California Senate Bill 420

Last updated

California Senate Bill 420 (colloquially known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act) [1] was a bill introduced by John Vasconcellos of the California State Senate, and subsequently passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003 "pursuant to the powers reserved to the State of California and its people under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." [2] It clarified the scope and application of California Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and established the California medical marijuana program. The bill's title is notable because "420" is a common phrase used in cannabis culture.

Contents

Summary

The bill specifically: [3] [4]

In enacting the bill it was the intent of the legislature to: [5]

The bill reflects a compromise between patients' advocates and law enforcement.[ citation needed ] It also required counties to implement a voluntary patient identification card system and other provisions to protect patients and their caregivers from arrest. The guidelines were hotly disputed by California NORML and other patients' advocates.[ citation needed ] Patient advocates had pushed for more liberal guidelines, such as those adopted by Sonoma County, which allow up to 30 plants in a 100-square-foot (9.3 m2) growing area plus 3 pounds of marijuana.[ citation needed ] The final guidelines were decided in a last-minute legislative deal by Attorney General Lockyer and Sen. Vasconcellos in order to get the bill passed.[ citation needed ]

Possession limits

In recognition of the fact that the guidelines are inadequate for many very ill patients, SB 420 allows patients to be exempted from them if they obtain a physician's statement that they need more. [6] In deference to local autonomy, SB 420 also allows counties and cities to establish higher - but not lower - guidelines if they so choose. [6] As a result, the new law will not overturn liberal guidelines that are now in effect in Sonoma and elsewhere. However, it should force more restrictive counties, such as San Bernardino and Fresno, which have heretofore had "zero tolerance" policies, to honor the new statewide minimum standard. Many counties have increased the limits of possession and cultivation since the passage of the law in 2003. It also specifically allowed cannabis cooperatives. [7]

Voluntary state ID card system

The Medical Marijuana Identification Card Program (also referred to as MMIP, or MMIC) is administered by county health departments. There are registration fees to cover the costs of the program, with a 50% discount for Medi-Cal patients. Identification cards generally have an expiration date of one year after the date of application, regardless if the physician's recommendation expires before that date. The California Department of Public Health maintains a 24-hour telephone hotline and an online website by which law enforcement and collectives/cooperatives can verify the validity of the card(s).

The system is designed with safeguards to protect patient privacy like the former San Francisco and Oakland ID card system. Police may identify whether persons are medical marijuana patients by only a unique identification number appearing on the card. Although some patient advocates have expressed qualms about the privacy of the new identification system, California NORML recommends that patients register to protect themselves from arrest. Persons designated as "primary caregivers" are also eligible for ID cards. Each patient may designate only one caregiver under the voluntary program.

Abuse was found in Mendocino County California, when then Sheriff Craver required patients to pick up their cards at his sheriffs station. This was where convicted rapists and drug offenders had to get their criminal registration cards. Here, then, the marijuana patients were subjected to abuse by the local law enforcement, as the state Department of Health was not involved with card distribution at that time. Patients, who had been assured that no centralized database would ever be created with their personal information, were themselves witness to that part of SB 420's irregularity.

In a quirky provision, SB 420 forbids caregivers from having more than one patient unless all of them reside in the same "city or county" as the caregiver. This means that no one may be a caregiver for both a spouse and a parent if they happen to reside in different counties. California NORML attorneys believe that this is an unconstitutional restriction on Prop 215 and intends to challenge it in court.

In 2006, San Diego County was sued for refusing to implement an ID card system as required under SB 420. In response, San Diego County filed a lawsuit against the State of California to overturn Prop. 215 and SB 420. San Diego Superior Court Judge, William R. Nevitt Jr. struck down San Diego's claim in the court's December 6, 2006 ruling. San Diego County filed an appeal in the case. The appeal was on August 1, 2008, and was thrown out again on the basis that the counties did not have the authority to make a case against the state. The counties do, however, have the right to make an appeal about the statutes in SB 420 that deal with the issuing of identification cards, as this task is placed upon the counties and affects their taxes. San Diego County along with San Bernardino County appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On May 18, 2009 that appeal was denied. [8]

Currently, there are only two counties that submit information anonymously to the state, Santa Cruz [9] and San Francisco. [10] All the other counties submit patient information to the state patient database.

Other provisions of SB 420

In other provisions, SB 420:

People v. Kelly

Concerning limits on possession created by the bill, the California Supreme Court decision in People v. Kelly decided multiple issues. First, it reiterated that "unlike [Proposition 215], which did not immunize medical marijuana users from arrest but instead provided a limited 'immunity' defense to prosecution under state law for cultivation or possession of marijuana ... the [Medical Marijuana Program]'s identification card system is designed to protect against unnecessary arrest." [11] Secondly, it agreed with both Kelly and the California Attorney General that the limits were an "unconstitutionally amendatory insofar as it limits an in-court CUA defense". [12]

However, the section concerning limits on possession "should remain an enforceable part of the MMP, applicable to the extent possible — including to those persons who voluntarily participate in the program by registering and obtaining identification cards that provide protection against arrest" because it provided more rights, namely the immunity against arrest. [13] A qualified patient or primary caregiver that participates in the voluntary MMIC program also maintains his or her separate rights under California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, which are not included in the legislature-driven amendments seven years later.

City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court

On December 1, 2008, the Supreme Court decided not to hear arguments in City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court of Orange County, leaving a lower court ruling standing which requires local police officers to enforce state law, not federal law. The case stems from a traffic stop of Felix Kha, who had 8.1 grams of medical marijuana in a container, which the police officers confiscated. The ruling requires police officers to return the seized medicine. [14]

But it must be remembered it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws as such. [15]

People v. Jovan Jackson

Concerning the scope of the legal defense created by the bill, the California Fourth Appellate District clarified the law in regards to the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), and was upheld by the California Supreme Court. [16] In the People v. Jovan Jackson, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1371, the court held that the MMPA does not require active participation by all members of a collective in the cultivation process and membership may be limited to financial support by way of marijuana purchases. The court stated the three elements of the MMPA are that the collective 1. Are qualified patients or primary caregivers; and, 2. Collectively associate to cultivate marijuana; and, 3. The collective must be a nonprofit enterprise. In addition, the court provided factors for a jury to consider as to whether a medical marijuana collective is a non-profit, specifically:

The size of the collective's membership; the volume of purchases from the collective; the members participation in the operation and governance of the collective; the testimony of the operator[s] of the collective; its formal establishment as a nonprofit organization; the presence or absence of any financial records; the presence or absence of processes by which the collective is accountable to its members; the volume of business it conducts; any other evidence of profit or loss. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 215</span> California law permitting medical marijuana

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law permitting the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Vasconcellos</span> American politician

John Bernard Vasconcellos Jr. was an American politician from California and member of the Democratic Party. He represented Silicon Valley as a member of the California State Assembly for 30 years and a California State Senator for 8 years. His lifelong interest in psychology led to his advocacy of the self-esteem movement in California politics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1998 Oregon Ballot Measure 67</span> Ballot measure in Oregon legalizing marijuana

The Oregon Medical Marijuana Act, a law in the U.S. state of Oregon, was established by Oregon Ballot Measure 67 in 1998, passing with 54.6% support. It modified state law to allow the cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana by doctor recommendation for patients with certain medical conditions. The Act does not affect federal law, which still prohibits the cultivation and possession of marijuana.

In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California that recognize a medical use for marijuana. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was represented by Gerald Uelmen.

Oaksterdam is a cultural district on the north end of Downtown Oakland, California, where medical cannabis is available for purchase in cafés, clubs, and patient dispensaries. Oaksterdam is located between downtown proper, the Lakeside, and the financial district. It is roughly bordered by 14th Street on the southwest, Harrison Street on the southeast, 19th Street on the northeast, and Telegraph Avenue on the northwest. The name is a portmanteau of "Oakland" and "Amsterdam," due to the Dutch city's cannabis coffee shops and the drug policy of the Netherlands. Since 2005, cannabis has been available to patients with patient identification and physician recommendation at a busy dispensary in the neighborhood, one of Oakland's four officially licensed dispensaries under the current municipal ordinance. According to Proposition 215, a statewide voter initiative which amended the California Health and Safety Code, marijuana used for medical purposes is legal to possess and cultivate. Dispensaries require a doctor's note in order to obtain medical cannabis, which is legal under California Law but still illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug policy of California</span> Overview of the drug policy of the U.S. state of California

Drug policy of California refers to the policy on various classes and kinds of drugs in the U.S. state of California. Cannabis possession has been legalized with the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, passed in November 2016, with recreational sales starting January of the next year. With respect to many controlled substances, terms such as illegal and prohibited do not include their authorized possession or sale as laid out by applicable laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Oregon</span> Use of cannabis in Oregon

Cannabis in Oregon is legal for both medical and recreational use. In recent decades, the U.S. state of Oregon has had a number of legislative, legal, and cultural events surrounding use of cannabis. Oregon was the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis, and among the first to authorize its use for medical purposes. An attempt to recriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis was turned down by Oregon voters in 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in California</span> Legality, use and culture of medical and recreational cannabis in California

Cannabis in California has been legal for medical use since 1996, and for recreational use since late 2016. The state of California has been at the forefront of efforts to liberalize cannabis laws in the United States, beginning in 1972 with the nation's first ballot initiative attempting to legalize cannabis. Although it was unsuccessful, California would later become the first state to legalize medical cannabis with the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. In November 2016, California voters approved the Adult Use of Marijuana Act to legalize the recreational use of cannabis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Colorado</span> Overview of the use and culture of cannabis in Colorado, U.S.

Cannabis in Colorado has been legal for medical use since 2000 and for recreational use since late 2012. On November 7, 2000, 54% of Colorado voters approved Amendment 20, which amended the State Constitution to allow the use of marijuana in the state for approved patients with written medical consent. Under this law, patients may possess up to 2 ounces (57 g) of medical marijuana and may cultivate no more than six marijuana plants. Patients who were caught with more than this in their possession could argue "affirmative defense of medical necessity" but were not protected under state law with the rights of those who stayed within the guidelines set forth by the state. The Colorado Amendment 64, which was passed by voters on November 6, 2012, led to recreational legalization in December 2012 and state-licensed retail sales in January 2014. The policy has led to cannabis tourism. There are two sets of policies in Colorado relating to cannabis use: those for medicinal cannabis and for recreational drug use along with a third set of rules governing hemp.

<i>High Times</i> Medical Cannabis Cup

The High TimesMedical Cannabis Cup is an annual event celebrating medical marijuana. The first Medical Cannabis Cup took place in San Francisco, California June 19–20, 2010.

Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) is a not-for-profit medicinal cannabis dispensing collective located in Santa Cruz, California. WAMM was founded in 1993 by Valerie Leveroni Corral and her then-husband Michael Corral. Valerie Corral is also the Executive Director of Raha Kudo: Design for Dying Project, a non-profit corporation that provides education and research to support persons facing death and their caregivers. Members of WAMM receive organic medicinal cannabis at cost while volunteers trade work for cannabis. There is a compassion program for those unable to afford the full cost of medical cannabis. WAMM was the first medical marijuana collective to receive non-profit status from the United States Government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medical cannabis card</span> Authorization document

A medical cannabis card or medical marijuana card is a state-issued identification card that enables a patient with a doctor's recommendation to obtain, possess, or cultivate cannabis for medicinal use despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. These cards are issued by a state or county in which medical cannabis is recognized. Typically a patient is required to pay a fee to the state in order to obtain a medical marijuana card. Sometimes it is alternatively referred to as medical marijuana identification (MMID), or medical marijuana (MMJ).

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

People v. Jovan Jackson, 210 Cal.App.4th 525 (2012) is a landmark decision by the Fourth Appellate District of California, which affirmed that persons that associate to collectively cultivate medical marijuana are entitled to a legal defense as provided by California Senate Bill 420. The decision has defined medical marijuana law in the state of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Montana</span>

In the US state of Montana, cannabis has been legal for both medical and recreational use since January 1, 2021, when Initiative 190 went into effect. Prior to the November 2020 initiative, marijuana was illegal for recreational use starting in 1929. Medical cannabis was legalized by ballot initiative in 2004. The Montana Legislature passed a repeal to tighten Montana Medical Marijuana (MMJ) laws which were never approved by the governor. However, with the new provisions, providers could not service more than three patients. In November 2016 Bill I-182 was passed, revising the 2004 law and allowing providers to service more than three patients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Buffalo Cannabis Movement</span>

The Buffalo Cannabis Movement is an American grass roots organization based in Buffalo whose aim is to move public opinion sufficiently to achieve the legalization of non-medical marijuana in the United States so that the responsible use of cannabis by adults is no longer subject to penalty. BCM's mission aligns with NORML's mission of "support[ing] the removal of all criminal penalties for the private possession and responsible use of marijuana by adults, including the cultivation for personal use, and the casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts," and "support[ing] the development of a legally controlled market for cannabis."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Nevada</span> Legality of marijuana in Nevada

Cannabis in Nevada became legal for recreational use on January 1, 2017, following the passage of Question 2 on the 2016 ballot. The first licensed sales of recreational cannabis began on July 1, 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 Florida Amendment 2</span> Ballot measure in Florida legalizing medical marijuana

The Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative, also known as Amendment 2, was approved by voters in the Tuesday, November 8, 2016, general election in the State of Florida. The bill required a super-majority vote to pass, with at least 60% of voters voting for support of a state constitutional amendment. Florida already had a medical marijuana law in place, but only for those who are terminally ill and with less than a year left to live. The goal of Amendment 2 is to alleviate those suffering from these medical conditions: cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic nonmalignant pain caused by a qualifying medical condition or that originates from a qualified medical condition or other debilitating medical conditions comparable to those listed. Under Amendment 2, the medical marijuana will be given to the patient if the physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient. Smoking the medication was not allowed under a statute passed by the Florida State Legislature, however this ban was struck down by Leon County Circuit Court Judge Karen Gievers on May 25, 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Hawaii</span>

Cannabis in Hawaii is illegal for recreational use, but decriminalized for possession of three grams or less. Medical use was legalized through legislation passed in 2000, making Hawaii the first state to legalize medical use through state legislature rather than through ballot initiative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in New Jersey</span> Overview of the use and culture of cannabis in New Jersey, U.S.

Cannabis in New Jersey is legal for both medical use and recreational use. An amendment to the state constitution legalizing cannabis became effective on January 1, 2021, and enabling legislation and related bills were signed into law by governor Phil Murphy on February 22, 2021.

References

  1. ↑ "California's Medical Marijuana Laws Get Nod from Court". American Civil Liberties Union. 2006-11-16. Retrieved 2008-11-07.
  2. ↑ "An act to add Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to controlled substances". State of California. October 12, 2003. Archived from the original on April 28, 2010. Retrieved April 15, 2010., §1(e)
  3. ↑ "An act to add Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to controlled substances". State of California. October 12, 2003. Archived from the original on April 28, 2010. Retrieved April 15, 2010., California Legislative Counsel's digest
  4. ↑ "An act to add Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to controlled substances". State of California. October 12, 2003. Archived from the original on April 28, 2010. Retrieved April 15, 2010., §1(a)(3)
  5. ↑ "An act to add Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 11362.7) to Chapter 6 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to controlled substances". State of California. October 12, 2003. Archived from the original on April 28, 2010. Retrieved April 15, 2010., §1(b), (c)
  6. 1 2 California Health and Safety Code, §11362.77
  7. ↑ California Health and Safety Code, §11362.775
  8. ↑ Savage, David G. (May 19, 2009). "Supreme Court upholds California medical pot law". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 May 2009.
  9. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-06-15. Retrieved 2008-12-18.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  10. ↑ "Medical Cannabis Voluntary Identification Card Program". San Francisco Department of Public Health. Retrieved 2010-09-15.
  11. ↑ The People v. Patrick K. Kelly, S164830 , pg. 50(Cal.2010).
  12. ↑ The People v. Patrick K. Kelly, S164830 , pg. 26(Cal.2010).
  13. ↑ The People v. Patrick K. Kelly, S164830 , pg. 49(Cal.2010).
  14. ↑ "City must relinquish seized medical pot". Bob Egelko. San Francisco Chronicle. 2 December 2008. Retrieved 18 December 2008.
  15. ↑ "Garden Grove Decision" (PDF). Court of Appeal of the State of California. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-08-27. Retrieved 2010-09-15.
  16. ↑ Medical Marijuana Update: California
  17. ↑ People v. Jackson, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1371
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.