FRESNO COUNTY PUSHED TO CONSIDER MEDICAL MARIJUANA CRITERIA

Jonathan Richter wants Fresno County to become the third government
body in the state to develop guidelines for cultivating and possessing
marijuana for medical purposes.

"Since Proposition 215 passed, people are being victimized by the
government," said Richter, director of the Fresno County Chapter of
the American Medical Marijuana Association, who will make his pitch to
the Board of Supervisors today.

In November 1996, state voters approved Prop. 215, which allows the
use of marijuana for medical purposes. However, specific criteria for
implementation of the ballot measure haven't been established in
jurisdictions across the state, and several legal challenges have been
mounted.

"Since the state, more than three years later, has failed to set up a
patient health system and say how much you can grow or have, there are
dozens of people who have had their lives turned upside down when they
thought they would be protected," said Richter, a Libertarian who said
he became involved in the issue because of the plight of people who
have been prosecuted since the law's passage.

The road to marijuana guidelines in Fresno County may be a lot more
rocky than in the cities of Arcata in Mendocino County or Oakland in
Alameda County. Each has passed a local ordinance regulating use of
marijuana for medical purposes.

"Proposition 215 implies certain things, but it doesn't cover certain
things," said Gary M. Carozza, director of the Fresno County
Department of Community Health. This is the county's first request for
such guidelines as far as he knows.

Carozza said the proposition, also called the Compassionate Use Act of
1996, was meant to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the
right to obtain and use marijuana for the treatment of cancer,
anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis,
migraine or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.

In his report to the board, Carozza said another purpose of Prop. 215
is to ensure that patients and their primary caregivers cannot be
criminally prosecuted or sanctioned. The proposition also asks federal
and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and
affordable distribution of marijuana to patients in medical need.

Although Prop. 215 allows for the cultivation and possession of
marijuana for patients with a doctor's recommendation, it fails to
provide specific language regarding the amount of marijuana that can
be cultivated or possessed and transported by the patient or the
patient's primary caregiver without violating state laws.

"It sounds like a very confusing problem," Carozza said. "Law
enforcement is in a real quandary because the city may or may not agree."

Carozza said the proposition appears to conflict with federal law that
prohibits the manufacture, distribution or possession of marijuana. It
also doesn't address the sale, transportation or distribution of
marijuana as prohibited by state law.

District Attorney Ed Hunt says he isn't confused: "There's no way I'm
going to support a standard which somebody deems acceptable, a blanket
policy. If there is a doctor who will testify under oath that he
prescribes it, we will dismiss. That person then has met the
requirements of Proposition 215."