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.
Then why not revoke the laws against it?
In CA you get at most a ticket for that, but the law is there to reduce use of the drug.
Why is it any more the government's business to coercively reduce use of marijuana than to reduce use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, saturated fats, etc?
Its obvious that you did not read the article. Had you done so, you would have found the following information:
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.
--and--
Once the recommendation was verified, the District Attorney's Office dismissed criminal charges. But police would not return the pot or the pipe.
So, if its that important to you, why don't you go ask the Judge or the District Attorney for the name of the doctor.
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?
Isn't that the newspaper reporter's job?
Oh well Dan, I guess you give all reporters the benefit of the doubt and that you don't think that they have a liberal bias. Uh Uh, no bias at all here.
None of that answers my question: Why is it any more the government's business to coercively reduce use of marijuana than to reduce use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, saturated fats, etc?
We don't want to approve of it, it is a crime.-Herbert Hoover, 1931.
Actually, one of the signs of a healthy free society is the ability to disapprove of something without neccesarily desiring that it be banned by law.
-Eric
Petroleum finances terrorism to at least as great a degree.
It has been established that illegal drugs are financing in part terrorists.Only because they are illegal. That has also been established. Banning something for which there is a demand only pushes it into a black market, where the most ruthless participants dominate the market.
It's not drugs that are "financing terrorism", it's the so-called "War On Drugs".
-Eric
The same is said about rape and murder. To disagree with Hoover on this issue would define yourself as lawless and an anarchist.
Beats me.
Do you have a link for the source(s)?
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309071550/html/index.html
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.