THE PROPOSITION 215 DILEMMA

By Jack W. Hook

The issue of California's Proposition 215 law has been hotly debated the
past several weeks.

A recent seizure of marijuana by the Drug Enforcement Administration in
Santa Cruz two weeks ago as well as the seizure of marijuana in San Diego
last week has been criticized by local public officials as well as a
minority of the public as extreme and picking on terminally ill patients.
The DEA is viewed by proponents of Proposition 215 as non-compassionate
people who target ill patients for investigation. This could not be further
from the truth.

In fact, the men and women of the DEA are very compassionate people who
dedicate their lives to identifying drug dealers and seizing drugs to make
our communities a safer place to live. Furthermore, the DEA does not target
drug users for investigation.

Proposition 215 raises several issues between state and federal government
that have raised questions in the public's mind. I would like to explain
DEA's perspective on Proposition 215.

Federal law is very clear; marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled
substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The DEA is mandated
to enforce the provisions of this and other federal laws relating to
controlled drugs for the public health and safety.

When marijuana is observed in the ordinary course of law enforcement
duties, the DEA is legally mandated to seize it. The DEA will continue to
enforce federal drug laws.

Proponents of Proposition 215 call marijuana medicine. This leads to a
major public misconception that marijuana is a safe and effective medicine.
In fact, the Institute of Medicine concluded, "if there is any future for
marijuana as medicine, it lies in its isolated components, the
cannabinoids," not in its smoked form. The California Medical Association
opposes the medicalization of cannabis unless and until there is objective
proof that such use is scientifically justifiable.

Many years ago, tetrahydracannabinol, or THC, the psychoactive ingredient
in marijuana, was proven to have some medical value. That is why the Food
and Drug Administration approved the drug under the trade name Marinol.
Marinol containing THC is available by prescription from a licensed
physician. Just as the medical community regulates morphine, rather than
recommending patients smoke opium, so Marinol seems the better choice for
ill persons, as opposed to smoking marijuana.

Proponents for medical marijuana have challenged the DEA's placement of
marijuana into Schedule I of the CSA in 1994, 2001 and 2002. In 1994, the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the
DEA's continued placement of marijuana in Schedule I. In 2001 the DEA's
research as well as the FDA advised that marijuana continued to meet the
criteria for placement in schedule I - that it is a drug with high
potential of abuse, and no proven medical value.

In 2002, in United States vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that marijuana has no accepted medical use under
federal law and stated that the CSA "reflects a determination that
marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the
confines of a government-approved research project)."

The United States has had for decades a proven protocol to research, test
and approve potential medicines for public consumption. This process is
overseen by the FDA with the intent of preserving public health and safety
of our citizens from harmful substances. This model has been replicated in
other countries. This country has never approved medicine by popular
referendum, and it is ill advised to do so now.

The City of San Diego recently created a task force to draft proposed law
enforcement guidelines regarding possession of medical marijuana. A recent
review of the draft guidelines leaves much to be desired. The draft fails
to provide comprehensive guidelines on who can proclaim themselves as a
"caregiver." According to the proposed guidelines, a "caregiver" is anyone
designated by a patient who has assumed responsibility for the housing or
health or safety of that person. Under these guidelines, a patient is able
to designate a convicted drug trafficker or worse yet a teen-ager to be
their "caregiver."

Once designated as a "caregiver," they are allowed to grow, possess and
distribute marijuana to the patient. The "caregiver" may have up to 12
patients and possess the maximum amount of marijuana for each patient
(three pounds of marijuana, 72 unharvested indoor marijuana plants and 20
outdoor marijuana plants). This totals 1,104 marijuana plants and 36 pounds
of marijuana. [*FALSE - the guidelines permit a maximum of 90 plants - DG]
This is allegedly a one-year supply for each patient.

I have never heard of patients receiving a one-year supply of any drug
without re-examination by a physician. A patient is a person who has
received a prescription for marijuana from a physician.

The guidelines do not preclude a teen-ager from receiving a prescription
for marijuana to relieve pain from symptoms ranging from headaches to
menstrual cramps. After providing a prescription to a "caregiver," the teen
is sold marijuana without a parent's knowledge.

The proposal to hand out City of San Diego Voluntary Medicinal Cannabis
Certification Program cards is an unwise course of action. With
unrestricted controls on "caregivers" and patients, this program becomes
nothing more than a state/city legalized drug distribution program. It is
questionable the voters had this in mind when voting for Proposition 215.

I urge the San Diego City Council to carefully review the law enforcement
guidelines regarding possession of medicinal cannabis and determine if the
lack of controls will open the floodgates of marijuana users to relocate to
San Diego.

As appropriately stated by a local prevention professional, "San Diego will
no longer be known as "America's Finest City," but rather, "America's
Highest City."