Pubdate: Mon, 22 Feb 2010
Source: Record Searchlight (Redding, CA)
Copyright: 2010 Record Searchlight
Contact:  http://www.redding.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/360
Author: Doug Bennett
Note: Doug Bennett is a representative of the Shasta-Tehama-Trinity 
Chapter of the ACLU of Northern California. He lives in Redding.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/source/Record+Searchlight
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?253 (Cannabis - Medicinal - U.S.)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Proposition+215

DRUG WAR MENTALITY STILL RULES

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amended or repealed except by another vote of the people of California.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."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake