As the era of medical marijuana in California moves through its 14th year, laws on the matter have only grown increasingly murky, the Chico Enterprise-Record opines in this editorial.
It truly seems the people drafting these measures were stoned at the time, embracing ideas that might have seemed really cool under a THC fog, but that just didn’t work in real life.
Begin with Proposition 215, which started it all in when in passed in November 1996. It said people whose medical conditions might be aided by marijuana could possess it with a doctor’s recommendation.
Which conditions? How rigorous a medical review was required? How much marijuana could a person have? How were folks supposed to legally obtain that marijuana, since sales of the substance were — and still are — illegal?
Rational people would have answered these questions in the proposition, but those kinds of details just didn’t seem to matter to the authors.
And indeed, they remain unresolved.
There is no systematic research into what diseases marijuana might assist, and in what quantities. By most accounts, the doctors who issue the lion’s share of medical marijuana recommendations make just a cursory review of their patients. Those doctors advertise their services, implying that it’s simple. For a fee, you too can get a recommendation.
So we’ve approved a “medicine” in this state, without paying any attention to the diseases it is supposed to treat. The result is a situation in which it is so easy to get a recommendation that many people do so just to protect access to their intoxicant of choice, rather than to treat an ailment.
The issue of supply also remains unresolved, although SB 420 was passed by the Legislature seven years after 215 passed in an attempt to do that.
It set limits on how much marijuana a person could possess, but those were overturned by a court. It also allowed users to work cooperatively to grow a pot crop, as Proposition 215 could have been interpreted as requiring every patient to grow his or her own.
Even with that there’s the matter of marijuana grows’ impact on their neighbors. They stink. They’re worth tons of money, and they can’t be concealed outdoors because their scent announces their presence to passersby. They are conspicuous targets for theft, and magnets for the violence that often accompanies theft. They’re a problem that’s unaddressed.
And the rules governing co-ops have that same smoky quality that hangs around all these measures. As a result, the distinction between a true cooperative effort to produce pot and a dispensary that secures a supply and sells it to others has become obscured.
So, the Chico City Council comes to the conclusion dispensaries are OK, and begins figuring out how to zone for them. District Attorney Mike Ramsey, with a bit of hyperbole, threatens to throw the councilors in jail for promoting drug sales.
And now in November, we’re likely to be voting on a measure that would eliminate all state laws against possession and use of marijuana, and set up a system to tax sales of the substance. It just ignores the fact marijuana possession and use is still a violation of federal law, which trumps everything we’ve done and might do in this state, if the feds decide to push the matter.
What a mess it would be if that passed. We’d have a state law in direct opposition to federal law. But not so long ago, somewhere in a smoky room, some folks probably that was a great idea. Yeah. Wow.
2 Responses to “Chico E-R editorial: Legalizing marijuana would only make matters worse”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m not sure that your specific example is correct, but I do agree that legalization is properly viewed as a constitutional issue of state vs. federal rights. That won’t stop it from being litigated for the next 20-25 years if it passes, but it will go a long way toward shaping how those legal battles unfold in court.
States rights trump Fed laws. Local ordinances and laws can enhance and even be more strict than state law. This is how the Founders of the USA envisioned, then wrote it in the constitution.
So if the majority of state, then local residents do or do not want marijuana in their local community, they can pass laws or ordinances accordingly. The minority can complain, but can also just move elsewhere to a community more in line with their own values and beliefs.
A hypothetical example: If the city of Chico wanted to be an all-Catholic community, and voted to do so by a majority vote of registered local citizens, that is legal under the US Constitution. People of other religions can move to another state or county that is friendlier to their religion, and Catholics can move to Chico, where they would be welcome.
So, you dont like it, and are in the minority, you can simply move to solve YOUR problem and leave the rest of the majority to enjoy their way of life they chose to so live in their own community.
Another example:
The Federal government did not have the right to impose a 55mph speed limit on all the states back in the late 70’s. But, in order to get states to comply with an ill-conceived Federal idea, they threatened to withold large funding from any state that did not comply with the 55mph speed limit (for fuek conservations sake). The states could not afford to lose the money, so they complied. But it was not a law. Several states refused the money, and kept their speed limits as they saw fit.
The major point is, power begins, and is strongest, at the local level, then the state, then the fed. Not the other way around. If the majority of locals want to use pot medicinally, so be it. California state voters voted to allow compassionate use of medical marijuana. If you dont like it, move to a “dry” state, and leave the rest of us who suffer to treat ourselves as we see fit, under the care of a doctor.