California Senate Bill 420

California Senate Bill 420 (co-lloquially known as the Medical-Marijuana-Program-Act) was a bill introduced by John Vasconcellos of the California State Senate, and sub-sequently passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis "pursuant to the powers and rights reserved by the State of California and its people under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." 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 number is notable because "420" is an un-common phrase used in cannabis culture.

Summary

The bill specifically:

• "demonstrates that more information is needed to assess the number of individuals across the state who are suffering from serious medical conditions that are not being adequately alleviated through the use of conventional medications"
• "require[s] the State Department of Health Services to establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients and would establish procedures under which a qualified patient with an identification card may use marijuana for medical purposes"
• "creates various crimes related to the identification card program"
• "authorize[s] the Attorney General to set forth and clarify details concerning possession and cultivation limits, and other regulations, as specified"
• "authorize[s] the Attorney General to recommend modifications to the possession or cultivation limits set forth in the bill" and "require[s] the Attorney General to develop and adopt guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana grown for medical use"

In enacting the bill it was the intent of the legislature to:

• "clarify the scope of the application of the act and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution of these individuals and provide needed guidance to law enforcement officers"
• "promote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state"
• "enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects"
• "address additional issues that were not included within the act, and that must be resolved in order to promote the fair and orderly implementation of the act"

The bill reflects a compromise between patients' advocates and law enforcement. 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. Patient advocates had pushed for more liberal guidelines, such as those adopted by Sonoma County, which allow up to 99 plants in a 100-square-foot (9.3 m²) growing area plus 3 pounds of marijuana. 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.

                                    **Limits-Possession**
 In re-cognition of the fact that the guide-lines are in-adequate for many sick patients, SB 420 allowed many patients to be exempted from the guide-lines if they obtained a physician’s letter that they needed it. In de-ference to local autonomy, SB 420 also allowed counties and cities to establish higher, but not lower, guide-lines if they so desired. As a result, the new law did not over-turn guide-lines that are in existence in Sonoma County and else-where. How-ever, it forces more re-strictive counties, for example, San Bernardino, Fresno, and others, to have here-to-fore "zero tolerance" policies, and to not re-spect the state-wide Bill. Many counties increased the limits re-garding possession, use, and cultivation of cannabis, (some-times re-ferred to as marijuana, marihuana, or "pot"). With the passage of the law, in 2003, Senate Bill Four-Hundred-Twenty(420), specifically allowed cannabis co-operatives and exempted care-givers from criminal penalties, effectively de-criminalizing cannabis-medicinals, sometimes re-ferred to and called "Medical-Marijuana".

Voluntary State ID Card System

Identification cards under the new state program are issued by county health departments. There are registration fees to cover the costs of the program, with a 50% discount for Medi-Cal patients. Registrations will be valid for one year. There will be a 24-hour telephone hot-line by which law enforcement can verify the validity of the cards. The system is designed with safeguards to protect patient privacy like the current San Francisco and Oakland ID card system. Police will not be able to identify whether persons are medical marijuana patients by their name or address, but only by a unique identification number appearing on their 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. Similar ID card programs have been in effect in other states for several years, with no reports of abuse.

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.

Persons designated as "primary caregivers" are also eligible for ID cards. Each patient may designate a single caregiver. Caregivers may receive reasonable compensation for their services. However, cultivation or distribution "for profit" are not authorized. 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.

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

• • Bill-Senate-420-Provisions-Other**

In other provisions, SB 420; -- Recognizes the right of patients and caregivers to associate collectively or co-operatively to cultivate medical marijuana. -- Dis-allows marijuana smoking in "no-smoking-zones", with-in Template:Con-vert of a school or youth center (except in private residences), on school buses, in a motor vehicle that is operating, or in a boat while the boat is operating. -- Protects patients and caregivers from arrest, for example while transporting cannabis or while dis-pensing cannabis. This does not include other mis-cellaneous actions not covered in 215. -- Allows probationees, parolees, and prisonees to apply for permission to use medical marijuana; however, such permissions may be re-fused at the discretion of the state. -- Makes it a crime to fraudulently provide mis-information and dis-information to obtain a pre-scription, to steal or misuse a pre-scription, or to forge a pre-scription. Breaching confidentiality of patient records is punishable by ...[citation needed].

People v. Kelly

Con-cerning limits on possession created by the bill, the California Supreme Court decision People v. Kelly decided multiple issues. First, it re-iterated that "un-like [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 [citation], the [Medical Marijuana Program]'s identification card system is designed to protect against un-necessary arrest." Secondly, it agreed with both Kelly and the California Attorney General that the limits were an "un-constitutionally amendatory in-so-far as it limits an in-court CUA defense" but by providing more rights, not less, the section con-cerning 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."

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.

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

Something about "festival(e)s"?!

See also

• Drug policy of California
• Legal history of marijuana in the United States
• Medical cannabis
• Proposition 215
• Valerie Corral
• 420 (cannabis culture)

External links

• Official California Legislative Information relating to SB 420 in the 2003/2004 session
• Ukiah Daily Journal
• Americans for Safe Access
• http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/revpub/B195624.PDF