-
- Second Colorado pastor resigns amid gay sex allegation
- Historic Virginia churches to vote on quitting Episcopal denomination
- Congress sends Ryan White CARE Act to president
- Vice President Cheney’s daughter Mary Cheney is pregnant
- Police say gay serial killer confesses to 23 murders
- Judge asks highest court to rule on same-sex divorce
- National News Briefs
- World News Briefs
san diego
Judge rejects counties’ challenge to California marijuana law
San Diego Superior Court judge writes in his ruling counties would not be breaking federal law by giving out state identification cards
Published Thursday, 14-Dec-2006 in issue 990
SAN DIEGO, (AP) – A state judge on Dec. 6 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 Supervisors Pam Slater-Price, Dianne Jacob and Bill Horn voted to file the suit. Supervisors Greg Cox and Ron Roberts opposed the decision.
San Diego County sued California and its health services director in February regarding the state’s decade-old law permitting use of the drug with a physician’s approval.
Two other California counties, San Bernardino and Merced, joined San Diego as plaintiffs. All three counties have refused to issue identification cards for medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards, a state requiremennt.
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 that 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.
Five California patients and caregivers, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access and other advocacy groups, joined the case on the side of the state. A sixth patient, Pamela Sakuda, who suffered from rectal cancer, died in November, according to William Dolphin, a spokesperson for ASA.
California’s law allows people suffering from AIDS, cancer, anorexia, chronic pain, arthritis and migraine and “any other illness for which marijuana provides relief” to grow or possess small amounts of marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.
Since California voters passed the law with 55 percent approval in 1996, 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.
On Nov. 7, voters in South Dakota rejected a ballot measure to permit marijuana use for medical purposes.
In 2003, the California Legislature amended the 1996 bill to direct county health departments to issue identification cards to medical marijuana users.
Counties, which did not receive money to fulfill the requirement, have been slow to issue ID cards, but San Diego was the first to refuse on legal grounds.
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.
|
|
Copyright © 2003-2025 Uptown Publications
