cannabisnews.com: Not So Dope: Hard Times for Prop 215 Not So Dope: Hard Times for Prop 215 Posted by FoM on May 16, 2001 at 10:57:50 PT By A. Clay Thompson Source: San Francisco Bay Guardian "It looks bad," said Fred Gardner, the spokesperson for San Francisco district attorney Terence Hallinan, when we called at 10:34 Monday morning. A couple of hours earlier the United States Supreme Court had gutted California's Proposition 215, the medical marijuana law. Now the D.A., like just about every law enforcer in the state, was reading the May 14 court ruling, scrambling to figure out what to do next.California attorney general Bill Lockyer, who, like Hallinan, thinks the seriously ailing should get weed if they want it, issued a prickly wait-and-see nonstatement. "It is unfortunate that the court was unable to respect California's historic role as a 'laboratory' for good public policy and a leader in the effort to help sick and dying residents who have no hope for relief other than through medical marijuana," the press release read. "The court's opinion and the concurring opinion will require further review before any conclusions are reached."California Attorney General Bill Lockyerhttp://caag.state.ca.us/California's Proposition 215http://www.rxcbc.org/exa.htmlThe new high court ruling, which stems from a 1998 attempt by the U.S. Department of Justice to bar the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative from selling weed to sick people, upholds the federal ban on growing and distributing the ganj, but it doesn't seem to preclude personal use as prescribed by a doctor.The Oakland co-op is one of about 50 marijuana-dispensing outfits that have sprung up across the state after voters enacted the vaguely worded proposition in 1996.Defending the law and the co-op, attorney Gerald Uelmen, a law professor at Santa Clara University, argued the case on two major fronts: first, providing weed to sick people is a "medical necessity" that overrides the federal ban on the herb; second – as right-wingers are so fond of pointing out – the U.S. constitution doesn't let the federal government trample states' right to set their own policies.In an opinion penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court told Uelmen to get lost, concluding that the federal Controlled Substances Act trumps California law. Like much in jurisprudence – notably the Florida vote decision – the ruling had nothing to do with reality and everything to do with the strict structures of U.S. law.Thomas in a nutshell: Federal officials say weed has "no currently accepted medical use." They must be right. More important, my federal laws can beat up your state laws. Now scram.Though the court's attitude is annoying, the ruling really isn't unexpected or unjustifiable. Really it's ex-prez William Jefferson Clinton who deserves the blame here. It was Clinton's Justice Department drug warriors who launched the legal attack on Prop. 215 and insisted on dragging the issue into the federal courts."It's going to make a real hassle for people if they decide to bring in SWAT teams and shut down the dispensaries," Oakland co-op medical director Mike Alcalay said. Whether that happens may depend on the attitudes of county prosecutors and cops: They may take the decision as a green light to boot down the doors of the local medical marijuana club. Or, as is likely in the Bay Area, where heavy-handed police tactics play badly, law enforcement honchos may take a laissez-faire approach. If the second scenario unfolds, not a hell of a lot will change.But there's also the possibility that President George W. Bush will unleash the Drug Enforcement Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation on the dispensaries, sending in agents and yanking people into federal court – where the penalties for selling weed are super-stiff.Gina Pesulima, a spokesperson for Americans for Medical Rights, the organization that sponsored Prop. 215 and herb-for-sick-people laws in eight other states, downplayed the decision. "The ruling that was issued this morning has no effect on the laws that are on the books allowing for patients to grow and use medical marijuana for their own purposes," Pesulima said. "The ruling they made pertains very specifically to the distribution of marijuana."Proposals in various states – including a well-crafted plan put forth by California state senator John Vasconcellos (D-San Jose) – to create official pot distribution networks may be mooted by the court's opinion.Paul Armento, communications chief for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, sees an uncertain future for pending medical marijuana bills in North Carolina, Texas, Nevada, and Maine. "In states where medical marijuana initiatives have passed, I don't think much will change," Armento contends. "I do think it's a setback for the state initiative movement, because in some states where initiatives are being considered ... legislators may feel or state that they can't pass legislation because it would be at odds with the federal government." Related Article: Don't Back Down on PotThe anger of millions who have supported the use of marijuana for sick and dying people will be focused this week on the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled May 14 that the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative has no legal right to distribute pot. But while the Supreme Court could have followed the states' rights direction it's taken in other cases and made new law that would boost the medical-marijuana movement, that was never very likely.If you want to get mad, start with former president Bill Clinton, whose administration called in the FBI on the Oakland club – and Congress, which still insists on classifying a relatively harmless plant as a dangerous narcotic with "no medical value."But anger only goes so far – and the immediate political battles are going to be largely local.California is setting the national standard for medical use of pot, and activists need to push to make sure that doesn't change. The vast majority of drug cases in the state are still initiated by local police forces and prosecuted by local district attorneys, some of who have been supportive of the buyers clubs. In San Francisco, District Attorney Terence Hallinan has made it clear that he won't press charges against organizations that operate under Proposition 215, the medical-marijuana initiative. He needs to hang tough here and not let the Supreme Court or the U.S. Justice Department change his policies. Alameda County D.A. Tom Orloff should be pressured to do the same.If the feds really want to send their SWAT teams to shut down pot clubs, state and local law-enforcement officials shouldn't provide any assistance. The San Francisco supervisors, for example, ought to formally declare the city a sanctuary for medical marijuana and establish a policy barring local authorities from assisting federal agents in busting legitimate providers. And activists should press Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who so far has backed Prop. 215, to actively oppose a federal crackdown.The federal government is way out of touch on this issue. Every time a medical-marijuana measure has appeared on a state ballot in the past five years, the voters have approved it. This is no time for California to back down.Steve Robles contributed to this report. Read his April 20th report, Just Say NORML.E-mail: A. Clay Thompson at: ac_thompson sfbg.comSource: San Francisco Bay Guardian (CA)Author: A. Clay ThompsonPublished: May 16, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Bay GuardianContact: letters sfbg.comWebsite: http://www.sfbg.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Americans for Medical Rightshttp://medmjscience.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/For Some, Cannabis is Balm http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9750.shtmlO.C.B.C. Versus The U.S. Government News http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #9 posted by Charlie on May 16, 2001 at 19:33:45 PT FoM - ddddisgusted Thanks! The stopthewar site/letter suit my purpose just fine. I'll pass it on...dddd, I'd still like to see your version. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by throatcoat on May 16, 2001 at 18:02:42 PT vote.com poll VOTE.COM | Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana: Do You Agree With The Decision?http://www.vote.com/vote/30740408/index.phtml?cat=4075633 [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on May 16, 2001 at 17:08:01 PT: Finally, finally... the battle lines are being drawn.You all know I'm a history buff. I liken these times now to just before World War 2, when it was pretty obvious we would have a set to with Hitler and Tojo, but were just waiting for the prospective enemy to make the first overt move. For years, the democracies watched - and it must be stated honestly, dithered pusillanimously while monsters roamed at will. For years, the Axis powers armed openly, defiantly, swallowed country after country, and turned their haughty and greedy eyes upon the democracies, gloating at their seeming cowardice for not taking them on when they had the chance.The DrugWarriors are no different. Hell, they even dress like their subconscious role models. They behave towards us, who pay their salaries, as if they were lords and masters; I once saw a bumper sticker in a police supply catalog that said NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITY.All that was missing was the gothic lettering and the German accent.Frankly, we have been waiting for the longest time for such a move.And the SC just made it. The gloves are off. No turning back, now. The die has been cast. The Rubicon has been crossed. It's literally win, or - for many of our brethren, and possibly for the rest of us - die. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Avid supporter on May 16, 2001 at 15:04:36 PT H.R. 1344 What does H.R. 1344 have to do with Medical Marijuana? A Rural Health Improvement Act of 1999??? [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by dddd on May 16, 2001 at 14:05:49 PT Good idea Charlie If some of the more verbally knowledgable people dont come up withsomething for you,I will post my version of a letter here within thenext day or so.It may seem disingenuious to ghost-write such letters,but I wont loseany sleep over it.Charlies idea is recommended for any and all of you people who visithere,and agree with us,but lurk about the fringes in fear of speakingout.Now is the time to come out of the closet,and at least do something tobattle the Monster.Dont be thinking that everybody else is going to fightand speak out for you.I know there are many out there,who are too sheepish,or think it's too much of a hassle to get involved.If you dont get involved andraise your voice in some way,then you have no right to complain when youare left with a police state that will drag you,your friends,and your sons anddaughters off to prison,,and your basic freedoms and rights are stomped outby a government that is completly unaccountable and out of control of we thepeople.......Now is the time!........Mr Samuel Adams gives us this insight into the drug warriors success;"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel AdamsddddExodus...Movement of JAH people [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 16, 2001 at 13:36:11 PT Hope this helps Charlie! Support Medical Marijuana We are supporting H.R. 1344, a bill to allow states to pass pro-medical marijuana laws without federal interference. Write Congress to Help Make Medical Marijuana Legalhttp://www.stopthedrugwar.org/medicalmarijuana/ Medical Marijuana Information [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Charlie on May 16, 2001 at 13:13:46 PT A letter to the Senator or House Rep... If its congress we'll need to petition to get the wheels moving on this...Will one of you great LTE writers compose a suitable letter that can be 'cut and pasted' or paraphrased for us less wordy ones. I will be happy to sign my name to one and launch it to my local Senator and House Reps and also share it on some other hemp boards I frequent...whatchathink? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by dddd on May 16, 2001 at 11:49:22 PT pandora I agree JSM.I think that they have opened the can of worms.The strawthat has been put on the camels back,was really an anvil.I predict we will soon see someone like Bob Barr introduce abill saying that the CSA overules all state initiatives...perhapsthere already is such a bill.You can be sure that lawmakers in the anti camp are scrambling tocome up with some way to stop all this....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by JSM on May 16, 2001 at 11:36:12 PT Law of Unintended Consequences... As so often is the case, this particular ruling just might have exactly the opposite impact from what the feds want inasmuch as it just might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Marijuana offers very real relief that is much more effective and at a much lower cost than any pharmecutical advertised to do the same thing. Does anyone think that this courts ruling is going to change anything except perhaps(and hopefully!) galvanize the opposition. It has been illegal for over 50 years and that has done very little to stop or impede its use. So what if they reject this particular case. Use in California and every other state in the union will continue and will grow...baby boomers are getting older and will demand the lowest cost and most effective relief available for their aliments. To pharaphrase kapt, and I hope he doesn't mind, the next several years are going to be very interesting. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: