>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <146e01bf0079$a4acbcd0$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: LA Times & I >Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 12:28:19 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Hello. > >No sooner had I finished this op-ed piece for the LA Times than I opened the >paper and, lo, there was an editorial agreeing with me. (It follows the >op-ed here.) That the LA Times and I agree on medical marijuana means that >at least ONE of us has made a lot of motion in the past three years. > >I wonder which one? > >Enjoy, > >Peter > > >=============== > >Who's Minding the Rights of California's Sick and Dying? > >By Peter McWilliams > >Yet another attempt by the valiant California state senator John >Vasconcellos to get medicine to the sick has died an undignified death. In >1994 and 1995, Vasconcellos good-shepareded medical-marijuana bills through >the legislature, only to watch them shot down by then-governor Wilson. These >failures necessitated going directly to the people, who enthusiastically >passed Proposition 215, the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996. > >This year Vasconcellos carefully crafted a bill to implement the Act, >including the recommendations of Attorney General Lockyer's taskforce of >police, prosecutors, judges, physicians, legislators, and patients. >Vasconcellos, however, was forced to withdraw the bill because Governor >Davis threatened a veto. According to his spokesperson, Davis' "concern from >the outset was that under federal law the use of marijuana is illegal. The >governor did not want to see the state of California acting in conflict with >federal law." > >Perhaps the good governor "from the outset" should have read the California >Constitution. Article III Section 3.5 would have informed him that he "has >no power . . . to declare a statute unenforceable or to refuse to enforce a >statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the >enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a >determination." Not nine months ago he solemnly swore to support and defend >"the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign >and domestic." > >Proposition 215 has no greater "domestic" enemy than the federal government. >I should know. I currently face 10 years to life in federal prison for >treating my cancer and AIDS with medical marijuana. I did nothing that is >not legal under California law. How naive of me to believe that California's >elected officials might protect me. > >But Davis is a beloved friend of 215 compared with U.S. Senator Diane >Feinstein. The Compassionate Use Act directed "the federal and state >governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable >distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana." > >Not only has she rebuffed California law by not working to gain federal >exemption for medical marijuana, on the two occasions since the passage of >215 that Congress has voted on the issue, Feinstein cast her ballot against >the will of the people of California. > >Now she is strong-arming through the Senate a bill that even further limits >the Compassionate Use Act. Along with Orin Hatch (R-UT) (the War on Drugs >makes strange bedfellows, doesn't it?), she has introduced the >Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999 (S.1428). Under the guise of >countering the "methamphetamine epidemic," Feinstein takes direct aim at >California's medical marijuana users and those who strive to help us. > >If a doctor, for example, tells a patient how to cultivate ("manufacture" in >Drug-War speak) medical marijuana, the doctor is guilty of a federal felony >punishable by ten years in prison, a hefty fine, and the assets forfeiture >of everything he or she may possess. This in spite (and spite is the right >word) of the fact that cultivation is specifically permitted under 215. > >But the new Feinstein law doesn't stop there. Increasingly, medical patients >are using electronic vaporizers. These devices allow the inhalation of >medical marijuana's vaporized therapeutic chemicals without the potential >health hazards associated with breathing in smoke. The Feinstein law would >make it a federal crime to even give the "telephone number or electronic or >mail address" of companies that sell these harm-reducing medical devices. > >Perhaps Senator Feinstein should be reminded that Proposition 215 was passed >by 56.4 percent of the voters and that she was elected into office by a mere >44.8 percent-not even a majority. > >The 9th Circuit recently ruled that the federal government had overstepped >its authority by unilaterally denying medical marijuana to California's >sick. Yes, the government has an interest in enforcing its drug laws, the >court pointed out, but we sick have an interest in protecting our health as >well. These two factors must be "balanced," said the court. > >There are words to describe the fact that the federal government is telling >itself it has gone too far in denying the rights of California medical >patients, while those who are elected to defend California's interests >against federal encroachment are either shirking such responsibilities or >are enthusiastically working to place Californians under even further >federal control. These words include ironic, pathetic, astonishing, >predictable, despicable, and impeachable. > >Choose your favorites. > >==================== > >Peter McWilliams (www.mcwilliams.com) is a journalist and publisher. > > >========= > >THE NEXT STEP ON MEDICAL POT > >Three years ago, when California voters approved Proposition 215, >which legalized the medical use of marijuana, then Gov. Pete Wilson >struggled to reconcile the contradiction between the measure and >federal drug laws that forbade marijuana use. Gov. Gray Davis has >tried to avoid the quagmire by pointing out that federal laws trump >state laws and that it would be illegal for his administration to >sanction any use of the drug. > >On Monday, however, three federal appeals court judges deprived Davis >of that evasive bit of reasoning. The court essentially ruled that the >handful of cannabis clubs that distribute medical marijuana in the >state can do so as long as they can prove that the drug is needed to >protect sick people from serious harm. The decision does not change >federal drug rules, which classify marijuana as a "Schedule 1 drug," >meaning a substance without medicinal value. > >The decision should prompt state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer to comply >with the spirit of Proposition 215 by issuing guidelines to help local >law enforcement officials monitor whether cannabis centers are >distributing medical marijuana responsibly. > >Lockyer's guidelines should be based not on the measure itself, for >while its backers say it restricts marijuana to patients with "serious >illnesses," it in fact allows doctors to prescribe it for minor >ailments like nausea. The attorney general should follow the appeals >court ruling, which supports mainstream medical opinion that marijuana >is demonstrably superior to other drugs only for those suffering from >particularly severe illnesses like AIDS and cancer. > >Some legislators argue that any sort of state guidelines on >Proposition 215 would encourage recreational as well as responsible >use of marijuana. In fact the opposite is true. Cannabis clubs are >already implementing the measure, and local law enforcement officials, >without guidelines from the state, cannot ensure they are acting >responsibly. > > > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: