RULING CLOUDS MENDOCINO POT MEASURE

UKIAH -- A new state appellate court ruling may undermine a Mendocino
County drive to repeal liberal local marijuana standards in favor of
more restrictive state guidelines.

At issue is whether Mendocino voters in next week's election can
adopt state standards that were just declared unconstitutional by a
state Court of Appeal in Los Angeles.

State attorneys want the state Supreme Court to review last week's
ruling, but in the meantime, it leaves uncertain whether state or
counties have any authority to define how much marijuana individuals
should be allowed for medical reasons.

"It's a major, major legal victory for the California medical
marijuana movement," said Alex Coolman, a San Francisco lawyer
specializing in criminal appeals.

The Los Angeles court ruled that the state Legislature acted
improperly in 2003 by adopting specific standards for Proposition
215, a landmark voter-approved initiative that decriminalized
marijuana use for medical reasons. Lawmakers waited to act seven
years after the landmark legislation decriminalizing marijuana for
medical use was approved in 1996.

The appellate court ruling is an unexpected twist in one of the most
heated Mendocino County elections in recent memory.

Measure B proponents want Mendocino voters to roll back the current
25-plant limit now in place in favor of state guidelines of six
plants. They blame Mendocino's more lax standards for acting as a
magnet to commercial marijuana growers from across the country.

Ross Liberty, spokesman for Yes on Measure B, said critics' claims
that the local initiative has been legally undermined by the
appellate court ruling are "absurd."

Liberty noted that Measure B has two key elements that are
independent of each other: repeal of a 2000 local measure that
established current local standards, and the requirement that local
rules conform to state standards.

"All we've ever wanted is uniformity statewide, so whatever the
outcome is at the state level, that's where we want Mendocino County
to be," said Liberty.

Liberty accused Measure B critics of trying to convince local voters
the initiative itself is unconstitutional.

"This is just a continuation of the campaign of intentional deception
that we have seen from the beginning," said Liberty.

But Laura Hamburg, coordinator of the opposition campaign, said the
new appellate court ruling directly affects Measure B.

"It very much undermines Measure B. In fact it whacks it off right at
the knees in the final stretch of the race," said Hamburg.

Susan B. Jordan, a noted Mendocino County attorney who opposes
Measure B, agreed.

Jordan said Proposition 215 when passed by voters defined the
standard as "what's medically necessary," and deliberately avoided
adopting any specific number.

"The court rightly ruled that neither the legislature nor any other
body politic gets to arbitrarily overrule what voters enact," said Jordan.