Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
CA: Recent articles and editorials in the Record Searchlight haven't shed much light on the roots of the problem or the view of medical marijuana patients in the current rush to get ordinances passed. I will try to do that here.
Medical marijuana was made legal in California by the Compassionate Use Act ( Proposition 215 ) in 1996. The intent of this law was to protect patients from prosecution under laws directed at illegal use of marijuana. While sale or possession under state and federal laws still remains illegal, other state laws and legal guidelines have been put in place to help law enforcement and other agencies discern the difference. SB 420, the Medical Marijuana Program, was put in place to codify and clarify the intent of the citizens of California by defining Proposition 215 as part of the state Health Code. Proposition 215 was passed by the vote of the people; it cannot be amended or repealed except by another vote of the people of California.
These laws have been tested many times over the past 14 years. Despite efforts of law enforcement and local governments to challenge them, they have largely been upheld.
In August 2008, the U.S. District Court, in Santa Cruz v. Mukasey, denied the federal government's motion to dismiss the case. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Kozinski said, "( By interfering with doctors ) ... the federal policy makes it impossible for the state to exempt the use of medical marijuana from the operation of its drug laws. In effect, the federal government is forcing the state to keep medical marijuana illegal." In response to this ruling, Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project said, "For the first time, a court has recognized that a calculated plan by the federal government to undercut state medical marijuana laws is patently unconstitutional." Subsequently, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum stating, "As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."
The continuation of the "Drug War" mentality by local law enforcement was rebuffed again in September by the California Supreme Court in the case of County of Butte v. Superior Court. This decision supported Judge Barbara Robert's ruling that patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." This ruling also reconfirmed the constitutional rights of patients and those that collectively grow for patients, and the right to sue local law enforcement for damages.
Most recently, the California Supreme Court in the case People v. Kelly determined that restrictions put in place by SB 420, which put limitations on amounts patients and caregivers ( growers ) can possess or cultivate, are not valid. This means that local laws that restrict those amounts are not valid either. This includes Redding's new ordinances and those being considered by Shasta County.
The Drug Law Reform Project ( DLRP ) of the ACLU has written two letters to the Redding City Council warning them of these areas in their law that conflict with current case law. The DLRP has also offered to work with their staff. Members of our local governments and law enforcement admit that creation and enforcement of the new ordinances are problematic.
Furthermore, the American Medical Association and the California Medical Association have asked the federal government to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug. Also, there is a proposition looming on the next ballot to legalize marijuana in California. Additionally, no one has demonstrated any real danger to local citizens ( i.e., marijuana is less dangerous to your health and less addictive than either alcohol or cigarettes ).
So the question is: If there is no real threat to anyone, what is the rush to put these laws in place - especially when they are likely to create injustice, lead to lawsuits and cost the taxpayers money? I have been asking this question of elected officials, their attorneys and law enforcement for a few months now. The closest I have gotten to an answer was the response of the Shasta County supervisors, who wisely put off new zoning laws and use permit requirements that would have put illegal limits and undue stress on patients, caregivers and collectives.
To many medical marijuana patients and objective observers like myself, it appears that the "Be afraid, be very afraid!" hyperbole and "Drug War" mentality has permeated the cultures of Redding City Hall and other local governments. Is there direct proof of this? I can't say. But I find myself in that quandary so aptly expressed in the Sherlock Holmes' quote, "When all other possibilities have been eliminated, the solution that remains, no matter how illogical, must be true."
NewsHawk: User: 420 Magazine - Cannabis Culture News & Reviews
Source: Record Searchlight (Redding, CA)
Copyright: 2010 Record Searchlight
Contact: letters@redding.com
Website: Redding Record Searchlight: Local Redding, California News Delivered Throughout the Day.
Author: Doug Bennett
Medical marijuana was made legal in California by the Compassionate Use Act ( Proposition 215 ) in 1996. The intent of this law was to protect patients from prosecution under laws directed at illegal use of marijuana. While sale or possession under state and federal laws still remains illegal, other state laws and legal guidelines have been put in place to help law enforcement and other agencies discern the difference. SB 420, the Medical Marijuana Program, was put in place to codify and clarify the intent of the citizens of California by defining Proposition 215 as part of the state Health Code. Proposition 215 was passed by the vote of the people; it cannot be amended or repealed except by another vote of the people of California.
These laws have been tested many times over the past 14 years. Despite efforts of law enforcement and local governments to challenge them, they have largely been upheld.
In August 2008, the U.S. District Court, in Santa Cruz v. Mukasey, denied the federal government's motion to dismiss the case. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Kozinski said, "( By interfering with doctors ) ... the federal policy makes it impossible for the state to exempt the use of medical marijuana from the operation of its drug laws. In effect, the federal government is forcing the state to keep medical marijuana illegal." In response to this ruling, Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project said, "For the first time, a court has recognized that a calculated plan by the federal government to undercut state medical marijuana laws is patently unconstitutional." Subsequently, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum stating, "As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."
The continuation of the "Drug War" mentality by local law enforcement was rebuffed again in September by the California Supreme Court in the case of County of Butte v. Superior Court. This decision supported Judge Barbara Robert's ruling that patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." This ruling also reconfirmed the constitutional rights of patients and those that collectively grow for patients, and the right to sue local law enforcement for damages.
Most recently, the California Supreme Court in the case People v. Kelly determined that restrictions put in place by SB 420, which put limitations on amounts patients and caregivers ( growers ) can possess or cultivate, are not valid. This means that local laws that restrict those amounts are not valid either. This includes Redding's new ordinances and those being considered by Shasta County.
The Drug Law Reform Project ( DLRP ) of the ACLU has written two letters to the Redding City Council warning them of these areas in their law that conflict with current case law. The DLRP has also offered to work with their staff. Members of our local governments and law enforcement admit that creation and enforcement of the new ordinances are problematic.
Furthermore, the American Medical Association and the California Medical Association have asked the federal government to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug. Also, there is a proposition looming on the next ballot to legalize marijuana in California. Additionally, no one has demonstrated any real danger to local citizens ( i.e., marijuana is less dangerous to your health and less addictive than either alcohol or cigarettes ).
So the question is: If there is no real threat to anyone, what is the rush to put these laws in place - especially when they are likely to create injustice, lead to lawsuits and cost the taxpayers money? I have been asking this question of elected officials, their attorneys and law enforcement for a few months now. The closest I have gotten to an answer was the response of the Shasta County supervisors, who wisely put off new zoning laws and use permit requirements that would have put illegal limits and undue stress on patients, caregivers and collectives.
To many medical marijuana patients and objective observers like myself, it appears that the "Be afraid, be very afraid!" hyperbole and "Drug War" mentality has permeated the cultures of Redding City Hall and other local governments. Is there direct proof of this? I can't say. But I find myself in that quandary so aptly expressed in the Sherlock Holmes' quote, "When all other possibilities have been eliminated, the solution that remains, no matter how illogical, must be true."
NewsHawk: User: 420 Magazine - Cannabis Culture News & Reviews
Source: Record Searchlight (Redding, CA)
Copyright: 2010 Record Searchlight
Contact: letters@redding.com
Website: Redding Record Searchlight: Local Redding, California News Delivered Throughout the Day.
Author: Doug Bennett
