T
The420Guy
Guest
Officials on Tuesday postponed an ordinance on the medicinal use of
marijuana in Santa Barbara, pending clarification on the issue by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
"It seems to me that to wait is the prudent course," said City Councilman
Gregg Hart, a member of the ordinance committee. Committee members Gil
Garcia and Marty Blum agreed.
An ordinance would clarify how the city keeps track of people who use the
drug to alleviate medical problems, with a physician's approval, and it
would dictate how the police respond when questions over medical use arise.
The ordinance would decriminalize doctor-advised marijuana use, while using
the drug to get high would remain a misdemeanor.
Though the local ordinance has been postponed, council members lauded
efforts by police and medical marijuana use advocates to meet and share
ideas on policy.
"We want to make sure that the right people are protected, and the wrong
people aren't," Hart said.
Californians voted to legalize marijuana use for medical reasons in 1996
with the passage of Proposition 215, also known as the California
Compassionate Use Act. Proponents say marijuana helps alleviate nausea in
AIDS and cancer patients, and that it reduces pain from conditions ranging
from headaches to arthritis.
But problems have arisen in implementing the proposition because of clashes
between state and federal laws. Since federal law prohibits medical use of
marijuana, some doctors are afraid that prescribing it for patients could
result in the loss of their medical licenses.
At Tuesday's City Hall hearing, Hart, Blum and Garcia said they support the
city's efforts to decriminalize medical use of marijuana. But they don't
see the point in taking steps to frame an ordinance when it could later be
proven indefensible when the Supreme Court issues a ruling in United States
v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative on March 28.
The Supreme Court will be asked to decide if "medical necessity" can
justify giving marijuana, in violation of federal law, to people who use it
to relieve pain that cannot be alleviated with conventional treatment.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer has recused himself from the case, an appeal from
the former Clinton administration of a federal ruling in California
establishing the medical necessity defense, because his brother, U.S.
District Judge Charles R. Breyer, initially granted an injunction against
the cooperative.
Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon and Sheriff Jim Thomas
have said they don't approve of moving forward until the Supreme Court case
is resolved. They also want to wait for pending clarification on
Proposition 215 from state officials.
Several proponents of a Santa Barbara ordinance said the Oakland case is
irrelevant because it deals with pot distribution rather than use.
Community activist Bruce Rittenhouse, who is running for mayor, criticized
the council for delays on the issue.
"Sixty percent of the people in Santa Barbara voted for this," he said.
"People should be able to use (marijuana) if they need it, and their doctor
recommends it."
Santa Barbara resident David Pryor, who uses marijuana for arthritis and
depression and grows it for 125 local patients, said he is pleased with the
dialogue that has developed between himself, medical officials and law
enforcement officers. He said he wants to see the meetings continue so that
a fair and effective ordinance can be crafted.
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
Source: Santa Barbara News-Press (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Santa Barbara News-Press
Contact: jlankford@newspress.com
Address: P.O. Box 1359, Santa Barbara, CA 93102
Website: Santa Barbara News-Press
Author: Rhonda Parks Manville, News-press Staff Writer
Related: MapInc
marijuana in Santa Barbara, pending clarification on the issue by the U.S.
Supreme Court.
"It seems to me that to wait is the prudent course," said City Councilman
Gregg Hart, a member of the ordinance committee. Committee members Gil
Garcia and Marty Blum agreed.
An ordinance would clarify how the city keeps track of people who use the
drug to alleviate medical problems, with a physician's approval, and it
would dictate how the police respond when questions over medical use arise.
The ordinance would decriminalize doctor-advised marijuana use, while using
the drug to get high would remain a misdemeanor.
Though the local ordinance has been postponed, council members lauded
efforts by police and medical marijuana use advocates to meet and share
ideas on policy.
"We want to make sure that the right people are protected, and the wrong
people aren't," Hart said.
Californians voted to legalize marijuana use for medical reasons in 1996
with the passage of Proposition 215, also known as the California
Compassionate Use Act. Proponents say marijuana helps alleviate nausea in
AIDS and cancer patients, and that it reduces pain from conditions ranging
from headaches to arthritis.
But problems have arisen in implementing the proposition because of clashes
between state and federal laws. Since federal law prohibits medical use of
marijuana, some doctors are afraid that prescribing it for patients could
result in the loss of their medical licenses.
At Tuesday's City Hall hearing, Hart, Blum and Garcia said they support the
city's efforts to decriminalize medical use of marijuana. But they don't
see the point in taking steps to frame an ordinance when it could later be
proven indefensible when the Supreme Court issues a ruling in United States
v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative on March 28.
The Supreme Court will be asked to decide if "medical necessity" can
justify giving marijuana, in violation of federal law, to people who use it
to relieve pain that cannot be alleviated with conventional treatment.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer has recused himself from the case, an appeal from
the former Clinton administration of a federal ruling in California
establishing the medical necessity defense, because his brother, U.S.
District Judge Charles R. Breyer, initially granted an injunction against
the cooperative.
Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon and Sheriff Jim Thomas
have said they don't approve of moving forward until the Supreme Court case
is resolved. They also want to wait for pending clarification on
Proposition 215 from state officials.
Several proponents of a Santa Barbara ordinance said the Oakland case is
irrelevant because it deals with pot distribution rather than use.
Community activist Bruce Rittenhouse, who is running for mayor, criticized
the council for delays on the issue.
"Sixty percent of the people in Santa Barbara voted for this," he said.
"People should be able to use (marijuana) if they need it, and their doctor
recommends it."
Santa Barbara resident David Pryor, who uses marijuana for arthritis and
depression and grows it for 125 local patients, said he is pleased with the
dialogue that has developed between himself, medical officials and law
enforcement officers. He said he wants to see the meetings continue so that
a fair and effective ordinance can be crafted.
Newshawk: Jo-D and Tom-E
Pubdate: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
Source: Santa Barbara News-Press (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Santa Barbara News-Press
Contact: jlankford@newspress.com
Address: P.O. Box 1359, Santa Barbara, CA 93102
Website: Santa Barbara News-Press
Author: Rhonda Parks Manville, News-press Staff Writer
Related: MapInc
