The California Court of Appeal's terrific 3-0
ruling in the Felix Kha case demolishes  the
claims by Prop 215 opponents that federal law
bars local law officers from enforcing Prop 215
and returning patients' medicine: 
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G036250.PDF

    * The  court roundly rejects the notion that
local police are obliged to enforce federal drug
laws:  
>   It must be remembered it is not the job of the
>local police to enforce the federal drug laws as
>such.
>  For reasons we have explained, state courts can
>only reach conduct subject to federal law
>if such conduct also transcends state law, which
>in this case it does not.  To the contrary,
>Kha's conduct is actually sanctioned and made
>"noncriminal" under the CUA.  (People v.
>Mower, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 471.)     
>     That may cause a dilemma for local narcotics officers in some instances,
>but it strikes us as being an entirely
>manageable consequence of our federalist form of
>government.  By complying with the trial court's
>order, the Garden Grove police will
>actually be facilitating a primary principle of
>federalism, which is to allow the states to
innovate in areas bearing on the health and well-being of their citizens.

   Incidentally, the decision fixes a loophole in
SB 420 (the Medical Marijuana Program - MMP),
where Vehicle Code section 23222 (possession of
less than one oz of MJ in an automobile )was
accidentally  omitted from the list criminal
offenses from which Prop 215 patients are
protected:

>There is an additional, even more fundamental reason why qualified
>patients who are charged with violating Vehicle
>Code section 23222, subdivision (b)
>should be included within the ambit of the
>state's medical marijuana laws.  As Kha notes,
>that section prohibits driving with marijuana,
>"[e]xcept as authorized by law."  (Veh.
>Code, § 23222, subd. (b).)  Since the MMP
>allows the transportation of medical
>marijuana (§ 11362.765, subd. (b)(1); People v.
>Wright, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 93-94),
>the MMP effectively authorizes the conduct
>described in Vehicle Code section 23222,
>subdivision (b), when, as here, the conduct at
>issue is the transportation of a small amount
>of medical marijuana for personal use - conduct "authorized by law."
>

  
    * The court rejects the  myth that medical
marijuana contributes to a "marked increase in
violent crime",  as argued in the "Riverside
County District Attorney's Office White Paper,
Medical Marijuana."

>"Suffice it to say, there is nothing in
>the record of this particular case to indicate a
>link between medical marijuana - in
>Riverside or anywhere else - and violent crime in Garden Grove. "

  *  It  also absolves state officers of
accusations that they would be aiding or abetting
violation of federal law:

>Likewise here, holding the City or individual officers responsible for any
>violations of federal law that might ensue from
>the return of Kha's marijuana would
>appear to be beyond the scope of either conspiracy or aiding and abetting.

 Overall, a terrific vindication of patients' rights under Prop 215!
      - Dale Gieringer, Cal NORML
--
Dale Gieringer, Director - California NORML,
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114
-(415) 563- 5858 - www.canorml.org