Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project 760.799.2055

(Sat, 13 Sep 2008)

(Sat, 13 Sep 2008)

(Sat, 23 Aug 2008) Phoenix, The (MA)

Unfortunately, often when I post, I have shared feelings of sadness, anger, and frustration, as i have watched good people get wrongly punished.  So, it’s especially sweet that I can post today to share my pride and joy (or nachas, as we Jews say) that A.B. 2279 taken the next step, and passed the California Senate today, after its previous success in the Assembly.

The story of this bill starts at the desk of the Legal Services Coordinator.  I, and those who have done this job before me, had received countless legal calls from patients relaying heartwrenching stories in which they had been fired or denied employment, simply because of the biases of an employer against medical marijuana.  Californians were being told that they faced a no-win choice:  (1) use a medicine that works for you and that eases your symptoms and go without employment, or (2) either suffer through your symptoms without any medicine or be forced to use opiates (which cause negative reactions for many people) in order to be able to earn a living and provide for your family.   After the January Ross v. Raging Wire decision, I was reduced to telling people that the California Supreme Court had basically decided that they didn’t have any rights in the employment context, a sad mantra to have to repeat over and over.  I yearned to be able to do something to fix this, to change the shock and resignation I would hear on the phone into something more hopeful.

In a perfect storm of activity, I was given the power to help.  ASA evaluated the political climate and began to think the legislature was ready to pass good legislation on this topic, Assemblyman Leno’s office (who was equally incensed about the Ross decision) requested a first draft of legislation from ASA, and the assignment was given to me.

I consulted with Chief Counsel, researched previous medical marijuana and employment legislation, and tried to carefully craft each provision in my memorandum to Assemblyman Leno.  I attempted to make the language clear and concise, and evaluate my word choices for current political palatability and with an eye down the road for the larger policy implications and possible litigatable issues raised by the language.  Most importantly, I assumed that anything I drafted at this early stage would inevitably be amended by legislators, and some of the protections removed, and thus I tried to craft base legislation that protected as many patients as was possible.

Since I sent that memo to Assemblyman Leno, he and his staff, and the rest of ASA staff, especially California Director Don Duncan, have tirelessly collected support and successfully lobbied on-the-fence legislators, while negotiating to ensure passage of the bill in the Assembly, and now in the Senate today.  It has been a pleasure to watch their great work, and I am so happy that we were able to retain many of the protections present in my original draft.  So, though I still miss the provision that protected caregivers, I am overjoyed that patients who are fired based on simple employer knowledge, and no actual failed drug test, will remain protected in the final legislation, something that I inserted specifically in response to calls of that type.  It also comforts me to know that it will be up to a judge (and not a simple bright-line rule) to decide whether or not an employer can actually claim the safety-sensitive exception of the statute regarding a specific position, and that the judge will rely on the presence of 3 characteristics in making that decision.

Finally, it is incredibly exciting that patients in the future (in non-safety-sensitive positions) who face this type of hurtful employment discrimination will be able to sue for damages, reasonable attorneys fees and costs, injunctive relief, and any other equitable relief that the court deems proper.  It feels great to know that I really got to help make a difference, and that the language that I helped to create is so close to becoming the law of the land, language that will protect patients from losing their jobs all across California, and allow them to seek just recourse if it happens nonetheless.

Soon, our bill (after the minor differences between the Assembly and Senate versions have been ironed out) will be sent to Governor Schwarzenegger for signature, and we must ensure that this legislation clears its last hurdle, and that he signs it.  We hope and pray that the Governor will do the right thing, but it is always helpful to let him know that the citizens of his state support that decision, vociferously.  Be on the lookout on our website and listserves for upcoming actions that you can personally take to inform the Governor of what he MUST do to protect the rights of Californians and to free them from this terrible choice.

ShareThis

FRESNO, CA -- She was once labeled the “Girl Friday” of a high-profile criminal defendant, but it seems that the case against Monica Valencia has finally gotten a dose of reality. In federal court on Monday, Valencia was sentenced to one year and one day for her involvement with a Modesto medical marijuana dispensary. The sentence included reductions granted...

(Tue, 19 Aug 2008)

(Tue, 19 Aug 2008)

The bill that would ban employment discrimination against medical marijuana patients A.B. 2279 may need a few more votes in order to achieve the threshold required to pass the state Senate, which is a majority of the entire membership. I'm sending you this e-mail because you live in one of few senate districts whose representative is still on the fence.

You have a unique opportunity to help pass this important legislation! -Will you please call your senator today and urge him or her to support A.B. 2279?

read more

(Mon, 18 Aug 2008) Ukiah Daily Journal, The (CA)

(Mon, 18 Aug 2008) Los Angeles Times (CA)

(Mon, 18 Aug 2008) Los Angeles Times (CA)

(Mon, 18 Aug 2008) Los Angeles Times (CA)

(Mon, 18 Aug 2008) Los Angeles Times (CA)

(Sun, 17 Aug 2008) Seattle Times (WA)

(Sun, 17 Aug 2008)

(Sat, 16 Aug 2008) Union, The (Grass Valley, CA)

(Sat, 16 Aug 2008) Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)

California Supreme Court Considers Medical Cannabis Again
by Joseph Elford, ASA Chief Legal Counsel

Just as many would have thought that the SB 420 guidelines of 8 ounces and 12 immature or six mature plants were a dead letter — a blessing for some a nightmare for others — the California Supreme Court granted review of People v. Kelly, which held that the SB 420 quantities are “limits” on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient may possess and, as such, constitute an unconstitutional amendment of a voter-approved initiative. Another Court of Appeal agreed in People v. Phomphakdy, so it appeared that the SB 420 guidelines were done.

For some, this was a good thing, as many law enforcement officers applied the SB 420 quantities as limits on the amount of marijuana patients may possess and busted patients who had anymore than 8 ounces or six mature plants. For others, this was a potential nightmare, since police in some communities may well go back to busting patients who have as little as an ounce or one or two plants.

So, without taking any pleasure from the process, we filed a letter with the California Supreme Court requesting depublication of the Kelly decision. Although we agreed the result of the Kelly decision and love the fact that yet another court has sided with patients, we felt it was important for the California Supreme Court to hear our view — that the SB 420 guidelines are thresholds, not ceilings. Patients should have a safe harbor and the Kelly decision, though well-intentioned, took that safe harbor away.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Kelly decision, framing the issues as follows:

(1) does Health & Safety Code section 11362.77 violate the California Constitution by amending the Compassionate Use Act without voter approval?; and (2) were there alternative remedies to invalidating section 11362.77 in its entirety?

This bodes well for Mr. Kelly and the rest of us, as it appears that the Court will likely affirm the reversal of Mr. Kelly’s convictions, while maintaining that the SB 420 guidelines are constitutional, at least as they apply only to patients with identification cards or if they are interpreted as thresholds. Meanwhile, the Kelly case is depublished and the SB 420 guidelines will remain in effect.

Mendocino “Yes on B” Group Pressures Council to Stiffen Penalties for Medical Cannabis Patients

Earlier this year, a group of Mendocino County citizens pushed a ballot initiative that reduced the number of medical cannabis plants allowed by qualified patients under local guidelines.  Now, the “Yes on B Coalition” has petitioned the Mendocino County Supervisors to alter the County Code, turning what are currently minor infractions against patients into criminal matters.

Ukiah resident Larry Puterbaugh asked the supervisors to make cannabis that can be seen or smelled from adjoining properties punishable as criminal offenses. As it stands, this is considered a “public nuisance”, handled either by neighbors or a code enforcement officer.  In addition, they proposed levying a “Medical Marijuana Impact Fee” against patients or caregivers, who would be charged on a per-plant basis, and required that all plants be tagged with a numbered zip-tie. Failure to purchase zip-ties would be treated as a criminal violation, as well.

Community members spoke out against the group’s proposals, finding them ill-conceived and impractical. Jeanette Bouge said making the visibility of medical cannabis a crime is absurd. She said she grows medical cannabis behind her home in a greenhouse behind a fence, but that her neighbors would be able to see over her fence from the second floor of their homes regardless of where the garden is planted. Under the ordinance, she may be brought up on criminal charges.

Supervisors questioned the intent, priority, and practicality of the issues brought forth by the Yes on B Coalition. Third District Supervisor John Pinches said he was discouraged to see the county focusing on gardens between six and 25 plants when there are 10,000 plant gardens in the county. Fifth District Supervisor David Colfax agreed, saying the measure was representative of a “proto-vigilante attitude.”

The issue was tabled for further discussion and, along with the possible creation of a citizens advisory board, will likely be brought forth at future council meetings.

Protesters Demand I.D. Cards from San Bernardino County

More than 25 protesters gathered Tuesday at the San Bernardino County Government Center and demanded that the county start issuing medical cannabis identification cards.  Lanny Swerdlow, head of ASA Affiliate Marijuana Anti-Prohibition Project (MAPP), organized the protest to call attention to the need for the ID cards in the community, as well as the absurdity of the County to continue to challenge the program after two losses in state court.   ASA’s California Director Don Duncan was also on site offering support and letting the County know that ASA is following their actions closely.

In 2003, the state Legislature required county health departments to issue ID cards to medical cannabis patients to assist law enforcement in following state law, and to protect patients from unnecessary arrest. But San Bernardino and San Diego Counties have refused to issue the cards, taking their case to both Superior and California Appeals courts, losing both times. In light of the July 31st Appeals Court ruling that San Bernardino must start following state law, MAPP saw the opportunity to exert heated pressure on local county officials who don’t want to follow the will of the voters, the state legislature, or the courts.

In addition, the protesters accused the county was wasting valuable taxpayer money on a hopeless lawsuit  at a time when healthcare, education, and public service budgets are being slashed. “They have basically put themselves at opposition with the people of California,” said Fontana resident Craig Johnson, a medical cannabis advocate who is on disability from his job.

The board of supervisors will decide whether the county will appeal the case to the state Supreme Court later this month.  Lanny Swerdlow and MAPP are not going to go away, and they plan to continue to aggressively hold the board accountable for mishandling county funds and subverting the will of their constituents.

ShareThis

(Fri, 15 Aug 2008)

(Fri, 15 Aug 2008)