cannabisnews.com: Davis Signs Anti Prop 215 Medical Marijuana Law





Davis Signs Anti Prop 215 Medical Marijuana Law
Posted by CN Staff on November 06, 2003 at 10:40:17 PT
By Steve Kubby
Source: Los Angeles Daily Journal 
On his way out the door, and after two previous vetoes, Gov. Gray Davis has signed a controversial medical-marijuana bill, SB420 (Vasconcellos). The new bill, a radical rewrite of the state's medical-marijuana laws, will take effect Jan. 1, 2004 much to the horror of the very patients that the new law is supposed to protect.The new law offers confidential photo identification cards, on a voluntary basis, to document patients who are registered and protected.
However, the devil is in the details. For example, SB420 seems to allow prisoners and people on probation or parole to use medical cannabis but not quite. Under SB420, prisoners, defendants, probationers and parolees may ask to use medical cannabis, but nothing guarantees that they will be allowed to do so.Why did drug-warrior Davis veto a needle-exchange bill but sign a medical-marijuana bill? Is it because SB420 protects patients? Or is it because it drastically reduces their rights under Proposition 215? Davis apparently liked SB420 enough to sign it, even though it would have become law without his signature. That worries California medical-pot patients."Would you have a group of white supremacists enforcing anti-discrimination laws? Because that's what we have right here," said noted marijuana author and activist Ed Rosenthal of Oakland."I don't believe that police, prosecutors or any part of the criminal-justice system are stakeholders in making the policy decisions regarding people's health," Rosenthal added.In 1996, voters passed Proposition 215, which enacted the state's Compassionate Use Act. Proposition 215 provided that medical-marijuana possession required only a doctor's note. The proposition neither limited how much pot a patient could have nor specified where he or she could get it.Rosenthal and Dennis Peron, a driving force behind Proposition 215, want to keep the simply written initiative as the people of California passed it in 1996.SB420 will result in varying possession limits in different cities and counties. According to Rosenthal, varying limits mean that "there's no equal protection under the law. Does that mean in counties allowing only six plants, that people are healthier there and need less medicine?"Rosenthal also said that the new law is "constitutionally flawed because it treats patients who use marijuana as medicine different from other patients." No ID card or registry is mandated for people using prescription painkillers, for instance."Marijuana is not a drug. A drug is something that's manufactured, an artifact of human intervention. Marijuana is an herb and should be regulated just for purity the way other herbs are," said Rosenthal.Sen. John Vasconcellos hotly disputes these accusations, especially with respect to the six-plant limit on mature plants in SB420. "It's a floor, it's not a ceiling any local government can decide to increase that amount," boasts Vasconcellos. However, nowhere does the bill describe the plant limits as a "floor" or "minimum amount."Although California has vowed to protect the identity of medical-marijuana ID card holders, patients worry that U.S. drug agents will seize any list that they can get their hands on and use it as a hit list for arrests.That is certainly what has happened so far. Each time that the Drug Enforcement Administration has raided a medical-cannabis club, it has seized applications, with patient names and physician contact information. Whenever defense attorneys have asked courts to return these lists, the agency has fought and has succeeded in keeping the lists.The feds already are targeting patients for as few as six plants. Just this month, agents raided the homes of Sister Somaya in Los Angeles and Travis Paulson in Oregon, even though they were in full compliance with state laws.As medical-pot attorney Bill Panzer recently told the Los Angeles Times, SB420 is an "anti-medical marijuana law" that will "tread on the doctor-patient relationship, put an unrealistic limit on some patients most in need and embolden narcotics officers who might make more arrests in some