cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Court Ruling May Open Door To Abuses





Marijuana Court Ruling May Open Door To Abuses
Posted by CN Staff on September 02, 2002 at 22:19:18 PT
By Charles J. Unger
Source: Glendale News-Press 
Here's a decision that will keep criminal defense lawyers like me busy for a while. The California Supreme Court recently put marijuana use for medical purposes on the same plane as any other prescription drug. This all goes back to Proposition 215, passed by the voters in California in 1996, which allows people to grow and use marijuana if they are doing so for medical purposes.
The key to this ruling is that the court held that not only can someone who is charged with a violation of the statute use their medical need as a defense at trial, they also can vitiate the need for a trial by having these charges dismissed before the case goes that far. There is still an open question as to how many marijuana plants an individual can grow and claim that they are being grown for one's own medical use; however, the court seems to indicate that up to 30 marijuana plants or so would be OK.The fact that the court did not rule on exactly how many plants a person could grow may well lead to different rules in different counties; however, one of the goals of this ruling is to create a greater sense of uniformity throughout the state in the manner in which these cases are resolved, and I think it will.In order to either win at trial or have one's case dismissed, all the patient needs to do is to present a prescription or some sort of medical authorization with respect to the marijuana. Clearly, the state Supreme Court felt strongly about this issue, as the ruling was unanimous. It is hoped that this now six-year-old law has finally been clarified.The bad news for medical marijuana users, however, is that they are still not protected from federal prosecution. Federal decisions hold that there are no medical exceptions to federal drug laws. Fortunately, it is normally state police agencies who make arrests pertaining to the use and cultivation of marijuana, so this is one of those decisions that will really impact the way the law is implemented and will dramatically affect people's lives.All of this stemmed from the case of Myron Mower. Mr. Mower is diabetic, and he was convicted of several felony charges for possession and cultivation of a controlled substance, as 31 marijuana plants were found at his residence. Mr. Mower contended that the marijuana had been extraordinarily beneficial for him in stimulating his appetite and in controlling his nausea, especially now that he is in what is called end-stage diabetes. This ruling reversed Mr. Mower's convictions.I like this decision. However, like anything else, it is certainly subject to being abused. I foresee many court hearings in the future as to what constitutes a valid prescription or authorization. There are many in the drug community who will find doctors who are willing to write prescriptions, and I would not be at all surprised if the most nefarious of drug dealers shows up with medical notes or prescriptions authorizing their use of marijuana, even in cases where it clearly looks like the cannabis is being grown for purposes of sale.This may also lead to testimony as to what type of examination the doctor did that led him to suggest or OK the use of marijuana, as a court might have to determine the validity of the prescription.While I see issues like this arising in litigation, I think that this is a major step in aiding those who really suffer from tremendous pain and have found relief from the use of marijuana. There are many people who for years have claimed that marijuana is no worse for an individual than alcohol; the only difference is that alcohol is legal. For those people, their day is rapidly approaching.* CHARLES J. UNGER is a criminal defense attorney in the Glendale law firm of Flanagan, Unger, Danis & Grover, and a psychotherapist at the Foothill Centre for Personal and Family Development. Mr. Unger writes a bimonthly column on legal and psychological issues. He can be reached at or at (818) 244-8694 Source: Glendale News-Press (CA)Author: Charles J. UngerPublished: August 23, 2002Copyright: 2002 Times Community NewspapersContact: gnp latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/tcn/glendale/Related Articles & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmCalif. Court: No Prosecution for Medical Pot Users http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13497.shtmlMedical Pot Users May Be Immune To Prosecution http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13485.shtmlCourt: Medicinal Marijuana is Legalhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13469.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by krutch on September 03, 2002 at 13:49:07 PT:
Our Tax Dollars At Work
Prosecuting the evil Myron Mower for growning 31 plants. Go catch some criminals. Drug war is treason. Leave the terminal diabetic alone please.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by The GCW on September 03, 2002 at 05:31:17 PT
prescription for parsley?
In the end, We will simply pick it. We / I will not be going to a dork, to ask...I don't ask for a prescription, to be able to use the water... that Our Father gave to Us...=-=-=-=Here is an interesting observation.US TX: PUB LTE: - You Ignored Libertarian Ads In Barr Defeat
 
 Webpage: http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/letters/stories/090202dnedistudentletter.a5fa6.html
Pubdate: Mon, 02 Sep 2002
Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)
Contact: letterstoeditor dallasnews.com
Author: George Hale, junior, Woodrow Wilson High School, Dallas
 YOU IGNORED LIBERTARIAN ADS IN BARR DEFEAT Re: "Georgia voters boot Barr in GOP redistricting showdown," Aug. 21. I find it perplexing that your coverage of the landslide defeat of drug war zealot Bob Barr made no mention of the one factor that may have been the most important in bringing it about. Over a two-week period, Mr. Barr's Libertarian opponent, Carole Ann Rand, flooded Georgia's 7th District with more than 4,000 TV spots. The ads feature a multiple sclerosis victim who lashes out against the congressman for his crusade against medical marijuana. Because of the redistricting, one Republican incumbent was destined to lose, but the fact that it was Mr. Barr probably had a little less to do with redistricting than you reported. George Hale, junior, Woodrow Wilson High School, Dallas (NOTE: written by a high school student.) THE WORD AND TRUTH IS OUT. 
 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1638/a07.html?397
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on September 03, 2002 at 05:23:29 PT:
One Correction
Obviously, this is a supportive article. However, one point is inaccurate, pertaining to the "prescription." In no jurisdiction in the USA may a physician "prescribe" cannabis without the likely loss of the essential DEA license (that permits the prescription of "scheduled drugs" from codeine on up). It was this "prescription" issue that scuttled the 1996 Arizona law.What a physician may do that is legal under state law in the various states is write a letter of documentation and support for use of cannabis for a given clinical condition. Under initial arguments in Conant vs. McCaffrey, any care giver may discuss clinical cannabis with any client as an exercise of free speech rights. It is that fundamental liberty that the erstwhile general attempted to quash.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by ekim on September 03, 2002 at 04:17:48 PT
C-Span talking about NV cannabis ballot
you can e-mail at journal c-span.org 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment