme Court declined Oct. 16 to hear the county's
argument that the state laws should be overturned.


For nearly three years, the supervisors have persisted in their legal fight
rather than direct county health officials to issue identification cards to
qualified medical marijuana patients as required by state law.

"This case is not about questioning the medicinal value of marijuana,"
Supervisor Dianne Jacob said. "It's about resolving the conflict between
state and federal law."

For patients who rely on marijuana to relieve symptoms of cancer, AIDS and
other illnesses, the ongoing resistance feels more like a slap in the face.

"What the county has been doing is straight-up prejudicial," said Rudy
Reyes, who was severely burned in the Cedar fire and smokes marijuana to
relieve his pain.

"They don't want to see this as a viable medication," said Reyes, who felt
so strongly about the issue that he tried to unseat Jacob in the last
election.

In 1996, 56 percent of California voters supported an initiative allowing
sick and dying patients to grow and use marijuana to ease their symptoms.
The law has vexed enforcement officials ever since because the drug remains
illegal under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act.

The state sought to clarify its medical-use allowance in 2004 and directed
counties to issue identification cards to qualified patients. The cards are
designed to help police determine who is using marijuana legally and who is
abusing the drug.


Advertisement

On a 3-2 vote in November 2005, county supervisors went against a staff
recommendation that cards be issued. Greg Cox and Ron Roberts were in the
minority on that vote, but the following week, when the board opted to
challenge the state law in court, Cox sided with the majority. Roberts was
absent.
"I supported the effort to issue the medical marijuana cards, but clearly in
this case we have a conflict with federal law that says it's a controlled
substance," Cox said in an interview last week. "I felt the responsible
thing to do was get through the courts."

County lawyers filed their case in early 2006. San Bernardino and Merced
counties joined as co-plaintiffs. Late that year, San Diego Superior Court
Judge William R. Nevitt rejected the counties' legal arguments, ruling in
favor of the state and two patient-advocacy groups.

San Diego and San Bernardino counties appealed, but Merced opted out.
Instead, supervisors there began issuing the ID cards.

"We felt like we were going to be throwing good money after bad," said
Kathleen Crookham, chairwoman of the Merced County Board of Supervisors.
"How far can you go? We thought we'd cut our losses and move on."

About 30 Merced County residents have applied for and received the cards,
Crookham said. Since then, "it's kind of quietly just moved on."

San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn remains unconvinced, however. He does
not believe there is any medicinal value in marijuana.

"I don't think it's right, to be honest with you," he said. "Issuing the
cards is condoning the use of marijuana. That's not a message I personally
want to send."

Legal experts tend to agree with the courts that rejected the position
staked out by San Diego and San Bernardino counties. Those judges and
scholars say the bottom line is that state laws do not prevent federal
agents from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, which classifies
marijuana as among the most dangerous known drugs.

"California can do whatever it wants to do and the U.S. government can do
whatever it wants to do," said University of San Diego law professor Shaun
Martin, who has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and
prevailed once. "The counties' position that there's a conflict on this is a
minority - a very minority - view."

Constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky said the U.S. Supreme Court
generally reviews only those cases that have divided lower courts.

"There's a lot of misunderstanding about federal law and state law and
pre-emption," said Chemerinsky, the founding dean of the University of
California Irvine law school. "What the state law does is say it's not a
state crime to have medical marijuana."

The counties have 90 days from Oct. 16 to file what's known as a petition
for a writ of certiorari, which formally requests a review by the U.S.
Supreme Court. If the court agrees to consider the case, a ruling could come
in 2009 or 2010.

More than 7,500 cases are appealed to the nation's top court each year; only
1 percent to 2 percent of the petitions are granted. Roughly half of those
involve criminal cases, so the county's chances of being heard are slim.

No one in county government would estimate how much time and money has been
spent working to overturn California medical marijuana laws.

Senior Deputy County Counsel Thomas Bunton, who is supervising the legal
strategy, noted that his office has not retained any outside lawyers. But he
declined to detail the public resources dedicated to the lawsuit.

"This hasn't cost the county any additional money," Bunton said.
--

[shecky7]

Feds= Illegal, State= Legal, County=Illegal, City=legal, Community Crime Watch=Hope they don't have a bad hair day. I'm glad we can come to a consensus on which laws to follow and not follow.....

and I wonder if you got a certified copy of Mr. Horns Oath of Office-if he ever took one-and went down and asked him to clarify why he thinks he, as a public official is not committing a felony by abrogating his duty
to represent his constituency.

[hopeunlimited]

Originally Posted by shecky7

Feds= Illegal, State= Legal, County=Illegal, City=legal, Community Crime Watch=Hope they don't have a bad hair day. I'm glad we can come to a consensus on which laws to follow and not follow.....

and I wonder if you got a certified copy of Mr. Horns Oath of Office-if he ever took one-and went down and asked him to clarify why he thinks he, as a public official is not committing a felony by abrogating his duty
to represent his constituency.

shecky7
i appreciate your feedback. thank you for all you do for the community-i would love to personally read bill horn's duty to uphold state law to him-
take care always-
hopeunlimited

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by ChroniCare

This is ridiculous! They said that 1-2 percent of cases are heard by the supreme court. What are the chances that they will hear this one?

ChroniCare Staff
(619)-807-6687
ChroniCare@gmail.com
chronicare.weebly.com

ZERO! No possibility they are going to make MMJ a landmark States Rights issue IMHO.

[hopeunlimited]

i agree that the supreme court will choose not to hear the case-
i believe the supervisors are stalling-part of a five year plan to eliminate dispensaries and prevent id cards from being issued until 2009, 2010?
only time will tell-
in the meantime i am not afraid-
i choose hope over fear and scare tactics
i choose to focus on my health and what i can do to help
it is not what happens to us but how we choose to react to it-
the truth is out that the supervisors personally dont like cannabis-
they are choosing to ignore their oath to upheld and implement state law
thanks to all who are contributing to this thoughtful and positive discussion-
peace and love
hopeunlimited

[BrattonBasher]

Originally Posted by hopeunlimited

i agree that the supreme court will choose not to hear the case-
i believe the supervisors are stalling-part of a five year plan to eliminate dispensaries and prevent id cards from being issued until 2009, 2010?
only time will tell-
in the meantime i am not afraid-
i choose hope over fear and scare tactics
i choose to focus on my health and what i can do to help
it is not what happens to us but how we choose to react to it-
the truth is out that the supervisors personally dont like cannabis-
they are choosing to ignore their oath to upheld and implement state law
thanks to all who are contributing to this thoughtful and positive discussion-
peace and love
hopeunlimited

You have a GREAT attitude! Keep up the positive thoughts!