cannabisnews.com: Initial P215 Implementation Promises Controversy





Initial P215 Implementation Promises Controversy
Posted by CN Staff on October 21, 2003 at 18:23:32 PT
By Mark Tide
Source: Arcata Journal 
Before stepping down as Governor, Gray Davis has signed SB420 (2003), which is the State Legislature’s long-awaited, initial effort to implement P215 (1996). Although P215 only permits governments to “implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of” cannabis to patients in need, SB420 does not address distribution matters.Instead it establishes state-wide limitations on medicinal cannabis cultivation and possession, as well as creating a voluntary, state ID card program to be organized at the level of counties. It also defines and conditions various conduct and situations relevant to P215.
Patients in parts of the state that have not experienced any form of meaningful progress on implementation have expressed happiness about the new plan. However, some patients’ advocates complain that the new law increases some political pressures in other areas of the state where more realistic implementation efforts will now need to be politically activated and enacted by local governments, rather than be able to depend upon more easily achieved, informal foundations like district attorney - type guidelines.Patients’ advocates have also expressed serious legal concerns about the basic thrust of SB420, since such voter initiative - based law is immune from legislative modification except as internally directed through itself. Thus, advocates say that the Legislature may have over-stepped its actual legal authority in influencing provisions of P215 that are outside the scope of its limited mandate for modification under sebsection (b)(1)(C) of the P215 Initiative. New Law Eliminates District Attorney Guidelines on P215 Although seemingly not recognized (in either legislative analysis or current press reports), SB420 also has the abrupt affect of nullifying all of the current approaches to P215 implementation that are based upon an exercise of discretionary policy by local district attorneys. Upon learning of relevant provisions of SB420, Humboldt County’s District Attorney, Paul Gallegos, for example, announced his intention to vacate the County’s implementation guidelines as of Jan. 1, 2004.Whether recognized in Sacramento or not, no form of notice was provided to jurisdictions that will promptly lose present P215 implementation guidelines because of SB420. These include at least the following counties: Humboldt, Sonoma, Mendocino, Del Norte, Marin, Santa Cruz and San Francisco.The only local jurisdictions with implementation ordinances (as contrasted with DA discretion) which will survive SB420 (allowing some modifications through enactments by local jurisdictions) are the three cities of Arcata, Oakland and Santa Cruz. Adoption of an implementation ordinance is also presently being considered by the City of San Diego.P215’s Political Opponents Ordain the State’s New Adoption of Low Limits SB420’s new state-wide patient cultivation limitation of “6 mature or 12 immature” cannabis plants, and a possession limit of “8 ounces,” was dictated by the state’s powerful legislative lobby of law-enforcement interests (e.g., Cal. Dist. Attys. Assoc., etc.), according to several very knowlegeable sources at the Capitol. Limits reflecting current policies in various counties (Humboldt, Sonoma, Del Norte): 99 plants and 3 pounds of cannabis, etc., were considered during the legislative process but rejected because of adverse political influences from the state’s law-enforcement lobby.Experts in cannabis cultivation have indicated that new cultivation limits will deny patients the ability to propagate their existing strains of the herb, and force them to start from new seeds / rootings from unexplained, other sources for each new cultivation. Such restrictions will seriously affect patients’ abilities to develop cannabis strains that are best suited to their specific needs, according to several patients’ advocates, who also note that the new possession limit is insufficient to supply most patients’ needs during the 3 to 4 month process of cultivating cannabis from seed to harvest, and then making it most suitable for medicinal use. They also point out that many patients orally ingest cannabis, and that amounts needed for these purposes are several times the amount that smoking would require -- for obtaining similarly medicinal effects.One section of the new law allows, but does not require, the Attorney General to recommend modifications to its possession or cultivation limits to the Legislature before Dec., 2005. Any such recommendations are to include specified public comment and intent consistency requirements.Another of SB420’s provisions states that, “the Attorney General shall develop and adopt appropriate guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana grown for medical use by patients . . . .” There is no present indication of what such furrther guidelines might amount to, or when they may become active.No attempt is made in SB420 to identify or calibrate oral preparations of cannabis to be used for medicinal purposes. Such preparations would certainly reflect an amount of cannabis in excess of the intent of SB420, which is pointed out several places in the bill as being a controlling feature of any future modicifations (whether by local governments or Attorney General recommendations for additional legislative action).Earlier versions of SB420 would have required the California Dept. of Mental Health to undertake scientific studies directed toward establishing some kind of useable limitations on cannabis cultivation and possession. While, in the adopted version of the bill, physicians may specify increases in the new state limits. Patients’ advocates, however, argue that doctors usually lack any proper understanding of cannabis cultivation. And even if doctors simply raise possession limits for patients, advocates claim, there is no reliable connection with particular, patient cultivations (within which useable cannabis amounts may vary widely).SB420 Contains Many Vague and Problematic Provisions A very knowlegeable source within the Cal. Attorney General’s Office has admitted that