Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police return seized pot
The Tribune (San Luis Obispo, CA) ^ | Jan. 04, 2003 | Patrick S. Pemberton

Posted on 01/06/2003 9:53:14 AM PST by MrLeRoy

Donovan No Runner walked out of the San Luis Obispo Police station all smiles Friday, holding the bag of marijuana authorities had returned to him.

A local Superior Court judge had ordered the city to return the marijuana it confiscated from No Runner last summer, ruling the 23-year-old Grover Beach man had a valid doctor's recommendation.

But police were concerned that handing the pot over to No Runner would violate a federal law prohibiting the distribution of controlled substances.

As a result, the City Council considered appealing the court's ruling during a last-minute meeting Friday, but instead it decided to give up the fight.

"The city is an agency of the state, and we're following state law and a court order," Interim City Attorney Gil Trujillo said.

Shortly after the city decided not to appeal the case, No Runner went to the police station, where his 8.4 gram bag of marijuana was returned -- still in good condition.

While smoking marijuana is illegal under federal law, California's Proposition 215 makes it legal for those with a doctor's recommendation.

"For the time being, people are protected under state law, not under federal law," said Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates the decriminalization of marijuana use.

While state voters legalized medicinal marijuana, law enforcement can still confiscate pot until it is proven that a doctor's recommendation is legitimate.

No Runner's difficulty arose because state law does not specify what is supposed to happen to medicinal marijuana once confiscated.

In court last month, No Runner's attorney, Lou Koory, cited an Oregon case in arguing that police are immune from federal prosecution, though no such case exists in California.

Trujillo said that ultimately, the issue will be resolved in a higher court.

With no clear guidelines for such a case in the state, No Runner's case could have become a precedent on appeal.

But the city also decided it was not feasible to pay attorneys' fees at a time when it is experiencing a $5 million deficit.

Koory said he and his client were ready to fight the issue if an appeal had been sought.

"We're just happy that common sense prevailed," he said.

No Runner said his doctor recommended marijuana to combat the effects of bipolar disorder.

He was lighting a water pipe near SLO Brewing Co., between a trash can and a tree, when he was stopped by a police officer in August.

No Runner told the officer he had a doctor's recommendation, but he was cited anyway, and his marijuana was taken.

Once the recommendation was verified, the District Attorney's Office dismissed criminal charges. But police would not return the pot or the pipe.

Last month, Superior Court Judge Barry LaBarbera, intending to set a local precedent, said the police had to return the marijuana within 30 days.

Koory said the police could have faced a contempt of court charge had they not returned the pot by Friday's deadline.

Despite the difficulty in getting his pot returned, No Runner said he wanted to set an example for others who need medicinal marijuana -- particularly those who have greater needs than he does.

"I'm glad this happened to me," he said. "I'm physically able to fight this."

Without a clear guideline, he said, police could confiscate marijuana merely to keep legitimate users from smoking it.

"They can't just go around taking medication from sick people," he said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: drug; drugskill; marijuana; pot; statesrights; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

1 posted on 01/06/2003 9:53:14 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
Wod_list ping
2 posted on 01/06/2003 9:53:33 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
--Donovan No Runner--
Just Say No?
3 posted on 01/06/2003 10:14:11 AM PST by Jack Wilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson
just say no to the Police State
4 posted on 01/06/2003 10:22:36 AM PST by vin-one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jack Wilson
I'm sure he wishes he could "just say no" to his illness.
5 posted on 01/06/2003 10:22:39 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; headsonpikes; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; ...
WOD Ping
6 posted on 01/06/2003 10:56:03 AM PST by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
Just plain cool. That this guy had the nuts to go up against the state for 8.4 grams is amazing. And yet again the budget crisis serves to limit government. Calls for a round of tax evaders!

EBUCK
7 posted on 01/06/2003 10:59:47 AM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
But police were concerned that handing the pot over to No Runner would violate a federal law prohibiting the distribution of controlled substances.

Right, just like they get real concerned about violating federal weapons laws when the do gun "buy-backs". Give me a break.

8 posted on 01/06/2003 11:03:44 AM PST by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
But police were concerned that handing the pot over to No Runner would violate a federal law prohibiting the distribution of controlled substances.

Heck, do it the way I get mine, in the back booth at the local Denny's.

