News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: ACLU Attacks Draft Pot-Dispensary Ordinance |
Title: | US CA: ACLU Attacks Draft Pot-Dispensary Ordinance |
Published On: | 2010-05-03 |
Source: | North County Times (Escondido, CA) |
Fetched On: | 2010-05-04 02:10:05 |
ACLU ATTACKS DRAFT POT-DISPENSARY ORDINANCE
Proposal Would Violate Patient Privacy Rules, Activists Say
The county's proposed medical marijuana dispensary ordinance would
violate patient privacy laws because it opens patient lists and other
records to law enforcement, medical marijuana advocates and civil
rights groups say.
County officials released a draft of the document in March. It was
heavily criticized by patient advocacy groups and others, including
Americans for Safe Access, the Drug Policy Alliance and the American
Civil Liberties Union in San Diego.
Since the criticisms started to pour in, county officials have
refused to answer questions about the ordinance, including whether
any medical professionals helped draft it.
Critics, including medical marijuana activist Rudy Reyes, say the
county's refusal to work cooperatively with patients and advocacy
groups led to a poorly written document.
The ACLU, which last year won a lawsuit against the county forcing it
to implement the state's medical marijuana ID program, said in a
letter criticizing the proposed ordinance that county leaders once
again were trying to deter patients' right to access the drug.
"The county is trying to do indirectly what it couldn't do directly,
which is ban collectives in the county," said David Blair-Loy, legal
director for the ACLU in San Diego.
'Considering Changes'
Not everyone agrees that the proposal is restrictive. Anti-drug
advocates say the ordinance is not tough enough.
Medical marijuana ordinances are an "implied endorsement of the use
of marijuana," said Aaron Byzak, president of the North Coastal
Prevention Coalition, a Vista-based drug and alcohol abuse prevention group.
In a letter to the county, the ACLU's Blair-Loy said the ordinance
raised "significant and troubling privacy concerns."
The North County Times sent a list of roughly a dozen questions to
the county. The questions stemmed from criticisms of the draft
ordinance from groups such as the ACLU.
Among the questions were whether the county sought the advice of
medical professionals or the county's own Health and Human Services
Agency. Other questions related to the patient privacy implications
of the proposal.
County officials declined repeated requests for an interview. The
county's Department of Planning and Land Use, the agency in charge of
drafting the document, released a written statement addressing the questions.
"We're reviewing and evaluating all of the information that we've
received and will be considering making changes where it may be
appropriate," according to the statement. "We're going to hold a
public hearing with the Planning Commission in May to discuss the ordinance."
The county's Planning Commission is expected to hear the proposal at
its meeting on May 14.
Under federal law, patient privacy is protected under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, also known as HIPAA.
Although the word "privacy" does not appear in its title, the law
sets strict boundaries on how health care providers use and disclose
patient information.
Dr. Steve O'Brien, who runs a clinic that treats AIDS patients in
Oakland, said San Diego County's proposed ordinance could deter
patients from seeking medical marijuana out of concern for their privacy.
"We are so careful about HIPAA violations that we don't even let a
piece of paper with a patient's name go into the garbage," O'Brien
said. "And to think that a cop is going to be able to come in and get
your name, that is going to have a major chilling effect."
'Reasonable Request'
O'Brien was a plaintiff in the lawsuit Conant v. Walters filed
against the federal government.
In that case, the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that
doctors were allowed to speak with patients about the potential
benefits of marijuana and allowed them to recommend the drug for medicinal use.
The lawsuit was filed soon after California voters approved the
Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which said people with serious or
chronic diseases could use marijuana, with a doctor's recommendation,
to ease pain and other ailments.
The county's Department of Planning and Land Use's 18-page draft
ordinance sets the rules regulating medical marijuana providers in
the unincorporated areas of the county. It would require dispensary
owners to get an "operating certificate" from the San Diego County
Sheriff's Department.
To operate, a medical marijuana facility must have a Sheriff's
Department-licensed, 24-hour alarm system and video monitoring
system. The video recordings must be accessible to law enforcement
officers "at all times during operating hours" and "otherwise upon
reasonable request," according to the draft ordinance.
The ordinance requires that records must be "available for inspection
by the Sheriff's Department," including:
. A current roster identifying all qualified patient members;
. A roster of all primary caregivers;
. A record of all caregiver events;
. A doctor's medical marijuana recommendation for each patient;
. A record identifying the source of all marijuana; and
. Records of all monetary transactions.
Medical marijuana advocates also raised concerns over a requirement
in the draft ordinance that all transactions must take place within
public view. Advocates said that provision could deter patients from
getting the drug, especially those who may prefer to keep medicinal
marijuana use private.
'An Unfortunate Attempt'
The area where the marijuana is stored must not be visible from the
exterior, according to the ordinance.
"However, the entrance and all areas or portions where exchange or
distribution of marijuana is made shall be open and fully visible
from the public street," according to the ordinance.
Eugene Davidovich, a medical marijuana activist with Americans for
Safe Access, said the county is simply not interested in allowing the
drug's use and is instead trying to make it next to impossible for
patients to access marijuana.
