Medical Marijuana in California
June 2003
Final update of text and link
Whether or not to permit the use of marijuana for medical purposes is both a public policy issue and a contentious legal issue, especially in California. Under federal law (the Controlled Substances Act of 1970) marijuana use for any purpose is illegal. The federal law has not stopped a number of states from enacting medical marijuana legislation. California was one of the first. In 1996 California voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. Proposition 215 permits seriously ill Californians to use marijuana, provided they first obtain a doctor's recommendation. Proposition 215 also gives doctors a legal defense against professional or legal sanctions for recommending marijuana use.
Proposition 215 put California law in direct conflict with federal law, and litigation ensued. The key case began in January 1998 when the U.S. government sued the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (OCBC) in federal district court for violating the Controlled Substances Act. The government asked that the OCBC be banned from distributing cannabis to member patients. The medicinal marijuana group rebutted that it acted out of "medical necessity" on behalf of seriously ill citizens, and that such a medical necessity should stand as an exception to the law. The district court ruled in favor of the U.S. government, causing a temporary shutdown of the OCBC, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a medical necessity defense existed. The Supreme Court took the case and unanimously overturned Proposition 215 in a May 2001 decision.
The Supreme Court decision did not put an end to the California litigation. In January 2003 Ed Rosenthal, a medical marijuana advocate who grows the drug for use by the sick, was brought to trial in district court and found guilty on federal drug charges. Rosenthal's attorneys maintained that Rosenthal was legally growing the drug as "an officer of the city" under Oakland's local medical marijuana law. The judge ruled that this defense was not valid under federal law and did not allow the defense to be presented at trial. After the verdict, five jurors came forward and claimed that, had they known that Rosenthal had official sanction to provide marijuana under Oakland's medical marijuana law, they would not have found him guilty. They issued a public apology to Rosenthal and demanded that the judge grant him a new trial. Rosenthal's attorneys are reportedly considering an appeal of the district court verdict.
The opposing sides in the legalization debate have strongly held views. Legalization advocates claim that marijuana significantly lessens pain and alleviates nausea resulting from serious diseases. Anti-drug groups contend that legalizing marijuana for medical use is a smokescreen designed to enable more access to a dangerous substance.
On June 5th, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, cited “extraordinary circumstances” in Rosenthal’s trial, including the statements of the jurors that he had not received a fair trial. The judge sentenced Rosenthal to just one day in jail. He then waived the sentence for time already served after Rosenthal's arrest last year.
Whether Judge Breyer's ruling will have an impact on federal policy is unclear. Opponents of medical marijuana claim that federal law clearly has precedent in drug cases, while some states rights and medical marijuana advocates have challenged the supremacy of federal law. As a result of the Rosenthal case, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced a bill in the House, HR 2233 , that would force the federal government to recognize state laws on medical use of marijuana. U.S. Reps. Sam Farr (D-Carmel) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) have also proposed a bill, “The Truth in Trials Act” or HR 1717 IH, which would amend the federal Controlled Substances Act to allow state laws relating to medicinal marijuana to be raised in federal court cases.
American Medical Marijuana Association
National activist organization. California NORML
The California Chaper of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Monitors legislation and litigation. Includes numerous links to news stories and other information.
National Families in Action
A national drug education, prevention, and policy center. Includes a section on Medical Marijuana with links to many informative resources.
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
Includes a section on California Medical Marijuana Information. Among the points made is that "The DEA and its local and state counterparts routinely report that large-scale drug traffickers hide behind and invoke Proposition 215, even when there is no evidence of any medical claim."
www.marijuana.org
A marijuana legalization activist site. Contains links to articles and other information on medical marijuana in California.
Selected Reports, Articles & Polls
Listed by date.
Survey of California voters on Proposition 215 and marijuana legalization. Oct. 1996.
Detailed survey conducted shortly before the passage of Proposition 215 by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University.
Martin, Glen.
"Prop. 215 Enforcement Still Hazy: State Summit on Medical Pot Fails to Clear up Issues," San Francisco Chronicle, Dec. 4, 1996, p. A20.
Griffin, Denise.
Medical Marijuana. (NCSL Legisbrief v. 5, no. 34). Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislatures, 1997. 2 p.
Mathre, Mary Lynn, ed.
Cannabis in Medical Practice: a Legal, Historical, and Pharmacological Overview of the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., c1997. 239 p.
Lyman, Randall.
"Reefer Madness: California Voters Supported Medical Marijuana: the State's New Attorney General Says He Does Too: So Why Are Patients Who Smoke Pot Still Getting Arrested?" San Francisco Bay Guardian, v. 33, no. 27 (Apr. 7-13, 1999), p. 29, 31.
Roemer, John.
"Marijuana Users Strike Back: Prosecuters Feel the Sting of Prop. 215," California Lawyer, v. 21, no. 5 (May 2001), p. 20-21.
O'Neil, John
"A Closer Look at Medical Marijuana," New York Times, Jul 17, 2001, p. F6.
Reports on two medical studies indicating that marijuana "has some advantages over standard treatments for severe nausea, but no advantage in reducing severe pain." Abstract.
Albert, Tanya
"Federal Court Says Yes, You Can Talk about Pot," American Medical News, v. 45, issue 20 (May 27, 2002), p. 1618.
Report on U.S. federal circuit court ruling that physicians can discuss the pros and cons of medicinal marijuana with their patients and not face sanctions from the DEA.
New Mexico AIDS InfoNet.
Marijuana. (Fact Sheet No. 731). Aug. 10, 2002.
An overview of marijuana as an AIDS therapy. Decribes marijuana, it's medical properties, side effects, etc.
Illegal Drugs: [Public Opinion Survey Data].
A chronological list of nationwide polls dating from Mar. 1999. Compiled by PollingReport.com. Stein, Joel.
"The New Politics Of Pot, Time, v. 160, issue 19 (Nov. 4, 2002), p. 57-61.
Examines the politics of medical marijuana and the larger issue of marijuana legalization, with a focus on a Nov. 2002 medical marijuna initiative in Nevada.
Egelko, Bob.
"Experts Don't See Rosenthal Pot Case as a Landmark; Feds Not Likely to Ease Off On Tough Policies" San Francisco Chronicle , June 6, 2003, Friday; Final Edition; News; Pg. A8.
Egelko, Bob.
"Convicted Pot Grower Rosenthal is Spared Jail Time; Medical Marijuana Backers Claim Victory" San Francisco Chronicle , June 5, 2003, Thursday; Final Edition; News; Pg. A1.
Bailey, Eric and Rodriguez, Marcelo.
"The 'Guru of Ganja' Gets a Day in Jail: Judge Frees Activist Who Has Become a Symbol in a Clash With the Federal Goernment Over California's Medical Marijuana Laws" The Los Angeles Times , June 5, 2003; California Metro; Part 2; Page 1; Metro Desk.
Thompson, Chris.
"How Not To Write A Law: The Case Of Ed Rosenthal Is As Schizophrenic As Prop. 215; But It's No More So Than Voters' Attitude About Pot.," East Bay Express , v. 25, no. 317 (May. 14, 2003), p. 11-13.
Ed Rosenthal's Trial.
Includes a trial diary, trial background, news articles and press releases, and statements by and about Ed Rosenthal. Compiled by GREENAID, the Medical Marijuana Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Harrison, Ann.
"Potshot: an Ongoing Trial in U.S. District Court Pits California against the DEA and Could Signal the Demise of the State's Landmark Medical Marijuana Law," San Francisco Bay Guardian, v. 37, no. 17 (Jan. 22-28, 2001), p. 16.
"Misguided Marijuana War [Editorial]," New York Times, Feb 4, 2003, p. A28.
The editorial concludes: "The courts should not allow Mr. Rosenthal's conviction to stand. It would be a serious injustice if he were to serve years in prison, as he well may. Meanwhile, the administration should stop tyrannizing doctors and sick people and focus on more important aspects of the war on drugs." Abstract.
"Safeguarding Prop. 215 [Editorial]," San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 7, 2003, p. A24.
Takes note of the Ed Rosenthal verdict, and states support of proposed legislation that "would create a statewide patient registry, ID cards and strict eligibility requirements, licensed cooperatives and, perhaps more importantly, calls for state and local governments to dispense the medicinal herb," and thus have a better chance of withstanding federal scrutiny.Prepared by the staff of the IGS Library.
Send comments to igsl@berkeley.edu.
Overview
Selected Websites
Selected Reports, Articles & Polls
-Ed Rosenthal Case