420Lawyer.com - California Business and Corporate Representatin for Prop 215 Collectives, Dispensaries, Patients and Growers
  BUSINESS LAW SECTION

CRIMINAL LAW SECTION

 

State Medical 
Marijuana Laws

California State Laws

Proposition 215 
Senate Bill 420
  Cal Norml's Co-Op Suggestions
  May, 2006 ABA Article

 

 

Proposition 215 / HSC §11362.5, et. seq.

Proposition 215 (HS 11362.5) was passed in 1996 by a 56% majority of California voters in November 1996. That is more California votes than Presidents Clinton, Bush or most other elected official have received.


Text of California’s Proposition 215

(CA Health & Safety Code 11362.5)

The Compassionate Use Act of 1996

California ’s ‘Medical Marijuana’ Law


This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.

This initiative measure adds a section to the Health and Safety Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

=====================

THE LAW:

---------------

SECTION 1. Section 11362.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, reads:



    11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.  

   (b)(1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:  

   (A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.  

   (B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.  

   (C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.  

   (2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes.  

   (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.  

   (d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.  

   (e) For the purposes of this section, ''primary caregiver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.

SEC. 2. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM:

The State of California, along with over a dozen others, have implemented medical marijuana programs for people with certain conditions that the use of cannabis has been proven to be not only effective, but in some cases, more effective then over the counter or prescription medications.  The Federal government does not recognize these State initiatives and measures as valid under Federal Law.  Therefore, marijuana of any form, medical or not, is illegal under Federal Law.

This was decided in the Raich case that so many people refer to.   The true meaning of that case is that the Federal Government can still arrest those who are in possession of marijuana, but the Court did not invalidate the California Law.  Could they have?  Certainly, they could have said the Federal Law pre-empts the State Law, but they did not.  What does this mean?  That both are controlling?  Yes, it does.  But, the general rule is that a State Law is valid where it does not try to rule over an area pre-empted by Federal Law (ie Interstate Commerce or FCC Laws) and where it is not in direct conflict with a Federal Law.  Do they conflict?  Not directly.  The Controlled Substance Act does have a medical carve out for Class I Controlled substances, of which marijuana is included.  The US Attorney General has the authority to allow not only patients to use Class I substances, but also to allow there to be vendors of such substances.  Interestingly, Class I Controlled Substances, by definition, have no medical use and a high probability for abuse.  Then why the carve out?  Is the Controlled Substance Act flawed in its own creation?  

MORE RAMBLINGS TO COME...STAY TUNED
SAME BAT-TIME
SAME BAT-CHANNEL 

 

The How To's

1.

Create a Business Plan
  (See Why We Offer More)

2.

Find a Location
  (We Can Help with Difficult Landlords)

3.

Funding
  (We have experienced CPA's to work with)

 


The420Lawyer@aol.com

 

   
           

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

Pot-Laws.com : Laws and How To's in Opening Your Own Co-Op

Home Business Plan Location Funding Legal Help

 

Welcome to the 420 Highway - An Online Road Map for California Medical Marijuana / Medical Cannabis Patients

 

Copyright 2006-2008

Another eWebNation Creation

eXTReMe Tracker