parts of the state."Panzer knows what he is talking about. He helped write Proposition 215 and probably has defended more Proposition 215 patients successfully than any other attorney in the state. If Panzer says that this is an "anti-medical-marijuana law," then one should believe him. He is in the trenches every day, defending patients against state and federal authorities.On the day before SB420 was to come to a vote, Attorney General Bill Lockyer had a meeting with Vasconcellos and told him that the bill would not pass unless it was revised to limit possession to eight ounces and six mature and 12 immature plants. Lockyer argued that because no federal guidelines existed, SB420 would have to create new guidelines arbitrarily.However, federal medical-marijuana patients, like George McMahon and Elvy Musika, will attest that doctors have set a standard of eight to 12 pounds per year and that this is what the U.S. government gives to each of its medical-marijuana patients.Lockyer and Vasconcellos could have taken the position that doctors should set the limits, because that is what the feds do. Instead, they lied about the federal guidelines and created their own limits, based on politics, not medicine. The last-minute and arbitrary nature of those limits has angered patients, who feel betrayed by Lockyer and Vasconcellos.One thing is clear: SB420 will criminalize and endanger thousands of patients who are well outside the six-plant/eight-ounce limit and do not have sufficient support from their doctors to challenge the statewide limit.Laws enacted through the initiative process may be changed only through the initiative process. The Legislature may pass only laws that do not contradict an initiative. Proposition 215 set a medical-marijuana possession limit, and that limit is "for personal medical use."The state Supreme Court affirmed this quantity limit in People v. Mower, 28 Cal.4th 457 (2002). There, the court clearly held that the only quantity limit or requirement in Proposition 215 is "for personal medical use." SB420 plainly contradicts, and even repeals, this quantity limit.Suppose a patient has 16 ounces and possesses it "for personal medical use," even though he will not be able to use up his supply, say, within two years. SB420 will make this conduct criminal, even though it is not criminal under Proposition 215.The Compassionate Use Act was easy for voters and juries to understand. Why punish patients with all these new regulations and unrealistic limits? Bona fide medical-cannabis patients need a bill that protects patients and forces police to uphold the Compassionate Use Act as it was passed in Proposition 215.Instead, they got a law that barters away their rights and creates new crimes that will be charged against medical-cannabis patients.Steve Kubby is national director of the American Medical Marijuana Association. -- http://www.americanmarijuana.org/Source: Los Angeles Daily Journal (CA)Author: Steve KubbyPublished: November 06, 2003Copyright: 2003 Daily JournalsWebsite: http://www.dailyjournal.com/Contact: don_debenedictis dailyjournal.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana.orghttp://www.marijuana.org/The Drug War Refugees http://freedomtoexhale.com/smk.htm Ed Rosenthal's Pictures and News Articleshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/trialpics.htmPot Bill Splits Pro-Smoking Groups http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17612.shtmlCalifornia’s Medi-Pot Limit is Embarrassinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17383.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #21 posted by jose melendez on November 07, 2003 at 08:01:42 PT
speaking of the law . . .
"'I'll beat you, and I'll stop beating you if you pay.' We call that extortion, and it's no different in the high-tech world," said Howard Beales, the head of the FTC's consumer-protection division. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/11/07/microsoft.popup.reut/index.htmlSomeone PLEASE explain to me why drug war industry should not be held to the same standard. Anyone? Come on, please. Joyce? Frances? MaryJaneFreedom? I know we have a few lawyers here. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Jose Melendez on November 07, 2003 at 07:46:24 PT
can you say, generic?
the new law is "constitutionally flawed because it treats patients who use marijuana as medicine different from other patients." Why would that not apply to all such laws?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Patrick on November 06, 2003 at 20:08:15 PT
ID Cards
I have to agree with Ed again… Rosenthal also said that the new law is "constitutionally flawed because it treats patients who use marijuana as medicine different from other patients." No ID card or registry is mandated for people using prescription painkillers, for instance.While I wouldn't put my name on a cannabis user list (I'll admit to using it here but that's not quite the same) I understand that others wouldn't mind it. I do think that such a list is begging an arrest but that is my personal paranoia and fear. I disagree with the list or ID card on the grounds of what ED said in this article. I think in a way that a "Cannabis Card" is sorta akin to being stamped like those who wore scarlet letters in the past. Especially, when you consider that arresting people for a plant in the first place is the real crime. Why not get an ID that says "hey, I am chronic speeder and I must drive 80 to ease my pain of being late so please do not write me a ticket officer" see, I have the card! A Do Not Arrest Me for Cannabis Card reminds me of paying protection money to the guy who just threatened to break your legs if you didn't pay up. Sorting people by how much they smoke or why they smoke with ID cards is irrelevant to the whole cannabis issue. I like to think that most "sane" people in this country already agree that arresting the sick is inhumane. Politics is just slow to catch up. Also, issuing a card that says, "hey I am sick and smoke pot so please mister policeman don't arrest me" doesn't solve anything. It just creates more bureaucrats and more bureaucracy. Yeah we need more of that! The solution lies in ending prohibition not in issuing ID cards to patients who use cannabis.However, I would carry a card or a chip that identifies my medical conditions, allergies, blood type, etc that could possibly save my save life? I just don't see "law enforcement" as needing to be involved in my medical care equation.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by E_Johnson on November 06, 2003 at 19:06:09 PT
Compare these two headlines
Pothead from California busted, claims it's medicalorLicensed medical marijuana user from California arrested -- advocate group calls for MMJ states to recognize each others' registered patients
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by E_Johnson on November 06, 2003 at 19:02:23 PT
Everyone's entitled to their opinion
The thing that bugged me is there's only one opinion in this article but it was made to sound like it represented all patients.It does not.You can be paranoid about the ID card all you want.The real problem is that the federal governmant CAN arrest patients whenever they want.When they raided the LACRC, they confiscated the patient list. In all of their other raids -- they have confiscated patient lists.If they were going to do raids on that basis, we'd all be in jail now. All of us. They already have enough information from raiding our clubs to know who the patients are.There are pluses and minuses to the ID card system.The biggest minus is Big Brother.Two big pluses -- the police become guilty of a crime if they arrest a card holder. They CAN'T arrest us. No matter how much they want to. Another positive -- If you happen to travel out of state and get arrested with medicine, you have a chance of being quietly let go because you have a card sanctioned by the government of another state. It's a lot more inducement for that cop to look the other way than a letter from a doctor from another state.Or the cop doesn't look the other way, you have a chance that your bust will be covered by the media as a kind of test case demanding a nationwide medical marijuana policy where card holders from different states can be treated the same.There's a lot of aspects to this law, it's not so simple.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by The GCW on November 06, 2003 at 19:00:11 PT
been thinking the same... for years.
"Marijuana is not a drug. A drug is something that's manufactured, an artifact of human intervention. Marijuana is an herb and should be regulated just for purity the way other herbs are," said Rosenthal.Man makes drugs.The Bible never speaks of cannabis as "drug".We should consider ways to eliminate the idea that cannabis is a "drug".Using, "Drug" to describe cannabis is usually used in a biased manner. The pro's have latched on that one... 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Patrick on November 06, 2003 at 17:55:22 PT
SB420
SB420 = SMOKE BUD 420 ??? Perhaps it's just me but…"I don't believe that police, prosecutors or any part of the criminal-justice system are stakeholders in making the policy decisions regarding people's health," Rosenthal added. Neither do I Ed.The new law offers confidential photo identification cards, on a voluntary basis, to document patients who are registered and protected. Can you say please arrest me Uncle Sam I smoke pot?Personally, this bill is BS politics. Growing a cannabis plant is still considered a crime by jackboots that get their jollies busting you whether you have a doctor's note or not. Look at Canada. When in doubt about the law the cops will arrest you and then ask questions later. The only way to the freedom we seek is to just put an end to cannabis prohibition. Everything else till then, including Prop 215, is nothing more than a Band-Aid that doesn't adhere very well.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by FoM on November 06, 2003 at 15:15:27 PT
Thanks TroutMask 
I never quote things right. Duh! LOL! I'm still watching it and it is out of this world. I know I'm out of step with music today but I'm happy. I'm just like Gallagher said. Stuck in the 60s! I can relate to their music so easily.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by TroutMask on November 06, 2003 at 15:03:03 PT
It's "loose joints"...
