SUPERVISORS SUE STATE OVER MEDICAL POT LAW

SAN DIEGO - Rather than wait to be sued for refusing to follow state
medical marijuana laws, the county Board of Supervisors is going to
force the issue by suing the state first.

The supervisors voted in closed session Tuesday to challenge the law
that requires counties to provide identification cards to medical
marijuana users exempting them from criminal prosecution.

"The focus is on whether or not the state mandate is legal" County
Counsel John Sansone said after the meeting. "The argument would be
that the state legislation is pre-empted by federal law."

The dispute is over Proposition 215, passed by the voters in 1996,
and a follow-up measure by the state Senate in 2003. The laws permit
users of medical marijuana to show identification cards that would
keep them from being prosecuted under state laws.

The cards would not, however, protect people from federal
prosecution. Federal authorities have made it clear that U.S. drug
laws prohibiting possession, distribution and use of marijuana will
be enforced regardless of California's laws.

Last week the supervisors, voting 3-2, refused to act on the state's
requirement that counties establish an ID card program and maintain a
registry of those who voluntarily apply for the cards. By so doing,
San Diego became the first and so far only county in the state to
refuse to comply with the program.

Supervisors Pam Slater-Price, Bill Horn and Dianne Jacob said at the
time that they thought it was necessary to take a stand against drugs.

Supervisors Greg Cox and Ron Roberts cited the county counsel's
warning that refusal to follow state law would almost certainly
result in costly litigation.

Medical marijuana advocates almost immediately threatened to sue.

"In voting to defy the state, the county has rejected the will of the
California people," said Laurie Kallonakis president of the San Diego
chapter of NORML - the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws - at Tuesday's board meeting. The supervisors'
actions, she said. "regrettably would force us to bring a class
action lawsuit to compel compliance."

"Their position is fairly simple and straightforward," said the
group's attorney, James Bentson. "They think the county should follow
state law."

After learning of the supervisors' decision to sue the state, Bentson
said he probably will advise his clients to hold off on filing suit,
and instead intervene in the county's case against the state.

The supervisors voted 4-0 to sue, with Roberts absent. Sansone said
the lawsuit probably will be filed within a month.

"Rather than simply not following the law, the board has decided to
initiate an action to have a court decide," Sansone said. "To me,
that seems the responsible thing to do."

"This allows the board to have the county take the initiative and
challenge a law they believe is not valid," he said.

County Supervisor Dianne Jacob called the decision "exactly the right
prescription to cure Sacramento of its illegal mandate."

"In my eyes and in the eyes of the federal government, medical
marijuana is against the law. The county will not roll over and allow
the state to force us to break the law," Jacob said.

The other supervisors declined to comment on the measure.

Before voting Tuesday, the supervisors heard from medical marijuana activists.

"Your position and actions conflict with your sworn oath to uphold
the California constitution," said Barbara MacKenzie. "Your refusal
to implement this program harms patients and leaves the community confused."

Richard Hertz said the county's stance angered him. "You have said
this is a bad law," Hertz said. "You don't get to decide that.

"I say if you get sued for your personal opinions, you get to pay for
it. Don't waste our time and money."

Since the matter was not on the public portion of the supervisors'
agenda Tuesday, they did not discuss it in public. However,
Slater-Price did remark to one of the speakers, "It would be a lot
easier if we had the federal law on our side."