Quick Hits (page 2)
Judge Rules U.S. Laws Prevail Over State's
By: Crystal Carreon (Mercury News)
In a blow to champions of medicinal marijuana and a key victory for U.S. government regulators, a federal court in San Jose ruled against restraining U.S. drug agents from raiding a Santa Cruz cannabis co-operative that helps the ill and dying.
U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel obliquely acknowledged that medicinal marijuana could alleviate pain but asserted that federal drug laws prevailed over the state's 1996 medicinal marijuana initiative.
"Although plaintiffs have made a significant showing of irreparable injury, the Court has no alternative but to conclude that under existing law they cannot succeed on the merits of their claims," Fogel wrote.
Since voters passed the Compassionate Use Act seven years ago, bitter legal battles have pitted federal drug officials against those advocating states' rights.
The court's opinion was a loss for the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz County, a group that has won extensive support from local government officials in the county.
In July of last year, the state Supreme Court ruled that Californians who have a doctor's approval to smoke marijuana are protected from conviction for violating state drug laws. But in 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that made it impossible for third parties to provide medicinal marijuana to seriously ill patients without running afoul of federal drug laws. As a result, several Bay Area medicinal pot clubs were shuttered.
But the Wo/Men's Alliance continued to operate, dispensing marijuana to the terminally ill. Then Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided the property along Santa Cruz County's north coast on Sept. 5, arresting co-founders Valerie and Michael Corral, seizing membership lists and photo albums and ripping out 167 marijuana plants. The lawsuit stemmed from that incident. Since the raid, the Corrals say, 16 of their clients have died.
The defendants in the case were Attorney General John Ashcroft, National Drug Control Policy Director John P. Walters and William B. Simpkins, acting administrator of the DEA.
News of Fogel's decision reached Valerie Corral Thursday evening at her Davenport-area home, where, she said, the group will continue their work while seeking justice.
She declined to discuss whether the organization is growing marijuana.
"It feels like a blow at this moment, but it will strengthen us," she said. "I guess we're considered criminals by our governments. It's difficult to fathom why anyone would want to stand in the way of alleviating suffering."
Corral, a plaintiff in the suit along with the city and county of Santa Cruz, said she hopes to appeal the decision.
"I think Judge Fogel is a good and thoughtful man who did not see how to do things differently," Corral said. "Maybe the 9th Circuit (federal appeals court) will, or the Supreme Court."
Neither attorneys for the defendants nor the plaintiff's high-profile attorney, Gerald Uelmen, could be reached for comment.
The Corrals still have not been charged in the nearly year-old case.
Click here for more Quick Hits.
Growin' Our Own (page 2)
Hey California, the Joke is on You
By: Elmore Stone
The only problem is, it ain't funny.
After almost 7 years of Proposition 215 as law, which was working just as intended for the most part, the California legislature, in another feat of utter stupidity for which they seem to strive, very recently passed Senate Bill (SB) 420. I'm not kidding, that is the bill number. It is on its way to the governor's office for signature or veto. I took the liberty to call the governor's office and not a soul will say what his intentions are. So, your guess is as good as any.
On the one hand, Proposition 215 was short, sweet and, without doubt, to the point. On the other hand, SB 420 is not short, not sweet and I don't think anybody can find the point. That is also making a huge leap of faith that there is a point to this piece of complete legislative garbage.
Are there problems with Proposition 215? Yep. Have there been problems with Proposition 215? Yep. If SB 420 is signed into law will it clear up the Proposition 215 problems? Nope.
You see, all of the problems with Proposition 215 can be counted on two fingers of one hand. The problems are called (1) police and (2) prosecutors. Police, in some cases, choose not to recognize Proposition 215 as law even though it has been law since November, 1996. In fact it is known as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, aka, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. As far as police are concerned, if a person is in possession of or is cultivating weed they are busted as a matter of course. It doesn't make a damned bit of difference if the person with the weed has a doctor's recommendation or not. They are busted. Prosecutors, like police, refuse to recognize the law as well. They simply do not care. If a person who has been busted shows his or her recommendation from the doc, most prosecutors will laugh in that person's face and do their very best to send an innocent person to prison. Up until this year that process has met with some success. But since this year, it no longer does and it is driving police and prosecutors up a tree -- good.
