California Proposition 215 (1996)

Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was a proposition in the state of California on the November 5, 1996 ballot. It passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

The proposition was a state-wide voter initiative authored by Dennis Peron, Anna Boyce [RN] , Valerie Corral (http://wamm.org), Dale Gieringer, William Panzer, Scott Imler, [http://www.mapinc.org/images/DennisPeronLetter.gif] , and psychiatrist Tod H. Mikuriya, and approved by California voters. It allows patients with a valid doctor's recommendation, and the patient's designated Primary Caregivers, to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use, and has since been expanded to protect a growing system of collective and cooperative distribution. The Act added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code. This law has caused much conflict in the United States between states' rights advocates and those who support a stronger federal presence.

Yes on 215 Campaign

Proposition 215 was conceived by San Francisco marijuana activist Dennis Peron in memory of his lover, Jonathon West, who had used marijuana for AIDS. In 1991, Peron organized Proposition P, the San Francisco medical marijuana initiative, which passed with 79% of the vote. Prop P did not have force of law, but was simply a resolution declaring the city's support for medical marijuana. Santa Cruz and other cities followed suit with similar measures endorsing medical use of marijuana. The California legislature went on to approve medical marijuana bills by State Senator Milton Marks and Assemblyman John Vasconcellos, but they were vetoed by Gov. Pete Wilson.

Frustrated by the Governor's veto and by the Clinton administration's ongoing refusal to allow medical marijuana, Peron decided to turn to the voters. In 1995, Peron, Gieringer and Imler organized Californians for Compassionate Use, a PAC dedicated to putting medical marijuana on the ballot. Californians for Compassionate Use began a grassroots, volunteer-based petition drive to collect the more than 400,000 signatures required to qualify for the ballot. As the deadline approached and it was becoming clear the unpaid signature gatherers were not on pace to qualify, a group of philanthropists, including George Soros, Peter Lewis, and George Zimmer, stepped in to pay for professional petition circulators through the Santa Monica, CA based political consulting firm of Zimmerman & Markman. [ [http://cannabisnews.com/news/22/thread22501.shtml cannabisnews.com: Medical Pot Laws Don't Blow Smoke ] ] [ [Wealthy Ally for Dissidents in the Drug War] http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE7DF1E3BF932A2575AC0A960958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all, NY Times, 9/11/96]

The opposition campaign to Proposition 215 included a wide variety of law enforcement, drug prevention groups, and elected officials, including three former Presidents and California Attorney General Dan Lungren. Ballot arguments against the proposition were signed by prominent prosecutors and law enforcement officials who claimed that, while appearing well intentioned, it was an overly vague, bad law that, "allows unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere … in backyards or near schoolyards without any regulation or restrictions," and that it effectively legalized marijuana.

Ballot arguments in support were signed by prominent oncologists, a cancer survivor, a nurse, and two politicians, Assemblyman John Vasconcellos and San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, who wrote that he supported Prop 215 because he didn't "want to send cancer patients to jail for using marijuana." [ [California Ballot Pamphlet.Medical Use of Marijuana. Initiative Statute] http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/ballot_215.html.]

The lead-up to the election saw a series of media-based attacks attempting to make the Yes on 215 Campaign a referendum on the controversial headquarters for the initiative, Dennis Peron's San Francisco Cannabis Buyer's Club. The very first of what would become more than 400 in the state, the SFCBC was a three-story full service medical marijuana club where qualified patients could in fact obtain marijuana for medical purposes (in various forms and qualities) in a retail setting. Far more than just a safe place for patients to consume, the club was a cultural center for many purposes.

Dennis Peron would describe 1996 as a year when "the stars aligned for medical marijuana." It was a Presidential election year with a Democrat Incumbent in a heavily Democratic State. The AIDS epidemic in the late 80's and early 90's as well as recent studies regarding relief for chemotherapy patients were opening people's minds to medical marijuana. On top of that, 60-year-old Nurse "Brownie" Mary Rathburn's arrest for bringing a dozen marijuana brownies to the International AIDS conference made headlines garnering sympathy for medical marijuana.

Proposition 215 passed with 55.6% support, setting off a chain reaction across North America of medical marijuana legislation. Canada now has Federal Medical Marijuana legislation, and the issue has been to the floor of the US Congress in the form of the Hinchey-Rohrbacher Amendment, the Truth in Trials Act, and the States Right to Medical Marijuana Act. This marked the first reverse in drug policy since the start of the War on Drugs. [ [http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2631/statemap.htm CA Secretary of State - Vote96 - Returns - Map - Proposition 215 ] ]

Protections afforded by Proposition 215

Proposition 215 added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code, which:

* Exempts patients and defined caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment recommended by a physician from criminal laws which otherwise prohibit possession or cultivation of marijuana.

* Provides physicians who recommend use of marijuana for medical treatment shall not be punished or denied any right or privilege.

* Declares that the measure is not be construed to supersede prohibitions of conduct endangering others or to condone diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes.

Implementation and effect

legend|#3399ff;|California counties accepting applications for medical marijuana as of 3-25-08legend|#ff6666;|California counties not accepting applications as of 3-25-08

Implementation across the State varied widely. Urban areas in Northern California were the center of California's fledgling medical marijuana market, while rural areas like Mendocino County, Santa Cruz, and Humboldt saw county-sanctioned gardens and patient registration programs. However, conservative areas such as San Bernardino and Riverside counties saw little change when local officials declared the law null and void due to conflicts with Federal Law, and continued to arrest, prosecute, and in some cases convict legal patients.

In 2003, a compromise between patients’ advocates and law enforcement resulted in the passage of Senate Bill 420 by the California Legislature to address vague provisions of Proposition 215.

Federal enforcement in California

The Controlled Substances Act lists marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Substances in this schedule are said to have a high rate of abuse and no accepted medical value. Doctors are also not allowed to prescribe Schedule 1 Substances. While the Compassionate Use Act is valid law in California, federal agents are still free to enforce Federal Law in California, regardless of local sanctioning. This has created a system where medical cannabis distributors can have a license from their County but still be raided and prosecuted. [ [Feds Indict Brothers, Raid] http://www.nbc11.com/news/14459097/detail.html]

Since the passage of Proposition 215, Federal officials have tried everything - from criminal raids and prosecutions to Civil injunctions to (most recently) threatening to seize any property leased for medical cannabis uses - to thwart or slow the progress of medical cannabis in California.

The Justice Departments under the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration have taken drastically different approaches to medical cannabis in California. Not wanting to appear too heavy handed against sick and dying cancer and AIDS patients, the DOJ limited their enforcement to civil measures, such as seeking to revoke the Federal Prescription licenses of doctors who recommended cannabis or filing for Civil Injunctions against the major providers under Proposition 215.

The Bush administration has taken a much stronger stance in California. One month after the September 11, 2001 attacks, DEA officials served search and arrest warrants on the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center and its directors Scott Imler, Jeff Yablan, and Jeff Farrington. The three plead guilty to charges in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, but Judge Howard Matz eventually sentenced the defendants to no jail time, one year of probation, and an $100 fee, the most lenient sentence allowable under the law. During sentencing Matz called the prosecution "badly misguided" and said he was "baffled and disturbed" that the Department of Justice would use their limited resources to prosecute the men.

A similar incident occurred in Oakland when legendary author, activist, and grower "Ask Ed" Rosenthal (of High Times fame) was raided and charged by Federal agents the same day DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson made a speech to the Commonwealth Club. With local permission, Rosenthal was cultivating marijuana "clones" or cuttings to be distributed to Bay Area medical marijuana clubs. The presiding Judge Charles Breyer did not allow in any testimony that what he was doing was legal under state law, or that he was doing it with the sanction and knowledge of local officials. The only exception to this was when Judge Breyer allowed the defense to call then Oakland City Council member Nate Miley as a witness to testify that he had been to and inspected the warehouse where Rosenthal was cultivating.

Such bizarre incidents (and the fact that Rosenthal was taking the case to trial while making no clear attempt to prove that he wasn't growing the marijuana) led the jury to suspect they didn't have all the facts. Nonetheless, the jury convicted Rosenthal on all counts. Once released from sequestering, nine of the twelve jurors held a press conference publicly recanting their verdict and asking for leniency in sentencing. The jurors even attended the sentencing hearing, sitting with the defendant they had just convicted. Judge Breyer departed from the 10 Year Mandatory Minimum Sentence and shocked prosecutors by sentencing Rosenthal to 1 day in prison, with credit for time served. Rosenthal would eventually win an appeal only to be retried and re-convicted. He is planning another appeal.

Federal officials have stepped up the crack down on medical marijuana in California in recent years. There are currently more than 100 people facing Federal charges in medical cannabis cases, and the DEA conducted more than 50 raids in 2007 alone. The DEA has also begun threatening landlords who lease to marijuana clubs with Asset Forfeiture, a technique where real property can be seized by the Federal Government if used in the commission of a drug crime. While DEA agents claim they are merely upholding Federal Law and only going after "major traffickers," advocates claim the DEA targets the most prominent political activists with their raids. Media reports have called Federal Enforcement in California "notably erratic." [ [Perils Grow in Battle for Medical Pot] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/22/MNGDROPM7E1.DTL] [ [Raids Diaries: Bad Memories of the DEA's Wild Day in LA] http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=5913&IssueNum=217]

Proposition 215 and the Federal Courts

Opponents of medical marijuana usually cite the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, claiming Federal Law trumps State Law, thus invalidating Proposition 215. However, the interaction of the U.S. Federalist system of government is not that simple. Proposition 215 has been through the Federal Court systems multiple times and never been struck down.

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice upheld the ability of Federal officials to enforce Federal Law "despite" the protections afforded to patients under State Law. The case of Gonzales v. Raich challenged the Federal position by claiming that simple cultivation of plant was outside the Federal regulatory scheme of interstate commerce. While initially successful at the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court struck down this argument. However, in his opinion, Justice Stevens expressed, while he denied them support at this time, he hoped "the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." Justice O'Connor wrote in her dissenting opinion stated "This case exemplifies the role of states as laboratories."

The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative claimed "medical necessity" as their legal justification for violating Federal Law. The Supreme Court also struck down this argument, claiming there could be no claim of medical necessity if Congress didn't first recognize medical value in the substance.

See also

* WAMM at http://wamm.org
* Medical cannabis
* Gonzales v. Raich
* Controlled Substances Act
* Cannabis Buyers Club
* Colorado Amendment 44 (2006)
* Campaign Against Marijuana Planting
* NORML

References

External links

* [http://vote96.ss.ca.gov/Vote96/html/BP/215text.htm Text of Proposition 215]
* [http://www.cannabishq.com/forum/index.php?topic=974.msg11085#msg11085 Text of Senate Bill 420]
* [http://safeaccessnow.org/ Americans For Safe Access]