ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance Threaten To Sue Schwarzenegger Administration

[IndianaToker]

By Ken McLaughlin, Mercury News
Source: Mercury News

Santa Cruz, CA -- The city of Santa Cruz and a local medical marijuana collective on Tuesday asked a federal court in San Jose to approve the city's plan to provide marijuana directly to sick and dying patients.
The amended complaint represents a renewed legal fight to force the U.S. government to honor medical marijuana laws passed by California and 11 other states.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Drug Policy Alliance, the national law firm of Bingham McCutchen and a handful of private attorneys filed legal documents outlining new constitutional arguments based on an ordinance recently enacted by the Santa Cruz City Council creating the first medical marijuana department in the country.

The department is known as the Office of Compassionate Use, but the city has made clear it has no intention of actually distributing marijuana unless it wins the legal battle.

Californians in 1996 voted to allow the use of medicinal marijuana. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in June that the federal government had the right to enforce its own drug laws. Lawyers for medicinal marijuana patients, however, remain hopeful they can still press ahead in the courts because the Supreme Court chose not to address some constitutional issues in last year's ruling.

The U.S. Constitution permits states to determine for themselves what is legal and what is illegal under state law, lawyers argued in Tuesday's filing. In the case of medical marijuana, the plaintiffs argue that the federal government has attempted to sabotage state laws through arrests, prosecutions and other means.

"The White House wants California to march in lock step with its misguided prohibition of medical marijuana, but the Constitution says otherwise,'' said Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project, based in Santa Cruz.

The case originated in 2003 when medical-marijuana groups and others sued the federal government for raiding a Santa Cruz medical marijuana cooperative, the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana.

Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)
Author: Ken McLaughlin, Mercury News
Published: Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Copyright: 2006 San Jose Mercury News
Contact: letters@sjmercury.com
Website: http://www.mercurynews.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21541.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel

Santa Cruz, CA -- An area medical marijuana cooperative should be free from harassment by federal agents as should the city's recently enacted ordinance that would establish a compassionate use office for the drug, an amended federal court complaint filed this week contends.
Attorneys for the city and county of Santa Cruz and the Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana filed the amended complaint in U.S. District Court in San Jose.

It is basically an updated version of a lawsuit filed in 2003.

The suit contends that the state, county and city have the right to establish medical marijuana policies under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Essentially, we're arguing that the federal government is interfering with the city's and county's right to regulate the health and welfare of its own citizenry," said Gerald Uelmen, law professor at Santa Clara University and one of a string of attorney's working for the plaintiffs.

Uelmen is joined by Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice as well as lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Drug Policy Alliance, the firm of Bingham McCutchen and Santa Cruz City Attorney John Barisone.

The suit also centers, in part, on the argument that a person has a right to manage her or his illness and death.

"We're dealing with how do you convince the federal government the harm they are creating is much worse than the harm they are trying to prevent," said Valerie Corral, co-founder of WAMM.

The issue not in the suit is that of interstate commerce, which was part of the original complaint. That concept led to an appeals court ruling that individuals in states with medical marijuana laws may supply for each other as long as money doesn't change hands and the pot doesn't cross state lines.

Though an appeals court went along with that argument, it was later rejected in June by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Raich v. Gonzales.

WAMM was joined by the city and county in filing the suit back in 2003 and inlcuded that argument as part of the suit, months after federal agents raided the cooperative's Davenport garden and uprooted 167 plants. Corral and husband Mike, also a co-founder of the group, were briefly jailed but have not been charged.

The suit seeks an injunction against future raids, as well as a judicial declaration that medical marijuana use is necessary for the sick plaintiffs and their caregivers to manage their disease and that city or county employees are not subject to prosecution for helping to implement local medical marijuana policies.

A call to the National Office of Drug Control Policy, also known as the Drug Czar, in Washington, D.C., was not immediately returned late Tuesday afternoon.

Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)
Author: Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer
Published: February 1, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Santa Cruz Sentinel
Contact: editorial@santa-cruz.com
Website: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21549.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Leyna Krow
Source: Metro Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz, Calif. -- Will locals vote to put pot-related enforcement at the bottom of the cops' to-do list?
The city of Santa Cruz sure does love its dope. At least that's the assumption Santa Cruz Citizens for Sensible Marijuana Policy are banking on as they work to get an initiative on November's ballot that would make marijuana-related crimes the lowest enforcement priority for Santa Cruz police.

"I don't think that responsible adults should be punished for recreational use. And the vast majority of citizens in this city seem to feel the same way," said initiative proponent Craig Reinarman.

The initiative follows over a decade's worth of pro-marijuana legislation in the city of Santa Cruz. Measure A, passed in 1992, set the groundwork for medical marijuana cooperatives such as the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM). In 2003, following the aptly numbered statewide bill, A.B. 420, which allows cities to set their own regulations regarding just how much pot patients can possess at any one time, the city of Santa Cruz passed an ordinance allowing card-carrying medical marijuana users up to 3 pounds of cannabis.

According to Reinarman, "Santa Cruz has voted in the past in very powerful majorities in favor of medical marijuana and decriminalization."

This most recent initiative is designed to protect adult users, be they medical marijuana patients or simply recreational enthusiasts, from arrest and prosecution. If enacted, a "community oversight committee" would be formed to which Santa Cruz police would submit biweekly accounts of all marijuana-related arrests. The committee would then decide whether or not the arrest had been in keeping with the spirit of the law.

According to Theodora Kerry of Santa Cruz CSMP, "The oversight committee is what will gives this policy teeth. This is what will make police accountable."

Offenses not protected by the initiative include selling to minors, sales or distribution on public property, and driving under the influence.

Santa Cruz CSMP modeled their initiative after Measure Z, which Oakland passed in 2004. Concerned that tax dollars which could be spent on social programs were instead going to waste enforcing unpopular regulations, the people of Oakland voted by a sizable majority in favor of low priority enforcement of marijuana-related crimes. It is the hope of the Santa Cruz CSMP that Santa Cruz voters will do the same.

"This would free up police to focus on legitimate safety concerns in the community," said Kerry. "Nobody is safer because someone doesn't get to smoke a joint tonight."

Santa Cruz CSMP will begin collecting signatures for the initiative in early February. Supporters are required to gather 3,423 signatures by April 20, 2006, in order for the initiative to be on the November 2006 ballot.

For more information about Santa Cruz Citizens for Sensible Marijuana Policy, call 831.420.2772 or stop by the Compassion Flower Inn at 216 Laurel St., Santa Cruz.

From the February 1-8, 2006 issue of Metro Santa Cruz.

Source: Metro Santa Cruz (CA)
Author: Leyna Krow
Published: February 1-8, 2006
Copyright: 2006 Metro Publishing Inc.
Contact: msc@metcruz.com
Website: http://www.metroactive.com/cruz/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21552.shtml

[Lucian]

Well, alright. I have been waiting for a case to stand up for state rights. I have mentioned elsewhere there isn't any federal law outside of what is stated in the constitution. It only appears to exist when all the states pass it into state law as a 'courtesy' but that is when it becomes a real law: at the state level.

This will be an interesting case.

[IndianaToker]

Originally Posted by Lucian

Well, alright. I have been waiting for a case to stand up for state rights. I have mentioned elsewhere there isn't any federal law outside of what is stated in the constitution. It only appears to exist when all the states pass it into state law as a 'courtesy' but that is when it becomes a real law: at the state level.

This will be an interesting case.

Agreed, this will be very interesting to follow indeed.

[IndianaToker]

By Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

California -- Supervisor Jeff Stone wants Riverside County to join its neighbors to the north and south in attempting to overturn California's medical marijuana law.
At Stone's urging, the Board of Supervisors is expected to discuss in closed session Tuesday whether to join San Diego and San Bernardino counties in suing the state over the 9-year-old "Compassionate Use Act" ---- Proposition 215 ---- which allows the "seriously ill" to obtain and use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Stone, a pharmacist, said Prop. 215 contradicts a federal law that classifies marijuana as an illegal drug.

"I believe that the federal law trumps the state law," Stone said. "All of the federal laws have to be equally or more adhered to because the federal laws supersede all other laws in the United States of America."

