DRUG WAR MENTALITY STILL RULES

Recent articles and editorials in the Record Searchlight haven't shed
much light on the roots of the problem or the view of medical
marijuana patients in the current rush to get ordinances passed. I
will try to do that here.

Medical marijuana was made legal in California by the Compassionate
Use Act (Proposition 215) in 1996. The intent of this law was to
protect patients from prosecution under laws directed at illegal use
of marijuana. While sale or possession under state and federal laws
still remains illegal, other state laws and legal guidelines have
been put in place to help law enforcement and other agencies discern
the difference. SB 420, the Medical Marijuana Program, was put in
place to codify and clarify the intent of the citizens of California
by defining Proposition 215 as part of the state Health Code.
Proposition 215 was passed by the vote of the people; it cannot be
amended or repealed except by another vote of the people of California.

These laws have been tested many times over the past 14 years.
Despite efforts of law enforcement and local governments to challenge
them, they have largely been upheld.

In August 2008, the U.S. District Court, in Santa Cruz v. Mukasey,
denied the federal government's motion to dismiss the case. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Kozinski said, "(By interfering
with doctors) ... the federal policy makes it impossible for the
state to exempt the use of medical marijuana from the operation of
its drug laws. In effect, the federal government is forcing the state
to keep medical marijuana illegal." In response to this ruling,
Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project said, "For
the first time, a court has recognized that a calculated plan by the
federal government to undercut state medical marijuana laws is
patently unconstitutional." Subsequently, the Department of Justice
issued a memorandum stating, "As a general matter, pursuit of these
priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on
individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance
with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."

The continuation of the "Drug War" mentality by local law enforcement
was rebuffed again in September by the California Supreme Court in
the case of County of Butte v. Superior Court. This decision
supported Judge Barbara Robert's ruling that patients cultivating
collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and
the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their
rights." This ruling also reconfirmed the constitutional rights of
patients and those that collectively grow for patients, and the right
to sue local law enforcement for damages.

Most recently, the California Supreme Court in the case People v.
Kelly determined that restrictions put in place by SB 420, which put
limitations on amounts patients and caregivers (growers) can possess
or cultivate, are not valid. This means that local laws that restrict
those amounts are not valid either. This includes Redding's new
ordinances and those being considered by Shasta County.

The Drug Law Reform Project (DLRP) of the ACLU has written two
letters to the Redding City Council warning them of these areas in
their law that conflict with current case law. The DLRP has also
offered to work with their staff. Members of our local governments
and law enforcement admit that creation and enforcement of the new
ordinances are problematic.

Furthermore, the American Medical Association and the California
Medical Association have asked the federal government to reclassify
marijuana as a less dangerous drug. Also, there is a proposition
looming on the next ballot to legalize marijuana in California.
Additionally, no one has demonstrated any real danger to local
citizens (i.e., marijuana is less dangerous to your health and less
addictive than either alcohol or cigarettes).

So the question is: If there is no real threat to anyone, what is the
rush to put these laws in place - especially when they are likely to
create injustice, lead to lawsuits and cost the taxpayers money? I
have been asking this question of elected officials, their attorneys
and law enforcement for a few months now. The closest I have gotten
to an answer was the response of the Shasta County supervisors, who
wisely put off new zoning laws and use permit requirements that would
have put illegal limits and undue stress on patients, caregivers and
collectives.

To many medical marijuana patients and objective observers like
myself, it appears that the "Be afraid, be very afraid!" hyperbole
and "Drug War" mentality has permeated the cultures of Redding City
Hall and other local governments. Is there direct proof of this? I
can't say. But I find myself in that quandary so aptly expressed in
the Sherlock Holmes' quote, "When all other possibilities have been
eliminated, the solution that remains, no matter how illogical, must be true."