State asks court to toss SD County medical marijuana suit

By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer | Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:19 PM PST ∞

NORTH COUNTY ---- State officials formally asked judges to throw out San Diego County's precedent-setting lawsuit seeking to overturn California's 10-year-old medical marijuana law, saying that the only controversy over the law was in the minds of county supervisors.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office argued in motions filed Tuesday in Superior Court that San Diego County supervisors simply "disliked" California's voter-approved "Compassionate Use Act," and that there was no legal reason for the courts to entertain their lawsuit.

Nathan Barankin, spokesman for Lockyer, said that the state's position was essentially that the county's lawsuit was simply a request for the courts to rule on the legality of California's law, and involved no actual parties in dispute.

"Because courts can only hear cases that involve real factual disputes between opposing parties, and because there is no actual dispute here, such a request for an advisory opinion requires dismissal of the charges," Barankin said.

He said the courts could rule on the state's motion in May.

The county of San Diego, in a move that angered local medical marijuana patients and marijuana advocacy groups, filed a lawsuit in December in federal court seeking to overturn the Compassionate Use Act, which allows the use of medicinal marijuana.

The supervisors ---- who have collectively opposed the law since it was placed on the 1996 ballot ---- argue that it should be "pre-empted" by federal law, which says that all marijuana use is illegal and that the drug has no medicinal value.

San Diego County lawyers abruptly switched the lawsuit from federal to state court in February, as a tactical move in the hopes of avoiding the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been more friendly to marijuana supporters than to opponents in recent rulings.

County officials have been waiting for the state's response ever since, but did not return calls Tuesday.

However, county Counsel John Sansone said Monday that he would not be surprised if the state asked for a "demurrer," a motion to throw out the county's lawsuit.

San Diego County officials and marijuana advocacy groups say the lawsuit is precedent-setting because it marks the first time a county has sued to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws approved by voters in 11 states.

Barankin, meanwhile, said Tuesday that the attorney general's office also filed a motion Tuesday asking the courts to throw out San Bernardino County's medical marijuana challenge.

San Bernardino supervisors, in a show of support for San Diego County, filed their own lawsuit shortly after San Diego County's action.

San Diego County's board has largely ignored California's medical marijuana law since it was passed in 1996, and was actually chastised by its own grand jury in 2005 for doing "nothing" to help implement the law.

However, late last year, the state ordered counties to create an identification card and registration program to help medical marijuana patients ---- and law enforcement officials ---- by clearly identifying who could use the drug legally under state law.

But, by a 3-2 vote, with Supervisors Greg Cox and Ron Roberts opposed, the board voted in December to defy the state's orders.

Shortly after that, the board voted 4-0, with Roberts absent, to actually sue to try to overturn the Compassionate Use Act itself, and named the state Department of Health Services and department Director Sandra Shewry as defendants.

But the state's motion Tuesday argued that the county artificially created an issue for the courts to review the Compassionate Use Act.

"San Diego's political leadership cannot create a ripe controversy by threatening to disobey the law," the motion stated.

Contact staff writer Gig Conaughton at (760) 739-6696 or gconaughton@nctimes.com.

18 comment(s)[-]Go to Top

G wrote on Mar 22, 2006 7:32 AM:what a waste of taxpayers dollars again.......

Ricardo wrote on Mar 22, 2006 8:40 AM:The Controlled Substances Act says Schedule I substances have no RECOGNIZED [in United States] use in medical treatment, as well as a lack of safety. For cannabis to remain in Schedule I became an absurdity when the Compassionate Use Act was passed, and the first licensed physician wrote a reccomendation. And safety? Name another medically active substance with a therapeutic ratio of 40,000. Presumptuous supes, and HHS take note.

Kimball wrote on Mar 22, 2006 9:01 AM:Now it's time to toss the SUPERVISORS for this stupid act! Remember to vote San Diego

fred wrote on Mar 22, 2006 9:26 AM:Another good reason for term limits

Jim wrote on Mar 22, 2006 9:41 AM:How much taxpayer money will be wasted by these supervisors trying to keep a safe legal herbal medicine from sick and dying US citizens? It's past time to end this immoral war on Americans. Where is their commpassion?

Patrick wrote on Mar 22, 2006 9:55 AM:Bye Bye Horn! Sick of you wasting my tax dollars! You should be paying for this lawsuit yourself!

kottonmouth kings wrote on Mar 22, 2006 10:54 AM:legalize marijuana!!!!

Kirkland wrote on Mar 22, 2006 12:53 PM:This "compassionate act" is nothing more than a farse for hippie dope smokers who want to get high. Marijuana is an addictive harmful drug that does not need to be legalized becuase people want to get stoned. Medical studies prove that the pill version of THC is just as helpful medicaly, why don't people take the pill? Because they want to get stoned not for any medical reason. California can not break the law!!!

Gasboy wrote on Mar 22, 2006 2:21 PM:Wow Kirkland, not sure if your spelling or intelligence is more astounding. Think you need to look over your research again. You are wrong on all points, medically and constitutionally.

Fools wrote on Mar 22, 2006 4:07 PM:Fire those self-serving supervisors. Kirkland, do some research will you? How rediculous you sound, very, very, ignorant about everything you wrote. Wake up!! Good for the state. Too bad they have to do the job of our supervisors. Our supervisors are supposed to be upholding the laws their voters elected them to do. The ones we voted on, not spend our money against "we the people"! After 10 years they don't even understand enough to help seriously sick people. It is about time then, to just decriminalize this herb outright and let people decide for themselves. What's the death rate for overdose on marijuana? Zero. Can they say that for morphine or anyother "legal" drugs? It's all about profits, for pharms as well as law enforcement funding. Catch the real criminals will you? Not enough profit in that?

some guy wrote on Mar 22, 2006 4:25 PM:check your facts kirkland. you just spewed more ignorance in one paragraph than i thought possible.

Non-smoker wrote on Mar 22, 2006 6:06 PM:Let's face it, a majority of the people who support legalized marijuana use are not so much advocates of the ill, but rather, advocates of their own ability to get high smoking dope. They're pro-smoking and are not actually on the bandwagon of the true medicinal use of the drug itself. These people are hypocrites. I support treating Marijuana as a normal drug. Let the medical community determine the appropriate usage of the drug and what form is most appropriate such as THC pills. Let the dopers stay out of the debate - they're only clouding the issue for their own desire to get high. If the majority of the legitimate medical community supports legalizing the true medicinal use of the drug, then I support that too but that doesn't mean it should be legalized for the routine doper trying to get high. There's no way that inhaling unfiltered (or filtered for that matter) smoke into the lungs of a drug that alters the brain chemistry (the only reason the dopers smoke the drug) is healthy for someone. It's true that cigarettes and alcohol aren't healthy either but that doesn't justify legalizing another harmful drug for the masses. This should probably be legalized in the proper form as a prescription drug for those whom it would benefit but it shouldn't be legalized for the doper.

West house wrote on Mar 22, 2006 6:07 PM:I hate to have to spell out the obivious to all the reefer heads, but pot isn't going to be legalized. No way, no how. Keep dreaming those smoke-filled dreams. Just like the dream of a flat tax, and doing away with the irs, it's just not going to happen. Why, you ask in your stoney haze? Because of the huge bureaucracies that won't allow it. Our system is not that flexible. These bureaucracies are powerful, and they will defend themselves.

Prohibition wrote on Mar 22, 2006 7:06 PM:Hey WestHouse.....have you ever heard of prohibition? People like you said the same thing about alcohol. Duh... How about women voting? Slavery? Hello, history if full of ignorant people such as yourself trying to suppress human rights. Laws do change, it's ignorance that needs to be overcome. Educate yourself; first take off the blinders. Not everyone that uses marijuana are "reefer-heads", "stony hazed" or living in "smoke-filled dreams". You need to stop having flashback's to the 60's and understand the science of today. Our Supervisors lead the way of backward, ignorant thinking. Of course a few will follow that are sheep... They should all be replaced with enlightened people, that understand whom they represent. It's not about their personal dislikes of laws people vote in. Great job by the state on this one!

John wrote on Mar 22, 2006 7:09 PM:Marijuana users are in about the same place gays were 50 years ago. It may take another half century - but marijuana prohibition and the persecution of users will end. Inhumane policies eventually collapse on themselves. What I find amazing is the level of ignorance, and outright hatred of people who have chosen an intoxicant that is clearly safer and less toxic than alcohol. A phobia of euphoria. Why?

Robert H. Madden wrote on Mar 23, 2006 1:40 PM:If Federal law, differs from State Law on the Majijuana issue, then that issue must be solved ASAP by the law makers of legislature, congress, and the poli- ticians or through our judicial system. They have a job to do, Get To Work.

West house wrote on Mar 23, 2006 5:28 PM:Hey Prohibition, you mention three examples. Slavery (ended 1865). Women's suffrage (ended 1920). Prohibition (ended 1933). It's a different country now. The US population in 1930 was 123 million. It is now 300m. Keep your roach clips crossed, you will need to.

mrgreen wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:29 AM:why should we use a man made thc pill when you have a plant that god made for us to use that is complety safe I have never done another drug no pills no myth no crack no nothing but a plant-

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, email addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.

Submit Comment[-]

(optional)
   

Advertisement

Videos