cannabisnews.com: County OKs Medical Marijuana IDs





County OKs Medical Marijuana IDs
Posted by CN Staff on March 19, 2003 at 08:51:01 PT
By Donna Horowitz, Staff Writer 
Source: Daily Review
After hearing from more than a dozen speakers -- some in wheelchairs and others with canes -- the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday to support issuing medical marijuana identification cards. Supervisor Scott Haggerty cast the lone dissenting vote, saying the cards only had symbolic value because most county police chiefs and the sheriff said they would not honor them.
Haggerty said he feared the county would be giving medical marijuana card-holders false hope. "When you walk out of here, you will have nothing more than when you walked in," Haggerty told about 40 medical marijuana supporters toward the end of the debate. Those supporters applauded after the proposal by Supervisor Nate Miley was voted upon. It will require a second reading before it's adopted. After the meeting, Angel McClary Raich, a leading proponent of medical marijuana use, said although the card doesn't necessarily protect patients and their caregivers from arrest, she said, "It reinforces state law." She was referring to Prop. 215 -- passed by California voters in 1996 -- which allows the possession, cultivation and use of medicinal marijuana. Furthermore, she said the card, "legitimizes the patient and care giver." McClary Raich, a 37-year-old Oakland resident who uses eight pounds of marijuana a year to treat her many illnesses, including a brain tumor and seizures, said if police arrest a legitimate medical marijuana user, they can be forced to pay triple damages. That happened in the case of a Berkeley resident who won $30,000 in damages in 2001 after suing for false arrest, she said. William Drury, 45, of Castro Valley was among the many speakers who testified about the drug's health benefits. Since undergoing removal of a kidney after discovering he had cancer in 1999, he has suffered severe intestinal problems with flu-like symptoms. Use of medical marijuana has relieved most of the pain, he said, allowing him to attend Chabot Community College, where he has earned straight A's. Stacy Fernandez, 53, of Hayward said her weight had dropped to 76 pounds due to an auto immune disease, and she was frequently hospitalized for dehydration until she started using medical marijuana. Now, she said, she weighs 120 pounds and no longer needs a care giver. "My card has been so wonderful," she said, referring to a card issued by the city of Oakland. "I've been able to use my card and feel like a whole person." Miley doesn't see opposition by many of the county's police departments to the identification card as being insurmountable, noting a similar ordinance met resistance from the Oakland Police Department when it was introduced. "Now Oakland is finally on board," Miley said. All it takes is for police officers to be educated about the cards and for their city councils to direct them to honor them, he said. At this time the ordinance only would be applicable to the unincorporated areas, although Miley eventually wants the county as a whole to abide by it. "We'll fight that another day," he said. The ordinance, which took more than a year to make it out of committee, does not specify how much is permissible for a medical marijuana user or care giver to grow or possess. Board President Gail Steele has been bothered by the potential for abuse by a caregiver. But she supported the ordinance after being reassured the card wouldn't protect a caregiver supplying marijuana to a whole neighborhood. Joe DeVries, field director for Miley, said the next step would be to develop growing standards, something he estimated may take a couple of years. Haggerty said medical marijuana regulations need to be developed by the state rather than each county or city, noting that he agreed to push for that if one of the speakers he talked to after the meeting followed through and worked with him.Note: Card doesn't necessarily protect patients, caregivers from arrest.Source: Daily Review, The (CA)Author: Donna Horowitz, Staff Writer Published: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 Copyright: 2003 MediaNews Group, Inc.Contact: revlet angnewspapers.comWebsite: http://www.dailyreviewonline.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmSupervisor Proposes IDs for Pot Users http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14506.shtmlGrowers File Suit To Stop Federal Raids http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14412.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #23 posted by FoM on March 21, 2003 at 09:34:45 PT
Nuevo Mexican 
You're very welcome. I'm glad I was able to help. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Nuevo Mexican on March 21, 2003 at 03:41:47 PT
Thank You!
Yes, that helped. You are getting good at this computer stuff!
LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by FoM on March 19, 2003 at 22:54:53 PT
Nuevo Mexican 
I'm getting ready to call it a day and went and looked and found this link. This patch seems to be the one NOT to download. It never appeared in my Windows Update. I turned my computer off and back on after a little while and am not having any problems. I hope this helps.http://www.enn.ie/news.html?code=9352477
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by FoM on March 19, 2003 at 21:53:48 PT
Nuevo Mexican 
I didn't downloaded the one that I saw yesterday. I did what druid said and when I checked Windows Update there was a new one and that one I did install and have rebooted since then and my computer seems fine. I don't know if that is what you needed to know but I hope I'm answering you right. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Nuevo Mexican on March 19, 2003 at 21:29:01 PT
I'm confused!
Is the update patch bad, or can it be used safely?
I'm afraid to turn off my computer now!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by FoM on March 19, 2003 at 15:13:22 PT
druid
Yes, I had a critical update so I installed it. Thanks again. I don't understand these things very well.
What's New
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by FoM on March 19, 2003 at 14:58:15 PT
druid
I will recheck thanks!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by druid on March 19, 2003 at 14:56:42 PT
FoM
Ok great but the update that palmspringsbum is talking about has only been released today in the past hour or two. I did the windows update thing this morning and was told I was up to date. I went back just a few moments ago after palmspringsbum posted about it and it was there to download. Actually 2 new updates since this morning 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on March 19, 2003 at 14:51:09 PT
Thank You druid
I did check Windows Update yesterday and it said I was current. Thanks!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by druid on March 19, 2003 at 14:48:28 PT
FoM
Just use Internet Explorer and goto http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com and download and install the updates through their webpage. This way you don't need to know any info at all about your OS or your computer in general.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by FoM on March 19, 2003 at 14:47:04 PT
I Just Found This
Latest Windows 2000 patch can lock system IDG News Service 3/19/03Joris Evers, IDG News Service, Amsterdam Bureau A software patch that fixes a serious security vulnerability in Microsoft Corp.'s Windows 2000 can cause systems running the operating system to fail, Microsoft said Tuesday. 
The patch, announced Monday in security bulletin MS03-007, is incompatible with 12 software fixes for Windows 2000 issued by Microsoft's Product Support Services (PSS) between December 2001 and February 2002. Users running any of those fixes won't be able to reboot their Windows 2000 systems after applying the "critical" patch, according to a revised version of Microsoft's bulletin issued Tuesday. Complete Article: http://www.itworld.com/Comp/2444/030319win2000patch/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on March 19, 2003 at 14:36:23 PT
palmspringsbum 
I checked it out yesterday but couldn't figure out if I have Windows 2000 because it is an ME that says Windows 2000 too. I didn't do anything about it for that reason. I wish I knew.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by palmspringsbum on March 19, 2003 at 14:29:26 PT:
off topic but important
Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday warned about a serious flaw in almost every version of its popular Windows software that could allow hackers to seize control of a person's computer when victims read e-mails or visit Web sites......It was particularly unusual because it affected so many different versions of Windows, from Windows 98 to its latest Windows XP editions...http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/03/19/national1524EST0689.DTLLink for the fix: http://www.microsoft.com/security
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Nuevo Mexican on March 19, 2003 at 14:21:39 PT
These are acts of terrorism, the war on cannabis, 
and the war on Iraq!The truth is our there, can you bear it?Rep. Stark blasts Bush on Iraq war 
Fremont Democrat says plan to bomb Baghdad is 'act of extreme terrorism':http://commondreams.org/headlines03/0319-05.htmDrug war toll increases under cover of war:
Stop the 'Higher' education Act!http://www.drugpolicy.org/safetyfirst/higheredact/Former minister rubs Blair's nose in lack of U.S. will for new resolution:http://www.nationalpost.com/world/story.html?id={DC614E96-D9D7-463F-9265-08B7A1B1DA0A}Anybody Catholic out there, read this: Vatican says War is a crime against God:http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:bCggEWcAOysC:www.catholic-vision.org/adolfoeng6.html+war+is+crime+against+god!&hl=en&ie=UTF-8And finally: This makes me proud to be a 'murican!Shock & Awe: Is Baghdad the Next Hiroshima?http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0127-08.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Virgil on March 19, 2003 at 13:47:36 PT
Is the WOD terrorism?
This article- http://www.counterpunch.org/lummis03192003.html - presents the government's definition of terrorism- ...the U.S. Department of Defense definition: "the unlawful use of-or threatened use of-force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."The article will later say But terrorism is not the name of a crime, it is the name of a strategy, "a mode of combat" as we put it in our contest announcement. The acts that constitute terrorism are in the same category as other modes of combat such as frontal assault, flank attack, pincers movement, siege, saturation bombing, assassination of leaders, gas attack, torture of prisoners and the like.Now does the War On Drugs use terror which then makes it terrorism? Seems like it to me and I am not a peasant living in Colombia.MotherJones.com has had a story up for over a week about the US protecting the tobacco companies interest that shows there is no real War on Drugs-in an article titled, "Kicking the (US) Habit"- http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2003/11/we_328_01.htmlOf course prohibition could not continue without a controlled media. Their is a translation of an article from Der Spiegel with its original link at http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/17_spiegel.html which is noteworthy just by the fact that it introduces a new term- "brainwashington."This article hails the glory of the Internet and rightly bashes the controlled media. It includes the paragraph of the day-While the US users turn away from the easily manipulated local mass media and look for "unadulterated news", the German professional information service "intern. de" is already anticipating a reversal of the media world: In the formation of opinion about actual events, the US press, which is mostly in step with each other, is apparently beginning to lose "impact", while the Internet is "playing a much more significant role than has been assumed up to now".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by palmspringsbum on March 19, 2003 at 13:35:06 PT:
i420 - California Constitution
i420, the Section in question is Article III Section 3.5: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_3------------------------------------------------------------SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:  (a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;  (b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;  (c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.-----------------------------------------------------------I'm sure law-enforcement will try to make the argument that the Supreme Court decision regarding the Oakland Club invalidates 215. But it does not. The judge was very specific that it did not apply to individual patients. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Nuevo Mexican on March 19, 2003 at 13:07:50 PT
Lesson in Free Speech, hypocrisy is just fine?
