SANTA CRUZ GROUP WINS COURT OK TO GROW POT

Ruling Allows Medical Marijuana Distribution

A Santa Cruz medical marijuana collective shut down by federal agents
two years ago can grow and distribute marijuana for its patients while
its civil lawsuit against the federal government is decided by the
courts, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose marks the
first time a court has granted a medical marijuana organization the
right to grow the federally outlawed herb without interference from
federal drug agents.

The ruling clears the way for the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical
Marijuana in Santa Cruz to challenge the federal government's
authority to raid medical marijuana gardens operating within the
boundaries of California law.

"This is an incredible victory for us, though we do realize that
everything is temporary," said Valerie Corral, the founder and
director of the collective. "We are so pleased to be able to begin our
garden again."

Federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided the collective's
marijuana farm on Sept. 5, 2002, seizing 167 plants and detaining
several of the group's members.

At the time of the raid, the collective had been operating openly for
several years with the explicit support of Santa Cruz city and county
officials, including local law enforcement. The group's approximately
250 members, suffering from a variety of serious illnesses,
collectively grew marijuana and distributed it to members free of charge.

The federal raid was denounced by Santa Cruz officials, who responded
by allowing the group to distribute marijuana from the steps of City
Hall -- as an unmarked helicopter repeatedly circled overhead.

Even Attorney General Bill Lockyer protested the raid, firing off a
letter to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in which he called the
DEA's actions in Santa Cruz a "provocative and intrusive incident of
harassment."

The collective's first foray into court was a civil suit demanding the
return of items seized in the raid, but it was dismissed by Judge
Fogel in December 2002. The case has since been appealed.

In April 2002, the collective and Santa Cruz city and county officials
filed suit again, challenging the federal government's authority to
interfere with medical marijuana activities that are legal under
California law.

Federal authorities claim authority to pre-empt state law under
provisions of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, arguing
that marijuana use of any kind constitutes interstate commerce.

But a December 2003 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco in a separate medical marijuana case was cited by Judge
Fogel as critical in leading to Wednesday's decision.

In that ruling, the Ninth Circuit found that medical marijuana grown
and used by Angel Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from a brain
tumor, does not constitute interstate commerce. The appeals court
ruled that Raich could use marijuana free from federal
prosecution.

The collective will be allowed to grow marijuana at least until the
balance of its case challenging the applicability of the commerce
clause is decided in Fogel's courtroom.

Fogel dismissed four additional claims against the federal government,
narrowing the case to the single issue.

This week, the Justice Department appealed the Raich case to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

Fogel's decision was hailed as a victory for patients' rights and
states' rights by the collective's jubilant legal team.

"This is wonderful news for the patients who have really endured a
good deal of suffering since the raid," said collective attorney and
Santa Clara University law Professor Gerald Uelmen. "Since the raid we
have lost more than 20 patients, and there is no question but that
their deaths were more painful than they needed to be.

"The Raich decision was really the breakthrough, but this (decision)
takes it a step further," Uelmen said. "It says there is no difference
between a single patient growing their own medicine and a collective
group assisting each other to achieve exactly the same purpose."

Officials from the Justice Department and the DEA declined to comment
on the decision.