Unfazed by three consecutive legal defeats, the California counties of San Bernardino and San Diego last week asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their legal challenge to the state’s 12-year-old medical marijuana law. The 47-page petition – drafted on the public’s dime – is a last ditch effort by the two embattled counties to continue their policy of arresting medical marijuana patients even when the patients are in full compliance with state law.

Their reasoning? Well, all marijuana is illegal under federal law and states do not have the authority to set their own marijuana policies – according to these two rogue counties anyway. Never mind the fact that not a single judge has sided with the counties and that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently denied review of another California ruling which held that local police should enforce state – not federal – law.

This ongoing lawsuit is clearly unpopular with California voters, who overwhelmingly support medical marijuana access. Indeed, scores of citizens have pled with both county boards of supervisors urging them to drop the challenge over the years, and 78% of San Diego voters thought the lawsuit was a waste of money before it was even filed. But these local politicians have apparently determined that fighting this uphill battle is a wise use of public funds, regardless of California’s unprecedented budget crisis.

It does look like the San Bernardino supervisors might be becoming wary of defending their legal challenge, as it appears they violated California’s open meetings law in order to avoid explaining themselves to the public.

San Bernardino's supervisors are no strangers to controversy. In fact, former supervisor and outspoken opponent of medical marijuana Bill Postmus is currently facing charges for methamphetamine possession.

Oh, the irony!

Join Nydia as she answers your questions about marijuana.

Do you have questions about marijuana? E-mail them to SocialNetwork@mpp.org with the subject line "Ask Nydia" and we'll film an answer.

Have you signed up for our free national alerts? Visit www.mpp.org/subscribe to sign up!

Dear President Obama:

Like millions of Americans, I choked up watching you take office Tuesday. And like hundreds of millions -- maybe billions -- around the world, I watched and listened to your inaugural address, riveted by the moment.

One line jumped out at me: "We will extend a hand," you said, "if you are willing to unclench your fist." Your words were directed at hostile governments around the world, but they also embody how hundreds of thousands of suffering Americans view their own government.

I'm speaking of people like my old friend Phil Alden in California and Rhonda O'Donnell in Rhode Island -- people who, with the recommendation of their doctor and the approval of their state governments -- have found that medical marijuana helps them cope with life-threatening illness. In Phil's case the illness is AIDS. In Rhonda's, it's multiple sclerosis.

Phil and Rhonda and hundreds of thousands like them live in daily fear of our government. They and any who help them obtain medical marijuana face the risk of federal arrest and prosecution for simply trying to live, for simply trying to maintain some dignity in the face of terrible illness.

You promised during the campaign to end our government's insane war on the sick, and you were right to do so. Now that you are president, let our own government be the first to unclench its fist.

Thank you.

Join Nydia as she answers this week's question: How can I help end the war on marijuana users? Do you have a question about marijuana? E-mail it to SocialNetwork@mpp.org with the subject line "Ask Nydia."

Have you subscribed to our free national alerts? We'll keep you updated on the latest-breaking marijuana-related news nationwide. Check it out: www.mpp.org/subscribe

You wouldn't know it from their Web site, but it turns out the White House drug czar's office is legally required to provide the public with facts that are, well, factual. Under the Data Quality act, all government agencies, including the Office of National Drug Control Policy, are responsible for "ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information."

You could print out the material on ONDCP's site, throw a dart at the printout, and probably hit an assertion that's at least suspect. We picked one we found particularly egregious – the demonstrably false title of the drug czar's publication, "Marijuana: The Greatest Cause of Illegal Drug Abuse."

On Oct. 16, 2008, my colleague, Nathan Miller, an attorney here, filed a petition calling on the drug czar to correct the title, which obviously refers to the long discredited "gateway theory" fantasy (see Question 6).

On Dec. 28, the drug czar's chief scientist, David Murray (who isn't a scientist, by the way -- his degree is in anthropology) responded, but didn't really address the substance of the claim. His letter is pretty short and straightforward if you want to look at it, but basically he made two bizarre arguments: 1) that titles are inherently statements of opinion or policy and therefore not subject to DQA standards, and 2) that the word "cause" shouldn't be read to refer to the gateway theory.

Nathan responded last week, pointing out that Murray had failed to adequately address the underlying falsehood as he is legally required to do. We'll see how that goes.

Voting on change.org’s “Ideas for Change in America” came to a close today with “Legalize the Medical and Recreational Use of Marijuana” coming in as the most popular idea. The top ten ideas will be presented to President-elect Obama during a press conference on Friday.

Change.gov, Obama’s official transition Web site, has twice opened up voting in a similar feature called “Open for Questions.” Each time, a question about marijuana policy reached the top ten. And each time, the transition team brushed off the question by simply stating that "President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.” It will be interesting to see how he responds this time, as the question includes medical marijuana, something Obama has been fairly supportive of in the past.

As of 5:00 p.m. today, the marijuana policy question had received 19,530 votes – 4,500 more than “Appoint Secretary of Peace in Department of Peace and Non-Violence,” which came in second on the list.

In addition, change.gov has opened voting in a new online forum called the “Citizen’s Briefing Book.” “Ending Marijuana Prohibition” is currently the most popular idea.

Join Nydia as she answers this week's question: Does marijuana affect brain performance? Don't forget to subscribe to our alerts!

I must not be high enough to understand what exactly the point is of this latest ad from the drug czar's office -- the behaviors depicted in it seem typical for lots of teenagers, straight or stoned. Still, I'm happy to help them get their message out, whatever it is. Feel free to use the comments section and give me your own interpretations.

This week, the U.S. Department of Justice announced penalties against the Rite Aid drugstore chain for a variety of violations of the Controlled Substances Act. These included having "knowingly filled prescriptions for controlled substances that were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose" and failing to account for shortages or surpluses "of the most highly abused drugs, including oxycodone and hydrocodone products."

For these rather serious offenses involving highly addictive narcotics, Rite Aid Corporation will pay $5 million in fines. No one will go to jail or get a criminal record.

In comparison, California medical marijuana dispensary owner Charles Lynch, who scrupulously followed state and local laws to provide medicine to legitimate patients, is facing 100 years in federal prison. Unlike Rite Aid, Lynch is being treated like a dangerous drug dealer -- when he is manifestly nothing of the sort. Reason magazine has been following the case closely, and produced a compelling video available on this page. Lynch's request for a new trial was rejected earlier this month, and he now faces sentencing Feb. 23.

    The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has rejected the decision of Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner and blocked a medical marijuana research project at the University of Massachusetts Amherst -- a project considered vital if marijuana is ever to be an FDA-approved medicine. The DEA's ruling, dated Jan. 7, was only released today.

    MPP and other supporters of research reacted with outrage. "It's no surprise that an administration that has rejected science again and again has, as one of its final acts, blocked a critical research project," said Aaron Houston, MPP's director of government relations. "With the new administration publicly committed to respecting scientific research and valuing data over dogma, this final act of desperation isn't surprising, but the true victims are the millions of patients who might benefit."

    Professor Lyle Craker had applied for permission to cultivate marijuana for use in medical research. At present, marijuana for research can only be obtained through the National Institute on Drug Abuse -- a government monopoly that does not exist for any other Schedule I drug. Because NIDA's marijuana is of notoriously poor quality and has only been inconsistently available to researchers, scientists and advocates consider Dr. Craker's project essential to the advancement of medical marijuana research.

    The long and difficult process of seeking approval culminated on Feb. 12, 2007, in a ruling by Judge Bittner that Craker should be allowed to proceed. But such administrative law judge rulings are not binding on the DEA. In the nearly two years since the ruling, several small, pilot studies have shown marijuana to safely and effectively relieve nerve pain that afflicts millions suffering from HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis and other conditions, making more advanced research -- including strains custom-tailored for various conditions, which was one of the goals of Craker and his colleagues -- vital.

    "Once again, science has taken a back seat to ideology in the Bush administration, with research that could benefit millions needlessly stalled," Houston said. "They can delay progress, but they cannot stop it."