no answer exists, to another certain source of legal friction in SB420. This new law forbids any “profit” to be derived from cannabis cultivation, yet still allows collection of a “reasonable cost of services.” Parsing between these two definitions will keep judges and lawyers busy, with expensive, semantical disputes due to these clashing legislative equivocations.SB420’s voluntary ID card program will be administered on a county level, and relevant information is intended to be initially verifiable via telephone, but eventually made compatible with a law enforcement internet system. Patients’ advocates have declared that serious problems exist with any program that archives specific patient information, since security against unwarranted leaks would be practically impossible. Agents of state law enforcement and state / local executive administration would have access, and could fairly easily provide for (though minimally sanctionable under SB420) confidential or procedural federal access.Other sections include provisions for juvenile access and recognition of collaborative cultivations, although these aspects could be easily argued to already exist under P215 and other relevant law. The only really novel change along these lines is a purely discretionary option for special permission for certain incarcerated prisoners to have access, per P215, although nothing in the law requires that any such accommodation actually be made.SB420’s only real policy address to distribution is its purported intent to, “enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects.” Although when governed by the remainder of the provisions of the bill, say some patients’ advocates, this hollow acknowledgment conceals the actual fact that intrusion of unworkable implementation conditions has - through SB420 - fundamentally eroded previously intact, plain and simple, legal rights of association.“It’s not at all clear how assembling together these various inadequacies for patient cultivation and possession will benefit distribution, per se, which is the only lawful predication for legislative action to implement,” explains Robert Harris, a long-time patients’ advocate for proper implementation plans.Harris also draws into serious question the legitimacy of another provision of SB420, which modifies and severely limits conditions through which “primary caregivers” are defined within P215, itself. The new law restricts activities of primary caregivers to providing cannabis to (either:) only a single patient in another county, or else to multiple patients in the primary caregiver’s own county of residence. Primary caregivers are to be prohibited from providing cannabis to multiple patients in counties within which they do not reside. “This seems to be senseless anti-distribution,” says Harris, who views much of SB420 as emanating directly from the state's powerful law-enforcement interests' related lobby at the State Capitol.SB420 Reactions from Humboldt County Supervisors Three of the five Humboldt County Supervisors (John Woolley, Roger Rodoni and Jill Giest) are currently receptive to the Board’s consideration of an implementation ordinance that would modify SB420. From 1998 to 2000, a study committee comprised of various officials and public members was established by the Board, to develop and propose an implementation ordinance. This committee eventually forwarded to the Board a draft ordinance, which was modeled on (and very similar to) the P215 implementation ordinance adopted by Arcata in January, 1998.Present Supervisor Geist’s seat on the Board was held until 2003 by Paul Kirk, who was opposed to an implementation ordinance and combined with Supervisors Bonnie Neely and Stan Dixon (seat now held by Jimmy Smith) to prevent any positive Board action on the ordinance in 2000. Supervisors Woolley and Rodoni both supported the concept of ordinance adoption.Thus, it appears that in what remains of 2003 the Humboldt County Supervisors finally have both reasons and votes to properly consider and adopt an implementation law. District Attorney Gallegos has committed to helping this process of consideration by providing understanding of justifications for his guidelines and policies, although he asserts that he does not intend to advocate for adoption of any particular policies.It is expected that the Board of Supervisors will form a new committee to consider the various matters related to this subject and report back to the Board with substantial advice on what path to persue. Such a committee would probably be given the task of formulating an appropriate draft of a county ordinance for proposal to Supervisors.Complete Title: California’s Initial P215 Implementation Measure Promises ControversySource: Arcata Journal (US CA)Author: Mark TidePublished: Tuesday, October 21, 2003Copyright: 1998-2003 Arcata Journal ~ www.arcata.orgWebsite: http://www.arcata.org/Contact: http://www.arcata.org/contact.htmlRelated Article:New State P215 Law Should Motivate City http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17637.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by Mark Tide on October 27, 2003 at 08:26:56 PT
previous remarks
Re: comments on textWell, no information is duplicated in this article, which offers an itemized description of components in SB420. It covers a lot of information, which unfortunately almost no one is paying attention to (as of yet).One chronic problem with the P215 movement is that the details (like these) are neither known or understood. This article attempts to present that information in an organized way.SB420 has become law because the advocacy for implementation is so weak and distracted (perhaps with a headache).Dr. Mikuriya recently sent me a note, saying that the article I wrote on his situation with state Medical Board is one of the best in print. It's incredible to me that no one comments on material so -- very important -- to the future of P215, except to complain about the style of the messenger.Mark Tide
Arcata Journal
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on October 22, 2003 at 15:38:50 PT
This text needs an editor
This piece could be cut in half and still contain the same information. My head is aching. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment