Feature:
Raich
Ramifications
--
The
Good,
the
Bad,
and
the
Ugly
6/10/05
But the decision's ramifications are already beginning to reverberate in the nation's political scene. DRCNet spoke this week with some leading reform voices about how the Raich decision will affect the prospects for medical marijuana in four key arenas: California's burgeoning medical marijuana dispensaries, states that have existing medical marijuana laws, state legislatures, and the US Congress. As DRCNet reported last month, communities across California have been moving to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries, whose numbers in the state have mushroomed to around 160 at last count. Some have imposed moratoria on new clubs while they ponder regulations, and some of those localities explicitly said they were waiting for a decision in Raich before they acted. "There is nothing changing in the Bay Area -- Alameda County and San Francisco are moving ahead," said Dale Gieringer, executive director of California NORML. Indeed, Alameda County Wednesday passed an ordinance allowing an additional three dispensaries to set up in addition to the seven already approved by the county. But the county backed away from a proposal to create a dispensary inside a county-run hospital. The Monday Supreme Court decision doomed that idea, said Alameda County Supervisor Gail Steele. "Everyone feels very vulnerable now, but the people of California voted for medical marijuana and we are trying to make this possible," she told the Tri-Valley Heralds. Still, said Gieringer, he does not anticipate a major impact on dispensaries. "There may be some places where people get cold feet or people who don't want medical marijuana in their communities use this as an excuse, but my sense is that if the dispensaries were okay Sunday, they're okay today." "I don't think the co-ops are in any more danger today than before the ruling," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "In the Oakland Cannabis Co-op Case, the court ruled 8-0 that the feds could prosecute them, but they're still there." California medical marijuana proponents will need to do two things, said Gieringer. "First, our job is to make clear that this decision changes nothing; it simply maintains the status quo," he said. "And we need to encourage local officials to stand up for their patients, and that's not always easy and comfortable, but there is no reason a community can't say it supports these establishments, like the city of Santa Cruz did when WAMM was raided." That education process can only be helped by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who moved quickly to reassure patients that little had changed. "Today's ruling does not overturn California law permitting the use of medical marijuana, but it does uphold a federal regulatory scheme that contradicts the will of California voters and limits the right of states to provide appropriate medical care for its citizens," said Lockyer Tuesday. If California medical marijuana patients and dispensaries are not being affected, it is hard to say the same thing about programs in some of the states where medical marijuana is legal. While most media coverage has been clear that the Raich decision did not address the legality of state medical marijuana laws, some state and federal officials are behaving as if it had outlawed them. Some states have followed California's stand-up lead, but officials in two medical marijuana states -- Alaska and Hawaii -- have made remarks suggesting they will target the programs, while in Oregon, the state's medical marijuana program director has ordained a temporary moratorium on the issuance of new patient cards. "Some people with vested interests who oppose the medicinal use of marijuana may be purposely getting the decision wrong," said NORML's Armentano. (See related story this issue for more detail and discussion.) With medical marijuana bills moving or planned in various state legislatures, and with solons in various states referring to fear of conflict with federal law even before the Raich decision, concerns that Raich will have an adverse affect on moves in the states may seen justified, but that hasn't been the case yet. In fact, in the only state legislative action on medical marijuana since the Raich ruling, the Rhode Island Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to approve a medical marijuana bill. (See related story this issue) "At least in some places, we're seeing legislatures who are being defiant instead of being cowed by the decision," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. We already saw a very positive impact in Rhode Island. They responded there by passing a medical marijuana bill by the most lopsided margin ever. We hope to see more of that." "While this didn't seem to have a negative effect in Rhode Island, legislators at the state level who are looking for a convenient excuse to punt on this issue will seize on the Raich decision as further ammunition for arguing against medical marijuana bills," said NORML's Armentano. "But you won't see longstanding, committed proponents of this issue alter their support for medical marijuana because they understand that the state laws have never been challenged by the federal government, and probably won't be." New York Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Saratoga County) is not a longstanding, committed proponent of medical marijuana, but he is a key gatekeeper in the New York legislature. Just weeks ago, Bruno announced he would finally allow a medical marijuana bill to move in New York, but in what could be a troubling sign of things to come, both Bruno and the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Vincent Leibell (R-Putnam County) signaled Tuesday they would abandon the bill. "To enact it, it would seem to me, would put New York residents in harm's way," Leibell told the New York Daily News. "We'd in effect be sanctioning breaking federal law, which we can't do and won't do." Although Leibell is mistaken, he is unlikely to be the last legislator to get Raich wrong, with bad consequences for medical marijuana. One place where the Raich decision may have a positive impact is the US Congress. With Justice Stevens suggesting outright that medical marijuana supporters take their case to Congress, a three-year old effort to block federal law enforcement spending to harass patients and providers in medical marijuana states could gain renewed energy. The Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, set to be introduced next week as part of an appropriations bill, could pick up support because of the decision, said reformers. Last year it had 148 votes, 70 short of the number needed to be approved. "Our informal head count suggests that when Hinchey comes up, we'll probably get more votes than ever before," said MPP's Mirken. "This has energized people, and Justice Stevens' language putting the ball in Congress' court has given this a great impetus. The champagne-popping at the drug czar's office will be brief." "We'll get a good indicator of Raich's impact next week, when Hinchey goes to its third vote," said NORML's Armentano. "I would guess there is now a sense of urgency in Congress now that many of them represent those tens of thousands of people who use marijuana legally under state law, but now need protection from federal prosecution. Congress has a choice, and the Hinchey vote gives it a chance to go on record as supporting the rights of patients instead of waging war on them." "This could be a potential boost for Hinchey," said Bill Piper, national affairs director for the Drug Police Alliance. "The Supreme Court has now said it is up to Congress to protect patients, and every member of Congress has probably read at least one article saying the federal government has the authority to arrest patients, so it's on their minds. In that sense, this is a timely decision." While the odds against passage of Hinchey this year are high, they are not prohibitive, said DPA's Piper. "It will be difficult but not impossible to come up with 70 more votes, which is what we need. What really matters is that we continue to get a strong showing. Even if we pick up only a few votes, that sends a message to the Justice Department that raiding patients can have political consequences."
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
