Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was a California ballot proposition on the November 5, 1996 ballot regarding medical use of marijuana. It passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

The proposition was a state-wide voter initiative authored by Dennis Peron, Anna Boyce [RN], Valerie Corral (http://wamm.org), Dale Gieringer, William Panzer, Scott Imler, [1], and psychiatrist Tod H. Mikuriya, and approved by California voters. It allows patients with a valid doctor's recommendation, and the patient's designated Primary Caregivers, to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use, and has since been expanded to protect a growing system of collective and cooperative distribution. The Act added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code. This law has caused much conflict in the United States between states' rights advocates and those who support a stronger federal presence.

Yes on 215 Campaign

Proposition 215 was conceived by San Francisco marijuana activist Dennis Peron in memory of his lover, Adam West, who had used marijuana for AIDS. In 1991, Peron organized Proposition P, the San Francisco medical marijuana initiative, which passed with 79% of the vote. Prop P did not have force of law, but was simply a resolution declaring the city's support for medical marijuana. Santa Cruz and other cities followed suit with similar measures endorsing medical use of marijuana. The California legislature went on to approve medical marijuana bills by State Senator Milton Marks and Assemblyman John Vasconcellos, but they were vetoed by Governor Pete Wilson.

Frustrated by the Governor's veto and by the Clinton administration's ongoing refusal to allow medical marijuana, Peron decided to turn to the voters. In 1995, Peron, Gieringer and Imler organized Californians for Compassionate Use, a PAC dedicated to putting medical marijuana on the ballot. Californians for Compassionate Use began a grassroots, volunteer-based petition drive to collect the more than 400,000 signatures required to qualify for the ballot. As the deadline approached and it was becoming clear the unpaid signature gatherers were not on pace to qualify, a group of philanthropists, including George Soros, Peter Lewis, and George Zimmer, stepped in to pay for professional petition circulators through the Santa Monica, CA based political consulting firm of Zimmerman & Markman.[1][2]

The opposition campaign to Proposition 215 included a wide variety of law enforcement, drug prevention groups, and elected officials, including three former Presidents and California Attorney General Dan Lungren. Ballot arguments against the proposition were signed by prominent prosecutors and law enforcement officials who claimed that, while appearing well intentioned, it was an overly vague, bad law that, "allows unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere … in backyards or near schoolyards without any regulation or restrictions," and that it effectively legalized marijuana.

Ballot arguments in support were signed by prominent oncologists, a cancer survivor, a nurse, and two politicians, Assemblyman John Vasconcellos and San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, who wrote that he supported Prop 215 because he didn't "want to send cancer patients to jail for using marijuana."[3]

The lead-up to the election saw a series of media-based attacks attempting to make the Yes on 215 Campaign a referendum on the controversial headquarters for the initiative, Dennis Peron's San Francisco Cannabis Buyer's Club. The very first of what would become more than 400 in the state, the SFCBC was a three-story full service medical marijuana club where qualified patients could in fact obtain marijuana for medical purposes (in various forms and qualities) in a retail setting. Far more than just a safe place for patients to consume, the club was a cultural center for many purposes.

Dennis Peron would describe 1996 as a year when "the stars aligned for medical marijuana." It was a presidential election year with a Democrat incumbent in a heavily Democratic state. The AIDS epidemic in the late 80s and early 90s as well as recent studies regarding relief for chemotherapy patients were opening people's minds to medical marijuana. On top of that, 60-year-old Nurse "Brownie" Mary Rathburn's arrest for bringing a dozen marijuana brownies to the International AIDS conference made headlines garnering sympathy for medical marijuana.

Proposition 215 passed with 55.6% support, setting off a chain reaction across North America of medical marijuana legislation. Canada now has federal medical marijuana legislation, and the issue has been to the floor of the US Congress in the form of the Hinchey-Rohrbacher Amendment, the Truth in Trials Act, and the States Right to Medical Marijuana Act. None of this legislation succeeded in the U.S. Congress, at that time controlled by the Republican Party. [4]

California Senate Bill 420 (colloquially known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act[1]) was a bill introduced by John Vasconcellos of the California State Senate, and subsequently passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis. It clarified the scope and application of California Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and established the Medical Marijuana Program.

Summary

SB 420, which reflects a compromise between patients' advocates and law enforcement, includes controversial state guidelines regarding how much marijuana patients may grow and possess without being subject to arrest. It also requires counties to implement a voluntary patient identification card system and other provisions to protect patients and their caregivers from arrest. The guidelines, which were hotly disputed by California NORML and other patients' advocates, allow patients up to 6 mature or 12 immature plants and up to one-half pound of dried, processed marijuana. Patient advocates had pushed for more liberal guidelines, such as those adopted by Sonoma County, which allow up to 99 plants in a 100-square-foot (9.3 m2) growing area plus 3 pounds of marijuana. The final guidelines were decided in a last-minute legislative deal by Attorney General Lockyer and Sen. Vasconcellos in order to get the bill passed.

Exceptions to Guidelines

In recognition of the fact that the guidelines are inadequate for many very ill patients, SB 420 allows patients to be exempted from them if they obtain a physician’s statement that they need more. In deference to local autonomy, SB 420 also allows counties and cities to establish higher - but not lower - guidelines if they so choose. As a result, the new law will not overturn liberal guidelines that are now in effect in Sonoma and elsewhere. However, it should force more restrictive counties, such as San Bernardino and Fresno, which have heretofore had "zero tolerance" policies, to honor the new statewide minimum standard. Many counties have increased the limits of possession and cultivation since the passage of the law in 2003.

[edit] Voluntary State ID Card System

Identification cards under the new state program are issued by county health departments. There are registration fees to cover the costs of the program, with a 50% discount for Medi-Cal patients. Registrations will be valid for one year. There will be a 24-hour telephone hot-line by which law enforcement can verify the validity of the cards. The system is designed with safeguards to protect patient privacy like the current San Francisco and Oakland ID card system. Police will not be able to identify whether persons are medical marijuana patients by their name or address, but only by a unique identification number appearing on their card. Although some patient advocates have expressed qualms about the privacy of the new identification system, California NORML recommends that patients register to protect themselves from arrest. Similar ID card programs have been in effect in other states for several years, with no reports of abuse.

Abuse was found in Mendocino County California, when then Sheriff Craver required patients to pick up their cards at his sheriffs station. This was where convicted rapists and drug offenders had to get their criminal registration cards. Here, then, the marijuana patients were subjected to abuse by the local law enforcement, as the state Department of Health was not involved with card distribution at that time. Patients, who had been assured that no centralized database would ever be created with their personal information, were themselves witness to that part of SB 420's irregularity.

Persons designated as "primary caregivers" are also be eligible for ID cards. Each patient may designate a single caregiver. Caregivers may receive reasonable compensation for their services. However, cultivation or distribution "for profit" are not authorized. In a quirky provision, SB 420 forbids caregivers from having more than one patient unless all of them reside in the same "city or county" as the caregiver. This means that no one may be a caregiver for both a spouse and a parent if they happen to reside in different counties. California NORML attorneys believe that this is an unconstitutional restriction on Prop 215 and intends to challenge it in court. In 2006, San Diego County was sued for refusing to implement an ID card system as required under SB 420. In response, San Diego County filed a lawsuit against the State of California to overturn Prop. 215 and SB 420. San Diego Superior Court Judge, William R. Nevitt Jr. struck down San Diego's claim in the court's December 6 ruling. San Diego County filed an appeal in the case. The appeal was on August 1, 2008, and was thrown out again on the basis that the Counties did not have the authority to make a case against the state. The Counties do, however, have the right to make an appeal about the statutes in SB 420 that deal with the issuing of identification cards, as this task is placed upon the counties and affects their taxes. San Diego County along with San Bernardino County appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On May 18, 2009 that appeal was denied.[2]

Currently, there are only two counties that submit information anonymously to the state, Santa Cruz[3] and San Francisco[4]. All the other counties submit patient information to the state patient database.

[edit] Other Provisions of SB 420

In other provisions, SB 420:

• Recognizes the right of patients and caregivers to associate collectively or cooperatively to cultivate medical marijuana.
• Disallows marijuana smoking in no smoking zones, within 1,000 feet (300 m) of a school or youth center (except in private residences), on school buses, in a motor vehicle that is being operated, or while operating a boat.
• Protects patients and caregivers from arrest for transportation and other miscellaneous charges not covered in 215.
• Allows probationers, parolees, and prisoners to apply for permission to use medical marijuana; however, such permission may be refused at the discretion of the authorities.
• Makes it a crime to fraudulently provide misinformation to obtain a card, to steal or misuse the card of another, to counterfeit a card, or to breach the confidentiality of patient records in the card program.

[edit] People v. Kelly overturns SB 420 limits

The California District Three Second Appellate Court on May 22, 2008 in the case of People v. Kelly ruled that the plant and processed leaf limits implemented by California Senate Bill 420 were an unconstitutional modification to California's Proposition 215 Compassionate Use Act (CUA). The CUA does not quantify the marijuana a patient may possess. Rather, the only "limit" on how much marijuana a person falling under the Act may possess is it must be for the patient's "personal medical purposes." On July 1, 2008 the California Attorney General filed for a review before the California Supreme Court.[5][6][7]

[edit] People v. Kha

On December 1, 2008, the Supreme Court decided not to hear arguments in People v. Kha, leaving a lower court ruling standing which requires local police officers to enforce state law, not federal law. The case stems from a traffic stop of Felix Kha, who had 8.1 grams of medical marijuana in a container, which the police officers confiscated. The ruling requires police officers to return the seized medicine.[8]

"But it must be remembered it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws as such."[9]

[edit] Cultural Significance

The title of the bill references the marijuana cultural symbol 420 defined by the general pot smoking community.