[WHAB]

County OKs ID card system for medical marijuana users

By ALEJANDRO CANO
Published: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:58 AM CDT

For the last three years, Maria de la Luz Madrigal has suffered from severe rheumatoid arthritis, so severe that pain and swelling in the joints has complicated her everyday life.

“Even dressing up hurts,” said Madrigal. “The pain medicine works, but I run the risk of damaging my kidneys.”

Madrigal, 54, is one of 31 million Americans who suffer from some type of arthritis which limits movement. Most receive medical treatment through doctors, but some self-medicate, using marijuana as the last resource for various reasons.

Until recently, patients that see marijuana as the “best medicine” available were subject to arrest and faced criminal charges punishable with jail. But last week, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors ended a three-year-old battle by approving an identification card system for medical marijuana users.

The decision came after the U.S. Supreme Court on May 18 rejected the county’s appeal based on the argument that federal law outlaws marijuana possession and use under any circumstance, which is in direct conflict with state law that allows persons to grow, use and possess marijuana in limited quantities in certain regions.

Now, patients can start receiving their IDs within 45 days after a rigorous background check, officials said. Patients will have to fill out an application with the proper documentation at the Public Health Department. From there, the information will be transferred to the state for a final review.

Some opponents of IDs for marijuana patients argue that officers would have a dilemma when trying to enforce the law.

Frank Marino, a youth outreach volunteer with the Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition, said that the “county simply ran out of options” and that they were able to keep pot cards out for a very long time “and for that, the communities are grateful.”

“The county’s decision to now issue pot ID cards in no way forces the countless inland empire cities to allow for pot shops. These cities have already banned dispensaries and although the pro-pot groups will protest at cities to allow for pot shops, cities are bound by the law and may not authorize the operation of dispensaries, or even cooperatives or collectives, for the purpose of cultivating or distributing marijuana for medical purposes,” said Marino.

“Since distribution of marijuana violates federal law, whether in a dispensary, cooperative or collective, passing a zoning ordinance which, for example, only allows such operations to be conducted in the industrial or commercial zone of a city, would still be in violation of the laws of the United States and, therefore, prohibited under G.C. 37100,” he said.

However, medical marijuana advocates see the announcement as a great victory.

“We are happy with the decision, but frustrated that it took so long and it cost taxpayers so much money. The lives of patients will be so much simpler and safer now,” said Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Washington D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). “There will be no reason to get arrested if a person verifies that he or she is a marijuana medical user. Voters approved this in 1996, but counties such as San Bernardino frivolously spent money before enforcing the law.”

In fact, in 1996 California voters approved Proposition 215, which allowed people to obtain marijuana for medical purposes with a physician’s approval. That led to a 2003 Legislature decision to provide legal guidance to medical marijuana users and dispensaries opening under Senate Bill 420.

However, Marino argued that California voters “were fooled” into thinking that the law only applied to terminal ill patients.

“We have learned otherwise, as anybody can get pot for any condition, whatsoever, including hair loss, itchy skin, depression or whatever,” said Marino. “We are finding lots of kids getting pot from dispensaries and selling it to other kids. In Los Angeles alone, there are more than 600 pot stores, sometimes four at an intersection. They don’t have that many Starbucks in Los Angeles.”

Proponents of medical marijuana usage have pointed to some medical studies indicating that cannabis can be used to treat a wide range of diseases and muscle-skeletal disorders and that it has been used in Western medicine since the 1700s.

But opponents of medical marijuana say other studies show that marijuana is generally not effective at reducing pain.

Worldwide, the use of cannabis is legal in a limited number of territories, including Canada, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain, Israel, Finland and Portugal. In the United States, states that have recognized medical marijuana include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Madrigal can’t wait to receive her identification that qualifies her as a legal marijuana user.

“I have done my homework and I know it works, regardless of what pharmaceutical firms or coalitions tell me,” said Madrigal.

https://www.fontanaheraldnews.com/art...1051526547.txt

Congratulations San Berdoo!!!, California!!! And, Ms Madrigal :

Take care all ,
WHAB

Frank Marino, a youth outreach volunteer with the Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition, said that the “county simply ran out of options” and that they were able to keep pot cards out for a very long time “and for that, the communities are grateful.”

What an ass.

“Since distribution of marijuana violates federal law, whether in a dispensary, cooperative or collective, passing a zoning ordinance which, for example, only allows such operations to be conducted in the industrial or commercial zone of a city, would still be in violation of the laws of the United States and, therefore, prohibited under G.C. 37100,” he said.

Incorrect.

Distribution of MJ for "recreational" use would still be illegal under fed law but in essence the SCOTUS said that a state can have a law that allows for the distribution of MJ for "medical" purposes.

[ourcee]

patients can start receiving their IDs within 45 days after a rigorous background check, officials said.

so a someone with a criminal record cant have a medical dilemma? I swear it is literally like trying to take away a toy from a little bratty child (regarding LEO and delaying access) The laws have been voted in for years, they keep getting more and more clarified. every time it gets "cleared up" i.e. SB 420, Jerry Browns guideline/memo, Atty. Gen. Holders statement of revision of DEA policy regarding raiding of MMJ collectives and co-op's, every time it gets "clearer" these two places, San Bernadino and San Diego, find SOME way to make it more complicated then it needs to be.

heres a new one for followers of the movement in Cali and the shady shit that our city councils are slinging our way.

https://www.malibutimes.com/articles/...news/news2.txt

seriously. wtf is that.

[WHAB]

Originally Posted by ourcee

so a someone with a criminal record cant have a medical dilemma? I swear it is literally like trying to take away a toy from a little bratty child (regarding LEO and delaying access) The laws have been voted in for years, they keep getting more and more clarified. every time it gets "cleared up" i.e. SB 420, Jerry Browns guideline/memo, Atty. Gen. Holders statement of revision of DEA policy regarding raiding of MMJ collectives and co-op's, every time it gets "clearer" these two places, San Bernadino and San Diego, find SOME way to make it more complicated then it needs to be.

seriously. wtf is that.

'Might' you be reading something into it that really isn't there? Can you show us where what you said is, in fact, based in the law?

Your post prompted me to do a quick search.

I did find this (I did not go find the actual section. I'll accept on its face that it is accurate)...

PHD may deny an application because 1) applicant did not provide all the required information, 2) PHD determined some of the submitted information was false, or 3) the applicant did not meet the required criteria: Health and Safety Code: Section 11362.74 (a)

I also found the qualifying conditions for acceptance into the program and none of them were 'Free from their past'

Can you clear up this discrepancy in what I find and what you said?

Bruce Mirken seems to be quite pleased with the effort...

However, medical marijuana advocates see the announcement as a great victory.

“We are happy with the decision~Bruce Mirken

Is he indicating premature glee?

Am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say?

Take care, ourcee ,
WHAB

[ourcee]

Originally Posted by WHAB

'Might' you be reading something into it that really isn't there? Can you show us where what you said is, in fact, based in the law?

I'm reading into San Bernadino and San Diego counties making it more complicated than it needs to be. They were the only two counties to take the medical card issuance discrepancy to the supreme court. why? because they didnt want to issue cards (as they were mandated to do so by state law) because "that would be promoting medical marijuana" (paraphrasing).

a law is the law whether someone likes it or not, even if an entire city doesnt like it. the only problem with this is that the people in legal power in SD and SBernadino counties have been very anti MMJ for quite some time. doesnt matter, they need to follow the law just like I do.

I also found the qualifying conditions for acceptance into the program and none of them were 'Free from their past'

huh?

However, medical marijuana advocates see the announcement as a great victory.

“We are happy with the decision~Bruce Mirken

Is he indicating premature glee?

the supreme court basically forcing SD and SB counties to implement this IS a huge victory for MMJ advocates, it just shouldnt have had to been forced is all I was gettin at really.

This is a simple thing, prop 215, with simple numbers and guidelines, there is only a gray area because of city councils and counties doing things like take it to the supreme court and whine instead of just follow the rules.

long story short, yes this is a good thing they are issuing cards, I was just griping about the fact that it shouldn't have had to get to this point to have it resolved.







barely related side tangent: so since SD taking up the legal expertise and going from court to court to fight this LAW that was voted in, would that be considered wasteful tax dollars being spent? (believe me, they aint paying for it out of THEIR pocket) i.e. another reason California is in the shitter financially? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars were practically burned up fighting this? On the flipside, if they just followed the law and issued the cards as they were supposed to, we would probably have a healthier MMJ scene, thus raising tax revenues even more, all while avoiding the money vortex that is lawyers.

time for a bowl

[WHAB]

I guess I did misunderstand your post.

so a someone with a criminal record cant have a medical dilemma?

So, you're saying you weren't questioning ones criminal record as a reason for their inability to obtain a card?

Take care,
WHAB

[ourcee]

Originally Posted by WHAB

I guess I did misunderstand your post.

so a someone with a criminal record cant have a medical dilemma?

So, you're saying you weren't questioning ones criminal record as a reason for their inability to obtain a card?

Take care,
WHAB

no I'm saying that in a news article, it says that a "rigorous background check" will be done, not that a "rigorous background check" basically entails asking determining the answer to one question, "did they lie?"

the terminology in the news story could have been better. My bad on coming off edgy about it.

I just wouldn't be surprised if they DID do that type of "rigorous background check" and find some new way to interfere and slow access. hence my dismay towards the actions of SD and SB counties and pardon me for being slow to believe their intentions are all of a sudden benign.