Posted on 01/06/2003 9:53:14 AM PST by MrLeRoy
Donovan No Runner walked out of the San Luis Obispo Police station all smiles Friday, holding the bag of marijuana authorities had returned to him.
A local Superior Court judge had ordered the city to return the marijuana it confiscated from No Runner last summer, ruling the 23-year-old Grover Beach man had a valid doctor's recommendation.
But police were concerned that handing the pot over to No Runner would violate a federal law prohibiting the distribution of controlled substances.
As a result, the City Council considered appealing the court's ruling during a last-minute meeting Friday, but instead it decided to give up the fight.
"The city is an agency of the state, and we're following state law and a court order," Interim City Attorney Gil Trujillo said.
Shortly after the city decided not to appeal the case, No Runner went to the police station, where his 8.4 gram bag of marijuana was returned -- still in good condition.
While smoking marijuana is illegal under federal law, California's Proposition 215 makes it legal for those with a doctor's recommendation.
"For the time being, people are protected under state law, not under federal law," said Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates the decriminalization of marijuana use.
While state voters legalized medicinal marijuana, law enforcement can still confiscate pot until it is proven that a doctor's recommendation is legitimate.
No Runner's difficulty arose because state law does not specify what is supposed to happen to medicinal marijuana once confiscated.
In court last month, No Runner's attorney, Lou Koory, cited an Oregon case in arguing that police are immune from federal prosecution, though no such case exists in California.
Trujillo said that ultimately, the issue will be resolved in a higher court.
With no clear guidelines for such a case in the state, No Runner's case could have become a precedent on appeal.
But the city also decided it was not feasible to pay attorneys' fees at a time when it is experiencing a $5 million deficit.
Koory said he and his client were ready to fight the issue if an appeal had been sought.
"We're just happy that common sense prevailed," he said.
No Runner said his doctor recommended marijuana to combat the effects of bipolar disorder.
He was lighting a water pipe near SLO Brewing Co., between a trash can and a tree, when he was stopped by a police officer in August.
No Runner told the officer he had a doctor's recommendation, but he was cited anyway, and his marijuana was taken.
Once the recommendation was verified, the District Attorney's Office dismissed criminal charges. But police would not return the pot or the pipe.
Last month, Superior Court Judge Barry LaBarbera, intending to set a local precedent, said the police had to return the marijuana within 30 days.
Koory said the police could have faced a contempt of court charge had they not returned the pot by Friday's deadline.
Despite the difficulty in getting his pot returned, No Runner said he wanted to set an example for others who need medicinal marijuana -- particularly those who have greater needs than he does.
"I'm glad this happened to me," he said. "I'm physically able to fight this."
Without a clear guideline, he said, police could confiscate marijuana merely to keep legitimate users from smoking it.
"They can't just go around taking medication from sick people," he said.
Do your own research, and post your own proof. Don't throw out some crap you pulled out of thin air, and then expect that everyone should accept it at face value until it's proven wrong. The gun grabbers and environmentalists want that kind of deal too, and I won't give it to them, so don't feel picked on.
And well golly gee you stated in your reply #125 the LP myth that the whole GOP is for drug validation. When shown otherwise you get indignant.
Why am I not surprised.
What crap? Sheesh you must live in a sheltered world where all pot smokers read Ayn Rand and actually know who Milton Friedman is.
Sorry to break the Earth shattering news to you, but the great majority of pot smokers are liberal, Ralph Nader worshipping, greenie whackos.
Prove me otherwise. And no an informal poll of who owns a tie-dye t-shirt on FR does not count.
Prove me otherwise. And no an informal poll of who owns a tie-dye t-shirt on FR does not count.
Doesn't work that way. You make the claims, you back 'em up. Don't expect everyone else to do your work for you.
I guess you mean this type of selective lying.
Have you noticed that the major voices advocating decrimminalization come from the GOP (and conservatives in general), and not the Rats(Rye reply #125)
Too bad you omitted such "staunch conservatives" such as Barney Frank, Ralph Nader, and Hillary friend George Soros(who is the main moneybags for the pro-drug cause).
Oh BTW, it seems the liberals, especially Hillary friend, Soros, are the ones who put their money where their mouth is(i.e funding pro-drug causes).
But what they hey that doesn't matter to you when there is an issue to distort.
Huh, wouldn't the "major voices" be those who give money to the cause, the cause being validating drugs.
The one person who has been most proficient in giving money to the pro-drug cause has been good Hillary friend, George Soros.
Oh well if you think that a person, Bill Buckley, writing a couple of columns, read by maybe 1% of the electorate, is equal to Hillary friend Goerge Soros giving millions of dollars to the pro-drug cause, then so be it, although I question your sense of political proportion.
You are also practicing the politics of pro-drug addiction.By the same standards it could be said that alcohol distributors "cost and hurt the public". Or the tobacco companies. Or McDonald's.
We all know it costs and hurt the public to use, sell or distribite illegal drugs.
To suggest it goes away if legalized is as currupt to me as if you suggest we legalize rape
The debate is not over if drugs are good. The debate is over whether or not its more damaging to ban them than allow them. We already know this is the case with alcohol.
-Eric
I bet you took an oath to the Constitution, Gil.
Yes, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. He did the constitutional thing.
What makes you think he changed his name? I assumed it was a Native American name.
Nonresponsive. You suggested that "illegal drugs are financing in part terrorists" was a good reason for drugs to be illegal; by the same logic, "petroleum are financing in part terrorists" must be a good reason for petroleum to be illegal
OK, thanks for telling us you don't pay taxes I guess.
It's the GOVERNMENT taking our tax money, not the USERS.
Buying tanzanite is more likely to provide money to Al-Quaida than buying marijuana.
No, "major voices" are those recognized and respected by the public. The names on Rye's list are far ahead of Soros (or Frank) in that regard.
These Drug Warriors are a lazy lot, aren't they? Think it's from too much booze?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.