SB 420 will not cure anything. It can't. The bill throws in a lot of language of "legislative intent" and then goes on to state such things as:
- How much weed and/or plants a patient can have (8 ounces and 6 mature or 12 immature plants).
- Getting a voluntary patient I.D. card.
- Fees a patient must pay for the card.
- Recriminalizing weed if the patient is smoking it where the state does not allow weed to be smoked (it's a medicine remember).
- Destroys doctor - patient confidentiality.
- The smoke cannot be sold for profit.
- Adds up to three layers of bureaucracy; state, county and city.
- Does not protect patient or caregiver identification databases from the federales (DEA).
- Insurance companies no longer will be required to reimburse patients for use of medical marijuana.
- Limits who can get a recommendation from a doctor.
- County health departments can reject an application for a voluntary I.D. card.
- The card is valid for a period of one year.
- If the patient changes doctors or caregivers said patient has 7 days to notify the county health department of the change (yes-um massa).
- A person who has been denied a voluntary I.D. card cannot reapply for 6 months.
- A person with an I.D. card shall not be subject to arrest -- unless "there is reasonable cause to believe. . .(which can and is made up on the spot)."
Gee isn't that just really wonderful? Boy howdy, I'm glad these fucking idiots in the legislature are on my side. Just imagine what it was like under Proposition 215:
- No limit on amount of weed (1 seed, 1 weed, 1 joint, 1 pound or 1 ton, if you have a recommendation -- it is legal).
- No bureaucracy.
- No voluntary I.D. card (I don't need no stinking big brother).
- No vulnerable database for the feds to mine.
- Can get, sometimes, reimbursement from insurance companies for the medical use of pot.
- No calling the county health department and telling those fools that you have changed doctors or caregivers.
- Any person with a "serious illness" can get a recommendation.
- A patient can light up when and where they need to.
- No I.D. card fees.
- No renewing the I.D. card annually. Don't forget the renewal fee.
- But best of all, there is no reasonable cause for police to believe. . ..
Yeah, life must have been a real bitch living under Proposition 215. I am just so glad the State of Confusion, aka California, took a legal right from me and made it a privilege. I just don't know what I would do if it wasn't for Nanny state.
Shit.
The worst part of this whole gig is that there are numerous individuals and organizations, purportedly pro pot organizations, who have supported this disgrace and continue to support this abortion. Simply amazing.
What can be done? Well, if left up to me, I'd burn the damn thing to cinders. However, it isn't left up to me. If it gets signed into law, the best that can be done is to introduce a bill next year which would, quite simply, repeal SB 420 altogether. If it gets vetoed, we are safe until January, 2004.
The whole issue, Proposition 215 versus SB 420, is about liberty versus privilege. No more, no less. With Proposition 215 a patient and/or caregiver has certain legal rights which cannot be changed except by the voters of the State of California. Not the legislature. That, by itself, is the biggest and, without doubt, the most important single factor. It is one thing to bribe 40 assemblymen and 20 state senators to vote a certain way on a particular bill. Hell, bribery in the state house happens all the time. It is another thing to get a few million citizens to vote a certain way on a particular initiative.
With a law enacted by the legislature, it can be changed by the whim of the legislature. While proponents of SB 420 are saying 'it is the best we could get', well what happens in a couple of years? The legislature could change the blasted thing. Possibly for the better. Possibly for the worse. In California, it is the rule of 40 - 20. If a bill receives 40 assembly votes and 20 senate votes it is passed. That is the minimum required for passage.
As you, or anybody else for that matter, can see it would not be exceedingly difficult for the legislature to screw things up worse. They are infamous for it.
That is also the difference between a right and a privilege. A right cannot be taken away. A privilege, on the other hand, can be expanded or taken away. All by the power of the legislative quill.
Now the question of the day is -- should SB 420 be signed into law by the governor, will it "clarify" Proposition 215 or will it make things worse? Obviously it will make things much worse. Given the regulatory scheme, the limited amount for legal possession, the where and when a patient can smoke a joint and the "reasonable cause to believe," to me there is absolutely no doubt that SB 420 will lead to more arrests, more trials, more convictions and more civil asset forfeitures. Only time will tell if I am correct on that or not.
If you are a patient or a caregiver you need to ask yourself the following question: am I better off with a legal right or a privilege? Answer that question and then do as you will.
If you are not a patient or a caregiver you need to ask yourself this question: should I even care about what happens to medical marijuana patients or caregivers? Answer that and ... do as you will.
My own feeling, and I am not a medical marijuana patient or a caregiver, is this - if you are not free, then I am not free. And liberty, as we all know, is where it's at.
As for the two jokers, Assemblyman Leno from San Francisco and Senator Vasconcellos from San Jose i.e., the co-author and author of this potential disaster if they are not booted out on term limits next election we should make each of them a 4-4-2 man. What does 4-4-2 mean? It means that it would take 4 doctors 4 hours to dig 2 inches of my boot out their ass. In other words, boot those worthless fuckers out of office.
You know, about the only positive I can see that SB 420 will provide is economically. It will keep lawyers employed for years to come. Oh joy.
Click here for more Growin' Our Own.
Pipeline (page 2)
First Tokers of Health Canada Cannabis call it Disgusting, Want Money Back
By: CJAD (Staff)
OTTAWA (CP) - Some of the first patients to smoke Health Canada's government-approved marijuana say it's "disgusting" and want their money back.
"It's totally unsuitable for human consumption," said Jim Wakeford, 58, an AIDS patient in Gibsons, B.C. "It gave me a slight buzziness for about three to five minutes, and that was it. I got no other effect from it."
Barrie Dalley, a 52-year-old Toronto man who uses marijuana to combat the nausea associated with AIDS, said the Health Canada dope actually made him sick to his stomach.
"I threw up," Dalley said Monday. "It made me nauseous because I had to use so much of it. It was so weak in potency that I really threw up."
Both men are returning their 30-gram bags, and Dalley is demanding his money back - $150 plus taxes. Wakeford is returning his unpaid bill for two of the bags with a letter of complaint.
A third AIDS patient says he's also unhappy with the product, which is supposed to contain 10.2 per cent THC, the main active ingredient.
"I'm still smoking it - I would prefer better, but it's all I've got," said Jari Dvorak, 62, in Toronto. "I think Health Canada certainly should do better with the quality."
All three are among 10 patients who have registered with Health Canada to buy dope directly from the government to alleviate their medical symptoms. Another 39 applications are pending.
The department was compelled to begin direct distribution in July, following an Ontario court order this year that said needy patients should not be forced to get their cannabis on the streets or from authorized growers, who themselves obtain seeds or cuttings illegally.
The marijuana is being grown for Health Canada deep underground in a vacant mine section in Flin Flon, Man., by Prairie Plant Systems on a $5.75-million contract. The department originally intended that the product go first to accredited researchers to demonstrate whether or not cannabis is medically effective.
Health Minister Anne McLellan has said she opposes the direct distribution of government cannabis to patients and that the program will end if the department wins its appeal of the Ontario court decision.
The government dope also came under fire Monday from Canadians for Safe Access, a patients' rights group that is pressing for supplies of safe, effective marijuana.
Laboratory tests indicate the Health Canada product has only about three per cent THC - not the 10.2 per cent advertised - and contains contaminants such as lead and arsenic, said spokesman Philippe Lucas of Victoria.
"This particular product wouldn't hold a candle to street level cannabis," he said in an interview.
But Lucas declined to identify the three labs that did the testing, other than to indicate they're in Vancouver, saying he fears the facilities might suffer repercussions from Health Canada because they were not authorized to possess the cannabis.
He also would not say how the group obtained the sample of government dope.
A spokeswoman for Health Canada said the department can't accept laboratory findings from anonymous facilities.
"We question the validity of the test results because Canadians for Safe Access has been unwilling to reveal who did the testing, and when the testing was done, and under what conditions," said Krista Apse.
She said the Flin Flon cannabis had to meet exacting production standards and was thoroughly tested for its quality.
No patients have complained directly to Health Canada so far, Apse said, and the department will not accept returns or provide refunds.
Lucas, who smokes marijuana to cope with his hepatitis C infection, said the lab results also showed that the cannabis provided at a Victoria compassion club for patients registers at more than 12 per cent and is freer from contaminants.
He said the government cannabis was too finely ground up with stems and leaves, calling it "shwag" or "bunk," street terminology for the lowest grade of marijuana.
Click here for more Pipeline.
Dakota Joseph Arts