cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Card Bill Goes To The Governor





Medical Marijuana Card Bill Goes To The Governor
Posted by CN Staff on September 19, 2003 at 08:49:16 PT
By Glenda Anderson, The Daily Journal
Source: Ukiah Daily Journal 
A bill that would make medical marijuana cards available statewide is headed to the governor's desk. Senate Bill 420 also would allow for a minimum of six mature plants, 12 immature plants or a pound of dry marijuana, according to Sue North, the chief of staff for the bill's author, Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-San Jose. The amount of marijuana allowed would be a minimum, not maximum, North said. It will not affect the larger amounts allowed in counties like Mendocino, she said.
"It will have absolutely no impact on what we're doing here at all," said District Attorney Norm Vroman.Currently, the amount of marijuana each of the county's 2,000, or so, medical marijuana card holders are allowed to have at any given time is up to two dry pounds; and/or 25 plants, as long as they're limited to a maximum canopy area of 100 square feet, according to Sheriff Tony Craver.He explained the square footage rule was designed to allow people who are unable to grow big, healthy plants to have more of them.Craver agreed the proposed bill wouldn't change anything for Mendocino County card holders, but it might make it easier for people transporting marijuana over county lines.Some counties, Craver noted, allow as few as three plants, while others have no limits."It's a nightmare. It would be like having a separate speed limit in every county," he said.While the proposed law wouldn't change the vagaries of the county limits, it would force the handful of counties that have yet to implement regulations to do so.Craver called it "a step in the right direction."The way cards are approved and dispensed would remain the same under the bill, but counties would send their data to the state, where it would be centrally available to law enforcement, North said.She said Vasconcellos realizes the bill would have no effect on counties with existing limits higher than the state minimum. It's really geared to deal with the holdout counties where people who legitimately possess marijuana may unnecessarily get arrested and their marijuana confiscated."Law enforcement supports it because they waste tremendous resources hassling people and locking people up," she said. "It's a waste of their time."In addition, a majority of voters made it clear when they approved Proposition 215 they want medical marijuana use legalized, she said.Nevertheless, the Assembly Republican Caucus opposes the bill, calling it "a measure that takes medical marijuana use to extremes by establishing state medical marijuana identification cards. This costly bill would ultimately weaken the enforcement of federal laws that prohibit the manufacture and distribution of marijuana."Complete Title: Statewide Medical Marijuana Card Bill Goes To The GovernorSource: Ukiah Daily Journal (CA)Author: Glenda Anderson, The Daily JournalPublished: Friday, September 19, 2003Copyright: 2003 Ukiah Daily JournalContact: udj pacific.netWebsite: http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by OverwhelmSam on September 20, 2003 at 06:03:57 PT:
That's The Point.
"This costly bill would ultimately weaken the enforcement of federal laws that prohibit the manufacture and distribution of marijuana."Right. The bill will weaken the enforcement of federal laws. That's the point dumbass.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on September 19, 2003 at 17:45:01 PT
It sound better than I heard
There was some anxious email going around saying we had to get it withdrawn because six plants was a statewide maximum.If Sue North says it is a statewide minimum, then I believe her. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by phil_debowl on September 19, 2003 at 12:29:58 PT
Did they change something?
It seems i remember a story on here at some point saying that 420 would set a maximum for all counties? Did they change it to a minimum, or was that a misinterpretation, or is this a misinterpretation?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on September 19, 2003 at 11:44:37 PT
I can name one example
"While the proposed law wouldn't change the vagaries of the county limits, it would force the handful of counties that have yet to implement regulations to do so.
"Such as Los Angeles County, which is quite a handful.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment