palmspringsbum
Did Feinstein save Prop. 215?
Related Articles
- 16 Jul 10 – California’s Proposition 19 will supersede or amend its medical marijuana laws
- 2 Feb 10 – Medical marijuana and Jim Crow
- 27 Nov 09 – Medical marijuana and caregivers
- 23 Oct 09 – Los Angeles City Attorney declares war on medical marijuana
When Senator Dianne Fienstien described California’s Proposition 19 as “a jumbled legal nightmare” that will make “our communities less safe” she expressed the fears of many who support marijuana legalization but oppose this initiative.
The ballot argument against Proposition 19 is signed by Fienstien and The National President of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Laura Dean-Mooney.
Ironically, it provides ammunition for those who believe the initiative will be used to supersede or amend California’s existing medical marijuana laws.
The MADD-Feinstein argument against Prop. 19 states: “Don’t be fooled. The proponents are hoping you will think Proposition 19 is about ‘medical marijuana’. It is not. Proposition 19 makes no changes either way in the medical marijuana laws.”
The argument in favor of Prop. 19 also mentions medical marijuana: “Under Proposition 19, only adults 21 and over can posses up to one ounce of marijuana, to be consumed at home or in licensed establishments. Medical marijuana patients’ rights are preserved.”
Apparently this means that the prohibition and penalties on those under 21 don’t apply to medical marijuana patients.
However, it begs the question of whether other rights of medical marijuana patients, are preserved.
One of these is smoking marijuana for medical reasons in public, which is currently not illegal in California, except where smoking cigarettes is prohibited or within 1,000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth center. State law also makes it illegal to smoke marijuana on a boat, a motor vehicle that is being operated, or a school bus. That’s right, a school bus.
Could this argument be interpreted to mean that prohibiting anyone under 21 from having marijuana for any reason somehow “preserves” the rights of medical marijuana patients? Stranger things have happened. Consider People vs. Mentch where the California Supreme Court determined that providing marijuana to medical marijuana patients was not providing for either their health nor their safety.
According to California case law
In interpreting a voter initiative, “ ‘we apply the same principles that govern statutory construction. Thus, [1] “we turn first to the language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning.” [2] The statutory language must also be construed in the context of the statute as a whole and the overall statutory scheme [in light of the electorate’s intent]. [3] When the language is ambiguous, “we refer to other indicia of the voters’ intent, particularly the analyses and arguments contained in the official ballot pamphlet.” [¶] In other words, our ‘task is simply to interpret and apply the initiative’s language so as to effectuate the electorate’s intent.’ ” (Robert L. v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 894, 900-901.)
Steve Cooley, District Attorney for Los Angeles County, is one of the three signers of the Rebuttal To the Argument in favor of Proposition 19. The other signers are Kamala Harris, District Attorney for San Francisco County, and Kevin Nida, President of California State Firefighters Association.
Steve Cooley, along with Carmen Trutanich (Los Angeles City Attorney), and Bonnie Dumanis (San Diego District Attorney) have made a name for themselves as rabid opponents of marijuana legalization.
Trutanich and Cooley have gone so far as to declare sales of medical marijuana are illegal, this despite the fact that in 2005 The California Board of Equalization determined that dispensaries must have a seller’s permit and pay sales tax, that in 2008 Attorney General Jerry Brown issued guidelines stating that medical marijuana transactions were subject to sales tax, and that The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 stated:
To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes.
If the California Supreme Court can determine that buying marijuana does not fall under the penumbra of “obtain”, what can it not determine? The government has proven it is repeatedly and consistently obstructionist when it comes to implement the will of the people with regard to marijuana. Recent polls show support for medical marijuana up to 81%.
The Legislative Analysis is ominously silent regarding the impact of Prop. 19 on California’s existing medical marijuana cultivators, dispensaries, and collectives. However, recent announcements by Long Beach, Sacramento (The State Capital), Oakland (Home of Prop. 19), and Berkeley of proposed taxes on medical marijuana sales indicates a belief that these taxes are necessary to protect their existing medical marijuana dispensaries.
In announcing her opposition to Prop. 19, Feinstein also warned that passage could endanger California’s federal funding.
Popularity: 5% [?]
12 Responses to “Did Feinstein save Prop. 215?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:18 am
[...] 25 Jul 10 – Did Feinstein save California’s Prop. 215? [...]
August 27th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
[...] 25 Jul 10 – Did Feinstein save California’s Prop. 215? [...]
September 4th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I hope so, Thank You Diane for looking out for the People of Ca., including the Patients.
September 4th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Well it is nice to see the Feinstein finally did something to help medical marijuana patients.
However your reference to People V Mentch misses entirely the reasoning of the Court. Mentch’s conviction was reinstated by the Supreme court because he did not meet the definition of “primary caregiver” according to the statutory language.
The use of the past participle tense “has consistently assumed” means that the care-giving relationship must exist “arise at or before the onset of assistance in the administration of marijuana”
In more technical terms “Under the Act, a primary caregiver relationship is a necessary antecedent, a predicate for being permitted under state law to possess or cultivate medical marijuana. The possession or cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes cannot serve as the basis for making lawful the possession or cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes; to conclude otherwise would rest the primary caregiver defense on an entirely circular footing.”
September 4th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Did you watch the video?
September 4th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Did you read my article “Medical Marijuana and Caregivers”? It is the share previous to this one on my wall.
September 5th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Video? What Video? I don’t do video’s unless they are closed captioned or have adequate clarity and volume.
No haven’t got to your article yet, still working though my emails. Y do you need traffic to your sight to get some cash? LOL
September 5th, 2010 at 12:04 am
Hemptress and I are still waiting for details on the NORML Outreach Director.
September 5th, 2010 at 12:28 am
Belville thinks medical marijuana is a dead-end trap. He’s been demanding to be taxed for years.
And if you think I make any money of that blog, or that I think I’m going to make any money off it … you don’t have a clue, that’s all I can say.
September 5th, 2010 at 1:28 am
Do you have any idea how many clicks I have to get just to pay for the web hosting? Then there’s the DSL. It’s a labor of love and anyone that thinks otherwise is totally out to lunch.
September 5th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Tell me where to click.
September 13th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
[...] – California’s Prop. 19 won’t keep much of anyone out of jail 25 Jul 10 – Did Feinstein save Prop. 215? 16 Jul 10 – California’s Proposition 19 will supersede or amend its medical marijuana [...]