Pubdate: Wed, 31 Jul 2013
Source: East Bay Express (CA)
Column: Legalization Nation
Copyright: 2013 East Bay Express
Contact: http://posting.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/SubmitLetter/Page
Website: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1131
Author: David Downs

BABY STEPS FOR WEED

The painfully slow evolution of California medical marijuana law.

Last week, the California Democratic Party took the historic step of 
endorsing statewide regulations for medical cannabis. Such 
regulations, however, are not going to happen this year, experts say. 
But this summer, a separate bill, SB 439, could represent yet another 
baby step toward regulation, thereby exemplifying the Golden State's 
painful, decades-long evolution of medical cannabis law.

Authored by State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, SB 439 
builds on past law and court rulings by explicitly legalizing cash 
sales of medical cannabis at dispensaries. The bill also would clear 
up a persistent legal gray area that allows police in places like Los 
Angeles and San Diego to imprison citizens for the same activities - 
dispensary sales - that are fully permitted in Oakland, Berkeley, 
Richmond, and other cities that regulate dispensaries.

SB 439 would also further clarify the rules of the road for 
California dispensaries that had been spelled out previously by 
then-Attorney General Jerry Brown in 2008. But Brown's "Guidelines 
for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical 
Use" are just that - guidelines - and do not have the force of law. 
Dispensaries don't always to follow them, and those that do can still 
be imprisoned by anti-marijuana cops and prosecutors.

SB 439 passed the Assembly Public Safety committee on June 27, and 
awaits the Assembly Health committee when lawmakers return from their 
summer recess next week. We think now would be a great time to look 
back at how California got here:

California medical marijuana law wasn't fully formed at birth. It 
started out being vague because proponents and opponents couldn't 
agree on very much at the polls, or in the legislature. So, over the 
past seventeen years, judges and politicians have shaped medical 
marijuana law, one case and one bill at a time. After consulting with 
several lawyers, we present this timeline of highlights in the 
evolution of California's medical cannabis rules.

The Vague Beginning. 1996 - Proposition 215: The Compassionate Use 
Act empowered doctors to recommend cannabis for any condition for 
which it provides relief; granted qualified patients a medical 
defense in court against charges of marijuana possession, 
cultivation, and transportation; and permitted patients and 
caregivers to possess, cultivate, and transport any amount of 
cannabis reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs.

Trial Rights. 2002 - California Supreme Court, People v. Mower: 
clarified that patients can introduce a medical marijuana defense 
before trial through presentation of minimal amounts of evidence.

Doctor Protection. 2002 - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, Conant v. 
Walters: affirmed doctors' First Amendment right to recommend medical 
cannabis to their patients without fear of criminal prosecution.

Collectives and Cooperatives. 2003 - SB 420: The Medical Marijuana 
Program Act expanded legal defenses for patients and caregivers to 
include collectives and cooperatives of patients and caregivers who 
are collectively growing and distributing the plant. The MMPA also 
created a statewide medical marijuana identification card program 
that immunizes cardholders from arrest.

Dispensaries Okay. 2005 - California appellate court, People v. 
Urziceanu: validated that collectives can operate commercial 
storefronts called "dispensaries," sell medical marijuana to 
patients, and have legal defenses in court.

Feds Still the Boss. 2005 - US Supreme Court, Gonzales v. Raich: 
clarified that the federal government has authority under the US 
Constitution's Commerce Clause to enforce federal laws criminalizing 
marijuana, even where medical cannabis is legal under state law.

Toothless Guidelines. 2008 - California Attorney General's 
Guidelines: recommended that collectives and cooperatives 
incorporate, pay taxes, and operate as nonprofits and set personal 
possession limits at eight ounces and twelve immature plants, unless 
a doctors says a patient needs more.

No Right to Employment. 2008 - California Supreme Court, Ross v. 
Raging Wire: clarified that employers can fire medical marijuana 
patients solely for lawfully using the drug off-hours as recommended 
by their physician.

Anti-MMJ Counties Can't Opt Out. 2008 - California appellate court, 
County of San Diego v. NORML: clarified that state employees are 
controlled by California law, not federal law; and counties must 
implement the state medical marijuana identification card program, 
effectively immunizing patients from arrest under state law.

Lawful Patients Can Sue. 2009  California appellate court, County of 
Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County: clarified that patients can 
sue cities and counties for unlawfully eradicating and seizing their 
medical cannabis.

No Limits with Doctor's Note. 2010 - California Supreme Court, People 
v. Kelly: clarified that patients can possess, transport, and 
cultivate any amount of medical cannabis as long as its reasonably 
related to their current medical needs regardless of MMPA guidelines.

Schools Buffer. 2010 - Assembly Bill 2650: Specifically acknowledged 
dispensaries and regulated their location by mandating that they 
cannot be within six hundred feet of a school.

Dispensary Bans. 2011 - California appellate court, County of Los 
Angeles v Hill: affirmed that cities can regulate dispensaries 
through zoning, but not necessarily ban dispensaries.

Cash Sales Legal. 2012 - California appellate court, People v. 
Colvin: affirmed that cash payments at a dispensary are a legal way 
to participate in a collective or cooperative, and that patients 
needn't grow pot themselves.

Cities Can Ban Dispensaries. 2013 - California Supreme Court, City of 
Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center: ruled 
that California cities and counties can ban dispensaries using zoning 
and civil nuisance laws.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom