cannabisnews.com: Lawmakers Mull Marijuana ID Cards Lawmakers Mull Marijuana ID Cards Posted by FoM on May 07, 2001 at 08:15:58 PT By Kevin Yamamura, Bee Capitol Bureau Source: Modesto Bee Patients using medicinal marijuana would be free from arrest if they obtain identity cards under a state Senate proposal that has law enforcement support. Backers of the measure say the system would identify who is eligible to use pot for medical purposes under Proposition 215, which in 1996 legalized marijuana for patients with severe conditions. Some sufferers and their advocates are skeptical because the bill has broad support from several of the same law enforcement groups and prosecutors who opposed Proposition 215. But the bill's author, state Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, said that support could bring enough votes in the Legislature to get the bill approved. A similar bill died in the Assembly last year. When the voter-approved initiative allowed qualified Californians to use marijuana, it did not specify limits nor describe an implementation process, said Vasconcellos, a longtime champion of the drug's medicinal use. Under the bill, the state Department of Health Services would determine how much pot a patient could legally use. The department also would outline how such marijuana should be grown and sold. Law enforcement groups have been particularly concerned about their inability to accurately determine who can legally use marijuana under the 1996 initiative. The proposed system would work like driver's licenses, offering an on-the-spot indication of whether someone is authorized to have marijuana. Patients would apply through their county health agencies, which would run the program in conjunction with the state. "This provides some clarity for all concerned with 215," Vasconcellos said. "If someone is stopped, but he or she has a card, the police can let them go and won't drag them off to jail. It's clear and simple for all those involved." A task force assembled by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer developed the proposals two years ago to improve implementation of the medical marijuana law. While using pot remains illegal under federal law, seven other states have passed medical marijuana measures since California became the first in 1996. Vasconcellos' legislation does not resolve the conflict between state and federal law, which is now pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, the bill tries to create a single, statewide standard that local officials can apply uniformly across California, Vasconcellos said. Thus far, many counties have used their own interpretations. Prosecutors are particularly interested in the crafting of specific limits on how much marijuana is legal, said Lawrence Brown, executive director of the California District Attorneys Association. "Proposition 215 as passed was absolutely silent as to any quantity specifications," Brown said. "As a result, patients, law enforcement and prosecutors have been operating in the dark, not to mention juries." But the sheer fact that the district attorneys' group and police organizations - which opposed Proposition 215 - now support the Vasconcellos measure is cause for concern among some medical marijuana advocates. Dennis Peron, a driving force behind Proposition 215, said allowing their changes to the law "is like asking right-to-lifers to regulate abortion." "They're going to register every plant in the state, in addition to every patient," Peron said. "It'll be a bureaucratic nightmare." Peron said he is principally concerned that state and local officials will restrict access to medical marijuana. He said the proposed law would only scare off more sufferers from using marijuana. "It is intimidating, it is very intimidating for a sick person to register with the state for anything," he noted. Vasconcellos stressed that the registry would be voluntary and any information collected would be confidential. Yet Peron argued that "the law is working" as it is. He said many officers today are aware of who qualifies under the 1996 law. "They never arrest people if they have some kind of document or card from clubs," he said. "Why do we have to get the state involved between doctors and their patients?" The bill also has opposition from those who believe marijuana has no medical value. Art Croney of the Committee on Moral Concerns, said the proposal would actually expand the definition of who can harvest marijuana. "This is the next step toward drug legalization," Croney said. Source: Modesto Bee, The (CA)Author: Kevin Yamamura, Bee Capitol BureauPublished: Monday, May 07, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Modesto BeeContact: letters modbee.comWebsite: http://www.modbee.com/Related Article & Web Site:Marijuana.orghttp://www.marijuana.org/Let Smoke Clear for Interpretation of Prop 215http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9088.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #2 posted by Jeaneous on May 08, 2001 at 18:44:33 PT: Registering I have no problem with registering with the state or even the federal government. For then it is a contract. A written contract. I no longer fear my name on paper or in their files. I guess the details of the state's bill is too confining, so I'm willing to hold off until "our" side approves of the bill. But I will register. I want to make them go by the law. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ex-Pat on May 07, 2001 at 10:43:18 PT Prop 215 is farting dust by now It is 2001. Proposition 215 was passed as law in 1996. That's 5 years folks, count 'em, five. Put it another way. If your child was born when this law was enacted, they would be starting school now, depending on when their birthday was. Peter McWilliams is dead, Todd McCormack ain't long for this world, and yet they are still arguing about how to implement and who does it apply to. How long did it take for "Three strikes and you're out" to take effect? Or any other law in the history of the state? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: