Marijuana has been causing issues for quite some time now. Laws in the United States involving marijuana usage rights have been debated ever since prohibition first started becoming relevant in the early 1900’s. Today, California exists as one of the most relaxed states in terms of its restrictions on marijuana use, medically and recreationally. Laws have been passed, discarded, and discussed over issues such as having marijuana taxed and sold, simple decriminalization so that users can not be incarcerated, and having marijuana legalized solely for medicinal purposes. By examining California’s state and local marijuana laws, we may be able to determine the direction that the United States may be heading towards in terms of its federal laws and regulations on marijuana.
Beginning with the legality of the cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States, throughout the 16th century the growing of hemp was encouraged by the United States government (1). Eventually cultivation declined and industrial hemp was banned along with the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, despite the fact that industrial hemp typically has well under one percent delta-9-tetrahydrocannbinol content (2). It was not until 2004 that the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) won through an appeal against the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) over protecting the sale of hemp containing foods. At the federal level, United States farmers are not legally allowed to grow industrial hemp despite that it can be imported and sold. In California however, relaxed laws on the cultivation of industrial hemp have started to be put into place. In 1999, House Resolution 32 called for the Legislature to revise the legal status of the growing of industrial hemp in California. It also called for the Legislature to direct the University of California and California State University in conducting studies on the “cultivation, processing, and marketing of industrial hemp.” As of today no studies have gone underway, despite that the resolution was agreed upon by the Legislature (3).
In terms of the decriminalization of marijuana, California has had laws coming in and out of effect since the 1970’s. In April of 1973, law enforcement in Berkeley was forbidden from arresting people for marijuana related crimes unless the arrest had been allowed by the City Council. This was due to the passing of The Marijuana Ordinance I (BMI I). However, this bill was struck down with the court decision on Younger vs. Berkley City Council because city code stated that the City Manager holds discretion over law enforcement officers, rather than City Council (4). In January of 1975, Senate Bill 95 passed, allowing for possession of up to one ounce of non-medicinal marijuana to only carry a $100 fine. However, possession in excess of ounce, cultivation or sale, possession by those under 21, and possession on school grounds can all involve harsher punishments (5). In 1979, Berkley passed The Marijuana Ordinance II (BMI II) as a successor to BMI I. This ordinance made the enforcement of current marijuana laws the lowest law enforcement priority, including cultivation, sale, and transportation. It also stopped the expenditure of funds for enforcement of marijuana statues, gave residents the rights to grow marijuana and report any thefts of their marijuana to police, and called for the City Council to lobby in favor of decriminalization and legalization (4).
After two decades of not passing any new bills involving marijuana decriminalization, California passed Proposition 36 in November of 2000. This effectively allowed for simple, non-violent drug possession offenders to choose drug treatment and probation over incarceration for first and second offenses (6). Also in 2000, Measure G passed in Mendocino County, calling for the repeal of all punishments for non-medical personal marijuana use. This measure was sponsored by the Green Party, who provided protection from law enforcement for possessing up to 25 adult female flowering marijuana plants or the equivalent to this amount in dried marijuana content. This was the first county in the United States to pass such an order (7). In November of 2004, Proposition Z was passed in Oakland. This called for personal use by adults, distribution, sale, and cultivation of non-medicinal marijuana to become the lowest law enforcement priorities. If California law is amended, this proposition will also allow for licensing, taxing, and regulation of marijuana sales. The proposition even calls for the city of Oakland to advocate to the state of California to adopt these laws on the taxing of marijuana (8).
Several measures involving the making of marijuana offenses the lowest law enforcement priority passed as a result of the November 2006 elections in California. In Santa Barbara, Measure P passed making for non-medical marijuana crimes to become the lowest law enforcement priority. This measure does not apply to incidents involving cultivation, distribution, sale, public use, or driving while under the influence (9). In Santa Cruz, Measure K also called for marijuana to be the lowest priority for law enforcement. The measure does not apply to cultivation, distribution, sale in public, sale to minors, or driving while under the influence. The measure also calls for the Santa Cruz city clerk to annually send letters advocating the reform of marijuana laws to state and federal representatives (10). In Santa Monica, Measure Y was passed, also calling for marijuana to become the lowest law enforcement priority. The city clerk is also to advocate to state and federal authorities to adopt similar laws (11). In San Francisco, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance making adult marijuana crimes the lowest law enforcement priority. In this case, it does not apply to sale in a public place or driving while under the influence. The ordinance also called for the San Francisco government to advise state and federal authorities to enact similar laws (12). In West Hollywood, the City Council passed a resolution that made West Hollywood the first Southern California city to call for non-medical marijuana offenses to become the lowest law enforcement priority (13).
California has also very reformed laws on the legality and cultivation of medicinal marijuana. In the November 1995 elections, Proposition 215 passed. It removed all punishments on the state level for the possession and cultivation of medicinal marijuana for patients with a written or oral recommendation from their doctor. Illnesses that typically grant marijuana use are those such as arthritis, cancer, and HIV or AIDS, as well as several others that deal with problems such as pain, nausea, spasms, glaucoma, and movement disorders. This proposition did not set any limits regarding the amount that a patient may possess or cultivate (14).
Guidelines to Proposition 215 were eventually adopted with Senate Bill 420, which was passed in October of 2003. This bill allows for qualified patients and/or their primary caregivers to possess up to eight ounces of dried marijuana and/or six mature or twelve immature live marijuana plants. Hashish and marijuana edibles are also allowed, as well as transportation by some courts. For patients that require larger quantities, they can be allowed but require recommendation for that amount by a physician. By the legislation, counties and municipalities were also allowed to approve and maintain any local ordinances on patients possessing quantities that exceed the new state guidelines. Senate Bill 420 also provides for legal protection from the state to all state medicinal marijuana dispensaries for patients and their caregivers who appropriately cooperate with the laws in obtaining their medicinal marijuana. Lastly, the bill also called for the California Department of State Health Services to create a medicinal marijuana patient registry as well as issuing identification cards to patients. However, this registry has yet to have been created. Some supporters of the original Proposition 215 have disputed the legality of the limitations that Senate Bill 420 imposed because they believe that the bill cannot limit the amount a legal patient may have by the constitution (14).
In terms of specific cities and counties, various ordinances and regulations have been made in addition to the state laws. In Arcata, an ID system is regulated by the chief of police and legal patients can hold ten live plants. In Berkley, patients can hold up to ten plants and 2.5 pounds. In Oakland, 72 indoor plants with 32 square feet of canopy are allowed for patients. San Diego’s ordinances are still in development, but currently patients may have one pound and up to 24 plants. Caregivers can have double this amount for up to four patients. In San Jose and Santa Cruz, additional guidelines have not been passed. Both Santa Rosa and Sebastopol follow their local county laws. All of California’s 58 counties also have their own ordinances, though typically they follow along with the format of six mature plants or twelve immature plants or eight ounces dried marijuana for legal patients. Several vary on this ordinance, but for the majority of the counties it is the same ruling. A common addition to these ordinances is the amount of square feet in which a legal patient or caregiver can cultivate their medicinal marijuana (15).
Previous to Proposition 215, a series of studies involving medicinal marijuana was conducted in California throughout the 1980’s. The study’s conclusion was that smoked marijuana was much more effective in treating illnesses compared to the oral THC. Other states conducted similar studies as well, so it is only safe to assume that they contributed to the eventual reforming of California’s medicinal marijuana laws (16). It should be noted that despite California has many relaxed state and local regulations on recreational and medicinal use of marijuana, the federal law remains the same. Marijuana was placed as a Schedule I drug by the Controlled Substances Act, meaning that it has a high potential for abuse and addiction as well as having no accepted medical use. Because of this, a recreational marijuana user in California may still be prosecuted by federal law, despite that state and local laws may say otherwise. As for medical usage, the United States federal government has approved medicinal marijuana use for a total of seven people while any others are specifically by state governments (17).
In summary, California has passed ordinances and regulations on the decriminalization of marijuana that can vary from city to city and from county to county. There is also some statewide decriminalization for certain things. Despite this, the United States federal law has remained the same so recreational marijuana use or possession can still technically be punished by incarceration if the federal government takes interest in the issue. In addition to the decriminalization, California has passed statewide regulations on the cultivation and use of medicinal marijuana for approved patients and their caregivers despite that, on the federal level, only seven people have legally received medical marijuana. Individual cities and counties in California also have their own ordinances on cultivation and use of medicinal marijuana in addition to their individual regulations on the decriminalization of marijuana. Because California has become one of the forerunners of enacting regulations that protect recreational and medicinal marijuana users from many forms of punishment, it may be likely that the rest of the United States will also be heading in this direction. Considering that around 21 states have already begun to change their marijuana laws in favor of users, it is very possible that the rest of America will follow. Obviously there exists an issue with marijuana legalization that probably will not be solved for some time.
Works Cited
(1) "Busted - America's War On Marijuana." PBS Frontline. 5 Dec 2007 (2) "The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937." Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 5 Dec 2007 (3) "California - Laws Authorizing Commercial Hemp Cultivation." NORML. 5 Dec 2007 (4) Suzanne La Barre. "Legal Limbo for Pot Users?" Berkeley Daily Planet. 31 March 2006. 5 Dec 2007 < http://www.berkeleydaily.org/article.cfm?archiveDate=03-31-06&storyID=23788>
(5) State by State Laws: California. NORML. 2006. 5 Dec 2007
(6) About Prop 36. Prop36.org. 5 Dec 2007 < http://www.prop36.org/about.html>
(7) Mendocino Votes on Growth Industry Though largely symbolic, Measure G would `legalize' small marijuana farms. San Francisco Chronicle. 5 Dec 2007 < http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/10/30/MN8016.DTL>
(8) Measure Z: Marijuana Law Enforcement - Alameda County, CA. Smart Voter. 5 Dec 2007
http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/alm/meas/Z/
(9) Directory of Santa Barbara County, CA Measures. Smart Voter. 5 Dec 2007 http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/sba/meas/
(10) Measure K - Lowest Law Enforcement Priority Initiative: FAQ. Santa Cruz Ciitizens or Sensible Marijuana Policy. 6 Dec 2007 http://www.sensiblesantacruz.org/initiative.htm
(11) Marijuana: San Francisco Supervisors Approve Lowest Law Enforcement Priority Policy. StopTheDrugWar.com (DRCNet). 6 Dec 2007 http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/462/san_francisco_passes_lowest_priority_marijuana_initiative
(12) Measure Y: Lowest Enforcement Priority for Adult, Personal Use of Marijuana - Los Angeles County, CA. Voter. 6 Dec 2007 http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/la/meas/Y
(13) Marijuana: West Hollywood Passes "Lowest Priority" Resolution. StopTheDrugWar.com (DRCNet). 6 Dec 2007 http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/441/westhollywood.shtml
(14) Komer, Mark. "California Laws, Part 1." NORML. 6 Dec 2007. 6 Dec 2007 (15) "California Medical Marijuana Guidelines." Safe Access Now. 6 Dec 2007 (16) "Cannabis Therapeutic Research Center." Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 6 Dec 2007 (17) "Controlled Substances Act." DEA. 6 Dec 2007
Links
