S.D. JUDGE HANDS VICTORY TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA ADVOCATES

Ruling Rejecting County Suit Upheld

A Superior Court judge refused to overturn California's medical
marijuana laws yesterday, upholding last month's preliminary ruling
that rejected San Diego County's lawsuit against the state.

Judge William R. Nevitt Jr. ruled that state law enforcement
officials are not obligated to arrest and prosecute people who
violate federal laws. The ruling favored the state and a handful of
patients and advocacy groups that joined the case after it was filed
early this year.

The final ruling was welcome news to lawyers and patient advocates
who support medical marijuana. The case has been closely watched from
Sacramento to Washington, D.C., for its obvious political implications.

"The victory here saves state medical marijuana laws from an
ill-founded and unsupported attack," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with
the American Civil Liberties Union in Santa Cruz, which co-defended the case.

"The law is clear," he said. "The federal government cannot force the
state of California to arrest and prosecute medical-marijuana patients."

The state Compassionate Use Act was adopted in 1996 after 56 percent
of California voters approved a medical-marijuana initiative.
Marijuana remains illegal under federal drug laws.

Because of the federal government's position, county officials
refused to adopt guidelines spelling out how many plants patients
could legally grow or to issue identification cards to qualified
patients as required by the state. Late last year, the Board of
Supervisors decided to sue California rather than implement the state
medical-marijuana laws. After San Diego County filed the lawsuit,
Merced and San Bernardino counties joined the case.

Board Chairman Bill Horn did not return a telephone call seeking
comment about the ruling. In an earlier interview, he said he would
not implement the state law without a judge's order.

Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Pam Slater-Price also voted to sue the
state; Supervisors Greg Cox and Ron Roberts opposed that decision.

County lawyer Thomas Bunton said he was disappointed in the ruling
but not surprised. Nevitt's legal interpretation was "incorrect," he
said, but added that no decision has been made about a possible appeal.

An attorney for Merced County told the court during oral arguments
last month that his office would appeal if he lost the final ruling.

Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access, one of the advocacy groups
that joined the case, said the ruling should persuade supervisors to
implement the decade-old law.

"This lawsuit wasn't that popular to begin with," she said. "What
they were looking for was clarity, and hopefully this is enough of
that for them to move on."