I saw that concert on HBO when it was first run and I've listened to the CD for years since. Paul thanks the people "selling loose joints".:-)-TM
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by FoM on November 06, 2003 at 13:29:05 PT
I Can't Wait For The Story from Drudge
But while I'm waiting I'm having my own little party. My DVDs came and I'm watching Simon and Garfunkel's Concert in Central Park. Paul Simon said when he was giving credits to people who helped set this concert up that he wanted to give special credit to those who sell loose marijuana because today they will donate half of their procedes to the city! I laughed. I hope I quoted it right.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by jose melendez on November 06, 2003 at 12:53:12 PT
wise men say
from:http://www.jcm.co.uk/news/News69.phtmlMARIJUANA & MS
 Four trials into the medical applications of cannabis are currently taking place in the United Kingdom. The largest is the multiple sclerosis study, sponsored by the Medical Research Council, which aims to include 660 participants at 40 centres. Three smaller phase II trials (in Guernsey, Oxford, and Norfolk) have been under way since autumn 2000, examining a sublingual spray for multiple sclerosis as well as various chronic pain syndromes. Now the Dutch government has announced a small scale cross over trial into the effect of three sorts of medical marijuana, plus a placebo, on 16 patients with multiple sclerosis, and also intends to make medicinal cannabis available through pharmacists on prescription by spring 2003 (BMJ 2002;324:504).  
 MARIJUANA & IQ
 Researchers at Carleton University in Ottawa who had tracked the development of 70 individuals since birth, measured their intelligence quotient (IQ) scores at 9 to 12 years old, and compared them to IQ scores at ages 17 to 20. Those classified as heavy marijuana users (more than five joints per week), experienced an average drop of 4.1 IQ points, whilst IQ points were gained among the rest of the group, including light users, former users and non-users of marijuana. However despite the decline, the IQ of the heavy users was above average, and after three months of no use of marijuana, their IQ scores had risen to expected levels (CMAJ, April 2, 2002; 166 (7)). In another US and Australian study, long-term regular smokers (near daily use) with a mean 24 years of regular cannabis use performed significantly less well on tests of memory and attention than non-user controls and shorter-term users with a mean of 10 years’ use, among whom no significant differences were found (JAMA, 2002; 287: 1123-1131).  
 CANNABIS & TOURETTE’S SYNDROME
 A blinded study into 12 patients with Tourette’s syndrome, carried out at Hanover Medical College in Germany has shown that a single oral dose of d9-THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) significantly reduced symptoms such as level of tic activity and compulsions to shout, spit or swear. A further 6-week study with 24 patients has supported the results (Pharmacopsychiatry 2002;33:57-61).  
 MYRRH AND SCHISTOSOMIASIS
 Schistosomiasis is a common parasitic infection which is transmitted to humans through contact with faeces-contaminated water. A single fluke may live in the human body and continuously lay eggs for up to 20 years, resulting in pain, obstruction and dysfunction of many different organs as well as anaemia. 204 patients with schistosomiasis were treated with 10mg/kg of body weight of Mo Yao (Myrrha). After 3 days 91.7% were cured. Further treatment of those who were not cured after 3 days was given at the same dose for 6 days, and 76.5% of these cases were then found to be cured. The total cure rate was 98.09%. The medicine was well tolerated with only mild and transient side effects. 20 cases given biopsy tests 6 months later were found to be free of living eggs (Am J Trop Med Hyg 2001 Dec;65(6):700-4).
  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by jose melendez on November 06, 2003 at 12:48:09 PT
test THIS!
from: http://www.drudgereport.comFirst major study of medicinal cannabis indicates it could help in multiple sclerosis... Developing... Also, from:http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/19991218/clinical/mrccannabistrial.htmlDr Zajicek will recruit 660 patients with multiple sclerosis from across Britain who have significant spasticity in some of their leg muscles. Patients will receive one of three treatments, as oral capsules (see Panel): extract of cannabis (Cannador), tetrahydrocannabinol or THC (Marinol), or placebo. Dr Zajicek said: "We hope the study will provide definite scientific evidence about whether or not taking cannabis is helpful to people with multiple sclerosis." 
Professor Tony Moffat (chief scientist, Royal Pharmaceutical Society) said that it was important to see whether Cannador worked and, if so, whether its effects, both therapeutic and unwanted, were the same as those of THC. One possibility, he said, was that other materials in the Cannador plant extract could mask the psychoactive effects of THC, while still allowing beneficial effects on muscles. Professor Moffat said that his belief, from the literature, was that cannabidiol, not THC, would be the therapeutically active agent in multiple sclerosis. 
The MRC trial is separate from work being carried out by GW Pharmaceuticals, a commercial organisation, which is also developing cannabis-based products, using sublingual drops and sprays and a nebulised formulation (PJ, November 20, p811). GW's phase II studies, which are expected to start next year, will include patients with multiple sclerosis. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1528921.stmIn January the first recruits were signed up in Plymouth and from June the trial was extended nationwide. In total 660 people are needed for the three-year programme, which will involve 38 hospitals across Britain. Patients are accepted onto the study for only one year and are randomly given one of three treatments. Some are given cannabis oil, others a constituent of cannabis called tetrahydrocannabinol, and the remainder receive placebo capsules. Every few weeks, those taking part in the trial are assessed for muscle stiffness and mobility and are also asked to take part in a postal survey about their disability and quality of life. Neither the patients nor the doctor will know which form of treatment each is being given until after the study. The results are expected by summer 2003. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200001/ldselect/ldsctech/50/5002.htm(i) Dr John Zajicek, a neurologist at Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, is conducting a three year study to assess the efficacy of cannabis extract and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in the treatment of spasticity in people suffering from multiple sclerosis. The title of the trial is "Cannabinoids in Multiple Sclerosis" ("CAMS"); (ii) Dr Anita Holdcroft at Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College School of Medicine, London, is conducting a two year study to assess the efficacy of cannabis extract and THC as postoperative analgesics. This trial is entitled "A clinical trial as proof of principle of the analgesic effectiveness of cannabinoids on postoperative pain" ("CANPOP").http://www.letfreedomgrow.com/cmu/can_cannabis_help_ms.htm   
Multiple Sclerosis is commonly described as "relapsing/remitting", "primary progressive", or "secondary progressive". In the first case symptoms come and go. Primary progressive is where the symptoms just gradually get worse without remission and secondary progressive affects roughly half of the patients initially diagnosed with relapsing/remitting disease when remission ceases and progression remains constant. MS is treated with a wide variety of medications depending upon the presenting symptoms. Many of these medications are powerful and have a multitude of side effects. Cannabis has been reliably reported to help alleviate many symptoms of MS including spasticity, seizures, neuropathy, and depression. Normally, these symptoms are addressed with anti-seizure drugs like gabapentin, carbamazepine, and valproic acid, relaxants like valium and baclofen, and anti-depressants like the SSRI’s. The primary immune attack on myelin is often treated with immunosuppressive drugs like Interferon Beta, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, and glatiramer acetate. Recent research indicates that although cannabis cannot replace these medications, in addition to symptomatic relief, cannabis is a selective immunosuppressant and protects the integrity of myelin. Cannabis increases levels of Interleukin 6 which in turn provides a selective immunomodulating effect while cannabis also serves as a powerful anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant (see Cannabis and Neuroprotection)
 In view of the fact that current medicines used to treat MS are often toxic and addicting, why is there a controversy over cannabis which is nontoxic and not addicting in any physical sense? A review and search of major American MS websites including those of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation, finds scant information about cannabis combined with opposition to cannabis as medicine because:Cannabis is smokedThere is a lack of researchCannabis may aggravate the problems with coordination MS sufferers may experienceIn contrast, a review of major English or Canadian websites including the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain reveals more than a dozen references to cannabis and a far more open attitude to the utilization of cannabis. Large scale clinical trials of cannabis are underway in Britain to ascertain scientifically whether or not cannabis assists the symptoms of neuropathy and spasticity. The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Great Britain prefers that non-smoked forms of the medicine be utilized. They have advocated strongly for large scale clinical trials which are now underway including the use of the sublingual spray developed by GW Pharmaceuticals. The debate seems to revolve around the two major points:Can a smoked whole herb be considered medicine?Do the negative side effects of cannabis outweigh its therapeutic benefit?http://www.gwpharm.com/cann_ther_mult.htmlCollectively, these studies indicates that cannabis may     substantially control the symptoms of MS, including muscle spasms, ataxia,     and bladder dysfunction, and may also play a role in halting the progression     of the disease. http://www.cannabis-trial.plymouth.ac.uk/The Cannabis in Multiple Sclerosis trial is being coordinated from Plymouth, UK and will look specifically at the question of whether cannabis, as either whole plant extract or one of its active components, can help the muscle stiffness and spasms that affect multiple sclerosis sufferers.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on November 06, 2003 at 12:30:10 PT
Just My Thoughts
Reading that Drudge is going to a report on Cannabis and MS is remarkable to me. If we are happy or if we are sad about changes that might be happening one thing I want to say is we are seeing history happen right before our eyes in real time and no matter what I will never forget it all and all of you.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on November 06, 2003 at 12:22:41 PT
Thanks Hope
I appreciate it and Drudge is going to report on it. That's great!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Hope on November 06, 2003 at 12:09:15 PT
Something is "developing"
at the Drudge Report http://drudgereport.com/
http://drudgereport.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by jose melendez on November 06, 2003 at 11:57:08 PT
who said:
"Permanent brain damage is one of the inevitable results of the use of marijuana."
 Hints:Cannabinoids have nueroprotective properties.This former California Governor currently demonstrates symptoms of Parkinson's.
http://my.marijuana.com/article.php?sid=7764&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on November 06, 2003 at 11:13:32 PT
EJ Your Opinions Count To Me
I try to stay out of this issue because I know it is split right down the middle. That's why I like the part about Cannabis not being a drug but an herb. I've always felt that way. A plant is a plant is a plant. Even coca leaves to make tea shouldn't be against the law. I guess the poppy would fit there too. I don't know all the ways people consume natural plants other then what I saw on the news about coca tea.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on November 06, 2003 at 11:03:43 PT
People who disagree with Steve don't exist I guess
"Much to the horror of the very patients..."Not to the horror of ALL patients, to the horror of many. There has never been a vote or survey of any kind taken on this. Steve comes off as so idealistic but he's not idealistic enough to be honest and above board in his public positions.In this article he disrespects all of the patients who disagree with him about this law, by implying that all patients are in an uproar over it.He's being manipulative, just like any politician. All of this fuss over plant limits glosses over the fact that Prop. 215 does not protect patients from arrest, only from prosecution.Prop. 215 doesn't even technically allow patients to share a joint, because that's delivery, and that wasn't covered under the initiative.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on November 06, 2003 at 10:58:09 PT
I Liked This Part and I Agree
"Marijuana is not a drug. A drug is something that's manufactured, an artifact of human intervention. Marijuana is an herb and should be regulated just for purity the way other herbs are," said Rosenthal.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by OverwhelmSam on November 06, 2003 at 10:53:36 PT:
Can You Say "Civil Suits?"
This law will be overturned in court. Then again, maybe Davis knew exactly what he was doing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on November 06, 2003 at 10:51:34 PT
The beat goes on
Since Panzer and Kubby wrote 215, maybe they could tell us why it only protected people from prosecution and not arrest, and didn't allow for transport or delivery.It's pretty hard to be a medical marijuana patient with a law that only protects you from prosecution and not from arrest.The police could just keep arresting people as long as they were content to see the charges keep getting dropped.One good aspect of SB420 is that the police are guilty of disobeying the law if they arrest us!That's a new one. I like that part of it, I really do.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment