SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CALIFORNIA MEDICAL POT LAW

Justices turn down appeals from San Diego and San Bernardino counties
seeking to throw out the state's 13-year-old medical marijuana law.

Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court on Monday rejected
appeals from two hold-out counties in Southern California that
objected to the state's 13-year-old medical marijuana law and claimed
it should be struck down as violating the federal drug control act.

Without comment, the court turned down the pair of
appeals.

* New medical marijuana dispensaries not expected to sprout quickly *
Putting pot under the microscope * California Supreme Court revives
class-action suit against tobacco firms

The action probably will clear the way for patients in San Diego and
San Bernardino counties to seek county-issued identification cards
that show they are eligible to possess and use marijuana.

The identification cards have been required under state law since
2004, but the two counties have refused to issue them. Their lawyers
said the state's authorization for using medical marijuana conflicted
with the zero-tolerance policy set by federal law.

"Our theory is that a state law which authorizes people to violate
federal law is preempted" and, therefore, unconstitutional, Thomas
Bunton, a deputy county counsel in San Diego, said last week.

Federal officials have maintained that all marijuana use is illegal,
even in states such as California. But Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.
said recently that the federal government would not devote great
effort to prosecuting low-level marijuana cases.

Lawyers for San Diego and San Bernardino counties had gone to court
seeking a clear ruling on whether the state law violated the federal
drug law. San Diego NORML, or National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws, had threatened to sue the county in 2005 for not
complying with the state law by refusing to issue identification cards.

Last year, a state appeals court upheld the California medical
marijuana law and said it was not rendered void by the federal drug
law. The California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the
two counties.

The counties then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Reform Law Project, said
Monday's order "marks a significant victory for medical marijuana
patients and their advocates nationwide." It dispels any remaining
doubts that the state laws are valid, he said, and it "leaves ample
room for states to move forward . . . with independent medical
marijuana policies."

Since California's voters adopted the Compassionate Use Act in 1996,
12 other states have approved measures permitting medical use of
marijuana: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The New
Hampshire Legislature passed a similar measure recently that awaits
action by the governor.

The federal government, however, has maintained that the sale or use
of marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. The 1970
law designates marijuana as a Schedule I drug that has "no currently
accepted medical use" in the U.S.

Federal authorities say they can arrest and prosecute all who use or
sell marijuana in states that have authorized medical use of the drug.

Four years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress and the federal
government had the constitutional authority to regulate the sale and
use of marijuana under its power over interstate commerce. The 6-3
decision, in the case of Gonzales vs. Raich, rejected the claim that
personal use of homegrown marijuana was off-limits to federal
authority. But the court did not rule on whether a state's law
allowing medical use of marijuana was void because it conflicted with
the federal law.

In their appeal, San Diego County's lawyers had questioned whether
California's marijuana law was "preempted under the Supremacy Clause"
of the Constitution by the federal drug control law.