9 posted on 01/06/2003 11:51:55 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Not if he keeps taking marijuana to treat bipolar disorder.
10 posted on 01/06/2003 11:56:30 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Heck, do it the way I get mine, in the back booth at the local Denny's.

Order the extra grand slam breakfast?

11 posted on 01/06/2003 12:01:59 PM PST by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Not if he keeps taking marijuana to treat bipolar disorder.

On what expertise is your opinion based?

12 posted on 01/06/2003 12:05:35 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Smoking dope for BIPOLAR? Now I've heard everything.
13 posted on 01/06/2003 12:07:16 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"On what expertise is your opinion based?"

You know, I don't see what difference it makes. If I thought you were truly interested in learning something, I'd make the effort.

Your response would just be, "Well it works for him and his doctor prescribed it, so who are you to ..... blah blah."

14 posted on 01/06/2003 12:12:33 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Smoking dope for BIPOLAR? Now I've heard everything.

The person who prescribed it has an M.D. What is your expertise on the matter?

15 posted on 01/06/2003 12:12:43 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
What's the doctor's name?
16 posted on 01/06/2003 12:14:18 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; FreedomPoster; Timesink; AntiGuv; ...
You put yer weed in it!

"Hold muh beer 'n watch this!" PING....

If you want on or off this list, please let me know!

17 posted on 01/06/2003 12:14:45 PM PST by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
What's the doctor's name?

Doctor Ben Tokin :o)

18 posted on 01/06/2003 12:15:54 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If I thought you were truly interested in learning something, I'd make the effort.

Your response would just be, "Well it works for him and his doctor prescribed it, so who are you to ..... blah blah."

No, that's my response now, in the absence of any qualified opinion other than the prescribing physician's. If you could provide a medically qualified reference that went counter to the prescribing physician's, I couldn't and wouldn't make that response.

Besides, your speculations on my response in no way relieve you of your burden of providing evidence for your claims.

19 posted on 01/06/2003 12:16:06 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
What's the doctor's name?

I don't know. What does it matter?

20 posted on 01/06/2003 12:16:55 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Don't be so BLUNT
21 posted on 01/06/2003 12:18:02 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Yes. You don't know if he/she is an MD. I believe California allows marijuana to be prescribed by "medical practitioners".
22 posted on 01/06/2003 12:19:32 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Didn't California outlaw smoking in public?
23 posted on 01/06/2003 12:20:03 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy; robertpaulsen
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, Volume 30 (2), April - June 1998, pp. 171-177.

Abstract-The authors present case histories indicating that a number of patients find cannabis (marihuana) useful in the treatment of their bipolar disorder. Some used it to treat mania, depression, or both. They stated that it was more effective than conventional drugs, or helped relieve the side effects of those drugs. One woman found that cannabis curbed her manic rages; she and her husband have worked to make it legally available as a medicine. Others described the use of cannabis as a supplement to lithium (allowing reduced consumption) or for relief of lithium's side effects.
24 posted on 01/06/2003 12:21:13 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
That's not the worst (or slightest) illness one can get med MJ for here in Oregon.

Here's the complete Oregon act...




The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act


SECTION 1. Sections 1 through 19 of this Act shall be known as the Oregon
Medical Marijuana Act.

SECTION 2. The people of the state of Oregon hereby find that:

(1) Patients and doctors have found marijuana to be an effective treatment
for suffering caused by debilitating medical conditions, and therefore,
marijuana should be treated like other medicines;

(2) Oregonians suffering from debilitating medical conditions should be
allowed to use small amounts of marijuana without fear of civil or criminal
penalties when their doctors advise that such use may provide a medical
benefit to them and when other reasonable restrictions are met regarding
that use;

(3) Sections 1 to 19 of this Act are intended to allow Oregonians with
debilitating medical conditions who may benefit from the medical use of
marijuana to be able to discuss freely with their doctors the possible risks
and benefits of medical marijuana use and to have the benefit of their
doctor's professional advice; and

(4) Sections 1 to 19 of this Act are intended to make only those changes to
existing Oregon laws that are necessary to protect patients and their
doctors from criminal and civil penalties, and are not intended to change
current civil and criminal laws governing the use of marijuana for nonmedical
purposes.

SECTION 3. As used in sections 1 to 19 of this Act:

(1) "Attending physician" means a physician licensed under ORS chapter
677 who has primary responsibility for the care and treatment of a person
diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition.

(2) "Debilitating medical condition" means:

(a) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus or
acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for these conditions;

(b) A medical condition or treatment for a medical condition that produces,
for a specific patient, one or more of the following:

(i) Cachexia;

(ii) Severe pain;

(iii) Severe nausea;

(iv) Seizures, including but not limited to seizures caused by epilepsy; or

(v) Persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to spasms caused by
multiple sclerosis; or

(c) Any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted
by the division by rule or approved by the division pursuant to a petition
submitted pursuant to section 14 of this Act.

(3) "Delivery" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005.

(4) "Designated primary caregiver" means an individual eighteen years of
age or older who has significant responsibility for managing the well-being of
a person who has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and
who is designated as such on that person's application for a registry
identification card or in other written notification to the division. "Designated
primary caregiver" does not include the person's attending physician.

(5) "Division" means the Health Division of the Oregon Department of Human
Resources.

(6) "Marijuana" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005.

(7) "Medical use of marijuana" means the production, possession, delivery,
or administration of marijuana, or paraphernalia used to administer
marijuana, as necessary for the exclusive benefit of a person to mitigate the
symptoms or effects of his or her debilitating medical condition.

(8) "Production" has the same meaning given that term in ORS
475.005.

(9) "Registry identification card" means a document issued by the division
that identifies a person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana
and the person's designated primary caregiver, if any.

(10) "Usable marijuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the plant
Cannabis family Moraceae, and any mixture or preparation thereof, that are
appropriate for medical use as allowed in sections 1 to 19 of this Act.
"Usable marijuana" does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the plant.

(11) "Written documentation" means a statement signed by the attending
physician of a person diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition or
copies of the person's relevant medical records.

SECTION 4. (1) Except as provided in sections 5 and 11 of this Act, a person
engaged in or assisting in the medical use of marijuana is excepted from the
criminal laws of the state for possession, delivery or production of
marijuana, aiding and abetting another in the possession, delivery or
production of marijuana or any other criminal offense in which possession,
delivery or production of marijuana is an element if the following conditions
have been satisfied:

(a) The person holds a registry identification card issued pursuant to this
section, has applied for a registry identification card pursuant to subsection
(9) of this section, or is the designated primary caregiver of a cardholder or
applicant; and

(b) The person who has a debilitating medical condition and his or her
primary caregiver are collectively in possession of, delivering or producing
marijuana for medical use in the amounts allowed in section 7 of this Act.

(2) The division shall establish and maintain a program for the issuance of
registry identification cards to persons who meet the requirements of this
section. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the division
shall issue a registry identification card to any person who pays a fee in the
amount established by the division and provides the following:

(a) Valid, written documentation from the person's attending physician
stating that the person has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical
condition and that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms
or effects of the person's debilitating medical condition;

(b) The name, address and date of birth of the person;

(c) The name, address and telephone number of the person's attending
physician; and

(d) The name and address of the person's designated primary caregiver, if
the person has designated a primary caregiver at the time of application.

(3) The division shall issue a registry identification card to a person who is
under eighteen years of age if the person submits the materials required
under subsection (2) of this section, and one of the person's parents or legal
guardians signs a written statement that:

(a) The person's attending physician has explained to the person and to one
of the person's parents or legal guardians the possible risks and benefits of
the medical use of marijuana;

(b) The parent or legal guardian consents to the use of marijuana by the
person for medical purposes;

(c) The parent or legal guardian agrees to serve as the person's designated
primary caregiver; and

(d) The parent or legal guardian agrees to control the acquisition of
marijuana and the dosage and frequency of use by the person.

(4) A person applying for a registry identification card pursuant to this
section may submit the information required in this section to a county
health department for transmittal to the division. A county health
department that receives the information pursuant to this subsection shall
transmit the information to the division within five days of receipt of the
information. Information received by a county health department pursuant to
this subsection shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure, except as
required to transmit the information to the division.

(5) The division shall verify the information contained in an application
submitted pursuant to this section and shall approve or deny an application
within thirty days of receipt of the application.

