HOW PROP. 215 WAS GUTTED FROM A FULL EXEMPTION TO A BOGUS "AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE"

When the People of California wrote and passed Proposition 215, the
Compassionate Use Act, it was intended to exempt patients from
criminal prosecution. The Attorney General even said so when he
wrote his Title and Summary to Prop. 215:

"Exempts patients and defined caregivers who possess or cultivate
marijuana for medical treatment recommended by a physician from
criminal laws which otherwise prohibit possession or cultivation of
marijuana." (Source: http://vote96.sos.ca.gov/BP/215.htm )

Nowhere in the official Title and Summary, nor in the text of the
initiative, does it say anything about an affirmative defense, or any
limits or restrictions. In fact, once a physician issues his
recommendation, the only legal issue is whether or not the marijuana
is being used for medical purposes or if it is being diverted to non-
medical purposes. No matter how much marijuana a patient may have,
the Compassionate Use Act is supposed to exempt them, unless it is
being diverted into non-medical use.

It was the Lungren vs Peron case, that allowed Lungren to gut the
Compassionate Use Act, forcing patients and caregivers to prove their
right to possess and use marijuana, with the burden of proof on the
defendant, using an "affirmative defense".

Although Lungren knew he had committed the state to his Title and
Summary, which said patients and caregivers were "exempt," he was
able to get the judge to rely upon the ballot arguments from our
side, to claim that the CUA only provides a defense in court. Yet the
judge ignores similarly extreme statements by our opponent that this
was 'marijuana "legalization" and there would be "no restrictions" on
how much or where you could grow.

Also, the judge claims, "The statutory language limits the patient's
access to marijuana to that which is personally cultivated by the
patient or the patient's primary caregiver on behalf of the patient.
But that isn't what the CUA says at all. Just take a look at what the
it actually says:

"(2) Nothing in this act shall be construed to supersede legislation
prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others,
nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for non- medical purposes."

The CUA says nothing about amounts, only about diversion to non-
medical purposes. It was this judge, led by the nose by Lungren, who
decided that a patient can have "too much for personal use." So,
according to this judge, you can legally possess marijuana -- unless
the police decide you are possessing for sale, in which case your
exempt status evaporates as soon as you are accused. What good is it
being exempt, if a mere accusation removes that protection?

This decision also errors by weighing the ballot arguments with equal
weight against the Title and Summary. This is clearly an error,
since anyone can say whatever they want in the ballot argument, while
the Title and Summary MUST be "a true and impartial statement of the
purpose of any initiative." Below is the law that makes this so:

CAL. ELECTIONS CODE SEC. 9051: "Within 10 days after it is filed,
the Attorney General shall provide and return to the Secretary of
State a ballot title for the measure. The ballot title may differ
from the legislative or other title of the measure and shall express
in not exceeding 100 words the purpose of the measure. In providing
the ballot title, the Attorney General shall give a true and
impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language
that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to
create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure."

Does the CUA provide an exemption for possession for sales? If you
can legally possess something, that would imply the ability to sell
it as well. Of course that isn't the case with prescription drugs,
but then medical marijuana isn't a prescription drug, is it? The
California Legislature took up this question, after the judge in
Lungren vs. Peron said sales was not allowed, and passed SB 420
which DOES allow caregivers, MCDs, and members of cooperatives to be
paid remuneration for their costs and time. So, if the CUA didn't
authorize sales before, it does now and it is a fraud to charge a
patient or caregiver with "possession for sales," when it is now
legal for them to possess AND sell for medical purposes.

Sick, disabled and dying patients throughout California are still
being raided by SWAT teams, arrested, jailed, humiliated, treated
like criminals, bankrupted, children abducted by CPS and made even
sicker, because of those who are still deliberately opposing this
law, eleven years after the People of California voted to EXEMPT
patients and caregivers from criminal penalties.

It is time to stop playing games with people's lives and uphold the
Compassionate Use Act as it was written and passed by the People of California.

If you would like to read the decision in Lungren vs. Peron, you can
find a copy at Chris Conrad's web site:

http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/peron.htm