Medical Marijuana
Medical Marijuana Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was voted into law by the people of California in the November election. This law was written to insure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain, cultivate, and use marijuana for medical purposes. The medical use has to be "recommended and deemed appropriate by a physician who has determined that a person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana." Specifically mentioned in the law for treatment are "cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis and migraine". Stated not so specifically in a second clause "...or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief". This law protects patients or their primary caregivers who obtain, cultivate, or use physician recommended marijuana from "criminal prosecution or sanction." It also protects Californian physicians from "punishment or denial of any right or privilege" for recommending marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. The new law encourages "federal and state governments to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana." It also states, "Nothing is this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes." In a seven-page reply explaining the Clinton administration's response to the passage of two compassionate use initiatives Drug Czar, Barry McCaffrey states, "The recent passage of propositions which make dangerous drugs more available in California and Arizona poses a threat to the National Drug Control Strategy goal of reducing drug abuse in the United States. These propositions are not about compassion, they are about legalizing dangerous drugs."
Unfortunately, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, a law of the State of California, is contrary to federal law. Justice Department lawyers concede that there exists no solid constitutional grounds for attacking the initiative in court. The federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has stated that they will arrest doctors who prescribe medical marijuana for drug trafficking. It appears that the Federal Government is trying to enter the practice of medicine by placing itself between the doctor and patient. This is clearly a States' Rights issue, but our state government doesn't have the courage to stand up to the Feds on issues it does support. The federal government constantly threatens its States' sovereignty through monetary control. The great state of California has cowered under the shadow of Federal Funds before (e.g., 55 mph speed limit). You can bet it will use Federal opposition to compassionate use as an easy excuse for not implementing the vote of its constituents, or protecting them from the harassment of federal police. I doubt that one will be able to invite Sheriff Tuso out to inspect ones medical patch in the near future. I expect that he'll maintain solidarity with his federal brothers. Our state could just say no to the Federal Government. Some state should.
On January 15, 1997, the Cannabis Cultivators' Club (CCC) opened its doors in the same downtown location as its predecessor, the Cannabis Buyers' Club (CBC). Hundreds of patients and press were present when marijuana was legally sold in the U.S. for the first time in 60 years. Superior Court Judge, David Garcia, ruled that under the terms of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 the club could reopen. He stipulated that the club should be nonprofit and serve only valid medical patients. The CCC changed its name, according to Lynn Barnes, R.N., "To make it clear that we are caretakers for these patients who are assigning us cultivation rights." The CCC now has 20 plants in the basement of their building and plans to expand to a large-scale, non-profit growing operation. Thus far 650 applicants have been approved by the CCC. Dennis Peron, founder of the Cannabis Buyers' Club, expects that number to grow to 50,000 within six months. They also expect that State Attorney General, Dan Lungren, will attempt to have the original injunction against the CBC reinstated against the CCC.
As we go to press the CCC has signed contracts with almost 200 growers in Mendocino and Humboldt counties to provide them with pesticide and mold free medical marijuana, growing no more than 49 plants each. While a buyers club is scheduled to open any day in Ukiah, District Attorney, Susan Massini and Sheriff, Jim Tuso said that they will arrest and prosecute these growers and confiscate the medical marijuana in spite of contracts with the CCC. Proposition 215 is law in California and it was passed by the voters of Mendocino County, the same voters who elected Massini and Tuso to uphold the law. Seems to me they're not doing their jobs. We the people pay their salaries, yet who are they working for?
Looking toward the future, Californians For Compassionate Use have become Americans For Compassionate Use with a plan to place a Medical Use of Marijuana Initiative on the ballot in five more states in 1998 at an estimated cost of two million dollars. Their plan is to seek out states with a similarity to California, where popular support was vetoed by government, with an expectation of victory in three to five states.
Industrial Hemp
[Hemp is an agricultural product with THC levels too low to be used as a drug]
The seeds of Hemp legislation are being planted across the nation. The law enforcement industry is ferociously weeding out these sprouts of democracy. Using the same tactics (lies) as the Anslinger Hearings of the 1930's, DEA agents attend hearings and give false testimony sometimes using the same sixty-year-old lies as their forefathers. This year they have testified that there is "no difference between industrial hemp and marijuana". They discredit a world-wide growing industry by calling it "no more than a few cottage industries". They threaten with "the certainty of increased drug use and crime". They say that legalization of an industrial crop "would send the wrong message to young people". What could this wrong message be? Could it be that a self-serving, ever growing drug enforcement industry has been running a tax-payer funded disinformation campaign since the 1930's? Could it be that marijuana is a much less noxious substance than alcohol, the drug of the ruling class? Could it be that the DEA would suffer lay-offs if marijuana was re-legalized? Is the "wrong message" actually the truth?
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 does not prohibit the cultivation of industrial hemp but rather makes provisions for its continued cultivation. The DEA was trusted to register farms and issue permits to grow. The DEA has set up so many requirements and red tape that no farmer would be able to qualify for a permit. The head of the Rocky Mountain DEA while testifying at a hemp hearing in Denver stated, "Under no circumstances would the DEA issue any kind of registration or permit." When the police make the laws and enforce them...Isn't that a Police State?
The new federal farm bill will phase out all federal farm subsidies over the next seven years. As a direct effect, it is estimated that 20% of family farms will be lost. Farmers need a new crop to farm and the answer is industrial hemp. Our economy can be strengthened, family farms can be saved, our environment protected and our people employed in sustainable industries. Hemp cultivation is just common sense!
We need to act on a federal level. Contact Riggs, Feinstein, Boxer and Clinton. Insist that control of industrial hemp be taken from the DEA and given to the Commerce or Agriculture Department where it belongs. According to Tom Ballanco of The Colorado Council For Industrial Hemp Development, "The bottom line is simple: "We refuse to live in a nation where the police make the laws. Every day, another person notices the nakedness of the Emperor. Industrial hemp production is returning to America. No one can stop it, not even the DEA".
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1997
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited