cannabisnews.com: Despite Day, Pot Smokers Can Still Get Burned Despite Day, Pot Smokers Can Still Get Burned Posted by CN Staff on April 20, 2004 at 08:15:46 PT By Ari Bloomekatz, Daily Bruin Reporter Source: Daily Bruin April 20, known better as 4/20, the unofficial time or day for smoking marijuana, is a holiday for pot smokers. But any idea that university police will also go on holiday and give a high five and a big grin to those openly smoking on campus, should go up in smoke. In past years, some students have used the day to hang out on UCLA's green lawns with a little grass of their own, and this year is expected to be no different. Jamie Strowbridge, a third-year music student, said he's going to drop by Meyerhoff Park at the end of his day. "I'm gonna go check it out, and I might be equipped," Strowbridge said, noting that he heard smoking at Meyerhoff Park on 4/20 was somewhat of a UCLA tradition. "I'm not sure whether or not I'm going to be a participant," he added. Police don't want students to get the notion that the day of 4/20 provides them with protection; students still face consequences. Police say they have been working with the Center for Student Programming in preparation for the day. "We don't want students to break the law, so we are taking steps to educate them on the consequences," said Nancy Greenstein, director of police community services for UCPD. The Center for Student Programming will be handing out flyers about the consequences students may encounter by smoking pot, Greenstein said. Members from the center can also take names of students caught smoking, and that those students may be subject to student judicial processes, she added. Police have the authority to issue citations to students who are caught smoking, Greenstein said. While Strowbridge doesn't know whether he will risk smoking on campus tomorrow, he said he'll definitely celebrate with friends in the privacy of his home. He said his plans for the day include smoking at both midnights – to bring in and close out the holiday. Contrary to popular belief, 420 is not a police code for the possession of marijuana. In fact, 420 is a penal code regarding the obstruction or prevention of entry over public lands. The term 4/20 was reputedly started by a group of high school students in Marin County who called themselves "The Waldos in 1972." The term 4/20 referred to the time of day that they were going to smoke, and it became a code that they and others began using synonymous with smoking pot. The health and safety code for marijuana is 11357b.Complete Title: Despite Day, Pot Smokers Can Still Get Burned, Says UCPDSource: Daily Bruin (CA)Author: Ari Bloomekatz, Daily Bruin ReporterPublished: April 20, 2004Copyright: 2004 ASUCLA Student MediaContact: viewpoint media.ucla.eduWebsite: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/Related Articles:Potheads Ready To Roll on Day They Call 4:20http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18682.shtmlSmokers Celebrate Joys of Marijuana on Holiday http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18681.shtmlPot Smokers Abuzz Over 420 'Holiday'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18678.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by Virgil on April 20, 2004 at 09:04:08 PT Four Twenty I still buy gasoline with $4.20 purchases most of the time. With the high prices it is easy to hit $4.21 even with great care. I hate it when that happens. I was greatly disappointed that Kucinich never lowered his minimum donation over the Internet from $5.00 to $4.20. I communicated the thought by means of DemocraticUnderground to Will Pitt, his campaign manager and started a thread on the subject. Some people did not know of the term at all and the importance was lost on most. I say Kucinich could have raised millions with $4.20 and got a word of mouth going that would have elevated him to a point of real visibility that he could have retained long after the convention.Tonight on television we will not see anyone burning the phatty or even mention 420. Four Twenty as a term will have to break through and a prime choice of what show will do it would have to be Whoopi. It comes on NBC tonight at 8PM. This is the final episode of the first season for a show the NBC would like to continue for a long time. They assembled a good cast and some good writers. Today is 4/20 and we will see if they blew the opportunity to dominate talk at the water cooler tomorrow. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by jose melendez on April 20, 2004 at 08:48:58 PT People v. Mower "The health and safety code for marijuana is 11357b."Each element of the Sherwin-Williams Co. preemption test, supra, can be readily applied to the facts of this case to determine if there was a conflict between the general laws of the state and Tuolumne County's three-plant policy. Should a conflict be found, then it was improper for the prosecution and trial judge to allow the local policy to be presented to jurors as if it had the force of law.The first prong of the Sherwin-Williams Co. analysis concerns whether the three-plant policy conflicted with the general state law because it was "coextensive therewith." This turns on whether Tuolumne County's three-plant policy presumptively criminalizes the same conduct as the California Health & Safety Code, sections 113 5 7 (marijuana possession) and 113 5 8 (marijuana cultivation) but produces potentially different outcomes and penalties, (65 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.457, 458-459.(1982)Both Health & Safety Code sections 11357 and 11358 apply to "every person" in California. The Compassionate Use Act was enacted as a bar to prosecution under these two specific sections and was also meant to apply to every person in California. (Health & Saf Code, sec. 11362.5.) The Compassionate Use Act specifically states that sections 11357 and 11358 "shall not apply" to all qualified patients and their primary caregivers. (Health & Saf. Code, sec. 11362.5, subd. (d).) Tuolumne County, like other county and city jurisdictions which have created blanket maximum plant policies, duplicates the general law by criminalizing what is already prohibited by Health & Safety Code, section 113 5 7 and 113 5 8, at least beyond the point where the number of plants each jurisdiction allows would trigger the prosecution of an otherwise qualified patient or primary caregiver. In Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1960) 53 Cal.2d 674, 682, this Court struck down a local criminal registration ordinance which unconstitutionally conflicted with the state general law which had preempted the field. In explaining the evil which was being prevented, the Court said,[t]he denial of power to a local body when the state has preempted the field is not based solely upon the superior authority of the state. It is a rule of necessity, based upon the need to prevent dual regulations which could result in uncertainty and confusion, Thus, the term 'conflict' as used in section I I of article XI [the predecessor number of current article XI, section 7] has been held not to be limited to a mere conflict in language, but applies equally to a conflict of jurisdiction.The second prong of the Sherwin-Williams Co. analysis concerns whether the county policy was in conflict with the state general law because it was contradictory, or inimical, to the general law. The Compassionate Use Act unambiguously states that the general marijuana possession and cultivation laws 46 shall not apply" to qualified patients and primary caregivers (Health & Saf Code, sec. 11362.5, subd. (c)), as well as that the protected class of patients and caregivers "are not subject to prosecution or sanction." (Health & Saf. Code, see. 11362.5, subds. (b)(I)(B).) The Tuolumne County three-plant maximum policy contradicts the omnibus protection from prosecution or sanction which is expressly granted by the people of California as expressed in the initiative statute. It is inherently impossible within the framework of the initiative to both be "not subject to prosecution or sanction," while for the same conduct be presumptively subject to prosecution or sanction for violating a locally imposed (and constitutionally unauthorized) limit of three plants. The general law requires a case-by-case evaluation of the patient's medical need compared with the amount of marijuana possessed or cultivated, before the prosecutorial process is commenced, so that a qualified patient is "not subject to prosecution." There is no three plant limit contained in the general law. (See also, A & B Cattle Co. v. City of Escondido (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1039 [local ordinance regarding selling drug paraphernalia was stricken because it contradicted general state law on same subject].) Under the third and final prong of the Sherwin-Williams Co. analysis, the intent of the electorate to fully occupy the area can be found in either an express declaration to that effect or, by implication if one of three indicia of implied intent is present. An excellent example is presented by the recent case of Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1109. There, state law required firearms dealers to employ one of three specified alternatives for the storage of firearms. Penal Code section 12071 (b)(14). The City of Lafayette adopted a local ordinance which required firearms dealers to employ two of the three alternatives. Lafayette Municipal Code, section 8-609. The Court found no direct contradiction between the provisions, but still concluded that the state law preempted the local ordinance: Through Penal Code section 12071, subdivision (b)(14), the state Legislature has demonstrated its intent to permit sales not only out of secure facilities, but out of other facilities where specified measures have been taken either to secure the firearms themselves or to store them in a locked fireproof safe or vault. It has been held that where, as here, the state expressly permits operation under a certain set of standards, it implies that the specified standards are exclusive. Local authorities thus are preempted from imposing more stringent