(a) The division may deny an application only for the following reasons:

(i) The applicant did not provide the information required pursuant to this
section to establish his or her debilitating medical condition and to
document his or her consultation with an attending physician regarding the
medical use of marijuana in connection with such condition, as provided in
subsections (2) and (3) of this section; or

(ii) The division determines that the information provided was falsified.

(b) Denial of a registry identification card shall be considered a final division
action, subject to judicial review. Only the person whose application has
been denied, or, in the case of a person under the age of eighteen years of
age whose application has been denied, the person's parent or legal
guardian, shall have standing to contest the division's action.

(c) Any person whose application has been denied may not reapply for six
months from the date of the denial, unless so authorized by the division or a
court of competent jurisdiction.

(6) (a) If the division has verified the information submitted pursuant to
subsections (2) and (3) of this section and none of the reasons for denial
listed in subsection (5)(a) of this section is applicable, the division shall issue
a serially numbered registry identification card within five days of verification
of the information. The registry identification card shall state:

(i) The cardholder's name, address and date of birth;

(ii) The date of issuance and expiration date of the registry identification
card;

(iii) The name and address of the person's designated primary caregiver, if
any; and

(iv) Such other information as the division may specify by rule.

(b) When the person to whom the division has issued a registry identification
card pursuant to this section has specified a designated primary caregiver,
the division shall issue an identification card to the designated primary
caregiver. The primary caregiver's registry identification card shall contain
the information provided in subsection 4(6)(a)(i)-(iv).

(7) (a) A person who possesses a registry identification card shall:

(i) Notify the division of any change in the person's name, address, attending
physician or designated primary caregiver; and

(ii) Annually submit to the division:

(A) updated written documentation of the person's debilitating medical
condition; and

(B) the name of the person's designated primary caregiver if a primary
caregiver has been designated for the upcoming year.

(b) If a person who possesses a registry identification card fails to comply
with this subsection, the card shall be deemed expired. If a registry
identification card expires, the identification card of any designated primary
caregiver of the cardholder shall also expire.

(8) A person who possesses a registry identification card pursuant to this
section and who has been diagnosed by the person's attending physician as
no longer having a debilitating medical condition shall return the registry
identification card to the division within seven calendar days of notification
of the diagnosis. Any designated primary caregiver shall return his or her
identification card within the same period of time.

(9) A person who has applied for a registry identification card pursuant to
this section but whose application has not yet been approved or denied, and
who is contacted by any law enforcement officer in connection with his or
her administration, possession, delivery or production of marijuana for
medical use may provide to the law enforcement officer a copy of the written
documentation submitted to the division pursuant to subsections (2) or (3) of
this section and proof of the date of mailing or other transmission of the
documentation to the division. This documentation shall have the same legal
effect as a registry identification card until such time as the person receives
notification that the application has been approved or denied.

SECTION 5. (1) No person authorized to possess, deliver or produce
marijuana for medical use pursuant to sections 1 to 19 of this Act shall be
excepted from the criminal laws of this state or shall be deemed to have
established an affirmative defense to criminal charges of which possession,
delivery or production of marijuana is an element if the person, in connection
with the facts giving rise to such charges:

(a) Drives under the influence of marijuana as provided in ORS 813.010;

(b) Engages in the medical use of marijuana in a public place as that term is
defined in ORS 161.015, or in public view;

(c) Delivers marijuana to any individual who the person knows is not in
possession of a registry identification card; or

(d) Delivers marijuana for consideration to any individual, even if the
individual is in possession of a registry identification card.

(2) In addition to any other penalty allowed by law, a person who the division
finds has willfully violated the provisions of sections 1 to 19 of this Act or
rules adopted under sections 1 to 19 of this Act may be precluded from
obtaining or using a registry identification card for the medical use of
marijuana for a period of up to six months, at the discretion of the division.

SECTION 6. (1) Except as provided in sections 5 and 11 of this Act, it is an
affirmative defense to a criminal charge of possession or production of
marijuana, or any other criminal offense in which possession or production
of marijuana is an element, that the person charged with the offense is a
person who:

(a) Has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and been
advised by his or her attending physician the medical use of marijuana may
mitigate the symptoms or effects of that debilitating medical condition;

(b) Is engaged in the medical use of marijuana; and

(c) Possesses or produces marijuana only in the amounts allowed in section
7 (1) of this Act, or in excess of those amounts if the person proves by a
preponderance of the evidence that the greater amount is medically
necessary to mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person's debilitating
medical condition.

(2) It is not necessary for a person asserting an affirmative defense pursuant
to this section to have received a registry identification card in order to
assert the affirmative defense established in this section.

(3) No person who claims that marijuana provides medically necessary
benefits and who is charged with a crime pertaining to such use of marijuana
shall be precluded from presenting a defense of choice of evils, as set forth
in ORS 161.200, or from presenting evidence supporting the necessity of
marijuana for treatment of a specific disease or medical condition, provided
that the amount of marijuana at issue is no greater than permitted under
section 7 of this Act.

SECTION 7. (1) A person who possesses a registry identification card issued
pursuant to section 4 of this Act may engage in, and a designated primary
caregiver of such a person may assist in, the medical use of marijuana only
as justified to mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person's debilitating
medical condition. Except as allowed in subsection (2) of this section, a
registry identification cardholder and that person's designated primary
caregiver may not collectively possess, deliver or produce more than the
following:

(a) If the person is present at a location at which marijuana is not produced,
including any residence associated with that location, one ounce of usable
marijuana; and

(b) If the person is present at a location at which marijuana is produced,
including any residence associated with that location, three mature
marijuana plants, four immature marijuana plants and one ounce of usable
marijuana per each mature plant.

(2) If the individuals described in subsection (1) of this section possess,
deliver or produce marijuana in excess of the amounts allowed in subsection
(1) of this section, such individuals are not excepted from the criminal laws
of the state but may establish an affirmative defense to such charges, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the greater amount is medically
necessary to mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person's debilitating
medical condition.

(3) The Health Division shall define by rule when a marijuana plant is mature
and when it is immature for purposes of this section.

SECTION 8. (1) Possession of a registry identification card or designated
primary caregiver identification card pursuant to section 4 of this Act shall
not alone constitute probable cause to search the person or property of the
cardholder or otherwise subject the person or property of the cardholder to
inspection by any governmental agency.

(2) Any property interest possessed, owned or used in connection with the
medical use of marijuana or acts incidental to the medical use of marijuana
that has been seized by state or local law enforcement officers shall not be
harmed, neglected, injured or destroyed while in the possession of any law
enforcement agency. No such property interest may be forfeited under any
provision of law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a
sentence imposed after conviction of a criminal offense. Marijuana and
paraphernalia used to administer marijuana that was seized by any law
enforcement officer shall be returned immediately upon a determination by
the district attorney in whose county the property was seized, or his or her
designee, that the person from whom the marijuana or paraphernalia used
to administer marijuana was seized is entitled to the protections contained in
sections 1 to 19 of this Act. Such determination may be evidenced, for
example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges, or
acquittal.

SECTION 9. No attending physician may be subjected to civil penalty or
discipline by the Board or Medical Examiners for:

(1) Advising a person whom the attending physician has diagnosed as
having a debilitating medical condition, or a person who the attending
physician knows has been so diagnosed by another physician licensed
under ORS chapter 677, about the risks and benefits of medical use of
marijuana or that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms
or effects of the person's debilitating medical condition, provided the advice
is based on the attending physician's personal assessment of the person's
medical history and current medical condition; or

(2) Providing the written documentation necessary for issuance of a registry
identification card under section 4 of this Act, if the documentation is based
on the attending physician's personal assessment of the applicant's medical
history and current medical condition and the physician has discussed the
potential medical risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana with the
applicant.

SECTION 10. No professional licensing board may impose a civil penalty or
take other disciplinary action against a licensee based on the licensee's
medical use of marijuana in accordance with the provisions of sections 1 to
19 of this Act or actions taken by the licensee that are necessary to carry
out the licensee's role as a designated primary caregiver to a person who
possesses a lawful registry identification card issued pursuant to section 4
of this Act.

SECTION 11. Nothing in sections 1 to 19 of this Act shall protect a person
from a criminal cause of action based on possession, production, or delivery
of marijuana that is not authorized by sections 1 to 19 of this Act.

SECTION 12. (1) The division shall create and maintain a list of the persons
to whom the division has issued registry identification cards pursuant to
section 4 of this Act and the names of any designated primary caregivers.
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the list shall be
confidential and not subject to public disclosure.

(2) Names and other identifying information from the list established
pursuant to subsection (1) of this section may be released to:

(a) Authorized employees of the division as necessary to perform official
duties of the division; and

(b) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies, only
as necessary to verify that a person is a lawful possessor of a registry
identification card or that a person is the designated primary caregiver of
such a person.

SECTION 13. (1) If a person who possesses a registry identification card
issued pursuant to section 4 of this Act chooses to have a designated
primary caregiver, the person must designate the primary caregiver by
including the primary caregiver's name and address:

(a) On the person's application for a registry identification card;

(b) In the annual updated information required under section 4 of this Act; or

(c) In a written, signed statement submitted to the division.

(2) A person described in this section may have only one designated primary
caregiver at any given time.

SECTION 14. Any person may submit a petition to the division requesting
that a particular disease or condition be included among the diseases and
conditions that qualify as debilitating medical conditions under section 3 of
this Act. The division shall adopt rules establishing the manner in which the
division will evaluate petitions submitted under this section. Any rules
adopted pursuant to this section shall require the division to approve or
deny a petition within 180 days of receipt of the petition by the division.
Denial of a petition shall be considered a final division action subject to
judicial review.

SECTION 15. The division shall adopt all rules necessary for the
implementation and administration of sections 1 to 19 of this Act.

SECTION 16. Nothing in sections 1 to 19 of this Act shall be construed to
require:

(1) A government medical assistance program or private health insurer to
reimburse a person for costs associated with the medical use of marijuana;
or

(2) An employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any
workplace.

SECTION 17. The division may take any actions on or before the effective
date of this Act that are necessary for the proper and timely implementation
and administration of sections 1 to 19 of this Act.

SECTION 18. Any section of this Act being held invalid as to any person or
circumstance shall not affect the application of any other section of this Act
that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.

SECTION 19. All provisions of this Act shall apply to acts or offenses
committed on or after December 3, 1998, except that sections 4, 12 and 14
shall become effective on May 1, 1999.





Notice the conditions that one must meet in order to receive immunity....anything that is painfull, including treatment...pretty broad.

EBUCK

25 posted on 01/06/2003 12:22:47 PM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Scotch helps me sleep. Can I drink in public now?
26 posted on 01/06/2003 12:23:23 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
"Medical practitioner" is still more expertise than you've laid claim to.
27 posted on 01/06/2003 12:30:28 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Excuse me, Mr Net Cop.
28 posted on 01/06/2003 12:31:24 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Whatever the case is, can you imagine the tension in the PD property office when they handed him his weed and watched him walk away? :-)

They were watching government bonus checks for drug busts, and drug money confiscations diminising too! Oh the horror!
29 posted on 01/06/2003 12:31:51 PM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Scotch helps me sleep. Can I drink in public now?

Only if it was prescribed by a medical practitioner would I support that.

30 posted on 01/06/2003 12:32:55 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
My sister is a vet assistant. She can do it.
31 posted on 01/06/2003 12:34:09 PM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Excuse me, Mr Net Cop.

My pointing out that you're talking out your @ss does not make me a "net cop"---just an astute observer.

32 posted on 01/06/2003 12:35:52 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
My sister is a vet assistant. She can do it.

But would she? And do veterinary assistants fall within the legal meaning of "medical practitioner"?

33 posted on 01/06/2003 12:36:56 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
The person who prescribed it has an M.D. What is your expertise on the matter?

What is the doctor's name?

34 posted on 01/06/2003 12:37:11 PM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Smoking dope for BIPOLAR?

Why not? Why not for anything or nothing? Why not just because you're home and you want to relax?

35 posted on 01/06/2003 12:39:12 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
-just an astute observer.

Being pro-pot and being astute is an oxymoronic statement, IMO.

36 posted on 01/06/2003 12:43:54 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
But police were concerned that handing the pot over to No Runner would violate a federal law prohibiting the distribution of controlled substances.

LOL!! They steal something from someone, then try to claim that by giving it back, they would be "distributing" it!? They have no shame.

They dont seem to care about federal law when they are doing "gun buy backs" or setting up sting operations where they sell drugs.....

"The city is an agency of the state, and we're following state law and a court order," Interim City Attorney Gil Trujillo said.

Very good. Give him a cookie!

37 posted on 01/06/2003 12:47:02 PM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
The person who prescribed it has an M.D. What is your expertise on the matter?

What is the doctor's name?

I don't know the name---nor (as AppyPappy already pointed out) do I know anything more than that the prescriber was a medical practitioner. Which is still more medical expertise than any critic here has laid claim to.

38 posted on 01/06/2003 12:48:19 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
How come proposition 215 gets followed in CA meanwhile the same people in California passed 187 and the state ignores the measure regarding the funding illegals out of public monies?
CA is as bonkers and Oregan and a few other states now and then. I expect the FEDS won't bother so much with the fellow who uses pot if he has a real illness and smokes in private IMO.
If he starts to use in public or gives some away or sells some after what happened in court, I expect he will be caught and doing time in the future.
I don't think anyone cares about small use done in the privacy of the home. In CA you get at most a ticket for that, but the law is there to reduce use of the drug.
39 posted on 01/06/2003 12:48:20 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Being pro-pot

I'm not pro-pot, I'm pro-freedom.

40 posted on 01/06/2003 12:49:14 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
I don't think anyone cares about small use done in the privacy of the home.

Then why not revoke the laws against it?

In CA you get at most a ticket for that, but the law is there to reduce use of the drug.

Why is it any more the government's business to coercively reduce use of marijuana than to reduce use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, saturated fats, etc?

41 posted on 01/06/2003 12:51:52 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
What is the doctor's name?

Its obvious that you did not read the article. Had you done so, you would have found the following information:

A local Superior Court judge had ordered the city to return the marijuana it confiscated from No Runner last summer, ruling the 23-year-old Grover Beach man had a valid doctor's recommendation.

--and--

Once the recommendation was verified, the District Attorney's Office dismissed criminal charges. But police would not return the pot or the pipe.

So, if its that important to you, why don't you go ask the Judge or the District Attorney for the name of the doctor.

42 posted on 01/06/2003 12:58:15 PM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Laws against it are a ticketable offense only unless they are dealing. The law is about where it needs to be right now, that is why. We don't want to approve of it, it is a crime.
43 posted on 01/06/2003 1:00:25 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
How come proposition 215 gets followed in CA meanwhile the same people in California passed 187 and the state ignores the measure regarding the funding illegals out of public monies?

Why does Ashcroft bring the full weight of the federal government to bear against CA's medical marijuana laws, but allows their gun registration and confiscation programs to go unchallenged?

44 posted on 01/06/2003 1:03:46 PM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
So, if its that important to you, why don't you go ask the Judge or the District Attorney for the name of the doctor

Isn't that the newspaper reporter's job?

Oh well Dan, I guess you give all reporters the benefit of the doubt and that you don't think that they have a liberal bias. Uh Uh, no bias at all here.

45 posted on 01/06/2003 1:03:48 PM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Regarding glaucoma, what, if any, 'relief' does 'medicinal' marijuana bring to inner eye pressure and the damage that results from it?
46 posted on 01/06/2003 1:06:37 PM PST by ApesForEvolution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Laws against it are a ticketable offense only unless they are dealing. The law is about where it needs to be right now, that is why. We don't want to approve of it, it is a crime.

None of that answers my question: Why is it any more the government's business to coercively reduce use of marijuana than to reduce use of alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, saturated fats, etc?

47 posted on 01/06/2003 1:06:46 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It has been established that illegal drugs are financing in part terrorists.
That might be a small reason for the priority.

It is only a ticket in CA unless you have enough in possession to be a dealer. If you do...tough luck! That would be rather stupid to be in possession of a large amount anyway.

Whereas 187 was passed by the people and our borders are supposed to be protected at all times. To give our state treasury away to illegals is a huge crime here in California.
48 posted on 01/06/2003 1:09:21 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
We don't want to approve of it, it is a crime.
-Herbert Hoover, 1931.

Actually, one of the signs of a healthy free society is the ability to disapprove of something without neccesarily desiring that it be banned by law.

-Eric

49 posted on 01/06/2003 1:09:44 PM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution
"In a number of studies of healthy adults and glaucoma patients, IOP [intraocular pressure] was reduced by an average of 25% after smoking a marijuana cigarette that contained approximately 2% THC—a reduction as good as that observed with most other medications available today." - Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999), Institute of Medicine
50 posted on 01/06/2003 1:11:19 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson