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.
I don't think it's as much a matter of laziness as paralysis. They're not too lazy to look, they're afraid of what they might find.
Again using Hillary "standards" to further your one issue(pot) Libertarian cause.
You Libertarians(just like Hillary) have no shame, IMHO.
Really? Huh, I guess you are on the McCain bandwagon of saying money in politics is bad and that the first amendment should be chucked.
Oh BTW, I know your next response is that GW signed McCains's Campaign Finance Reform, but IMO, I beleive the most vile part of that bill(ad bans) will be ruled unconstituional by the courts.
Again I state that your position that Soros(#1 Hillary friend) is just a minor "cog" in the pro-drug movement is maybe "naive" at best, but in truth, disingenuousness at it's worst. But what the hey, what else should I expect from the pot obsessed LP crowd.
Well gee, if being "afraid" of the the obvious Lbertarian naivete of your position(i.e drugs do no harm whatsoever,) is going to be condemned as being "lazy", then so be it.
Ayn Rand has deemed it so.
More crap from thin air. Show me where I have made that statement, or any statement to that effect.
Huh, I guess you asserting the crap from thin air is the LP position that basically states that drug legalization would make the US into a "shangri-la"
Yada, Yada, your next reply will say "Prove it!!!", when all one has to to do is look and read thouroughly the LP platform.
And I never seen you denounce the #1 moneybags to your pro-drug cause(Hillary friend #1, George Soros).
Oh well anyway you all are losing in the arena of ideas(i.e the beating the pro-drug intiatives took at the ballot box on November 5th, 2002).
I guess you all will be getting behind another smarmy and lying southern democrat(John Edwards) like you all did in 92, IMO.
And I don't intend to. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy not worth dignifying with a response. When and if you ever have a rational argument, I'll be more than happy to address it.
What "guilt by association". This a fact and the fact is that Geroge Soros(Hillary friend #1) is the main money backer of the pro-drug cause.
Neglect the facts all you want. Neville Chamberlain went down the same road and look what that gave the world.
It's a textbook example of guilt by association. There's plenty of socialist connections to be found on both sides of the issue. Anslinger was appointed by FDR. Our current policy is exactly in line with UN recommendations. The most repressive, socialist governments in existence have prohibitions on marijuana. And none of these are relevant to the issue of marijuana itself. Your insistence that all of these are irrelevant, but that George Soro's involvement is some kind of definitive smoking gun, and your inability to come up with any other arguments simply demonstrates how little you have to offer in the way of reasoned debate.
Again using Hillary "standards" to further your one issue(pot) Libertarian cause.Just because certain statists only choose to respond on one issue doesn't make us "one issue". >:)
-Eric
Why does Ashcroft bring the full weight of the federal government to bear against CA's medical marijuana laws, but allows their gun registration and confiscation programs to go unchallenged?
Wrong as usual.
I know your next response is that GW signed McCains's Campaign Finance Reform
Wrong yet again; I don't judge actions based on whether GW approved them---he is far from a lodestar of conservatism.
your position that Soros(#1 Hillary friend) is just a minor "cog" in the pro-drug movement
That is not my position. Battling straw men again---typical Drug Warrior.
Thanks! That's what I get for taking the word of a Drug Warrior.
And I never seen you denounce the #1 moneybags to your pro-drug cause(Hillary friend #1, George Soros).
One is intellectually obligated to support one's claims; one is not intellectually obligated to denounce the wrong ideas of people who happen to share one's right idea on a certain issue. Your squirming and dodging is quite pathetic.
For the record, I am firmly against 99% of what George Soros stands for. But I would no more oppose drug freedom because he supports it than I would stop breathing air because he breathes air.
I guess you all will be getting behind another smarmy and lying southern democrat(John Edwards) like you all did in 92
More baseless assertions. Provide evidence that any drug-freedom advocate supported the Democrat in 1992; I did not.
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.