cannabisnews.com: SB 848 Update!





SB 848 Update!
Posted by FoM on June 29, 1999 at 22:12:33 PT
A letter from Steve Kubby
Source: The Kubby Files
Tue, Jun 29, 1999 Friends: I have received word from individuals with access to the language of the Vasconcellos/Lockyer bill that I have portrayed certain aspects of the bill innaccurately or distorted other provisions of the legislation in previous messages.
I still oppose SB 848 because it treats medical marijuana as a dangerous and addictive drug, when Prop. 215 doesn't. Such language may appease the police, but it perpetuates lies and should have been rejected as false and misleading, based upon clear findings to the contrary by the Drug Czar's own IOM report. I also object to SB 848 because it fails to mention one word about punishing rogue police for raiding, arresting, jailing, looting, humiliating and murdering sick and dying patients. However, SB 848 is supported by many good people and deserves to be considered without prejudice or false information. In the interest of fairness, please allow me to clarify some false and misleading information which I gave you earlier.I wrote:Original MessageFrom: Steve Kubby [mailto:steve kubby.org] Here are some of the repressive proposals in SB 848: >--Creates a limited list of conditions for which cannabis can be recommended or >approved. Proposition 215 allows any doctor to recommend marijuana for any medical >condition. This is not accurate. The proposed legislation lists the following diseases/conditions: cancer anorexia AIDS arthritis migraine glaucoma cachexia chronic pain severe nausea seizures (including epilepsy) persistent muscle spasms (including multiple sclerosis) IN ADDITION, the bill contains a "catch-all" phrase which reads: "ANY OTHER chronic or persistent medical symptom that: (a) substantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act; or (b) if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient's safety or physical or mental health." As you can see, this language serves to cover just about any other medical condition for which marijuana may cause relief. In fact, a footnote on this topic in an earlier version of the bill reads: "The last catch-all category should give physicians broad discretion to discuss the use of marijuana with patients for a wide number of conditions." I should point out that the language of this bill was drafted by Alice Mead, an attorney employed by the California Medical Association, representing physicians. Apparently, this phrase was fought over at the Task Force meetings. Law enforcement wanted it out and the medical marijuana community representatives battled to keep it in. The point of that phrase was precisely so politicians and police would NOT have the power to decide which conditions apply -- only doctors. >--Bans all out-of-state doctors. Proposition 215 empowers any medical doctor from any >state to recommend or approve their patient’s medical use of marijuana while the >patient is in California. This bill would ban doctor recommendations from >Sloan-Kettering (NYC) or the Mayo Clinic (Minnesota). The California Medical Association -- and other members on the Task Force -- felt that since Prop. 215 was a state law, only in-state doctors (licensed by the state medical board) should receive its protections. California law has no jurisdiction over New York or Minnesota physicians. The language of the bill reads: "'Physician' means an individual who possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy issued by the Medical Board or the Board of Osteopathic Examiners of the State of California." >--Imposes limits on caregivers such as registering every caregiver with their digital >photograph and address information; banning family members under 18 from watering a >patient's plants; limiting patients to one caregiver at a time. The provisions of the bill are VOLUNTARY. No patient will be required to register with the state. The point was to set up a separate, parallel system of registry for those patients who sought further protection from the state. The Legislature does not have the authority to amend what the people have voted into law, so this bill's provisions must be voluntary. It is true that primary caregivers will be issued ID cards in addition to the patients, but one could argue that this would protect the caregivers from unnecessary arrest. If they are stopped by police while in possession of marijuana and they show their ID card, the caregiver would be sent on his or her way with the marijuana. There is nothing in the bill that would ban "family members under 18 from watering a patient's plants." With regards to the issue of a single "primary caregiver," this subject was also hotly debated in Task Force meetings. However, as attorney Robert Raich notes, the court decision Lungren v. Peron stated that patients could only have one "caregiver." To deal with the fact that more than one individual helps a patient at any given time, and to protect those individuals, Section 12 of the bill defines "Authorizing Acts Incidental and Necessary to the Cultivation and Possession of Marijuana for Medical Purposes." This Section protects not only patients and caregivers, but also: " (c) Any individual who provides assistance to a qualified patient or a person with a registry identification card, or his or her designated primary caregiver, in: (i) administering medical marijuana to the qualified patient or person; or (ii) acquiring the skills necessary to cultivate or administer marijuana for medical purposes to the qualified patient or person." This covers a broad range of individuals who are essentially caregivers but are simply not labeled as such. They would all be immune from arrest under Health and Safety Code sections 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, and 11570. >--Makes it a crime, punishable by jail and fines, for a sick or dying patient to >change doctors and not notify the county health department.This is not true. Nowhere in the bill does this crime appear. The only crimes created by the bill are for fraudulently representing a medical condition (lying), fraudulently using or tampering with the ID card, and breaching the confidentiality of the Health Services registry records. >--Establishes 58 separate and distinct registries; one in every county in California >plus two state level registries: one maintained by the state Dept. of Health Services >and another by state law enforcement personnel. This is a distortion of the facts. There will be one registry maintained at the state level with information supplied by the counties (kind of like the way voter registration is handled). Law enforcement will not have a separate registry but rather will have *access* to the state information via the CLETS system. Each county health department will accept the applications for registry cards. Limited information -- whatever is required to be issued onto the card -- will be transmitted to the state Department of Health Services (NOT the Department of Justice). The state will then make SOME of that information available to law enforcement under the CLETS system. [The CLETS system is the statewide computer system used by police to obtain drivers license, vehicle registration, arrest warrants, and criminal arrest records.] The original idea here was to have the ID cards issued by the 58 county health departments. But there was a concern that if a patient was travelling in another county, law enforcement in that county may not recognize the neighboring county's ID card (such as Placer County not recognizing Sacramento County ID, etc.). It was decided that the best solution was to issue a statewide ID card that would be accepted anywhere in California. In order for law enforcement to verify the validity of a card, a 24-hour, 800 telephone number will be set up for police to have immediate access to information necessary to verify the validity of the card. This was considered important because rural counties may not have 24-hour access to county records. >--Forces every patient to pay fees and go through all the hurdles, verifications, >updates every year, even if their doctor’s approval is long term. Prop. 215 allows for >open ended recommendations with no time limits (Remember, many patients are so sick, >or weak that any visit to the doctor or Health Department is painful, exhausting and >dangerous.) It is true that registry cards will need to be renewed once a year and a fee will be imposed. However, the bill contains language that would waive the fee for cases of indigence: "...however, upon satisfactory proof of indigence, such fees shall be waived." Note that this legal language is common, as current standards already exist for proof of "indigence." It is NOT true that patients who enter this registry system will need to verify their physician recommendation annually. A renewal notice will be mailed to the patient and caregiver 45 days prior to expiration of the ID card. >--Destroys the confidentiality of patient medical records and violates the sanctity of >the doctor-patient relationship. This is not true (aside from being a subjective statement). Bearing in mind that this applies ONLY to patients who VOLUNTARILY enter the system, there is a new written requirement, but that requirement does NOT disclose a patient's medical condition. The documentation *only* needs to state that the patient has a serious, unnamed medical condition. Under "Required Documentation for Issuance of a Registry Identification Card," the language reads: "(ii) written documentation by the attending physician in the person's medical records stating that the person has been diagnosed with a serious medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana is appropriate." >--Limits patients who register with the state and their caregiver to possession, >transportation, delivery, sales or cultivation of medical marijuana in an amount >approved by the Department of Health Services or subjects them to arrest. Proposition >215 establishes no such limits because some patients want to grow a long-term supply >at once while others want to grow continuously. The Department of Health Services will be conducting hearings on authorized amounts, allowing individuals to argue for nothing less than Oakland Guidelines amounts if they like. Again, whatever authorized amounts are mandated by the state would ONLY apply to those patients who voluntarily enter the system. Patients can use whatever amounts they want outside the system and still be protected by Prop. 215 (to the degree that such protection exists). Keep in mind that many rural counties arrest patients *no matter how little marijuana they possess*! With state-mandated amounts, at least those patients (assuming they're in the system) will be protected in those counties from ruthless drug warrior law enforcement officials. And as mentioned above, delivery, sales, possession with intent, and a few other charges are protected in this bill (under the "Authorizing Acts Incidental and Necessary to the Cultivation and Possession of Marijuana for Medical Purposes" section). In my analysis, I also made some inaccurate statements comparing SB 848 to the Jews under Nazi Germany: --subject to arrest for not reporting if they move or change doctors This is a distortion of the truth. Registry card holders are required to notify the county health department if they have moved or changed physicians within seven days. If they do not, their card expires. That's it. That doesn't mean police will come to their home and arrest them automatically, which is what I was led to believe. --subject to arrest for failing to carry the proper "papers" Again, this is a distortion of the truth. A registry card holder who is stopped by the police and is NOT carrying their card MAY be arrested. But the arrest is subject to the police making the stop AND the patient not having an ID card. Patients who remain outside the system would be treated exactly the same. However, if you happen to get stopped in San Francisco, Ukiah, Arcata, or even unincorporated Orange County, where law enforcement actually respects Prop. 215, then chances are that both the registered patient who forgot his ID and the unregistered patient would be let go. Or a kindly cop may check on the CLETS system that the patient is a valid cardholder. But my statement implied that a patient would be arrested for forgetting their ID card. >--must submit to warrantless search This is not in the bill. >--must avoid prohibited areas such as schools, parks, youth centers This is also a distortion of the facts. Section 19 of the bill defines "Locations Not Authorized for Smoking Medical Marijuana." These locations are: "(a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law; (b) In or within 1000 feet of the grounds of a school, recreation center, or youth center, unless the medical use occurs within a residence; (c) On a school bus; (d) While in a motor vehicle that is being operated; (e) While operating a boat." Several notes about this section: 1 -- The section only prohibits *smoking* of marijuana in these locations. Marijuana taken in any other form (pill, inhaler, brownie, etc.) is allowed. 2 -- The restriction relating to schools matches the federal drug-free school zone laws. Originally, the restriction was limited to just 200 feet, but Senator Vasconcellos pointed out that Republicans in the Legislature could argue that children were being exposed to pot smoke. The Senator wanted to make as controversial-free a bill as possible so that it had a chance of passing, which is why the concession was made to 1000 feet, in keeping with other laws. Several patients contacted me with concern because they live near schools. I am told they are exempt within their homes. 3 -- The driver of a car can't smoke medical marijuana, but the bill protects passengers who smoke. Please accept my apology for passing on false or misleading information.Let freedom ring,Steve
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by Pat on June 30, 1999 at 13:51:48 PT
Jeaneous, I think Mr. Kubby is referring to this>>
... mailing of his, which FoM posted at this web site earlier.In both of these mailings of his, I think he IS referring to SB 848 here. I hope this helps you.--http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread1801.shtml
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 30, 1999 at 06:18:33 PT
Here's the Second One!
Or this one maybe?Legislative Inquiryhttp://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 30, 1999 at 06:13:55 PT:
Will This Help You?
Jean, This is what I found. Let me know when you have time! Maybe this one or the one below will help! Peace, FoM!http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/cnews/postquery?bill_number=sb_848&sess=CUR&house=B
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Jeaneous on June 29, 1999 at 23:18:28 PT:
Still Wondering....
I have yet to be able to find this bill that is being discussed. I have searched quite a bit of the day looking for it and am surprised I can only find the original bill SB 848.Can anyone direct me to this text??
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: