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.
Pubdate: Thu, 21 Jul 2005
Source: Gay City News (NY)
Copyright: 2005 Gay City News
Contact:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.gaycitynews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3651
Author: Nathan Riley
|
Best East Bay 
The Men's Wearhouse George Zimmer
