Marijuana possession ruling applauded, questioned

Medical marijuana advocates were handed a victory two weeks ago when the California Supreme Court struck down state limits on how much of the drug patients can grow or possess with immunity from arrest or prosecution.

In a much-anticipated decision that was unanimous, the court ruled that state guidelines on amounts adopted by the Legislature in 2003 violate the state constitution by wrongfully amending California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 without voter approval.

Also known as Proposition 215, the initiative backed by 56 percent of the state’s voters in 1996 did not specify how much marijuana a patient or caregiver could grow or possess. It says only that those who obtain and use marijuana for their personal medical needs upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution.

In 2003, the Legislature adopted SB 420 in an effort to provide guidelines for local law enforcement agencies to follow in dealing with the non-medical use and sale of marijuana for profit that remain illegal.

SB 420 established the state guidelines of 8 ounces of processed marijuana and six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per patient, but allowed counties and cities discretion to adopt their own standards exceeding those amounts.

 

 

It is the state’s minimum guidelines that were thrown out by the court’s recent ruling though it left intact the voluntary identification card program that was also part of SB 420.Chief Justice Ron George wrote in the court decision that individuals are not subject to specific limits and do not require a physician’s recom-mendation to exceed any such limits. Instead, they may possess an amount of medical marijuana “reasonably necessary” to meet their needs.

It is what many local marijuana advocates have claimed for years — that Proposition 215 set no limits on quantity and no one but the voters has authority to alter that.

Two years ago, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors opted to exceed the state’s minimum guidelines for medical marijuana possession and cultivation, but after a proliferation of gardens resulted in a backlash from non-users, the board later reversed that decision and defaulted back to the lower state limits.

It is currently in the process of developing a new marijuana ordinance to regulate cultivation, declaring unlawful growing to be a publicnuisance subject to civil code enforce-ment, but immunizing those who legitimately grow for medical use.

The current draft requires growers to furnish a valid physician’s recom-mendation for each patient and if the recommendation does not specify an amount, the presumed quantity allowed is six mature plants or 12 immature plants.

Chair of the county’s ad hoc medical cannabis committee that has worked for a year to provide recom-mendations to the board, Sup. Wendy Reiss said County Counsel Derek Cole is researching how the state court ruling impacts the county’s efforts.

The Board of Supervisors is still scheduled to hold a special ses-sion Monday evening, March 1, in Weaverville to consider “some form of a draft ordinance,” she said, adding, “The rights of patients and caregivers are a concern, but the rest of us have rights also. I am looking at how we can best blend those so patients have rights to their medicine, and the rights of non-users living in neighborhoods suffering the impacts are also protected.

”The board has also directed the county planning commission to analyze possible restrictions the county might apply through its zoning ordinance.