Will Prop 19 hurt medical users?

Posted on September 24th, 2010 by Global Ganja Report and tagged , , , , .

CaliforniaIn a joint hearing of the Senate and Assembly Committees on Public Safety in Sacramento Sept. 21, proponents and opponents weighed in on California's Proposition 19. In the latter category was, surprisingly, the California Cannabis Association, an alliance of medical users which has launched a website called Keep Cannabis Medical. "Proposition 19 is a direct assault on medical marijuana patients," Cap Radio quoted George Mull, the group's president. "Prop 19 is deeply flawed, and creates a chaotic, local, 'you figure it out' approach to marijuana regulation. That won't work."

The Yes on 19 campaign, of course, disagrees. "Proposition 19 is actually going to further clarify that sales of medical cannabis are legal in this state," said Dale Sky Jones of the Yes campaign. "The intent of our law is to protect medical cannabis patients and their rights." 

David Borden of StoptheDrugWar.org writes on Huffington Post that that California Cannabis Associaiton's claim "is completely false." He quotes an analysis by attorney J. David Nick which appeared on the blog Weedtracker:

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.

Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction...

 [C]ourts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.





Who's new

  • Baba Israel
  • Karr Young
  • John Veit
  • YosephLeib
  • Peter Gorman