CITIES SET MARIJUANA POLICIES AS STATE, FEDERAL LAW COLLIDE

San Bernardino City Councilman Chas Kelley is unambiguous about his
opposition to allowing medical marijuana to be distributed in his city.

"I just don't want to be a regional magnet," said Kelley, noting that
nearby cities had prohibitions on the books before San Bernardino
followed their lead last month.

The nearly 13 years since California voters asked their government to
legalize medical marijuana has not been enough time to settle debate
on the proper use of the much loved and hated herb.

In 2009, Inland Empire-based cannabis providers continue to exist in
a kind of legal haze, where state law appears to sanction their
activities while federal law makes marijuana as illegal as heroin.

California voters cleared the path for medical marijuana in 1996 with
the passage of Proposition 215. But voters up and down the state have
also put into office politicians with very different views on medical
cannabis.

In San Bernardino County, the response to medical marijuana has
generally been to just say "no" - or at least "not yet." Officials in
several local cities have adopted bans or moratoriums aimed at keeping
cannabis providers out of some towns.

Other California cities have had different experiences, permitting
marijuana providers or - as is the case in Oakland - creating a new
business license tax intended to use medical marijuana as a means to
balance the city's budget.

Oakland Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan touts her city's regulatory
process as a tool to keep dispensaries safe for patients whose doctors
recommend marijuana.

The political controversies that continue to surround medical
marijuana, are in Kaplan's view, foolish.

"It's a conflict that's hurting everybody, as well as being a waste of
time, money and energy," she said.

But Kaplan's views are at odds with a number of Inland Empire public
officials and California law-enforcement leaders.

A California Police Chiefs Association report on medicinal marijuana
is but one voice of skepticism. The paper argues that federal law
trumps Proposition 215 and that dispensaries, which should be deemed
illegal, are likely targets for criminals looking to score pot or cash.

"Marijuana dispensaries are commonly large money-making enterprises
who will sell marijuana to most anyone who produces a physician's
written recommendation for its medical use," the report reads. "These
recommendations can be had by paying unscrupulous physicians a fee and
claiming to have most any malady, even headaches."

Several inland jurisdictions have adopted temporary bans that block
cannabis providers until more detailed policies can be crafted.

San Bernardino County extended its temporary ban in August, but some
providers who set up operations before county officials acted are
still dispensing marijuana.

These facilities include the Inland Empire Patient Group in
Bloomington and the San Bernardino Patients Association near Chino.

Ryan Michaels and Jan Werner of Inland Empire Patient Group want to be
treated as any other law-abiding enterprise.

Michaels discusses marijuana policy with a libertarian's respect for
old-fashioned federalism. To him, it makes no sense for government
officials in California to bow down to federal law.

"We have states that are allowed to try their own methods of solving
their own problems," he said.

He also contends that without a legal option, patients will buy from
street dealers.

Werner and Michaels said their operation is not a dispensary but a
collective that allows marijuana patients to share crops that they
cultivate.

They provide marijuana on site but said they do not technically sell
marijuana. Instead, they collect donations or contributions to cover
production costs.

In Los Angeles County, where hundreds of dispensaries are in
operation, District Attorney Steve Cooley last week announced plans to
step up prosecutions of providers that sell marijuana at a profit.

Dennis Christy, assistant district attorney for San Bernardino County,
said his officeis not planning the kinds of prosecutions being
discussed in Los Angeles County.

"We don't have the same number as L.A. does. That's one of the big
differences," he said.