News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Ban on Medical Pot in Public: Violaters Could Face Jail, County Decides |
Title: | US CA: Ban on Medical Pot in Public: Violaters Could Face Jail, County Decides |
Published On: | 1998-03-18 |
Source: | Sacramento Bee (CA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-09-07 13:41:49 |
BAN ON MEDICAL POT IN PUBLIC: VIOLATERS COULD FACE JAIL, COUNTY DECIDES
Anyone with a doctor's permission to smoke marijuana could face up to a
$1,000 in fines or six months in jail if they light up in public, under an
ordinance approved Tuesday by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.
Saying the public smoking of marijuana, even for health reasons, sends a
confusing message to youths and exposes people to secondhand marijuana
smoke, the supervisors criminalized the public consumption of the herb,
which was legalized for medicinal purposes by California voters in November
1996.
"It's not an anti-compassion issue," Sacramento Police Chief Arturo Venegas
Jr. said in support of the proposal. "I don't believe (public consumption)
was the intent of those who passed the proposition."
"Permitting smoking of marijuana in public places does send a mixed message
to our young people," said Supervisor Dave Cox.
The local ordinance passed 3-2, with Supervisors Roger Dickinson and Illa
Collin voting against the measure, saying its fines and jail term were too
strict.
"Making a person a criminal -- potentially assessing a $1,000 fine or a
six-month jail term -- is enormously out of proportion," said Dickinson.
"It opens the possibility of harassment of people who legitimately use
medicinal marijuana," Collin added.
Ryan Landers, a local AIDS patient who said he regularly smokes marijuana
in the outdoor seating sections of restaurants to quell his severe nausea,
said after Tuesday's vote that he intends to continue to smoke it even if
he might be arrested.
"I will get arrested and file a discrimination suit against the county,"
said Landers, adding that he then would go to jail and sue to be allowed to
smoke marijuana in jail.
"I'm not trying to hurt anybody by doing this," Landers earlier told
supervisors of his reason for smoking marijuana in public. "I'm just trying
to stay alive and be an active human being."
District Attorney Jan Scully, who introduced the ordinance, said the
measure is needed to address ambiguities in Proposition 215, which is
silent on whether smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes is allowed in
public.
The issue came to a head in Sacramento County when Landers smoked a joint
on the K Street Mall during the Thursday night market last summer. Landers
was arrested, but prosecutors dropped the charges, saying he would prevail
at trial since he legally was allowed to smoke marijuana under Proposition
215.
Neither Scully or Venegas could estimate how many people smoke medicinal
marijuana in public in Sacramento County, but Scully asserted that "there
aren't large numbers of people engaging in this sort of conduct."
The new ban, Scully continued, is aimed at the "flaunting and flagrant use"
of medicinal marijuana.
"This is a health issue. This isn't a criminal issue," Landers said.
The ordinance is scheduled to go into effect in about a month. Venegas said
he will ask city officials to consider a similar ordinance.
Anyone with a doctor's permission to smoke marijuana could face up to a
$1,000 in fines or six months in jail if they light up in public, under an
ordinance approved Tuesday by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors.
Saying the public smoking of marijuana, even for health reasons, sends a
confusing message to youths and exposes people to secondhand marijuana
smoke, the supervisors criminalized the public consumption of the herb,
which was legalized for medicinal purposes by California voters in November
1996.
"It's not an anti-compassion issue," Sacramento Police Chief Arturo Venegas
Jr. said in support of the proposal. "I don't believe (public consumption)
was the intent of those who passed the proposition."
"Permitting smoking of marijuana in public places does send a mixed message
to our young people," said Supervisor Dave Cox.
The local ordinance passed 3-2, with Supervisors Roger Dickinson and Illa
Collin voting against the measure, saying its fines and jail term were too
strict.
"Making a person a criminal -- potentially assessing a $1,000 fine or a
six-month jail term -- is enormously out of proportion," said Dickinson.
"It opens the possibility of harassment of people who legitimately use
medicinal marijuana," Collin added.
Ryan Landers, a local AIDS patient who said he regularly smokes marijuana
in the outdoor seating sections of restaurants to quell his severe nausea,
said after Tuesday's vote that he intends to continue to smoke it even if
he might be arrested.
"I will get arrested and file a discrimination suit against the county,"
said Landers, adding that he then would go to jail and sue to be allowed to
smoke marijuana in jail.
"I'm not trying to hurt anybody by doing this," Landers earlier told
supervisors of his reason for smoking marijuana in public. "I'm just trying
to stay alive and be an active human being."
District Attorney Jan Scully, who introduced the ordinance, said the
measure is needed to address ambiguities in Proposition 215, which is
silent on whether smoking marijuana for medicinal purposes is allowed in
public.
The issue came to a head in Sacramento County when Landers smoked a joint
on the K Street Mall during the Thursday night market last summer. Landers
was arrested, but prosecutors dropped the charges, saying he would prevail
at trial since he legally was allowed to smoke marijuana under Proposition
215.
Neither Scully or Venegas could estimate how many people smoke medicinal
marijuana in public in Sacramento County, but Scully asserted that "there
aren't large numbers of people engaging in this sort of conduct."
The new ban, Scully continued, is aimed at the "flaunting and flagrant use"
of medicinal marijuana.
"This is a health issue. This isn't a criminal issue," Landers said.
The ordinance is scheduled to go into effect in about a month. Venegas said
he will ask city officials to consider a similar ordinance.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...