SAN BERNARDINO, SAN DIEGO COUNTIES PLAN COURT ACTION AGAINST STATE 
MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW

San Bernardino and San Diego counties will once again team up in 
court in a renewed attempt to overturn California's Medical Marijuana 
Program Act, county authorities said Tuesday.

The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors decided during the 
closed session of its weekly meeting to once again take up the case, 
this time before the state supreme court, according to Jodi Miller, a 
spokeswoman with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's department.

The board took the step "at the urging of the Sheriff in his capacity 
as the county's chief law enforcement and public safety official," 
according to county spokesman David Wert.

The counties have argued that the medical marijuana program violates 
federal law and the state constitution.

Federal law lists marijuana as a dangerous narcotic with no medical 
use. San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod has said the medical 
marijuana program act creates ethical conflicts for his officers, who 
must also uphold federal law.

In 1996, California voters legalized marijuana as treatment for 
symptoms of illness such as cancer, glaucoma and chronic pain. Prop. 
215 won the approval of 56 percent of voters.

The counties are not seeking to overturn that initiative.

But the subsequent Medical Marijuana Program Act has placed local 
authorities in direct conflict with the federal Controlled Substances 
Act, lawyers of the counties have argued. The Program law created a 
system for counties to investigate applicants, issue user cards and 
maintain records.

San Bernardino County has not issued any user cards as the case has 
made its way through the courts. Since 2006 Riverside County has 
issued roughly 1,000 cards, including annual renewals.

In July, the state's 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego 
rejected the counties claim that federal statues pre-empted the 2003 
Program Act. In their 3-0 opinion, the appellate judges also turned 
away San Bernardino County's argument that the identification card 
provisions of the law violated California's constitution.