CLARIFY LAWS ON POT AS MEDICINE

Proposition 215, passed by voters in 1996, leaves too many things
open to interpretation and needs to be clarified by the Legislature.

As the California Legislature gets back to work next week, there's no
more important duty than addressing the state's budget crisis. A
close second in terms of priorities should be medical marijuana.

While the budget is job one, the Legislature can't say it doesn't
have time for clearing up the medical marijuana confusion at the same
time. After all, the Legislature last year had the time to debate and
pass new laws for 2012 about tanning beds, child safety seats,
carrying handguns and a raft of new requirements for employers.

Certainly the Legislature can find the time to prioritize the mess
that is medical marijuana.

California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996. It was billed as a
compassionate way for dying patients to seek pain relief by using
marijuana, an illegal drug. But the law was so poorly written that
people who just wanted to legally get high took advantage.

Some of the unfortunate byproducts of Proposition 215 are marijuana
plantations in the foothills attracting growers who are less than
neighborly; medical marijuana dispensaries springing up in
neighborhoods and retail districts; and people in cities with
backyard marijuana gardens that stink and attract armed people who
try to steal the crop.

Because the state has no clear guidelines, cities and counties are
forced to come up with their own rules. It's a hodgepodge. One city
will allow dispensaries while the next city does not. One city will
allow backyard cultivation while the next city bans it.

One county allows five plants per person while another county allows 12.

Attorney General Kamala Harris, elected to the post last year with
the support of marijuana advocates, has been meeting with local and
state law enforcement, federal prosecutors and medical marijuana
advocates, trying to clarify the confusion.

Her conclusion is that the Legislature needs to step in, which is
something we've been saying all along. In a letter to legislative
leaders last week, Harris said the Legislature needs to clarify what
exactly is and isn't allowed. Think of it as a legislative amendment
to Proposition 215.

"Without a substantive change to existing law," Harris writes, "these
irreconcilable interpretations of the law, and the resulting
uncertainty for law enforcement and seriously ill patients, will persist. ...

"I have come to recognize that non-binding guidelines will not solve
our problems - state law itself needs to be reformed, simplified and
improved to better explain to law enforcement and patients alike how,
when and where individuals may cultivate and obtain
physician-recommended marijuana."

While legislators are at it, we hope they clarify what qualifies as a
medical marijuana recommendation. Investigation will show that
recommendations are entirely too easy to get. They should require a
visit to an M.D., an examination, a certification that a patient has
a debilitating medical condition and perhaps even proof the doctor
and patient have a relationship rather than just a one-time
drive-through for a marijuana prescription.

The problems associated with a poorly written medical marijuana law
touches every legislative district in the state. It's past time for
the Legislature to clean up the mess.