California: “COMPASSIONATE AND SENSIBLE ACCESS ACT”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CALIFORNIA PATIENTS FILE THE “COMPASSIONATE AND SENSIBLE ACCESS ACT”AS A STATEWIDE CONSTITUTIONAL INITIATIVE

Sacramento, California

Washington State and Colorado have failed to provide protection for people who use cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Corporate greed has brought new players into the legalization movement. These people seek to corner the marijuana distribution market by eliminating competition and access to increase their profit.

These people seek to continue the high profits of Prohibition by the continued criminalization and attacks against people who choose to use cannabis for medicinal purposes.

This initiative will protect patients and their doctors. Members and leaders of The California Cannabis Coalition, Yuba County ASA, Orange County Norml, Crusaders for Patient’s Rights along with several statewide activists are sponsoring.

TEXT

INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTERS

Title: The Compassionate and Sensible Access Act

Findings and Declarations

The People of the State of California, through the passage of the Compassionate Use Act, recognize that cannabis in all forms, including but not limited to its flowers, leaves, and derivatives and concentrates thereof, is an alternative medicinal treatment.

Since the passage of the Compassionate Use Act, more and more evidence supports the People’s conclusion that cannabis is a valuable medicinal herb.

Despite this evidence and the People’s desire to make access to cannabis safe and affordable to anyone it may help, many local jurisdictions have sought to pass regulations and restrictions effectively denying such safe and affordable access.

Therefore, We the People propose this Compassionate and Sensible Access Act be added to the Constitution of the State of California:

Cannabis is a legitimate, alternative medicinal treatment. Therefore:

(1) No state or local agency or body shall adopt a law that burdens in any way the ability of doctors to recommend cannabis for medicinal and/or therapeutic purposes, unless said law applies such burden equally to the recommendation of other herbal or therapeutic treatments.

(2) No state or local agency or body shall pass any law which impedes a patient’s ability to obtain or cultivate cannabis in any manner that is consistent with the other flora cultivation and business in said jurisdiction.

(3) No state or local agency or body shall enact any legislation that impedes a patient’s ability to obtain, transport or cultivate cannabis, so long as the method of obtaining, cultivating or transporting cannabis is consistent with the business practices and/or cultivation practices of other flora in said jurisdiction.

(4) No state or local agency or body shall adopt laws that create non-competitive marketplaces for medical cannabis and its derivatives.

Definitions

For the purposes of this act, cannabis is defined as (a) a genus of flowering plants that includes three different species, Cannabis sativa, Cannabis indica and Cannabis ruderalis, (b) any member of such genus, and (c) any part or any derivative of such plant or plants.

This section shall be interpreted liberally to effect the purposes set forth herein.

www.californiacannabiscoalition.org

Federal Judge Weighs Marijuana’s Classification

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Jan 12, 2015, 1:39 PM ET

Associated Press

A federal judge in California is weighing the constitutionality of a 45-year-old act that classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug along with LSD, cocaine and heroin.

U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller in Sacramento held a five-day fact-finding hearing on the classification question late last year, and final arguments are scheduled for next month, the Los Angeles Times reported Monday. Her ruling is expected later this year.

The case marks the first time in decades that a judge has agreed to consider marijuana’s designation as a Schedule 1 drug under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the newspaper said. Under the act, Schedule 1 drugs have no medicinal purpose, are unsafe even under medical supervision and contain a high potential for abuse.

Mueller’s decision to hold the hearing came in response to a pretrial defense motion in a federal case against alleged marijuana growers. Prosecutors unsuccessfully opposed the fact-finding effort.

A ruling against federal cannabis law would apply only to the defendants in the case and almost certainly would be appealed, the newspaper said. If the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined the law was unconstitutional, all the Western states would be affected.

Attorneys for the defendants have argued that the federal marijuana law violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. They contend the government enforces marijuana law unevenly ? allowing distribution of cannabis in states where it is legal and cracking down elsewhere.

The prosecution countered that Congress legally placed pot in Schedule 1.

Zenia K. Gilg, a lawyer for the growers, told the Times that scientific understanding and public acceptance of marijuana have grown substantially since courts last examined the federal classification. She cited the November election, when voters in Alaska and Oregon decided to join Colorado and Washington in making cannabis legal for recreational use. Most states already provide some legal protection for its use as medicine.

Prosecutors said in a brief filed Jan. 7 that the evidence presented in the hearing at most “established that there is some dispute among doctors as to whether marijuana is medicine.”

———

Information from: Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/