T
The420Guy
Guest
LONG BEACH ... Spurred by last week's US Supreme Court ruling denouncing the
use of marijuana as medicine, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve
Cooley plans to release a uniform enforcement policy on a state law long
saddled with ambiguity and contention. Still in its draft stages, the
policy would "put everyone on the same page" regarding Proposition 215, a
1996 voter initiative that permits patients to grow and use marijuana with a
doctor's note, said Cooley spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons.
Although the Supreme Court ruling did not overturn Prop 215, it brought the
matter to a head in the judicial branch.
Prosecutors have discretion over which cases to file, and some have
struggled to interpret ambiguities in Prop 215.
At least two cases involving Prop 215 have been filed in Long Beach Superior
Court since April. One involves Marie Rutledge, a 53-year-old homeless woman
who has been treated for mental problems, and the second involves Joseph
Czuba, a 49-year-old with heart palpitations and stomach ulcers caused by
high-level stress, according to J. David Nick, a San Francisco attorney who
specializes in these cases.
Both allegedly were caught with plants as well as with dried marijuana, and
police and prosecutors said they believe the drug was being used for
nonmedicinal purposes in both instances. Nick said law enforcement was
thwarting the will of the people. "These ... clearly and unequivocably are
individuals who are using it for medical uses with a valid doctor's
recommendation," he said.
Some attorneys had hoped the May 22 Supreme Court ruling in US v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative would clarify some gray areas in state law,
such as how much marijuana is too much, what constitutes a legitimate
physician's recommendation and who can be considered a primary caregiver.
It didn't. Instead, the court put California on notice that the use of
marijuana violates federal law, without exception. Since county prosecutors
deal exclusively with state law, and only federal authorities can prosecute
federal laws, what effect the Supreme Court ruling will have on local cases
is questionable.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer makes clear that he still supports
Prop 215 and leaves enforcement squarely in the hands of county district
attorneys. Lockyer "has not issued a statewide mandate for guidelines,"
said Dave De Alba, his special assistant. "He has deferred to local
discretion."
And a Los Angeles spokesman with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
has said his office doesn't have the staff to go after small-time drug
users.
For now, said spokesman Jose Martinez, the DEA plans to stay focused on
major drug cases, such as those involving interstate commerce.
Since Prop 215 was passed as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, prosecutors
have been given little specific guidance on how to enforce it. "They were
instructed to basically follow the law," Gibbons said.
Prop 215 states that "patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and
use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician
are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction."
That doesn't mean, however, that "very, very large amounts" of marijuana are
simply ignored when a doctor's note is produced, Gibbons said. "We have
filed on cases where(defendants) claim that they were growing for medicinal
use but we felt otherwise."
Since experts hold varying opinions on how much marijuana is a suitable
amount given a certain medical condition and authorities sometimes make
judgment calls as to whether a person genuinely is sick, there have been no
hard and fast rules at a local level either, said Long Beach Deputy District
Attorney Karen Thorpe.
For the most part, Thorpe says, Long Beach looks at cases individually. For
instance, charges filed last summer against Long Beach medicinal-marijuana
activist David Zink, an arthritis sufferer who had been growing a pot garden
in his back yard, were later dismissed because of what Thorpe viewed as
ambiguities in the law.
The law is hardly clear-cut for police, either.
Detective Wayne Watson of the Long Beach Police Department's Narcotics
Detail said he becomes highly suspicious when people claim to be protected
under Prop 215 yet show no physical signs of medical necessity. "I'd have to
look at the person," he said. "That's going to give you a big clue right
there."
And the doctors' notes, which are often just photocopies of a form letter
containing little or no personal information, are rarely helpful, Watson
said. "Just because you got the form doesn't mean you got a
get-out-of-jail-free card," he said. "Some of this stuff is so
hokey-looking. ... I haven't come across (a doctor's note) that's legit
yet."
Thorpe said the notes are sometimes produced in mills that dole out medical
signatures in exchange for money. "Whether it's a medical use or a sham is
something we evaluate on a case-by-case basis."
But Deputy Public Defender Leslie Allenby, who represents Rutledge, finds
fault with Watson's views.
She maintains it should be physicians ... not police officers, attorneys or
judges... who decide matters of medicine. Plenty of illnesses for which
hemp is a recognized treatment ... such as chronic pain, glaucoma, arthritis
and migraines ... carry no physical signs, Allenby said.
"This (law) doesn't require that a police officer make a medical
determination in the field," she said. On the contrary, she said, "it
requires that police take seriously any doctors' note until proven
otherwise."
Allenby said Rutledge's case is the equivalent of arresting a dental patient
for taking codeine in a public restaurant and then throwing them in jail
without their pain medication. "A patient who is growing their own
medicine, with a doctor's permission, in their own home or in their own car
should not be subject to arrest" Allenby said.
Cooley's policy likely won't iron out all the law's technical complexities.
But a Prop 215 case called People vs. Mower is headed to the state Supreme
Court and could provide some needed clarification. Also, Senate Bill 187
aims to cut fraud by providing medical card registration to legitimate
marijuana patients through public health departments.
"We'll certainly know a heck of a lot more a year from now," De Alba said.
Newshawk: jcavana857
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Aug 2001
Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Press-Telegram.
Contact: crutch@ptconnect.infi.net
Website: PTdunrite - Back On Track To a Better Future - Therapy and Exercise
Details: MapInc
Author: Wendy Thomas Russell
use of marijuana as medicine, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve
Cooley plans to release a uniform enforcement policy on a state law long
saddled with ambiguity and contention. Still in its draft stages, the
policy would "put everyone on the same page" regarding Proposition 215, a
1996 voter initiative that permits patients to grow and use marijuana with a
doctor's note, said Cooley spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons.
Although the Supreme Court ruling did not overturn Prop 215, it brought the
matter to a head in the judicial branch.
Prosecutors have discretion over which cases to file, and some have
struggled to interpret ambiguities in Prop 215.
At least two cases involving Prop 215 have been filed in Long Beach Superior
Court since April. One involves Marie Rutledge, a 53-year-old homeless woman
who has been treated for mental problems, and the second involves Joseph
Czuba, a 49-year-old with heart palpitations and stomach ulcers caused by
high-level stress, according to J. David Nick, a San Francisco attorney who
specializes in these cases.
Both allegedly were caught with plants as well as with dried marijuana, and
police and prosecutors said they believe the drug was being used for
nonmedicinal purposes in both instances. Nick said law enforcement was
thwarting the will of the people. "These ... clearly and unequivocably are
individuals who are using it for medical uses with a valid doctor's
recommendation," he said.
Some attorneys had hoped the May 22 Supreme Court ruling in US v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative would clarify some gray areas in state law,
such as how much marijuana is too much, what constitutes a legitimate
physician's recommendation and who can be considered a primary caregiver.
It didn't. Instead, the court put California on notice that the use of
marijuana violates federal law, without exception. Since county prosecutors
deal exclusively with state law, and only federal authorities can prosecute
federal laws, what effect the Supreme Court ruling will have on local cases
is questionable.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer makes clear that he still supports
Prop 215 and leaves enforcement squarely in the hands of county district
attorneys. Lockyer "has not issued a statewide mandate for guidelines,"
said Dave De Alba, his special assistant. "He has deferred to local
discretion."
And a Los Angeles spokesman with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
has said his office doesn't have the staff to go after small-time drug
users.
For now, said spokesman Jose Martinez, the DEA plans to stay focused on
major drug cases, such as those involving interstate commerce.
Since Prop 215 was passed as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, prosecutors
have been given little specific guidance on how to enforce it. "They were
instructed to basically follow the law," Gibbons said.
Prop 215 states that "patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and
use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician
are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction."
That doesn't mean, however, that "very, very large amounts" of marijuana are
simply ignored when a doctor's note is produced, Gibbons said. "We have
filed on cases where(defendants) claim that they were growing for medicinal
use but we felt otherwise."
Since experts hold varying opinions on how much marijuana is a suitable
amount given a certain medical condition and authorities sometimes make
judgment calls as to whether a person genuinely is sick, there have been no
hard and fast rules at a local level either, said Long Beach Deputy District
Attorney Karen Thorpe.
For the most part, Thorpe says, Long Beach looks at cases individually. For
instance, charges filed last summer against Long Beach medicinal-marijuana
activist David Zink, an arthritis sufferer who had been growing a pot garden
in his back yard, were later dismissed because of what Thorpe viewed as
ambiguities in the law.
The law is hardly clear-cut for police, either.
Detective Wayne Watson of the Long Beach Police Department's Narcotics
Detail said he becomes highly suspicious when people claim to be protected
under Prop 215 yet show no physical signs of medical necessity. "I'd have to
look at the person," he said. "That's going to give you a big clue right
there."
And the doctors' notes, which are often just photocopies of a form letter
containing little or no personal information, are rarely helpful, Watson
said. "Just because you got the form doesn't mean you got a
get-out-of-jail-free card," he said. "Some of this stuff is so
hokey-looking. ... I haven't come across (a doctor's note) that's legit
yet."
Thorpe said the notes are sometimes produced in mills that dole out medical
signatures in exchange for money. "Whether it's a medical use or a sham is
something we evaluate on a case-by-case basis."
But Deputy Public Defender Leslie Allenby, who represents Rutledge, finds
fault with Watson's views.
She maintains it should be physicians ... not police officers, attorneys or
judges... who decide matters of medicine. Plenty of illnesses for which
hemp is a recognized treatment ... such as chronic pain, glaucoma, arthritis
and migraines ... carry no physical signs, Allenby said.
"This (law) doesn't require that a police officer make a medical
determination in the field," she said. On the contrary, she said, "it
requires that police take seriously any doctors' note until proven
otherwise."
Allenby said Rutledge's case is the equivalent of arresting a dental patient
for taking codeine in a public restaurant and then throwing them in jail
without their pain medication. "A patient who is growing their own
medicine, with a doctor's permission, in their own home or in their own car
should not be subject to arrest" Allenby said.
Cooley's policy likely won't iron out all the law's technical complexities.
But a Prop 215 case called People vs. Mower is headed to the state Supreme
Court and could provide some needed clarification. Also, Senate Bill 187
aims to cut fraud by providing medical card registration to legitimate
marijuana patients through public health departments.
"We'll certainly know a heck of a lot more a year from now," De Alba said.
Newshawk: jcavana857
Pubdate: Tue, 28 Aug 2001
Source: Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Press-Telegram.
Contact: crutch@ptconnect.infi.net
Website: PTdunrite - Back On Track To a Better Future - Therapy and Exercise
Details: MapInc
Author: Wendy Thomas Russell
