UP IN SMOKE

California Still Lacks Coherent Standards On Medical Marijuana

In the aftermath of a second major defeat, it's no susprise that Sonoma
County District Attorney Mike Mullins will reconsider his judgments about
medical marjuana cases.

After seven weeks of testimony, a jury on Thursday took less than five
hours to acquit two Petaluma men. It doesn't make sense to continue to
spend taxpayers' money on the opportunity to suffer embarrassing defeats.
The quick verdict could only be interpreted as an unqualified endorsement
of the defense's assertion that the marijuana was being grown to provide
relief for people who are sick.

Until now, Mullins has said such cases should be prosecuted because the
state's current medical marijuana law is vague and leaves basic issue
unresolved.

While the 1996 initiative, Proposition 215, suffers from legislative
negligence, it doesn't necessarily follow that the prosecution can persuade
a jury that the facts of a specific case justify a conviction.

Plus, the actions of Deputy District Attorney Carla Claeys added fodder to
critics' claim that the DA's office can't control its biases in medical
marijuana cases.

After the verdict, Mullins acknowledged that during the trial, Claeys went
to a shooting range and fired at silhouette targets with the names of two
defense attorneys written on them.

Mullins said Claeys characterized the target practice as a joke. But
there's a difference. Jokes are supposed to be funny, not reprehensible.

What this case demonstrates -- again -- is that California needs coherent,
statewide standards for medical marijuana -- rules that guarantee that sick
people are helped without giving license to people who merely want to sell
dope for fun and profit.

Unfortunately, as often happens, the state Legislature has failed to
fulfill its responsibilities.

So, it may fall to Attorney General Bill Lockyer to pull together
prosecutors, Proposition 215 advocates and others to fashion standards that
are consistent and enforceable.