MARIJUANA LAWS ADD TO THE HAZE

Our view: At some point, logic has to enter into the equation when
people keep dreaming up lenient marijuana laws.

As the era of medical marijuana in California moves through its 14th
year, laws on the matter have only grown increasingly murky.

It truly seems the people drafting these measures were stoned at the
time, embracing ideas that might have seemed really cool under a THC
fog, but that just didn't work in real life.

Begin with Proposition 215, which started it all in when in passed in
November 1996. It said people whose medical conditions might be aided
by marijuana could possess it with a doctor's recommendation.

Which conditions? How rigorous a medical review was required? How much
marijuana could a person have? How were folks supposed to legally
obtain that marijuana, since sales of the substance were -- and still
are -- illegal?

Rational people would have answered these questions in the
proposition, but those kinds of details just didn't seem to matter to
the authors.

And indeed, they remain unresolved.

There is no systematic research into what diseases marijuana might
assist, and in what quantities. By most accounts, the doctors who
issue the lion's share of medical marijuana recommendations make just
a cursory review of their patients. Those doctors advertise their
services, implying that it's simple. For a fee, you too can get a
recommendation.

So we've approved a "medicine" in this state, without paying any
attention to the diseases it is supposed to treat. The result is a
situation in which it is so easy to get a recommendation that many
people do so just to protect access to their intoxicant of choice,
rather than to treat an ailment.

The issue of supply also remains unresolved, although SB 420 was
passed by the Legislature seven years after 215 passed in an attempt
to do that.

It set limits on how much marijuana a person could possess, but those
were overturned by a court. It also allowed users to work
cooperatively to grow a pot crop, as Proposition 215 could have been
interpreted as requiring every patient to grow his or her own.

Even with that there's the matter of marijuana grows' impact on their
neighbors. They stink. They're worth tons of money, and they can't be
concealed outdoors because their scent announces their presence to
passersby. They are conspicuous targets for theft, and magnets for the
violence that often accompanies theft. They're a problem that's
unaddressed.

And the rules governing co-ops have that same smoky quality that hangs
around all these measures. As a result, the distinction between a true
cooperative effort to produce pot and a dispensary that secures a
supply and sells it to others has become obscured.

So, the Chico City Council comes to the conclusion dispensaries are
OK, and begins figuring out how to zone for them. District Attorney
Mike Ramsey, with a bit of hyperbole, threatens to throw the
councilors in jail for promoting drug sales.

And now in November, we're likely to be voting on a measure that would
eliminate all state laws against possession and use of marijuana, and
set up a system to tax sales of the substance. It just ignores the
fact marijuana possession and use is still a violation of federal law,
which trumps everything we've done and might do in this state, if the
feds decide to push the matter.

What a mess it would be if that passed. We'd have a state law in
direct opposition to federal law. But not so long ago, somewhere in a
smoky room, some folks probably that was a great idea. Yeah. Wow.