standards and making impermissible that which the higher authority expressly permits. (See Water Quality Assn. V. County of Santa Barbara (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 732, 741-42).57 Cal.App.4th 1124-25. Likewise here, the state initiative measure expressly permits a patient or primary caregiver to possess or cultivate as much marijuana as is necessary for the personal medical purposes of the patient. Local authorities are thus preempted from imposing more stringent standards based on a count of the number of plants being cultivated. While the Compassionate Use Act made no unequivocal express statement to the effect that the Act was intended to "occupy the field" of compassionate use, the language applies to all qualified Californians, irrespective of local county or municipal jurisdiction. In addition, the Compassionate Use Act states that one of its purposes is "[t]o encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana." Health & Saf. Code, sec. 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(c). Noticeably absent from that statement of electoral intent is any implication that the C6 encouragement" to provide for safe and affordable distribution is to be delegated to local authorities, unless upon the approval by the electorate as required by our California Constitution.Among the factors relevant to ascertaining an implied intent to occupy the field is the adverse effect of a local ordinance on the transient citizens of the state, and whether that adverse effect outweighs the possible benefit to the locality. This aspect of the conflict analysis brings up the continuing problem which lawful patients and caregivers now face in moving from county to county, throughout the state. They are currently mired in an unworkable patchwork of local marijuana plant policies and are saddled with an incredible and unworkable burden to ascertain what a city's and/or county's policy is in any jurisdiction in which they may be visiting or briefly passing through.The adverse effects of such local ordinances and policies on these transient citizens outweighs any possible benefit to the locality. There is no benefit to the locality which is different than the benefit to the state as a whole from the uniform application of the laws of this state. The counties and cities have discretion to determine when they will decline to make an arrest, but any guidelines they apply for this purpose cannot be given the force of law.For this reason alone, there is an unlawful conflict between the local policies and the general laws regarding medical marijuana possession and cultivation. In striking down a local criminal registration ordinance which was duplicative of the general law, and thus unconstitutional under article XI, section 7 [formerly article XI, section 11 ] of the California Constitution, the Court in Abbott v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 53 Cal.2d at p. 688, concluded: It is equally true that any legislation which would deprive a class of citizens from moving freely between localities within the state is such a subject as requires uniform treatment.In conclusion, the Compassionate Use Act, as well as the other general marijuana cultivation and possession laws, preempt local policies on all of the grounds set forth in Sherwin-Williams Co. These local policies conflict with the general laws because they are duplicative, contradictory and there is an implied intent by the electorate to occupy the field of medical use of marijuana.-snipThe Court of Appeal's analysis rests on the dubious proposition that a person, including a judge, may make a competent analysis of a defendant's state of mind for voluntariness purposes by merely determining whether that defendant sounds cogent on a tape recording. Obviously, voluntariness may not be determined solely by reference to his speech patterns on a tape recording. Clearness of speech does not equal voluntariness of statements. CONCLUSION The Compassionate Use Act confers qualified immunity upon patients and their primary caregivers, when marijuana is used for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the oral or written recommendation or approval of a physician. Appellant was deprived of the opportunity to assert his claim of immunity in pretrial proceedings, and his jury was erroneously instructed as to the burden of proof. The prosecution was erroneously permitted to present a local three-plant limit to the jury as though it had the force of law, despite the preemptive effect of the Compassionate Use Act. Appellant's involuntary hospital-bed interview by a police investigator was erroneously admitted in evidence, in violation of Mincey v. Arizona. For all of these reasons, the convictions of Appellant for cultivation and possession of marijuana must be reversed. Respectfully submitted, GERALD F. UELMENRICHARD D. RUNCIECounsel for AppellantMYRON CARLYLE MOWERMay 21, 2001 [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Truth on April 20, 2004 at 08:21:06 PT right this article actually has the origin of 4:20 right [ Post Comment ] Post Comment