Pubdate: Tue, 27 Dec 2011
Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA)
Copyright: 2011 Chico Enterprise-Record
Contact:  http://www.chicoer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/861
Note: Letters from newspaper's circulation area receive publishing priority

CLARIFY LAWS ON POT AS MEDICINE

Proposition 215, passed by voters in 1996, leaves too many things 
open to interpretation and needs to be clarified by the Legislature.

As the California Legislature gets back to work next week, there's no 
more important duty than addressing the state's budget crisis. A 
close second in terms of priorities should be medical marijuana.

While the budget is job one, the Legislature can't say it doesn't 
have time for clearing up the medical marijuana confusion at the same 
time. After all, the Legislature last year had the time to debate and 
pass new laws for 2012 about tanning beds, child safety seats, 
carrying handguns and a raft of new requirements for employers.

Certainly the Legislature can find the time to prioritize the mess 
that is medical marijuana.

California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996. It was billed as a 
compassionate way for dying patients to seek pain relief by using 
marijuana, an illegal drug. But the law was so poorly written that 
people who just wanted to legally get high took advantage.

Some of the unfortunate byproducts of Proposition 215 are marijuana 
plantations in the foothills attracting growers who are less than 
neighborly; medical marijuana dispensaries springing up in 
neighborhoods and retail districts; and people in cities with 
backyard marijuana gardens that stink and attract armed people who 
try to steal the crop.

Because the state has no clear guidelines, cities and counties are 
forced to come up with their own rules. It's a hodgepodge. One city 
will allow dispensaries while the next city does not. One city will 
allow backyard cultivation while the next city bans it.

One county allows five plants per person while another county allows 12.

Attorney General Kamala Harris, elected to the post last year with 
the support of marijuana advocates, has been meeting with local and 
state law enforcement, federal prosecutors and medical marijuana 
advocates, trying to clarify the confusion.

Her conclusion is that the Legislature needs to step in, which is 
something we've been saying all along. In a letter to legislative 
leaders last week, Harris said the Legislature needs to clarify what 
exactly is and isn't allowed. Think of it as a legislative amendment 
to Proposition 215.

"Without a substantive change to existing law," Harris writes, "these 
irreconcilable interpretations of the law, and the resulting 
uncertainty for law enforcement and seriously ill patients, will persist. ...

"I have come to recognize that non-binding guidelines will not solve 
our problems - state law itself needs to be reformed, simplified and 
improved to better explain to law enforcement and patients alike how, 
when and where individuals may cultivate and obtain 
physician-recommended marijuana."

While legislators are at it, we hope they clarify what qualifies as a 
medical marijuana recommendation. Investigation will show that 
recommendations are entirely too easy to get. They should require a 
visit to an M.D., an examination, a certification that a patient has 
a debilitating medical condition and perhaps even proof the doctor 
and patient have a relationship rather than just a one-time 
drive-through for a marijuana prescription.

The problems associated with a poorly written medical marijuana law 
touches every legislative district in the state. It's past time for 
the Legislature to clean up the mess.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom