THE COURT'S DECISION

EDITOR: When candidate Stephen Passalacqua promised Sonoma Alliance
for Medical Marijuana's overflow crowd that he as district attorney
would protect patient's use of marijuana as medicine, we patients
rallied to defeat District Attorney Mike Mullins, who had betrayed his
oath by violating the democratically passed initiative Prop. 215, The
California Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

The Press Democrat's June 19 article, "Confusion reigns over pot
rules," clearly shows that by their assuming unauthorized
responsibilities Sheriff Bill Cogbill and District Attorney
Passalacqua are reigning confused to the detriment of county patients
and in violation of their oaths of office. The agencies of the sheriff
and district attorney are not responsible to determine the
constitutionality of any state law or if it conflicts with federal
law. However, California's Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 states
that only the California Appeals Court can make such a ruling. To date
it has not done so. Indeed, in December 2003 the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled against the Department of Justice and the Drug
Enforcement Administration by declaring there is no conflict between
California's Compassionate Use Act and the Federal Controlled
Substance Act.

It's time for an injunction against this rogue sheriff and district
attorney.

KEN NORTON

Santa Rosa