"I believe that this proposed ordinance is a de facto ban and an
unfortunate attempt by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to
continue their medial marijuana eradication efforts," Davidovich said.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed
ordinance, the Board of Supervisors would probably vote on the
measure by summer.
Proposal Would Violate Patient Privacy Rules, Activists Say
The county's proposed medical marijuana dispensary ordinance would
violate patient privacy laws because it opens patient lists and other
records to law enforcement, medical marijuana advocates and civil
rights groups say.
County officials released a draft of the document in March. It was
heavily criticized by patient advocacy groups and others, including
Americans for Safe Access, the Drug Policy Alliance and the American
Civil Liberties Union in San Diego.
Since the criticisms started to pour in, county officials have
refused to answer questions about the ordinance, including whether
any medical professionals helped draft it.
Critics, including medical marijuana activist Rudy Reyes, say the
county's refusal to work cooperatively with patients and advocacy
groups led to a poorly written document.
The ACLU, which last year won a lawsuit against the county forcing it
to implement the state's medical marijuana ID program, said in a
letter criticizing the proposed ordinance that county leaders once
again were trying to deter patients' right to access the drug.
"The county is trying to do indirectly what it couldn't do directly,
which is ban collectives in the county," said David Blair-Loy, legal
director for the ACLU in San Diego.
'Considering Changes'
Not everyone agrees that the proposal is restrictive. Anti-drug
advocates say the ordinance is not tough enough.
Medical marijuana ordinances are an "implied endorsement of the use
of marijuana," said Aaron Byzak, president of the North Coastal
Prevention Coalition, a Vista-based drug and alcohol abuse prevention group.
In a letter to the county, the ACLU's Blair-Loy said the ordinance
raised "significant and troubling privacy concerns."
The North County Times sent a list of roughly a dozen questions to
the county. The questions stemmed from criticisms of the draft
ordinance from groups such as the ACLU.
Among the questions were whether the county sought the advice of
medical professionals or the county's own Health and Human Services
Agency. Other questions related to the patient privacy implications
of the proposal.
County officials declined repeated requests for an interview. The
county's Department of Planning and Land Use, the agency in charge of
drafting the document, released a written statement addressing the questions.
"We're reviewing and evaluating all of the information that we've
received and will be considering making changes where it may be
appropriate," according to the statement. "We're going to hold a
public hearing with the Planning Commission in May to discuss the ordinance."
The county's Planning Commission is expected to hear the proposal at
its meeting on May 14.
Under federal law, patient privacy is protected under the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, also known as HIPAA.
Although the word "privacy" does not appear in its title, the law
sets strict boundaries on how health care providers use and disclose
patient information.
Dr. Steve O'Brien, who runs a clinic that treats AIDS patients in
Oakland, said San Diego County's proposed ordinance could deter
patients from seeking medical marijuana out of concern for their privacy.
"We are so careful about HIPAA violations that we don't even let a
piece of paper with a patient's name go into the garbage," O'Brien
said. "And to think that a cop is going to be able to come in and get
your name, that is going to have a major chilling effect."
'Reasonable Request'
O'Brien was a plaintiff in the lawsuit Conant v. Walters filed
against the federal government.
In that case, the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that
doctors were allowed to speak with patients about the potential
benefits of marijuana and allowed them to recommend the drug for medicinal use.
The lawsuit was filed soon after California voters approved the
Compassionate Use Act in 1996, which said people with serious or
chronic diseases could use marijuana, with a doctor's recommendation,
to ease pain and other ailments.
The county's Department of Planning and Land Use's 18-page draft
ordinance sets the rules regulating medical marijuana providers in
the unincorporated areas of the county. It would require dispensary
owners to get an "operating certificate" from the San Diego County
Sheriff's Department.
To operate, a medical marijuana facility must have a Sheriff's
Department-licensed, 24-hour alarm system and video monitoring
system. The video recordings must be accessible to law enforcement
officers "at all times during operating hours" and "otherwise upon
reasonable request," according to the draft ordinance.
The ordinance requires that records must be "available for inspection
by the Sheriff's Department," including:
. A current roster identifying all qualified patient members;
. A roster of all primary caregivers;
. A record of all caregiver events;
. A doctor's medical marijuana recommendation for each patient;
. A record identifying the source of all marijuana; and
. Records of all monetary transactions.
Medical marijuana advocates also raised concerns over a requirement
in the draft ordinance that all transactions must take place within
public view. Advocates said that provision could deter patients from
getting the drug, especially those who may prefer to keep medicinal
marijuana use private.
'An Unfortunate Attempt'
The area where the marijuana is stored must not be visible from the
exterior, according to the ordinance.
"However, the entrance and all areas or portions where exchange or
distribution of marijuana is made shall be open and fully visible
from the public street," according to the ordinance.
Eugene Davidovich, a medical marijuana activist with Americans for
Safe Access, said the county is simply not interested in allowing the
drug's use and is instead trying to make it next to impossible for
patients to access marijuana.
"I believe that this proposed ordinance is a de facto ban and an
unfortunate attempt by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to
continue their medial marijuana eradication efforts," Davidovich said.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed
ordinance, the Board of Supervisors would probably vote on the
measure by summer.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...