COURT REFUSES TO RULE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

End Of Appeals Gives Medical Marijuana Advocates Hope

The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to rule on a lawsuit seeking to
invalidate California's medical marijuana law could open a new phase
in battles over implementation of the law, statewide and in the
Inland Empire, advocates said Monday.

The court refused to hear a case filed by San Bernardino and San
Diego counties, two of nine counties statewide that have refused to
issue identification cards to qualified patients, as required by
state law. The two counties argued in their suit that state law and
the card program were pre-empted by the federal ban on marijuana.

"This is a red-letter day. It just kind of pulls the rug out from
underneath all of them," said Lanny Swerdlow, president of the
Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project, a patients advocacy group with
branches in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

Patients are planning to go to the San Bernardino Board of
Supervisors meeting today to lobby the county to set up a card
program, Swerdlow said.

"To me and to other patients, it provides us with a level of
protection," said Scott Bledsoe of Crestline, who has also sued the
county over its refusal to issue the ID card. "They're saying there
can't be any legal patients. Now if we get some cards, we'll be
afforded these protections."

But county spokesman David Wert said no action would be taken on the
issue until the county counsel briefs the board in closed session,
which is not likely to happen until early June.

In San Diego, Tom Bunton, senior deputy county counsel, said he will
recommend that the county start issuing ID cards. But, he added, the
court's action does not settle the state-federal conflict.

"There is clearly a disagreement on federal and state law on the use
of medical marijuana," Bunton said. "In my mind it's still there."

The case has been watched closely by the seven other counties that
have not set up card programs: Colusa, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono,
Stanislaus and Sutter.

Americans for Safe Access, the Oakland-based advocacy group that took
part in the suit against San Diego and San Bernardino, is ready to
sue the seven other counties if they do not comply, said spokesman Kris Hermes.

"It's about time we achieved full implementation (of state law) that
at a basic level includes implementation of the ID card program and
goes beyond that," Hermes said.

Dispensaries are part of the "beyond that" Hermes referred to, even
though, he said, they are not covered by the court's action.

In the Coachella Valley, the state-federal conflict has been a key
point in arguments for the dispensary bans and moratoriums cities
across the valley have adopted.

Coachella and Desert Hot Springs have moratoriums, while Indian
Wells, Indio, La Quinta and Palm Desert have passed dispensary bans.

In Cathedral City, the City Council is also moving toward a ban with
its 3-2 vote on Wednesday approving the first reading of an ordinance
that defines dispensaries as unlawful and a public nuisance.

But, after the court action, Swerdlow said, "They have less ground to
stand on."

David Nick, who represents Bledsoe in the San Bernardino case, said
the city could face a lawsuit if the ban passes and goes into effect
after a second vote.

"I think their attorneys are putting their moral beliefs ahead of
their legal judgement," said Nick.

But Mayor Kathy DeRosa said no change in direction is expected.

"Unless a council member wants to bring it up, there will be no
discussion till it's brought back to council again," De Rosa said.