Pubdate: Thu, 21 Jul 2005
Source: Gay City News (NY)
Copyright: 2005 Gay City News
Contact:  http://www.gaycitynews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3651
Author: Nathan Riley
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

MARIJUANA AND THE LAW

Recently, the medical marijuana movement suffered a one-two punch, 
beginning with a 6-to-3 decision of the United States Supreme Court that 
even personally grown marijuana consumed for medical purposes can subject a 
grower or user to federal criminal penalties. At the same time, local 
governments in California are calling for tighter regulations.

The threat of federal prosecutions casts a long shadow over the efforts by 
states to develop new methods of marijuana control. Ham-handed federal 
intervention was the rule during Pres. George W. Bush's first term. At the 
justice department, former Attorney General John Ashcroft had the DEA 
target political activists and reformers who had organized the 1996 
referendum that enacted the California medical marijuana program. These 
persons had literally spent decades persuading the public that patients 
should receive the benefits of marijuana.

One notorious Ashcroft-era prosecution involved Ed Rosenthal, an author 
whose books on growing cannabis remain in print year after year. In 2003, 
he was convicted of federal drug offenses. Prosecutors called him a dealer 
and the judge prohibited the defense from mentioning medical marijuana. The 
jurors were outraged when they learned of Rosenthal's background after 
reaching their verdict. A majority of the jurors told the judge that if 
they had all the facts, they would have found Rosenthal innocent. After 
public protests and sympathetic news stories, Rosenthal's sentence was a 
slap on the wrist.

Other leaders of the medical marijuana movement were also targets of 
prosecution. Well-respected members of the community were treated like drug 
dealers. The California Medical Board disciplined a prominent physician, 
Tod Mikuriya, for his recommendations concerning cannabis.

These prosecutions sidelined many of the leaders of the medical marijuana 
movement, who from the start had pushed for marijuana availability only for 
those suffering from serious illnesses.

Proposition 215, the initiative that brought medical marijuana to 
California, envisioned a system where non-profit cooperatives would 
dispense the drugs. But the DEA under Ashcroft insisted on charging that 
these co-ops were drug distributors. The Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical 
Marijuana, or WAMM, a Santa Cruz collective, was a model for medical 
marijuana distribution. But the feds, over the objections of local 
officials, raided the facility. California officials were openly critical 
of the raid; Attorney General Bill Lockyer wrote a letter to the DEA 
calling the prosecution "harassment." Santa Cruz County officials were so 
upset that they joined in a lawsuit against the federal government. 
Similarly, when the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center in West Hollywood 
was prosecuted, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca protested. These 
pioneers of the medical marijuana movement were not criminals, but 
political activists supporting a different marijuana policy, one approved 
by the state's voters. Local law enforcement knew how to draw distinctions 
that eluded federal enforcers.

These misguided prosecutions knocked the true believers in medical 
marijuana out of the box, and helped open the doors to less principled 
businesses willing to sell marijuana to people far more interested in the 
recreational aspects of smoking herb.

This new breed of dispensaries sold weed to anyone who had a physician's 
recommendation. To be sure, politics and misguided enforcement only helped 
pave the way, with the most important incentive being money. The 
dispensaries are popular and do a brisk business. The not-for-profit 
collectives are no longer the biggest players. In Oakland, in one area 
dubbed Oaksterdam because of its many cannabis stores-real estate owners 
like the program because it turns their non-descript neighborhood into a 
destination for marijuana buyers taking the subway from San Francisco. The 
arguments over medical marijuana have become entwined with the staples of 
local politics-zoning and public order. Neighborhood residents complain 
about thoughtless individuals who smoke joints in front of the dispensaries 
or divide up their purchases in full view of the neighborhood. Local 
officials are responding by tightening regulations and closing distributors 
who generate the complaints. In other words, medical marijuana is dealing 
with a second generation of problems, but there is very little evidence 
that California cops are arresting users and burdening the criminal justice 
system with court cases. A reduction in arrests or the threat of arrests 
for pot smokers is one the prime benefits of the medical marijuana program.

Leading supporters of medical marijuana recognize that at some point reform 
of marijuana laws will have to go beyond medical use and support adult 
recreational use. However, this next step is a problem, said Dale 
Gieringer, director of the California chapter of NORML, the marijuana 
reform organization.

"Most politicians are not comfortable with this development," he said in a 
published interview.

While public officials from both parties are comfortable with the medical 
marijuana issue, adult recreational use enjoys no broad support among 
elected officials.

Nonetheless, in 2004 Oakland voters approved a local referendum endorsing a 
tax and regulate framework for adult marijuana use.

Meanwhile, the medical marijuana movement continues to grow across the 
nation. In a matter of days after the adverse decision by the U.S. Supreme 
Court, the House of Representatives rejected an amendment that would have 
stopped federal dollars from financing medical marijuana prosecutions. But 
the 161 votes in favor of the amendment represented the largest vote tally 
ever in favor of medical marijuana. Representatives from New York State 
voted for a cut-off in funds by a 20-9 margin.

It is apparent that the popularity of medical marijuana is unaffected by 
the Supreme Court decision. After the court's ruling, the Rhode Island 
Legislature passed a medical marijuana bill by lopsided majorities, but the 
governor vetoed the measure.

Marijuana sales generate problems, but society can choose the kinds of 
problems it will face. Do we want constant criminal prosecutions of people, 
many of whom are free spirits who gravitate toward activities that 
challenge the rules, or do we want to argue about the regulations governing 
the sale of marijuana, and what is appropriate behavior if a person decides 
to smoke?

My preferences are for letting persons smoke in a legal environment with 
the least intrusion by government because it comports with my preferences 
about liberty and privacy. In the end, the medical marijuana movement, and 
the tax and regulate model for adults, is about respecting individual 
choice and privacy. Choosing a permissive solution does not make all 
problems disappear, but it would give mediation and compromise a bigger 
role in regulating this behavior. I would reserve criminal sanctions for 
those situations where the injury to others is obvious and our tolerance 
for the behavior deemed criminal is minimal.

Stay tuned. This issue will stay on the radar screen for a long time.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom