cannabisnews.com: State's Top Court Mulls Medical Marijuana Law 





State's Top Court Mulls Medical Marijuana Law 
Posted by CN Staff on June 05, 2002 at 10:01:25 PT
By Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Source: Oakland Tribune
Five and a half years after California passed its medical marijuana law, the state Supreme Court is about to consider what Proposition 215 really means. The court will hear arguments today in Los Angeles in the Tuolumne County case of Myron Carlyle Mower, 40. The case began and will be argued far from the Bay Area, but its effects here could be profound. "This is the first Proposition 215 case in front of the California Supreme Court, so it really gives them the opportunity to lay out a lot of the unanswered questions," said Santa Clara University School of Law professor Gerald Uelmen, who will argue Mower's case. 
Uelmen also has helped represent the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative in its legal battles. The court will decide whether Proposition 215 of 1996 -- the Compassionate Use Act that aimed to legalize medical marijuana use -- confers immunity from prosecution, or whether someone must be arrested and brought to trial before using the medical marijuana law as a defense. At issue is the law's language saying penal provisions dealing with possession and cultivation "shall not apply" to qualified patients using marijuana on a doctor's say-so, and saying such patients and doctors "are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction." The case also might allow the court to decide whether the medical marijuana law prevents counties or cities from setting their own limits on how much marijuana a patient can grow or possess -- a key issue around here, where Oakland's and Berkeley's limits on the number of plants permissible have raised great controversy. "That one is going to be dicey -- I'm least confident about the court taking that issue on," Uelmen said of the plant limits. Mower, a seriously ill and legally blind diabetic from Sonora who uses marijuana to control nausea and stimulate appetite, was still on probation from a 1993 marijuana-growing conviction when Proposition 215 became law and when officers found seven marijuana plants at his home early in 1997. After that, Tuolumne County set a three-plant limit for personal medical use. In July 1997, officers returned to Mower's home and found 31 plants. He was tried and convicted of marijuana cultivation and possession. In his appeal, he claimed he was entitled to complete immunity under California's medical marijuana law. He also claimed Tuolumne County's three-plant policy violated the state and U.S. Constitutions' ex post facto clauses, which forbid passing a law after an event that retrospectively changes the event's legal consequences. The state Court of Appeal's Fifth District in December 2000 ruled Mower's reading of Proposition 215 "simply unworkable" because it would make police either ignore marijuana or do extensive investigations to clear people before arrest. The law provides an affirmative defense at trial, not complete immunity, the court found, declining to address the three-plant limit issue. The state Supreme Court took the case in March 2001. "The Supreme Court rarely grants a hearing to just affirm the Court of Appeal and say, 'You guys got it right,' so there is reason to be optimistic," Uelmen said Monday. Newshawk: ddddSource: Oakland Tribune, The (CA)Author: Josh Richman, Staff WriterPublished: Saturday, May 04, 2002 Copyright: 2002 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG NewspapersContact: triblet angnewspapers.comWebsite: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmPot Posture Fails 'Red-Face Test' http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12995.shtmlMedical Marijuana Wars Heat Up http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12932.shtmlFederal Judge Snuffs Out Oakland Pot Club Argumenthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12730.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by dddd on June 05, 2002 at 14:57:51 PT
...Update...
    By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs Writer - (Published June 5,
    2002)    LOS ANGELES -- Taking up California's medical marijuana initiative for the first
    time, the state Supreme Court showed strong interest Tuesday in making the
    law work more smoothly for patients who come under police scrutiny and no
    interest in following the lead of disapproving federal authorities.    During oral arguments in an appeal of a Tuolumne County man, the justices
    concentrated on working out a procedure for legitimate pot users to get off
    the hook early.    Proposition 215, passed in 1996, said seriously ill patients using marijuana on a
    doctor's recommendation are "not subject to prosecution," noted Chief Justice
    Ronald George. He asked, "Does that not imply one does not have to run the
    gamut" of the criminal justice system -- from arrest to jury verdict?    Deputy Attorney General Maureen Daly, who urged the court to uphold Myron
    Mower's criminal conviction for growing 31 marijuana plants, said the initiative
    meant only that legitimate pot users are "not subject to successful
    prosecution" -- meaning they have only a right to persuade a jury to give them a
    break.    But Justice Carlos Moreno pointed to other references in the initiative's text
    that supported George's interpretation and appeared to provide legitimate
    users immunity from prosecution.    In ruling against Mower, the Court of Appeal relied on conflicting language in the
    voter's ballot pamphlet.    The Supreme Court is using the case to set enforcement rules for Proposition
    215, which did not answer key questions: What must legitimate patients do to
    stay out of jail, and how much pot is permissible?    The justices' review coincides with a dramatic increase in federal raids on
    medical marijuana dispensaries following a series of defeats for Proposition
    215 in the federal courts.    But while federal law enforcement concentrates on what it views as drug
    trafficking, the gravely ill patients who were the focus of Proposition 215 are
    much more likely to come in contact with local authorities and state courts, as
    Mower did. In most of their cases, the state Supreme Court's word will be final.    Blind and suffering from end-stage diabetes, Mower has used marijuana to
    control nausea and vomiting. He was placed on probation for growing it in
    1993 and convicted again in 1998, two years after passage of Proposition
    215. He again was placed on probation, fined and, according to his court brief,
    forced to do without the only drug that works for him. He is now unable to
    keep food down and has wasting syndrome, his lawyers say.    After the initiative passed, Mower claims he told both the Probation
    Department and the sheriff he would resume growing the weed but did not wish
    to violate the terms of his probation. For a while all went smoothly. County
    officers who visited him in February 1997 found seven pot plants but left him
    alone.    They returned that July, however, and found 31 plants. Some experts in the
    case testified that was less than a year's supply, but Daly told the Supreme
    Court on Tuesday that Mower "had way more than for personal use."    The officers seized 28 of the plants and arrested Mower under a three-plant
    limit the sheriff had adopted. No one had told Mower about the new rule,
    defense lawyer Gerald Uelmen said Tuesday.    The sheriff's policy is one of a hodgepodge of guidelines that permit medical
    pot users in some counties to grow enough plants for a steady supply while
    users elsewhere face strict limits or no standards at all.    Mower "wouldn't be here" appealing a conviction if he lived in Sonoma or Del
    Norte counties, where the limit is 99 plants, Uelmen told the justices.    But then there are defendants like Mower, who was put through what his
    lawyers called a "physically agonizing three-day trial," in which he bore the
    burden of proving he was a legitimate medical user. Though his doctor
    supported him, the jury was not convinced.    Uelmen is urging the Supreme Court to adopt a procedure that would bar
    criminal charges if a patient shows he has a doctor's recommendation and a
    reasonable supply of pot. If the case goes to trial, the lawyer said, then the
    prosecution should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pot use
    isn't legitimate.    Mower's is one of about 25 Proposition 215 cases to reach the appellate
    court, according to the state Attorney General's Office. So far the only
    reported appellate decision on permissible quantities came in a case involving 2
    pounds of marijuana seized in a traffic stop in Contra Costa County. The Court
    of Appeal in San Francisco said the quantity, as well as the "method, timing and
    distance of transportation" all depend on what's reasonably necessary for the
    patient's current medical needs.    But that case was dropped before any court defined what "current" means,
    and the justices made little headway Tuesday.    "That day, that month or what?" asked George. The answer could be critical in
    cases like Mower's. The court's ruling is expected within three months.    Meanwhile, both houses of the Legislature have passed a
    law-enforcement-backed bill, SB 187, to set statewide enforcement standards
    and procedures for Proposition 215. But the author says the governor's office
    has advised him not to send it to Davis' desk.    Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, said he had no clue about the
    governor's misgivings.    A Davis press aide said the governor has not taken official position on the bill,
    adding that Davis is looking for evidence of the efficacy of medical marijuana.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Jose Melendez on June 05, 2002 at 12:51:37 PT
War on drugs is war on US!
from:http://www.marijuana.com/article.php?sid=3614&mode=thread&order=0Chihuahua considers legalizing pot
CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico – It's ironic that in this city, home to one of the world's most infamous drug cartels, marijuana could be legalized. But such a change is being considered. 

Marijuana has become so common throughout the border region – and efforts to curb its impact have had such little effect – that the administration of Chihuahua Gov. Patricio Martínez has launched a study of the consequences of legalizing marijuana.It remains unclear whether marijuana would be sanctioned only for personal use or as a medical treatment, or whether it would be allowed into the social fiber like alcohol. Moreover, the Mexican federal government would need to approve any legalization. 

"We're studying the issue of legalizing marijuana from addiction to economics and everything in between," said Fernando Medina, spokesman for Mr. Martínez in Juárez. 

"The governor has said that despite the countless offensives launched as part of the war against drugs, drug smuggling and drug use continue to grow. It's an issue we really need to study." 

The issue of legalizing marijuana, which set off demonstrations in favor of legalization as far away as Mexico City, was raised during an April meeting of the governors of Tamaulipas, Nuevo León, Coahuila and Chihuahua, some of the states bordering the United States. 

The results of the study, which has not been clearly defined, are expected to be presented to the Commission of Border Governors and the Conference of Governors in June. 

A spokesman for the governor in Chihuahua City had no comment but released statements made by Mr. Martínez to a reporter from a newspaper in Mexico City. 

"We, the border governors, have asked different institutions to study the issue of legalizing drugs," Mr. Martínez said. "Until now, what's been done hasn't worked because the use of drugs continues to grow, despite the war that has been launched." 

The legalization effort has received the endorsement of Mexico Sen. Elias Moreno, president of the Commission on Health and Public Security; and Rep. Gregorio Urias, co-coordinator of Bancada del Sol Azteca, a banking industry trade group and a member of the Commission on Public Accounts and Loans. 

In addition, several groups have participated in the demonstrations and are lending their support to the effort. The groups include the Mexican Association for the Study of Cannabis; Multiforo Alicia, a coalition of area social organizations; and the faculty of philosophy and letters at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 

The issue has yet to spawn any demonstrations in Juárez, which is across the Rio Grande from El Paso in Chihuahua and is that state's most populous city with about 1.5 million residents. It was home to late drug cartel kingpin Amado Carrillo Fuentes. 

Border with U.S. 

Chihuahua, Mexico's largest state, has a population of about 3 million and shares a border with the United States from near the Arizona-New Mexico state line on the west to the Big Bend area on the east. 

According to U.S. law enforcement agencies, the Juárez cartel smuggles millions of dollars in illegal drugs through Chihuahua and across the U.S.-Mexico border at Juárez. The drugs, marijuana among them, end up in cities from Los Angeles to New York. 

Officials from Mexico's federal police and the Chihuahua state police refused to comment on possible decriminalization, referring questions to the governor's office. 

Marijuana, allowed in some U.S. jurisdictions for medicinal use but otherwise illegal, is readily available along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

It's prevalence prompted New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson to seek its decriminalization. 

This year, New Mexico lawmakers rejected the Johnson-backed measures that would have legalized the medical use of marijuana, decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, and provided for treatment instead of prison time for nonviolent first- and second-time drug offenders. 

Many of the state's law enforcement organizations opposed the governor's initiatives, arguing that they would make drug use more pervasive and difficult to control. 

U.S. border authorities have seen an increase in drug activity. In the first seven months of fiscal 2002, which began Oct. 1, U.S. Customs Service agents in the El Paso region seized 224,886 pounds of marijuana. 

By year's end, the haul is expected to surpass last year's total of 306,622, which would be a major leap from the 1990 total of 38,102 pounds. 

"We enforce U.S. law, so what another country does is not in our control," said Roger Maier, spokesman for the U.S. Customs Service in El Paso. 

"Legalizing marijuana would probably attract people to Juárez, but I'm not so sure legalization in any part of Mexico would necessarily impact our effort. The only problem I see is if it is decriminalized and there is no limit," Mr. Maier said. "Anyone could then stockpile it and create some issues when they try to smuggle it across to meet demands." 

DEA weighs in 

Osvaldo Amado, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman in El Paso, sees the situation differently. In fiscal year 2001, DEA agents seized 184,000 pounds of marijuana in the El Paso region. 

"If it [legalization] were to happen, the impact would be tremendous because it would put the whole burden on us. It would be very difficult for us," Mr. Amado said. "We just don't have the resources to deal with something like that." 

The burden also is heavy for Juárez police, who have lost the support and confidence of the city's residents because of allegations of police corruption and inaction. 

"We don't have any real control as it is now. I can just imagine what it would be like if it were legalized," said Officer Jose Luis Melendez, parked in his squad car in the Mariscal, the city's red light district. 

Officer Melendez pointed to groups of teenagers cruising the back alleys of the district. "They use it to barter for sex," he said as several youths huddled secretively outside a dark, nondescript bar, deeply inhaling marijuana. 

"At least now they get a little scared and scatter when I approach," Officer Melendez said. "But if they legalize it, who knows what's going to happen?" "
Hint for Officer Jose Melendez: In Brixton, crime went down drastically after the "softly, softly" cannabis experiment. PROHIBITION YIELDS PROLIFERATION!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on June 05, 2002 at 12:04:39 PT
p4me and VitaminT
No I never go to marijuana.com. I submitted C News to be put on a link page a few years ago and the owner emailed me and said my site was not suitable so I don't go there because I never understood why my site wasn't suitable.VitaminT we have been noticed. Mapinc. and C News and neither of us are allowed to post full articles from certain papers. It's very annoying to me and ties my hands and has me very upset but what can I do?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by p4me on June 05, 2002 at 11:55:06 PT
lazy me
I figured most people had marijuana.com's homepage on their Favorites list by now. I should have just put up the link:http://216.9.192.82/article.php?sid=3614&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0ICBS, VAAI, POW
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by VitaminT on June 05, 2002 at 11:54:59 PT
That's curious??? why not?
Did DMN threaten to sue you?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 05, 2002 at 11:23:57 PT
p4me
I just wanted you to know that I am not allowed to post the Dallas Morning News. I would if I was allowed too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by p4me on June 05, 2002 at 10:49:27 PT
More good news
There will be a 13 part series on HBO called "Wired" and I think it starts Sunday at 10PM on HBO. It is about the drug wars as set in Baltimore.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/3376049.htmMarijuana.com had an article from the Dallas Morning News about legalizing marijuana in the northern Mexican State of Chihuahua. Protest were held in April in Mexico City.qqqq- I liked your quip- ..."If da government be talkin' shit,,,,,You must acquit!" For some reason I just started thinking : Two Arms, Forearms, 6 bits, a dollar, light a joint and hollar. You must have created a change of perspective in me.ICBS,VAAI,POW
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by qqqq on June 05, 2002 at 10:27:32 PT
..former Dream Team member
      "This is the first Proposition 215 case in front of the California Supreme Court, so it really
      gives them the opportunity to lay out a lot of the unanswered questions," said Santa Clara
      University School of Law professor Gerald Uelmen, who will argue Mower's case. 
If Gerald Uelmen cant do it,,maybe we could get Jonny Cochran,or Barry Shenck..
..."If da government be talkin' shit,,,,,You must acquit!"
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment