Pubdate: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 Source: Oakland Tribune (CA) Copyright: 2001 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers Contact: http://www.mapinc.org/media/314 Website: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/ Author: Cecily Burt and Laura Counts; Josh Richman contributed to this report. Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California) DE LA FUENTE WOULD FURTHER LIMIT MEDICAL POT LAW Council Member Says Users Are Allowed Too Many Plants OAKLAND -- City Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente has made no secret he doesn't support Oakland's medical marijuana ordinance. Now he wants to drum up support to drastically reduce the number of plants patients are allowed to cultivate. Oakland's medical marijuana policy, adopted in June 1998, allows qualified patients and care givers to keep 11/2 pounds of pot -- considered a three-month supply. The policy is one of the most liberal in the state, and De La Fuente wants to bring it in line with other cities' laws, which allow patients to keep much lower supplies of marijuana. For example, Berkeley allows 10 plants and Mendocino allows 18. De La Fuente thinks the total number of immature and mature plants allowed by Oakland ordinance -- 144 -- is too high and should be reduced to 15. He plans to bring the issue to Council Rules Committee today to be scheduled for discussion at a later date. "I'm going to amend the ordinance to reduce the number of plants allowed," he said. "We have the highest number of plants that people are allowed to cultivate. It's a detriment to our community. I'm not going after the whole ordinance, just going to reduce the number of plants to 15 from 144. "I'm going to ask everyone how they are going to justify the 144 plants," he said. Mayor Jerry Brown on Wednesday declined to comment on De La Fuente's proposal, saying he didn't know the details. Councilmember Jane Brunner was the only elected official who returned calls regarding De La Fuente's plans Wednesday, and she said a limit of 15 plants was too low. A coalition of interests set Oakland's medical marijuana limit to begin with, she said, and if it needs to be changed, they should be the one to address it. "My mother lived with me the last year of her life at age of 91," Brunner said. "She never used (marijuana), but she had several friends who had cancer and marijuana was the only thing that killed the pain. "I am a supporter of medical marijuana," Brunner said. "Some need it, but those people who are in their 80s and 90s are not going to be growing it for themselves, they've never used drugs in their lives. So the (the limit on plants) needs to be high enough so other people can grow it and sell it to the club." Jeff Jones, founder of Oakland's Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, wasn't pleased to hear De La Fuente was trying to amend the ordinance, but he wasn't necessarily surprised because the council member didn't support it in 1998. He said Oakland's cannabis ordinance is not a shield for criminals, and De La Fuente is off the mark if he thinks the law handcuffs police when it comes to prosecuting others who are dealing pot. He said Oakland's policy and the cooperation between police and the cannabis club results in far fewer problems and lawsuits for the city to deal with. Jones said the amount of marijuana patients and care givers are allowed to have was determined by a working group set up by the city. It included representatives from the city, the police department and medical experts. "That was their conclusion," Jones said. "The alternative is to have no limit. The state law does not have limitations." State voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, to ensure that seriously ill people have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes. Cancer and AIDS patients use it to combat nausea and weight loss. Physicians prescribe it for symptoms of glaucoma, arthritis, multiple sclerosis and migraine headaches, and other chronic illnesses. But then-Attorney General Dan Lungren quickly moved to shut down several cannabis clubs in Northern California that provided medical marijuana to qualified patients, including the Oakland cooperative, saying the clubs violated federal narcotics laws. The U.S. Supreme Court in May unanimously ruled against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative's claim that medical necessity is a defense for breaking the federal ban on marijuana, so groups like the cooperative can be federally prosecuted for growing and distributing marijuana. Unwilling to admit defeat, medical marijuana advocates said the ruling deals only with federal law, not the state laws under which most marijuana cases are tried. The California Supreme Court in March accepted a Tuolumne County case which could decide whether Proposition 215 provides medical marijuana users with immunity from state prosecution, or just a defense once they're being prosecuted. The case could let the court contemplate standards on how many plants a patient can have before prosecutors can file felony cultivation charges. Meanwhile, a bill by state Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, would create a voluntary registry system with photo identification cards for patients cleared to possess and use marijuana. SB 187 also would require the state to develop science-based regulations on how much marijuana can be possessed for medicinal purposes, but wouldn't directly set such standards itself. The Senate passed it 23-8 June 6, and now it's pending before the Assembly Health Committee. Gov. Gray Davis this month said he'll wait for the bill to hit his desk before he takes a position on it, but although he respects the will of the voters regarding medical marijuana, he staunchly opposes drug use. When Vasconcellos introduced a similar plan in 1999, Davis signaled he'd veto it and it was withdrawn. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk