Pubdate: Mon, 22 Dec 2003
Source: Alameda Times-Star, The (CA)
Section: Opinion, Editorial
Copyright: 2003 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers
Contact: http://www.timesstar.com/Stories/0,1413,125%257E1524%257E,00.html
Website: http://www.timesstar.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/731
Author: Nathan Miley
Note: Nathan Miley is the Alameda County supervisor for District Four, Oakland.

WORKING TO MAKE MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS FIT WITH COMMUNITY'S NEEDS

AS author of Oakland's original medical cannabis ordinance, I would like 
to  share my thoughts about ways to serve all of our goals, including 
compassion and  public safety.

After California voters adopted Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing 
medical  cannabis through-

out the state, the city of Oakland showed great leadership by adopting 
standards to regulate medical cannabis to ensure safe access to patients 
in  need. By authorizing medical cannabis dispensaries, our city showed 
common sense -- keeping cannabis and patients off the streets and out of 
the cross hairs of  dangerous drug dealers.

Unfortunately, the federal government stopped the first licensed 
dispensary,  the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, almost immediately 
after it opened. The  dispensaries that have since opened are not at fault 
for the confusing situation  they are in. The Oakland City Council tried to 
enact sensible regulations, but  those who complied were persecuted by the 
federal government. I personally was called upon to testify in the now 
infamous Ed Rosenthal trial, where the jurors  were not allowed to hear my 
testimony that Rosenthal was providing medicine to  patients.

Some have suggested that Oakland should back away from our stance on 
this  issue. I think we should take pride in the fact that Oakland took a 
leadership  role for justice and compassion -- and that others are 
following our lead.

Recent history shows that Oakland's actions were the leading edge of a 
larger  wave. Eight additional states have passed laws authorizing the use 
of medical  cannabis. Dozens of dispensaries exist in other Bay Area 
cities. Recently, there  have been dramatic legal advances which only serve 
to confirm the justness of  Oakland's position.

The California Legislature has enacted SB420, a bill that helps protect 
the  right of medical cannabis patients. Even the U.S. Supreme Court got 
into the  act, rejecting a Bush administration request to prosecute doctors 
who recommend  medical cannabis.

We should continue to hope and advocate for a more sensible federal 
policy.  In the meantime, we should adopt interim regulations that make 
medical cannabis  safe and affordable for patients, while requiring 
sensible steps to regulate the  operation, such as ventilation requirements 
and providing security personnel.  Cannabis dispensaries should be approved 
or rejected on the basis of their compliance with these standards, and in 
response to any complaints.

It is important that patients have the option of consuming their 
medicine  on-site, both so they have an environment of mutual support to 
break down the  isolation that many patients experience due to their 
illnesses and in order to  prevent consumption in public. The medical 
cannabis providers are not the ones  who have put the City Council in a 
quandary. At recent hearings on the subject,  not one person spoke in 
opposition to the cannabis dispensaries. Those providing  a service 
authorized by the voters of our state should not be treated like  criminals 
- -- they are upholding the law. If Oakland has a quandary, it is caused  by 
the federal administration.

Let us enact sensible regulations to make sure that cannabis 
dispensaries  operate in a clean, safe, responsible manner and are good 
neighbors, and are  able to continue to contribute to the health and 
economic vitality of our  community.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman