Medical Marijuana
Time for the U.S. to honor Prop. 215

Terence Hallinan Sunday, November 4, 2001 (SF Chronicle)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Five years after California voters passed Proposition 215, making it
legal for doctors to recommend to patients to use marijuana
medicinally, the Bush administration is trying to take away those
rights.

In recent weeks, the Drug Enforcement Administration has raided the
Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center -- a 3,000-member dispensary
known for its rigorous membership requirements -- and a clinic in El
Dorado County that served 6,000 patients. They are apparently trying
to undo the most significant and promising reform of the 1990s.

More than 5 million Californians voted yes on 215. In San Francisco,
the support was a resounding 80 percent. Medical marijuana even
carried Orange County. Exit polls showed that most voters had made up
their minds based on personal experience or the report of a loved
one. It was a stunning political development.

Yet, Prop. 215 had been opposed by all the major candidates running
for national and state office, as well 57 of California's 58 district
attorneys. Clearly, the voters were trying to tell the government
that, contrary to war- on-drugs rhetoric, they regarded marijuana as
a relatively safe medicinal herb that can be very effective at
stimulating appetite, reducing nausea and easing physical and
psychological pain.

This reality was most clearly understood in San Francisco, where the
AIDS epidemic had taken and touched so many lives. The passage of the
initiative gave many voters renewed hope in the democratic process --
a sense that we, the people, could impose common sense when the
government lost its way.

An attempt to dis-implement Prop. 215 began as soon as it passed into
law (as section 11362.5 of the California Health & Safety Code). In
December 1996, state Attorney General Dan Lungren, a Republican,
convened a special "Emergency All Zones Meeting" of district
attorneys, sheriffs and police chiefs to outline his "narrow
interpretation" of the new law. He advised prosecuting marijuana
possession cases as zealously as before and requiring doctors to
testify in open court. A few weeks later, U.S. Drug Czar Barry
McCaffrey warned California doctors that they might lose their
federal licenses if they approved patients' marijuana use.

Our current state attorney general, Bill Lockyer, a Democrat who
supported Prop. 215, has left implementation up to the counties. In
San Francisco, we have tried to respect the letter and spirit of the
law. The Department of Public Health has established an
identification-card system that protects patient confidentiality;
some 2,000 cards have been issued to date. Chief of Police Fred Lau
sent out a department bulletin reminding all officers that documented
patients and caregivers have the right to possess and cultivate
marijuana for medical use. Nonprofit dispensaries have been
established to provide the drug to patients; some function as support
groups for people who are very sick indeed.

>From a law-enforcement perspective, Prop. 215 has been implemented
>successfully in San Francisco. It has reduced crime as well as the
>costs associated with arrest, prosecution and incarceration; and it
>contributes to the public health and safety.

It is ominous that the federal government has moved against the
dispensary in Los Angeles and the physician in El Dorado County. News
of DEA agents seizing patients' records has sent waves of fear
throughout the state, as have sightings of agents, real or imagined,
spying on local clubs. Patients and their caregivers have been
calling my office seeking reassurance that their access to a medicine
they rely on will not be denied.

On their behalf, I call on the DEA to respect the rights of medical
marijuana patients and caregivers in San Francisco and throughout the
state. I reiterate the argument made by Attorney General Lockyer in
support of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative: "The states have
a sovereign interest in matters pertaining to the health and welfare
of their citizens, and the state ballot initiative process is a valid
and lawful manner for those citizens to develop policy in these
areas."

The Bush administration supports, in theory, the right of local
jurisdictions to create law enforcement and public health policies.
The president's call for bipartisanship and focus in response to
terrorist attacks has our support. But bipartisanship is not a
one-way street. The will of voters in a predominantly Democratic city
and state, on one of the most important issues of our time, should be
respected.

Terence Hallinan is the district attorney of San Francisco.

©2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page C - 5

ReconsiDer Tidbits