FAIRFAX PONDERS COURT POT RULING

At the Fairfax cannabis buyers' club last week, the air hung heavy as
a humid August afternoon in the deep South.

Clients sat quietly in the waiting room of the School Street Plaza
clinic Thursday while staffers fielded a storm of telephone calls from
supporters, patients and journalists asking about the effect of a U.S.
Supreme Court decision that prohibited medical necessity as a defense
for distribution of marijuana.

As a bone-thin man brandished his ID card at the clinic's reception
desk, the office manager said quietly to an inquirer, "We're just
waiting for the hammer to fall."

In fact, the ruling seems to have done little to clear up the issues
left unresolved by Proposition 215, also called the Compassionate Use
Act, passed by California voters in 1996.

Even Gerald Uelman, the lawyer who argued the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative case before the high court last year, has expressed
bewilderment about its implications.

Fairfax Town Attorney Joe Brecher noted "there have been a profusion
of talking heads talking about what (the ruling) means, but in truth,
nobody knows what it means.

"The ruling was not at all definitive. It was actually extremely
narrow: A medical necessity defense cannot be used to bar a district
court from issuing an injunction."

Meanwhile, the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana continues to
dispense pot in Fairfax, the only such outlet in Marin County. The
Fairfax Planning Commission, which controls the alliance's use permit,
has scheduled a discussion in July only to address some technicalities
of the permit.

Still, despite assurances from Brecher, some planning commissioners
fear guilt by association with the pot club.

They are pondering everything from their oath of office, which
includes a vow to uphold the Constitution, to a vote by a previous
planning commission to revoke the club's permit should federal law
render illegal the state medical marijuana law.

Commissioner Terri Alvillar has questioned whether the town could be
"implicated in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana."

According to Brecher, that is not realistic.

"The town does not have any responsibility because it is not a federal
agency," said Brecher, who has been the town attorney for less than a
month. "You are not prosecutors. You did not take an oath to enforce
federal law."

The ruling left murky any number of issues, including other types of
defenses that might prevail against an injunction against distribution
of medical marijuana.

However, Brecher said, it's clear pot clubs are "on thin ice," and
might be "pretty close to the end of the trail."

Steve Shaiken, chairman of the Fairfax Planning Commission, noted that
"one thing is for sure: They're not sitting around in Washington,
D.C., saying, 'We'd love to close that place in Fairfax down if it
weren't for that darned use permit.' I don't think it matters one whit
to them. We're not under any obligation to rush to any action."

Although the town could choose to shut down the club for violating
federal law, it would not be violating the law if it does nothing,
Brecher said.

That appears to be a hairline distinction to some on the
commission.

Said Commissioner Paul Herbert: "Under what color or authority is the
club operating? They have the responsibility to explain to me how
they think they can continue to operate."

But Brecher intimated that while certain matters linked to the use
permit might be resolved in July, discussion over the larger issues
likely will rage for the foreseeable future.

"This is an issue that is going to enjoy a lot of very spirited
debate," he said.