San Diego County officials filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Jan. 20 making the same argument. It is believed to be the first lawsuit that seeks to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws approved by voters in 11 states.

The suit argues that states have to bow to a federal law that makes all marijuana use illegal and says it has no medicinal value. It cites Article VI of the U.S. Constitution ---- known as the "Supremacy Clause" ---- which makes the Constitution and federal laws "the supreme law of the land."

"The issue is, the state's asking the county to do something here that they know darn well is illegal," San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn said at the time.

It took a week for San Bernardino County supervisors to decide that they wanted to file their own lawsuit. It is expected that the two suits will be consolidated and that Riverside County's ---- if ultimately filed ---- would join them.

Area medical marijuana advocates could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Stone said the lawsuit would ultimately settle what has been a confusing situation for counties, which have had to regulate medical marijuana use while questions regarding its legality have gone unanswered.

"Hopefully, this lawsuit will give the counties some guidelines as to how to move forward," he said.

Rather than wait and see what happens with the suits filed by the other counties, Stone said Riverside County should jump in so that judges who decide the case can see that there are many counties in the state that are grappling with the issue.

If the county goes ahead with the lawsuit, he said, it will not suspend a state-mandated identification card program that prevents someone from being arrested for possessing medical marijuana.

Eighty-five cards have been issued through the program since it began in December, county public health officials said Wednesday.

The Board will consider the matter Tuesday at the County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon St., Riverside.

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer
Published: February 02, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21554.shtml

[IndianaToker]

On January 20, 2006, San Diego County filed a lawsuit claiming the state's voter-enacted medical marijuana law is pre-empted by federal law — a suit even the county's lawyer has characterized as an "uphill battle." A month earlier, the county board of supervisors refused to implement the state-mandated medical marijuana ID card program, which reduces hassles for patients by making it easy for police to verify that they qualify to use medical marijuana. MPP commissioned a poll that found that 80% of county voters think the suit is a waste of money and 70% want the supervisors to implement medical marijuana ID cards.

In the face of the county's outrageous action, MPP has teamed up with local activists to term-limit the county supervisors out of office. A medical marijuana patient who was burned in the cedar fires, a nurse practitioner specializing in pain management, and another local resident submitted the term limits initiative on January 18, and MPP and Americans for Safe Access have pledged to help gather signatures.

In the video below, you can watch MPP's Rob Kampia speaking to San Diego's KUSI-TV about the initiative.


http://mpp.org/streaming/Rob_in_SD_20060128.html

[IndianaToker]

By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

San Diego, CA -- San Diego County leaders have abruptly switched their precedent-setting lawsuit to overturn California's medical marijuana law from federal to state court this week.
County officials denied that they moved their lawsuit ---- which has angered medical marijuana patients and advocacy groups ---- because they feared the lawsuit would be thrown out of federal court.

They said that going through the state court system could be a winning legal strategy ---- by still leaving the option of getting to the U.S. Supreme Court and avoiding the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been friendlier to marijuana advocates than opponents.

"This could still take us to the U.S. Supreme Court," County Counsel John Sansone said. "And if it avoids the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, so be it."

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, who were seeking court permission to oppose the county's federal lawsuit, said they would do the same in the state system.

"Tell them, 'I guess we'll see you in court,' " ACLU attorney Allen Hopper said.

Both the county and marijuana advocacy groups say the county's challenge is precedent-setting because it is the first to try to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws that voters have approved in 11 states.

The county, pushed by a 4-0 vote in December by its Board of Supervisors, with Supervisor Ron Roberts absent, filed a lawsuit seeking to overthrow California's medical marijuana law on Jan. 20.

The lawsuit wants the courts to invalidate the 9-year-old, voter-approved "Compassionate Use Act" ---- Proposition 215 ---- on the grounds that it should be pre-empted by federal law, which says that all marijuana use is illegal and that marijuana has no medicinal value.

But Sansone said Thursday that after more research, county attorneys filed essentially the same lawsuit in state Superior Court on Wednesday, and withdrew its federal filing.
Hopper and state health department officials said last week that they thought the U.S. District Court might throw out the county's federal lawsuit before it was even heard ---- because it lacked legal "standing."

Hopper said counties are not allowed to sue states in federal court over federal law.

On Thursday, Sansone said that suggestion had nothing to do with the county's decision to take the state court route.

"We believe we would have prevailed on that 'standing' issue," Sansone said. "But, for a whole lot of other issues relating to legal strategy, we think this case is best suited to the state courts."

Hopper, meanwhile, suggested that if the county was trying to avoid the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals because it feared the judges there would not side with them, it could backfire.

Hopper said the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was "one of the most often reversed" courts in the country. He said that if the 9th Circuit judges had ruled against the county's challenge, it would almost guarantee a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"If the 9th Circuit says, 'The sky is blue,' they (the Supreme Court) would want to review the decision and actually say the sky is gray," Hopper said.

The county's new lawsuit uses the same pre-emption argument as the federal suit they withdrew. But it expands the scope of the suit somewhat.

The federal lawsuit was filed against the state and Sandra Shewry, director of California's Department of Health Services. The state lawsuit also names the San Diego chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws to the list.

Sansone said NORML sent a letter to county supervisors threatening to sue them because the county had refused a state order in November to create an identification card and registration program for medical marijuana users, to help implement Prop. 215.

The new lawsuit alleges that the county believes its defense against the group's threatened lawsuit is that Prop. 215 should be overturned because it clashes with federal law.

The county's argument cites the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause" ---- which states that the Constitution and federal law should be "supreme" over state laws ---- and that a 1961 U.S. treaty with 150 other nations that states that marijuana is illegal.

Complete Title: County Moves Medical Marijuana Challenge To State Court

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Published: February 03, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21558.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

California -- Before the county Board of Supervisors has even begun to discuss the matter, opponents to a supervisor's recent call for Riverside County to join an effort to overturn the state's medical marijuana law are lining up.
Medical marijuana advocates were joined Thursday by Supervisor Bob Buster in publicly disagreeing with Supervisor Jeff Stone, who earlier this week stated that he believes the county should join San Diego and San Bernardino counties in suing the state over the 9-year-old "Compassionate Use Act."

Approved by 55 percent of the voters in 1996, the law ---- Proposition 215 ---- allows the "seriously ill" to obtain and use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Stone, a pharmacist, argues the state is flouting federal laws that make marijuana an illegal drug.
But Buster said the county would be overstepping its duties and wasting taxpayer money by spending thousands of dollars in legal fees if it jumped on board with the challenge.


The county is not in a position to question what the voters of California have decided they want, he said.

"We don't represent state voters who voted for this thing," he said. "I do not support it from a humanitarian standpoint nor do I think it's really any of the board's business to attempt (to challenge the law). I think it's well out of our jurisdiction."

The money the county would spend on the suit would best be used on other drug programs, Buster said.

Lanny Swerdlow, director of the Palm Springs-based Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project, denounced Stone's call for Riverside to join the two other counties in challenging the medical marijuana law.

Californians have made it clear, he said, that they approve of the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

"This is not only what the people of the state want, this is what the Constitution of the state of California requires," Swerdlow said. "For a local supervisor to advocate the use of taxpayers' money to file a suit that would allow the federal government to overrule state and local governments on what is best for their own citizens is mind-boggling."
San Diego County officials filed their suit in U.S. District Court on Jan. 20, but withdrew it Thursday and filed it instead in San Diego Superior Court. If the case were to go to the district court, it would likely move on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court the county's lawyers said they want to avoid because it has been more friendly to medical marijuana.

The suit, which is believed to be the first that seeks to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws approved by voters in 11 states, argues that any state laws should bow to federal laws that make all marijuana use illegal. It cites Article VI of the U.S. Constitution ---- known as the Supremacy Clause ---- which makes the Constitution and federal laws "the supreme law of the land."

San Diego County supervisors have said they think the state is asking them to break federal law by forcing them to issue identification cards that prevent medical marijuana users from being arrested.

It appears the counties have a tough legal battle ahead of them.

According to David B. Cruz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California, the courts have already ruled that counties can't raise this kind of challenge.

And, he said, the Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that doctors are not breaking federal laws if they recommend to patients that they use marijuana.

"So it is fairly clear that issuance of the identification card that memorializes such a recommendation would not violate state law," he said. "If the federal government lacks either the resources or the political commitment to prosecute bona fide users of medical marijuana under California's compassionate use law, then in practice there would be no problem with California's doing what the voters have authorized."

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Jose Carvajal, Staff Writer
Published: February 03, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21559.shtml

[TokinBlue]

wow, it took me quite a while but i read it all. This has been going on for some time now. I do not understand why they feel they have the right to take away a person's medicine like that. I think it is Feanor who had the quote about us protecting ourselves and that holds so true. The government and all of their lackies need to back the hell off.

[BiG StroOnZ]

So does this mean, my plan to transfer to Cali in two years for numerous reasons (one of the many being the medical mj cards) is now going to be a dissapointment as by the time I get there the cards will be gone?

[Cali_Toker]

Originally Posted by BiG StroOnZ

So does this mean, my plan to transfer to Cali in two years for numerous reasons (one of the many being the medical mj cards) is now going to be a dissapointment as by the time I get there the cards will be gone?

It's highly unlikely medical marijuana will be gone. Pretty much everyone in the know that i've talked to about this says the lawsuit has no chance in hell of winning. All the laywers ive seen discuss this in newspaper articles and what not say the lawsuit has no chance in hell also.... Even the lawyer for san diego county (who first started the lawsuit) says it's unlikely they can win.

So i wouldnt worry to much. It's still bullshit they are using my tax money to go through with this bs lawsuit though.

[Cali_Toker]

updated news. San Diego county just withdrew their lawsuit from federal court and are now taking it to state court instead. Apparently it finally sunk in that they have no chance in hell of winning so they are taking a different approach.

Again what a waste of tax dollars

http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v06/n141/a03.html

[IndianaToker]

By Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Source: North County Times

California -- The deep furrows in Craig McClain's brow slowly ease as he feels the first effects of the marijuana smoke he has just inhaled. His pain-wracked body relaxes, as he sits gingerly on the special bed in his Vista home.
"I'm already feeling better," McClain, a Vista business owner, husband, father, and spinal-cord injury victim, said this week. "Just after a couple of hits. I can take just a couple of hits and feel my spinal cord relax.

"I don't know why they (the federal government) can say there is no merit to marijuana," he said. "So many doctors know it. But yet, the federal government doesn't want to recognize it."

McClain is just one of several seriously ill or disabled residents who have pleaded with San Diego County supervisors to withdraw the lawsuit they have filed to try to overturn California's medical marijuana law, on the ground it should be pre-empted by federal law which says that all marijuana use is illegal.

Since voters approved the "Compassionate Use Act" in 1996, California law has said it is legal for people such as McClain to use marijuana as medicine.

But San Diego County supervisors, asked late last year to create a medical marijuana identification card and registry system to support the 9-year-old law, instead decided to sue the state to try to overturn it. The suit, which was switched this week from federal to state courts and has not yet had its first hearing, is the first to try to overturn any of the medical marijuana laws that voters have approved in 11 states.

People who have opposed the idea of medical marijuana have worried that it would increase abuse of the drug, tell children that drug use is "OK," and give "potheads" with imagined illnesses a legal route to use an illegal drug.

Pain is Evident

One look is all it takes to recognize that Craig McClain is in constant, unrelenting pain.

His spine crushed by falling steel girders in a construction-related accident in 1990, McClain stands these days with the help of a cane and brace for his left leg, bent stiffly at the waist ---- where inside his back, six long screws hold his spinal cord together.

Early this week, arriving home after his morning physical therapy ---- where a therapist applied acupressure in his spinal area to try to reduce the twisting that now naturally occurs around his injured spine ---- McClain inched his way from his car into his home, groaning openly with each movement.

The X-rays he gingerly held up to the light showed the six screws, along with a pump that delivers drugs into his system to help combat the pain and spasms he continually battles.

When the accident happened, McClain said, doctors told him he would never walk again, and that his working days were over. But today he owns his own store, the "Old Toy Soldier Home" in Vista, where he sells figurines that he has hand-painted, a hobby he turned into a new life after his accident.

In the early days of his injury, McClain and his doctors discovered that he was allergic to many of the traditional pain relievers, including morphine.

"That's why I have to wear this medical alert medallion," he said. "I can die if I go into a hospital and they give me morphine or Dilaudid. Vicodin, codeine ... I'm allergic to all of those."

'Medical' Marijuana

Two years after his accident, when his spasms ---- which have sent McClain into hospitals twitching uncontrollably and curling into a fetal position ---- had gotten to the point he could barely function, a Stanford doctor suggested he try marijuana.

It was 1992, four years before Prop. 215 made "medical" marijuana legal in California.

"I thought he was joking with me," McClain said. "Because, you know, that's a party thing. I had never thought of it in terms of a medicine."

Seeking a legal alternative, McClain first tried Marinol, a synthetically created form of tetrahydrocannibinol ---- THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.

Ironically, the federal government says that synthetic marijuana is a legal drug with recognized medicinal value ---- but says that grown marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug, without medicinal value and on par with heroin, LSD and mescaline.

But McClain and others say the synthetic drug is extremely unreliable ---- although he still uses it at night ---- sometimes taking hours to take effect, sometimes never taking effect.

Eventually, McClain ended up at the Cannabis Cultivators Club in San Francisco, the first marijuana "dispensary" in California.

He said that since he started smoking it, marijuana has helped him control his wracked body.

"If I don't have pot, then I go into severe spasmodic attacks," he said. "And they're extreme ---- to where I have to go to the hospital to get it under control. Sometimes these attacks last for five hours. Sometimes they can be 10 days. If I burn a joint, then it will relax enough to where possibly I get a hold of the situation."

He became an advocate when Prop. 215 was placed on the ballot in 1996, collecting signatures and speaking before state legislators.

When Prop. 215 passed with 55 percent of the vote, McClain said he felt safe. That, he said, has disappeared with the county's decision to try to overturn the measure.

"When Prop. 215 went through, I said, 'Oh, thank God. Now I'm just a regular person again. I'm not a criminal,'" McClain said. "The safety thing was being OK in my state. Now I don't believe there's any safety."

He said he smokes marijuana ---- "a couple of hits off a joint" ---- sporadically during his day. Often, he does so before the physical therapy that he attends five days a week, sometimes during the day, and always before he tries to sleep. McClain said taking


Marinol, smoking "part of a joint," and taking Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, he gets three to five hours of sleep a night.

McClain said coming forward to speak out again about his marijuana use ---- he took part in a protest of the county's Prop. 215 lawsuit and testified before county supervisors last month ---- was not easy. He has a business, a wife and son to protect.

He said he feared that his 12-year-old son, who attends a Lutheran school and belongs to a Mormon Boy Scout troop, could take "flak" from outsiders. He said he doesn't smoke around his son, and that he and his wife have explained that the marijuana he smokes is medicine.

But he said the county's lawsuit left him no choice. He had to speak out.

"I thought after this long a time, the controversy over this thing (medical marijuana) would have gone away," he said. "It's a step backward."

Other Patients

Like McClain, La Mesa resident Rudy Reyes has pain that is all too evident.

Reyes, 28, was burned over 75 percent of his body, including nearly all of his upper body,
during the October 2003 Cedar fire that killed 14 people in San Diego County. Reyes said last week that he spent eight months, two in a drug-induced coma, in a hospital after the fires.

Like McClain, Reyes said his body also rejected morphine, and that his doctors tried several different kinds of drugs to help ease his constant pain. Some of the drugs had terrible side effects.

Then, one day, Reyes said, a doctor asked if he had ever tried marijuana. He said no. The doctor, he said, suggested that he have his friends bring in some "special" food with marijuana in it.

"And they started bringing me in the cookies and the brownies," he said.

In two weeks, Reyes said, the doctors told him they saw improvement in his condition ---- that his muscles were contracting less and that his blood pressure had dropped ---- helping his torched body recover.

Now out of the hospital, Reyes said he no longer eats marijuana, but uses it as a cream to spread on his wounded body.

Reyes said the burns exposed the nerves on his skin, leaving him with a "constant throb and itch that never goes away."

The marijuana tincture, he said, eases his problems. If he didn't have it, he would probably be put back on such as Oxycontin or Vicodin ---- strong drugs with side effects

" I use it as a cream," he said. "I don't smoke it. I don't use it that way."

A Dying Patient

San Diego resident Pamela Sakuda is dying. Sakuda was diagnosed with terminal colorectal cancer three years ago, and was given six to 14 months to live, she said last week.

Despite the terminal prognosis, Sakuda said she wanted to fight her illness, to stay alive as long as she could. That has entailed a continuous barrage of chemotherapy, a treatment that basically consists of having patients drink down anti-cancer poisons in an effort to kill off cancer cells, without killing the patient.

Sakuda said the result was nausea, vomiting and a diminished appetite, all of which threatened to leave her so weak she could no longer take chemotherapy treatment.

She said she uses marijuana, inhaling it through a vaporizer, or sometimes eating it, to stimulate her appetite and soothe her nausea.

She said the drug has helped keep her alive and spared her husband, her caregiver, emotional pain.

"I don't think people like me, who are suffering from an illness, should be in jeopardy of being put in jail," she said. "The people of California voted for this ... it was an act of compassion."

Complete Title: Patients Worry About County's Challenge To Compassionate Use Act

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Gig Conaughton, Staff Writer
Published: February 3, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21564.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Phil Strickland
Source: North County Times

California -- Paul is a good case in point. He retired after decades as an accountant with the New York Stock Exchange. If you created a stereotype for someone with his career, he might be it. Slight of build, bald with a fringe of short gray hair, glasses, a quiet demeanor, that New York City not-much-for-the-sunshine pallor.
He raised two children and lost his wife to a heart attack after years of marriage. In his retirement, he pursued bridge and golf, enjoyed a glass of fine wine and the company of his lady friend.

It was a low-key kind of life and that was just the way he liked it. It would be, however, a mistake to conclude he is a Casper Milquetoast.

Paul is a cancer survivor. Diagnosed with prostate cancer 15 years ago, he refused to give in. He was treated with aggressive hormonal therapy that led to remission of the disease.
He got better and life continued pretty much as it had been.

Three years ago, he was diagnosed as "hormone refractive" ---- terminally ill with cancer.
Ever the fighter, he joined an experimental treatment program that led to osteonecrosis. Essentially his jaw is being eaten away. He has no appetite and grows increasingly emaciated.

Paul has come to know serious pain and nausea in an intimate way.

There are people who say his nausea and pain could be alleviated, or at least mitigated, by medical marijuana. There also are people who are afraid he might become "hooked."

Now comes Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone suggesting that the county join San Diego and San Bernardino counties in trying to overturn the 9-year-old Proposition 215 ---- known as the Compassionate Use Act ---- approved by 55 percent of the state's voters. It allows the "seriously ill" to get and use pot ---- oops "medical marijuana" ---- for medicinal purposes. The supervisors are to discuss that proposal today.

Of course, Stone and his cohorts don't cite moral or social grounds. It's illegal according to the feds, and the law, they say, would have the county aid and abet this heinous act by allowing its use and even, oh my god, issuing identification cards to users.

Can the republic survive?

This concern over medical marijuana is absurd. Who cares if a terminally ill person chooses some level of euphoria over pain? And if they should get "hooked" on feeling better, so what? Stone, a pharmacist, surely knows that many patients become addicted to their treatments.

Consider Valium. OxyContin. Vicodin. Codeine cough syrup.

The power in this country derives from the people. The elected officials closest to their constituencies are our supervisors and councilmen. If a majority of the state's voters decide "compassionate use" ought to be legal, our representatives should be fighting for them.

They should make it incumbent on the feds to force the issue. And when they do, our local, state and federal representatives should join the citizens in a loud, long Bronx cheer.

Paul may never want to "take a hit," but if he did, why should we stop him?

Phil Strickland of Temecula is a regular columnist for The Californian.
Strictly Speaking: Wherein we cut through the buncombe.

Source: North County Times (CA)
Author: Phil Strickland
Published: February 6, 2006
Copyright: 2006 North County Times
Contact: letters@nctimes.com
Website: http://www.nctimes.com/
Link to article: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread21576.shtml