Cannabis news is a bastion of free speech, and discussing an illegal plant and it's uses in Ashcrofts' America is treasonous and an act of sedition. Supreme Court Justice Scalia Bans Media 
From 'Free Speech' Eventhttp://commondreams.org/headlines03/0319-10.htm 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on March 19, 2003 at 12:56:25 PT
palmspringsbum 
Thank you. I will watch it later on tonight. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by palmspringsbum on March 19, 2003 at 12:54:04 PT:
speaking of Angel Raich
Michelle Kubby recently had an excellent telephone interview with her. Listen here: http://www.pot-tv.net/archive/shows/pottvshowse-1827.htmlAnd here's a link for the court documents in the case: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/index.html#drugs"A lot of the problem we're having and the hardest thing we're having to endure is fundraising. If people would like to make donations it's:Angel Wings Patient Outreach IncorporatedP.O. Box 18767Oakland, California94619-8767It is tax deductible if you're in the United States.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by i420 on March 19, 2003 at 12:50:58 PT
Vote em out!!
Supervisor Scott Haggerty cast the lone dissenting vote, saying the cards only had symbolic value because most county police chiefs and the sheriff said they would not honor them.From what i have been told it would be against cal state law if these people did not honor prop 215  it is my understanding according to cali constitution if state and federal law conflict these people must uphold cali law
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Virgil on March 19, 2003 at 11:15:47 PT
Where are the new poll numbers?
It has been since October 23/24 of 2002 since we have heard any new poll numbers on the belief that cannabis should be recognized as medicine. That 80% number has had to increase, but where are the numbers. Gallup gave us the 73% number that was used before the widely quoted 80% but they did not release a number for last year.I can understand how a bought and paid for Congress ignores the will of the people, but I have a hard time understanding how people ignore being ignored. My feeling is that the number has to be higher to the intellectually inquisitive such as Congressmen, but even 80% of 535 is 428 that would really have to think that cannabis has medical value. My feeling is that all of them really believe it has medical value because in reality it medicine especially given the broad definition used by the FDA. Reality says it has medical value and Congress knows it and still stonewalls the falsity.In Nol Van Shaik's comment at hempcity.com about the prescription cannabis costing 9 Euros a gram he would later comment that it was too expensive for taxpayer's vs. the coffeeshop prices and its one strain did not offer the varieties of delivery now seen in the coffeeshops. His second comment on the subject shows his real concern for the pain of others that is absent in our national Congress.From http://www.hempcity.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=101 cnannabinol writesI only have limited access to the web, on holidays in Spain, so it is good others help spread the word, we are all in this together. Our Mediweed`patients want to have our grass, or hash, or chocolate bars and lolloipops, or chocolate milk-mix, so they have o choice of medicine, and on how to ingest the medicine. 
We will start giving the patients receipts, as soon as the refund comes in, next year, so they can ask for a refund of their medicine of choice, and it is a lot cheaper for the Health Department. The community has to pay for the refund, I am part of that commmunity. Letīs keep burning bush....Let's get a Congress that admits to the Schedule One Falsity, a.k.a. The Schedule One Lie. The best program on television exposing the power of the multi-national corporations and their tax havens and such is NOW with Bill Moyers. He had another segment on the pill industry this last week mainly speaking to the power of $2 billion in advertising. IT is funny that the bes program on television adressing the issue of money comes on Monday morning at 3AM where you have to use a VCR to record it. I say it is another examle of the power of concentrated money. He did get a special segment in prime time on Monday but it was about the attack on Iraq and not an attack on the plutocracy taht control everything.There was a recent article at Bloomberg about how the pill companies would attack insurers that used Canadian pharmacies to lower their cost by as much as 80% of some prescriptions. The pill industry did not threaten individuals with lawsuits but it was clearly stated the practice was illegal. I would put up the link, but it is no longer working and most of us here know the story of pill company greed opposing lower prices from Canada.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on March 19, 2003 at 11:10:41 PT
freedom fighter
I just want to thank you for commenting on the news article. I really appreciate it. I can't answer your question though. PS: 4 feet of snow! Burrrrr!
What's New
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by freedom fighter on March 19, 2003 at 11:03:29 PT
Only Potential Abuse 
Got 4 FEET of snow in front of my driveway... Still snowing down here in Colo... Brrrrrr! Anyhow, would someone kindly point out this out to Board President Gail Steele who said she has been bothered by the potential for abuse by a caregiver. The only potential abuse is when the LAW breaks the caregiver's door down. Because when you put one caregiver in a cage, you will have effectively sentence a sick person to a painful death. This is not what I want to send a message to any youth. No matter how you sliced or diced it, it is morally evil to do that to any human beings.How is it if I planted millions of this certain plant am I abusing the society? As long the prohibition policy exist so Gail Steele can get on her soapbox ranting Potential for abuse in the name of Proper message, we will build more prisons, half of this country will hate the other half. There shall be no peace until we are free to plant.ff
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment