Rave Radio: Offline (0/0)
Email: Password:
News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: MMJ: Pot Shots Peron Stages Sit-In At Migden's Office
Title:US CA: MMJ: Pot Shots Peron Stages Sit-In At Migden's Office
Published On:1999-03-05
Source:San Francisco Bay Guardian (CA)
Fetched On:2008-09-06 11:48:29
POT SHOTS PERON STAGES SIT-IN AT MIGDEN'S OFFICE

Medical marijuana activist Dennis Peron and a handful of supporters
staged a 45-minute sit-in at the San Francisco office of state
assembly member Carole Migden Friday, Feb. 26 to protest Migden's
refusal to sponsor a bill that would legally reclassify, or
"reschedule," marijuana in California.

The bill, which Peron had asked Migden to introduce in the state
legislature, would reschedule marijuana automatically once it is
rescheduled by the federal government. Marijuana is currently a
Schedule 1 drug, meaning it is legally considered to have no medicinal
value and to have a high potential for abuse.

"I thought she should be the one to sponsor it," Peron said. "I've
been trying to convince her, but she refuses. People have to suffer
more because she's stalling."

Migden and her chief of staff in Sacramento, Alan Lofaso, told the Bay
Guardian they fully supported rescheduling marijuana but believed that
introducing a bill now would be ineffectual.

"Of course we could do it now, but it wouldn't help, because federal
law is the hurdle," Lofaso said. "Introducing a bill doesn't send a
message to the federal government. The state of California taking
action sends a message. That was what Proposition 215 did."

"We don't need convincing," Migden said of Peron's bill. "If the
federal government reschedules [during the current session], I'll
sponsor a bill. I commit 100 percent to using one of my bills or
someone else's bill to reschedule marijuana."

Peron remained unconvinced. "She says, 'if and when.' That's exactly
what we're trying to avoid. Just because the federal government
reschedules doesn't mean California will have to." On the contrary, he
said, federal rescheduling would only increase law-enforcement
resistance to changing state law.
Member Comments
No member comments available...