ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance Threaten To Sue Schwarzenegger Administration

[IndianaToker]

For Immediate Release
Source: ACLU

Sacramento -- The American Civil Liberties Union and the Drug Policy Alliance threatened today to sue the Schwarzenegger administration unless it reverses its illegal suspension of California’s Medical Marijuana Program. “Governor Schwarzenegger took an oath of office to uphold state laws, not hijack them,” said Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project. “California voters and the legislature have rejected the federal war on medical marijuana patients, and the governor must respect that judgment.”

Governor Schwarzenegger’s Director of Health Services halted the program last Friday, blocking medical marijuana patients from obtaining registration cards to which they are entitled under California law. The governor’s action came on the eve of the program’s scheduled expansion from a four-county pilot program to a statewide system designed to protect patients from arrest and seizure of their medicine.

In shutting down the program, Director of Health Services Sandra Shewry claimed the need for the state attorney general to confirm that state and county employees who continue to issue cards would not be subject to prosecution by federal authorities. The ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance (The Alliance) rejected this rationale as groundless.

In a letter to the Director of Health Services today, the ACLU and the Alliance pointed out that state attorney general, Bill Lockyer, has already made clear in one of many recent bulletins on the issue that state officials “…may not refuse to abide by the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act on the basis that this Act conflicts with federal law.” The letter further explained that the state constitution and the state's highest court explicitly prohibit the Governor from ignoring state law, even if he believes it conflicts with federal law.

The ACLU and the Alliance previously won a federal court victory establishing that federal law stands as no barrier to California physicians who certify a patient who has legitimate need for medical marijuana. By the same logic, state officials are free to issue registration cards vouching for the legitimacy of a physician's certification.

Attorneys general in Oregon and Hawaii similarly upheld their states’ medical marijuana programs, despite the federal laws that criminalize medical marijuana. The Oregon Attorney General’s formal statement clarified that, “…Because the Act [Oregon’s medical marijuana law] remains valid state law, DHS [Oregon Department of Human Services] continues to be responsible for maintaining the issuance of the cards…”

“It is shameful that a court may have to order the state to reopen the doors to its medical marijuana program, but this will be the inevitable result unless the Governor backs down from this unfounded assault on legitimate medical marijuana patients,” said Daniel Abrahamson, Legal Affairs Director for The Alliance.

To read the letter sent by the ACLU and the Drug Policy Alliance, see: http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugP...?ID=18687&c=81

For more information on other states’ responses to Gonzales v. Raich see: http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicylist.cfm?c=81 and http://www.drugpolicy.org/

Complete Title: ACLU and Drug Policy Alliance Threaten to Sue Schwarzenegger for Suspending California’s Medical Marijuana Law

Note: Governor Must Reverse Illegal Denial of Medical Marijuana Cards to Patients or Face Lawsuit

Newshawk: VitaminT
Source: ACLU (NY)
Published: July 12, 2005
Copyright: 2005 ACLU
Contact: media@aclu.org
Website: http://www.aclu.org/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20948.shtml

[IndianaToker]

By Brendan Coyne
Source: NewStandard

California -- Citing a recent Supreme Court ruling that federal laws barring the use, distribution or possession of marijuana trump state statutes allowing the medicinal use of the drug, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) halted a medical marijuana ID pilot program Friday. The action comes a month after a five-to-four Supreme Court ruling found that federal interstate commerce laws can be used to prosecute medical marijuana users even if medical use has been legalized by the state, no monetary exchange takes place, and the plant never crosses state lines.

California's health director, Sandra Shewry, asked the state Attorney General’s office to review the state’s medicinal marijuana law in light of the decision before the Department will issue any new ID cards, the Associated Press reported Friday. According to the CDHS, cards have been issued to 123 people since the pilot program started in May.

In a statement, the Department noted it was concerned that by issuing the cards, which were meant to protect patients using marijuana at the behest of their doctors from arrest, the state was in violation of federal law and could put Californians at risk of prosecution.

"I am concerned about unintended potential consequences of issuing medical marijuana ID cards that could affect medical marijuana users, their families and staff of the California Department of Health Services," Shewry said in the statement.

Yesterday, the American Civil Liberties Union and the advocacy group Drug Policy Alliance issued a statement threatening to sue the state to reinstate the program. A letter the two organizations sent to the governor and health director states that the CDHS does not have the power to suspend state law.

"It is shameful that a court may have to order the state to reopen the doors to its medical marijuana program, but this will be the inevitable result unless the governor backs down from this unfounded assault on legitimate medical marijuana patients," the Alliance’s legal affairs director, Daniel Abrahamson, said in the statement.

In fact, California’s attorney general already sent a letter to all state law enforcement agencies in the wake of the June 6 Supreme Court ruling, stating that the ruling did not affect the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, the popularly-enacted California law that allows patients to use marijuana medicinally at a doctor’s discretion.

The new ID program was part of medical marijuana legislation signed into law by former Governor Gray Davis in October 2003. It arose out of the recommendations of a 1999 state task force commissioned by Attorney General Bill Lockyer to help implement the Compassionate Use Act.

Implementing the photo ID program was intended to aid law enforcement officials and medical professionals in separating medical marijuana users from those who are breaking the law by using or possessing the herb without a doctor’s permission, according to a statement posted to the Program’s website.

Complete Title: California Medical Marijuana Program Halted, Suit Threatened

Source: NewStandard (NY)
Author: Brendan Coyne
Published: July 13, 2005
Copyright: 2005 The NewStandard
Website: http://newstandardnews.net/
Contact: ed-letters@newstandardnews.net
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20949.shtml

[Cali_Toker]

hopefully arnold backs down cause if it goes to court it will dragged out forever. The purpose of these id cards is so state cops stop harrassing legit paitents.

Currently they are medical marijuana id cards by they are not from the state so there is no database the cop can look at to verify it. They have to call the number on your rec/card and if it is after buisness hours they wont be able to get ahold of anyone and then they can try and say your card isnt valid cause they cant get anyone to validate it.

Arnold is NOT a federal agent...it is illegal for him to strike down state law...highly illegal. If he were to be sued he would lose for sure but it would take so long to get out of court that the damage would already be done.

Hopefully arnold backs down.

Same thing happened in oregon, they were gonna stop the id program then the mpp threatened to sue them and they backed down and the id program is still running now.

[IndianaToker]

By Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Source: Oakland Tribune

California -- Medical marijuana advocates are mounting a double-barreled attack this week on what they say is California's reticence to uphold its own compassionate use law, putting Attorney General Bill Lockyer in the hot seat. On one front, Oakland-based Americans For Safe Access filed papers Wednesday in Alameda County Superior Court seeking an injunction to halt the California Highway Patrol's policy of seizing marijuana from qualified patients, even if those patients have county-issued ID cards or a doctor's recommendation.

The ASA says the CHP blatantly ignores a state Supreme Court decision that said an officer's probable cause to seize marijuana depends on facts such as presentation of documents identifying the person as a qualified patient.

It also notes that Lockyer — whose office defends the CHP in this lawsuit — issued a formal opinion June 23 saying cities can prohibit their police from seizing medical marijuana but can't automatically seize marijuana from or arrest people who don't have voluntary ID cards because that would directly contradict state law.

"The CHP policy of seizing marijuana from qualified patients even when they present a valid identification card is even more at odds with state law, since no amount of proof can avoid a mandatory seizure," the ASA's filing says.

And the filing says the CHP ignores bulletins Lockyer issued to California law enforcement agencies lastmonth after a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the federal marijuana ban. In those bulletins, Lockyer wrote that California's law still stands and police should avoid making seizures and arrests when it seems someone is legitimately using a medically authorized, reasonable amount of marijuana under state law.

So who's right, the lawyer or the client? Lockyer spokeswoman Teresa Schilling would only say Wednesday that the attorney general is duty-bound to defend the state and its agencies against lawsuits; she referred further questions to the CHP.

CHP spokesman Lt. Joe Whiteford said the CHP will honor only the 123 voluntarily-sought medical marijuana identification cards issued so far by the Department of Health Services under a 2003 state law. Officers will keep seizing marijuana from anyone else. He wouldn't comment on the apparent conflict with Lockyer's bulletins.

Meanwhile, two other national groups — the Drug Policy Alliance and the American Civil Liberties Union — wrote to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday with a threat to sue the state for suspending the very ID card program the CHP says it's honoring.

The ID card program was just about to expand from a four-county test run to statewide implementation. But state Health Services Director Sandra Shewry last week halted it, saying the need for Lockyer to confirm that employees who issue the cards won't be subject to federal prosecution following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The DPA and ACLU also cite Lockyer's bulletins that state officials "may not refuse to abide by the provisions of the Compassionate Use Act on the basis that this Act conflicts with federal law." DPA legal director Daniel Abrahamson of Oakland said it's "shameful" that court action might be needed to force the state to honor its own laws.

The groups' letter said they'll sue if the ID card program isn't reinstated by the close of business Tuesday. Schilling said Wednesday that Lockyer's office is working "as fast as we can" to issue an opinion on the program.

Note: Compassionate use law is put to the test.

Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)
Author: Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Published: July 14, 2005
Copyright: 2005 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact: triblet@angnewspapers.com
Website: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20951.shtml

[JeraldoRonaldo]

IndianaT always gives us great news coverage. This is similar to GWB attempting to ban gay marriages, which he shouldn't constitutionally be able to do, due to seperation of state and church. ::shrug:: If that goes to court, that could be bad news, man. Bad news.

[crestonchic08]

ohhhhhh.....grrrr he makes me angry....anyone have a pistol????

[Cali_Toker]

Yeah its really fucked up that the CHP says they will only honor one card....and the one card that they will honor the govenor shuts down....so basically arnold just put 10's of thousands of paitents in danger. It doesnt take a lawyer to see that this is clearly illegal, we will win for sure if it goes to court. I just hope it doesnt go to court cause it may take awhile to get resolved in the legal system. You know arnold has alot of money backing him up and they can drag it out in court for a long time if they wanted to.

[IndianaToker]

By The Associated Press
Source: Associated Press

California -- State officials revived California's medical marijuana identification card program Monday, saying state employees weren't violating federal law by issuing pot ID cards. "The state attorney general has reviewed this concern and said that California can issue ID cards to medical marijuana users without state employees facing prosecution for assisting in the commission of a federal crime," state Health Director Sandra Shewry said in a statement.

Shewry's office shuttered the pilot program 10 days ago, citing concerns over a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

Last month, the court ruled that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain or other conditions can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws.

The ruling did not strike down laws in California and nine other states that permit medical cannabis use, but said federal drug laws take precedence.

In a legal review sought by Shewry, Attorney General Bill Lockyer said that employees issuing the IDs could not be prosecuted for aiding or abetting the violation of a crime.

Lockyer's office also said that the information collected from applicants could be obtained by federal authorities and used to identify and prosecute medical marijuana users.

Health department spokesman Ken August said he was not aware of federal agents requesting such information.

Shewry said a new program application would state clearly that information submitted could be turned over to federal authorities and that possession of marijuana remains a federal crime.

The 123 people who already have been issued the IDs will be also be contacted, August said.

Complying with a state mandate that lawmakers passed after California voters approved a medical marijuana law in 1996, the state Health Department in May launched the pilot pot card program in Amador, Del Norte and Mendocino counties.

One purpose of the cards is to give medical pot users a way to show they have a legitimate reason for possessing pot if they are stopped by law enforcement.

The pilot program will is scheduled to be complete by the end of the month and expand statewide on Aug. 1.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Published: July 18, 2005
Copyright: 2005 The Associated Press
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20972.shtml

[IndianaToker]

Local News
Source: Times-Standard

Sacramento -- California Health Director Sandra Shewry announced Monday that the state has resumed its Medical Marijuana ID Card program. After receiving legal advice from the California attorney general that operating the pilot program would not aid and abet marijuana users in committing a federal crime, Shewry directed staff of the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) to resume operations that were suspended on July 8.

"The state attorney general has reviewed this concern and said that California can issue ID cards to medical marijuana users without state employees facing prosecution for assisting in the commission of a federal crime," Shewry said. "Today (Monday) the state resumed operating the Medical Marijuana ID Card program."

But the attorney general also said that information received from applicants for medical marijuana ID cards may be obtained by federal officials to identify them for prosecution.

In response, CDHS will be modifying the ID card application to inform applicants that possession of marijuana remains a federal crime and information provided by them could be used for federal prosecution, Shewry said.

Shewry added that CDHS will ask the three counties that have issued state ID cards to notify all card-holders of their risk for federal prosecution.

The Medical Marijuana Identification Card Program was designed to provide patients an ID card that could be used as evidence that they had received a recommendation from their physician to use marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The card can assist law enforcement officials in determining whether an individual using marijuana meets the requirements of the Compassionate Use Act, which says that with the recommendation of a physician, a patient may obtain and use marijuana for personal medical purposes.

On June 6, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two California women who sought a decision that the federal government does not have jurisdiction to enforce federal law against individuals growing marijuana for their personal medical use. The court, however, determined that Congress does have the authority to prohibit local cultivation and use of marijuana.

Although the court's decision did not directly affect California's Compassionate Use Act, approved by voters in 1996, and state law, the decision raised questions about whether the state can legally conduct a program that assists in the violation of federal law. In an effort to clarify the issue, CDHS sought legal advice from the attorney general.

CDHS began pilot testing an identification card and registry system in three counties -- Amador, Del Norte and Mendocino -- in May. To date, 123 cards have been issued. With the resumption of the program, the pilot testing is scheduled to be completed at the end of this month and the program expanded statewide beginning Aug. 1.

Source: Times-Standard (CA)
Published: Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Copyright: 2005 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact: editor@times-standard.com
Website: http://www.times-standard.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20974.shtml

[Cali_Toker]

great news..... i just hope the feds dont use this is a way to go after paitents. I think im pretty safe though, i buy medical marijuana for personal use. I highly doubt the feds are gonna go after some guy who buys a 8th or a quarter every so often.

[bobtoke]

shit california had great laws no there going all wierd

[IndianaToker]

By Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
Source: Los Angeles Times

California has long been at the center of the medical marijuana debate. In June, the state drew attention after a U.S. Supreme Court decision denied two California women protection against federal prosecution for using medicinal cannabis.

Fallout from the court case has been widespread. Some dispensaries shut down growing operations, and supporters held protests.

Question: When did the controversy over medical marijuana begin?

Answer: For years an accepted part of Western medicine, cannabis has been out of the mainstream since the 1930s. But in recent decades, marijuana reemerged as an alternative therapy, particularly among AIDS patients, who said it helped stem the wasting effects of the disease.

The biggest shift toward public acceptance came in 1996, when California voters approved Proposition 215 with 56% of the vote. The measure made it legal for doctors to recommend marijuana to patients with serious illnesses. But the measure conflicted with federal law, which prohibits the use of cannabis for any purpose other than scientific research.

Opponents said the measure would invite abuse of a drug that had not been proved medically effective and would create confusion for law enforcement.

But the state's voters decided otherwise, igniting a trend. Nine other states have also legalized medical marijuana.

Q: What did the Supreme Court do?

A: Angel Raich, an Oakland mother who uses medical marijuana for a variety of illnesses, joined with another patient, Diane Monson of Chico, to sue the federal government, hoping to win protection from federal prosecution.

In a classic states' rights argument, the women said that their donated medical marijuana was grown in California and therefore not a product of intrastate commerce subject to federal jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, didn't buy the argument and upheld the federal government's power to seize and destroy marijuana used as medicine by seriously ill patients.

In their dissent, some justices suggested that Congress or health regulators should revisit U.S. laws regarding marijuana as a medicine.

Q: What has the decision meant for California?

A: The case didn't address the constitutionality of California's law, so medical marijuana remains on the books in the state. Federal officials could conceivably arrest anyone for a marijuana violation, but the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency almost always focuses on raiding big cannabis-growing operations. There are exceptions.

Steven McWilliams came to the attention of federal officials in 2002 through an act of civil disobedience — distributing medical marijuana at San Diego City Hall.

McWilliams was arrested and convicted of cultivating 25 plants for his small medical marijuana collective and was facing jail time because the Supreme Court ruling undermined his appeal.

McWilliams committed suicide by overdosing on prescription drugs July 11. Americans for Safe Access, an Oakland group, staged memorial services for McWilliams in San Diego, Los Angeles and other cities across the country Tuesday.

Q: What does research show?

A: Federal regulators consider marijuana a Schedule 1 drug without medical benefit and susceptible to abuse. But medical marijuana activists have petitioned the government to have it reclassified as a Schedule 2 or 3 drug so doctors might eventually be allowed to prescribe it.

Proponents say there are thousands of scientific papers underscoring accepted and promising medicinal benefits.

But there are very few large clinical studies that prove a medicinal benefit.

Pot supporters contend the dearth of such research is the fault of a resistant federal government, which acts as a gatekeeper to such research. Federal authorities dispute such claims.

Q: Have doctors embraced marijuana for the masses?

A: Not exactly. Pharmacies don't carry it, and any doctor who writes a prescription could jeopardize his or her federal license to administer drugs. Instead, doctors make recommendations, much as they might discuss a dietary supplement with a patient.

But many physicians still avoid recommending cannabis. Some don't believe it works.

Others worry about the potential for abuse or fear retaliation from the federal government. Many are bothered by the absence of dosage and quality standards.

Q: Since pharmacies don't have it, where do patients get their cannabis?

A: Some of California's estimated 100,000 medical marijuana patients cultivate their own marijuana. But many others don't have the expertise, space or, in the case of the very ill, the strength to cultivate the herb.

As a result, many patients have turned to storefront dispensaries or collectives that sell to patients with written recommendations.

This medical cannabis can come in a variety of forms — liquid tinctures, candies, brownies and the regular leafy herb. Many patients use vaporizers, which allow them to inhale cannabis without having to breathe in carcinogenic smoke.

The dispensaries have become a target for federal raids, and in some cases, operators have been arrested.

Q: Has law enforcement been confused by Proposition 215?

A: Many officers and drug agents were confused early on. Since then, a series of state court cases has helped define the limits of the law. In urban areas, such as the Bay Area and Los Angeles, the issue has mostly receded as a policing priority. In rural areas, officers are more apt to make arrests and confiscate marijuana from people who claim patient status.

Medical marijuana supporters have also been troubled that California Highway Patrol officers have made similar seizures, and have filed suit to block that practice.

Q: Why did the state create photo IDs for users of medical marijuana?

A: The cards were intended to give patients a way to avoid trouble with police.

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling, the state Health Department this month suspended the project out of fear the cards could make patients or the state a target for federal prosecution.

But the program was restarted Monday after Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer advised health officials that state employees were not at risk. But Lockyer had less encouraging news for patients considering getting a card — the information could potentially be used by federal officials in a prosecution.

Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
Published: July 20, 2005
Copyright: 2005 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Link to article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/seeds.htm

[IndianaToker]

By Ronald Fraser, Ph.D.
Source: San Francisco Examiner

USA -- Californians spend about $981 million each year to enforce state and local marijuana laws. What are these taxpayers getting for their money? Not much, according to a recent study. Jon B. Gettman, a senior fellow at George Mason University's School of Public Policy, prepared the study, titled "Crimes of Indiscretion: Marijuana Arrests in the United States," for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

"Marijuana arrests," says Gettman, "are instruments of a supply-reduction policy. But, he adds, "The doubling of marijuana arrests in the 1990s has produced the opposite of the intended effect in every major indicator. An increase in arrests should produce a reduction in use and the availability of marijuana. However, during the 1990s both use and availability of marijuana increased."

Marijuana possession arrests in the U.S. totaled 260,000 in 1990. By 2003, that figure topped 662,000.

Even failed public policies, however, can cost a bundle.

Who pays: Californians are, in effect, paying for Washington's marijuana prohibition policies.

Boston University economics professor Jeffrey A. Miron estimates that nationally, state and local officials spend about $5 billion per year enforcing marijuana laws. California's share of this multibillion-dollar handout to Uncle Sam includes $228 million for police services, $682 million for judicial services and $71 million for correctional services.

Individual costs: The thousands of people arrested on marijuana possession charges in California each year — especially teenagers — pay extra. "Marijuana arrests," Gettman stresses, "make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. Indeed, the primary consequence of marijuana arrests is the introduction of hundreds of thousands of young people into the criminal justice system."

Once a teenager has a criminal record, a number of other penalties often follow. In California, for example, employers can ask job applicants about arrests leading to a conviction, and a criminal record may bar a person from public housing.

Taking a close look at marijuana arrest patterns, Gettman notes that young people are disproportionately targeted. "The brunt of marijuana law enforcement," he says, "falls on both adolescents and the youngest adults — on teenagers. Nationally, almost 17 percent of all persons arrested for possession of marijuana were between 15 and 17 years old. Another 26 percent were age 18-20."

Marijuana use: And what do Californians get for these financial and personal costs? In 2002, there were 47,988 marijuana possession arrests in California compared to 37,246 such arrests in 1995. But the number of users keeps going up. While 6.0 percent of California's population was estimated to be monthly users in 1999, in 2002 the estimate stood at 6.8 percent.

Nationally, monthly users went from 4.9 percent in 1999 to 6.2 percent in 2002.

The basic problem, says Gettman, is that "overall supply of marijuana in the U.S. is far too diversified to be controlled by law enforcement."

If the current marijuana policies are both costly and ineffective, what is the next best strategy? Because marijuana is so widely used, Gettman recommends treating marijuana like a pharmaceutical product subject to Federal Drug Administration testing and regulatory requirements.

By shifting to a policy that treats and taxes marijuana like tobacco and alcohol, Californians could gain the following benefits: a decrease in illegal activities surrounding drug sales; government control of marijuana quality; better control of underage access to marijuana; and the removal of the profit motive that attracts sellers, including a substantial number of teenage sellers who most frequently supply other teenagers.

On top of that, Miron estimates a marijuana sales tax would replace the $981 million a year California taxpayers are now spending to enforce unenforceable laws, with a new revenue pipeline bringing in $96 million a year.

Ronald Fraser, Ph.D., writes on public policy issues for the DKT Liberty Project, a Washington, D.C.-based civil liberties organization.

Newshawk: Mayan
Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)
Author: Ronald Fraser, Ph.D.
Published: Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Copyright: 2005 San Francisco Examiner
Contact: letters@sfexaminer.com
Website: http://www.examiner.com/
Link to article: http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread20977.shtml