Pubdate: Wed, 20 Aug 2003
Source: San Francisco Bay Guardian, The (CA)
Copyright: 2003 San Francisco Bay Guardian
Contact:  http://www.sfbg.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/387
Author: Alex Posorske
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)

POT AND THE PEOPLE

S.F. Voters Urged The City To Grow Medical Marijuana, But Officials Are Leery
Of Confronting The Federal Government

When Proposition S, which called for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to
explore the possibility of cultivating and distributing medical marijuana,
passed with 62 percent of the vote last November, some local activists could
probably be forgiven for those sugary visions of a modern-day Whiskey Rebellion
dancing in their heads.

With the U.S. Department of Justice repeatedly cracking down on California
medical marijuana providers, the idea of 776,773 people trying to set a legal
precedent by saying a collective "fuck you" to the feds and publicly growing
and distributing medical marijuana had a certain tantalizing and intoxicating
quality to it.

But nine months after Prop. S passed, the initial buzz is starting to wear off,
and reality, in the form of a much more low-key approach to medical marijuana,
is starting to shine through. City officials and most activists now seem
prepared to work for something less confrontational than, say, turning city
workers loose on a 50-acre patch of marijuana in Golden Gate Park and waiting
for a federal response. Caution is the word of the day as supporters prepare
for the first scheduled hearing on the matter, slated for the Sept. 25 meeting
of the Board of Supervisors' City Services Committee.

"I do believe - and I'm not a fear monger - that [federal anti-marijuana]
forces are poised and they are waiting to swoop in and make an example of San
Francisco," District Attorney Terence Hallinan said at a recent community forum
on the implementation of Prop. S, before opining that the best thing for the
city to do is to not directly challenge federal power in this case, because, in
his opinion, the city will lose.

Board of Supervisors president and mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez voiced
similar thoughts, noting that a number of medical marijuana clubs are still
open in San Francisco and questioning the wisdom of directly challenging the
federal government, which could potentially bring down more heat on the clubs.

Activists, meanwhile, seem content to work with what they have. Drug Policy
Alliance deputy director of legal affairs Judy Appel said a chief Prop. S
priority is helping to better ensure a supply of medical marijuana for San
Francisco patients and noted that picking a losing fight with the federal
government doesn't help achieve that goal.

"Setting up a program that doesn't get medicine to patients isn't very
practical," she said.

With that in mind, activists have recently been discussing two options they
hope might further involve the city in medical marijuana without leaving it
wide open for a direct assault by the Bush administration (although they also
stress that the process is only beginning and that other ideas may be batted
around in the coming months).

One option is letting cooperatives grow medical marijuana on city land without
any direct involvement by the city other than potential oversight by the
Department of Public Health. DPA program associate Camilla Field said this
idea, adapted from the model the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana used
in Santa Cruz County, might initially help only a small number of patients who
cannot afford marijuana from clubs but could be groundbreaking in its own way,
since no other city in the United States has a similar program.

"It may be only 25 patients," she said. "But here we are, growing on public
land."

The other option involves a city agency, probably the DPH, setting up standards
for marijuana clubs and then granting licenses to the clubs that meet those
standards. Appel said this would help in two ways: quality control for the
patients, and for club operators, a potential legal defense in saying they were
involved in a legitimate city industry (similar to Oakland supplier Ed
Rosenthal's defense last spring, which didn't work in the trial court but
became the issue on which his pending appeal is based).

These options don't satisfy everyone involved with the issue. Robyn Few, the
San Francisco organizer for Americans for Safe Access, a group involved in the
implementation of Prop. S, said she thinks voters gave enough support last year
to justify a more confrontational policy, such as a small city-run crop of 100
plants or so. She said her group would be disappointed with anything less.

"[The city is] too timid," she said. "We're trying to push them to do
something. Is the federal government really going to come after the city for
100 plants?"

Other groups, like the Patients' Health Defense, a union of medical marijuana
patients, worry about the focus on licensing the clubs. The PHD's Harvey
Feldman sees the clubs as profiteers. "When you sell an illicit product at high
prices, they call that dope dealing," he said, noting that he wants more of
Prop. S's emphasis to be on helping lower-income patients get access to their
medicine. Feldman said his group supports cooperatives growing medical
marijuana on city land.

Of course, any action by the city could be construed by some as a victory. As
Gonzalez noted, the wording of Prop. S - which was sponsored by then-supervisor
and current state assmblymember Mark Leno - does not require the city to take
action on low-income patients or cooperative growing operations or anything at
all.

"The way Leno wrote it, all we have to do is hold a hearing," he said.

The City Services Committee hearing on the implementation of Prop. S will be
held Sept. 25, 9:20 a.m., City Hall, Room 263, 1 Carlton B. Goodlett Place,
S.F. (415) 554-5184. For more information on Prop. S, call the Drug Policy
Alliance's San Francisco office at (415) 921-4987.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk