GO TO: Sonoma County Free Press Home Page | Columns | Features | SCRAP Index

A Legislative Update on Medical Marijuana by Carol Miller

"It would be good for your community to learn to sing one song, with one voice." -- Rutherford Loneman, Cazadero, 1986

SCRAP has had many calls this spring asking us where they can get copies of the HEMP initiative being circulated for the fall ballot. I've directed their calls to the SRJC Hemp Club, but have found that there's not much support there either for initiative this year. After talking at length with Mike Climo, a former Sonoma State hemp activist who has been working full time with the Citizens for Compassionate Use toward medical legalization, I feel moved to explain to those interested in these issues why the local movement is not supporting the HEMP initiative, and in fact why SCRAP did not give support to the Marks bill which advocated medical legalization.

SCRAP believes that the statewide legalization network needs desperately to consense and focus their limited energies on ONE project, the right one, of course, and that we are doomed to failure until we learn to use consensus toward our common goals. Jack Herer had nearly a consensus against his circulation of yet another HEMP initiative this year. He went ahead and filed anyway, with not a snowballs chance in hell of collecting enough signatures to make the ballot, and less chance of winning the media assault that would follow. HEMP doesn't have enough $, way not, and virtually no support from people in the legalization network, who feel our limited resources need to be focused on the medical issue, or, as NORML feels, directed toward halting the negative legislation in Sacramento such as "Smoke a Joint Loose Your License."

People routinely ask why not support it, anyway? It's educational, so what's the harm in being supportive.? If as a network we used consensus, I would have blocked the filing of the HEMP initiative as a deception, a lie, a waste of our precious energy. If you never take the time and focus to generate the money for the fuel to get to town, what is the point of starting out on the journey over and over again, only to get a few miles down the road. It's not like you get to start where you left off when it turns out you run out of gas. You have to go home and start all over again, and I consider it both stupid and an immoral deception to continually sell people a ride to town when you KNOW it is not possible to get there.

So why, you've asked, is SCRAP not lobbying our supporters to reach their representatives in support of the Marks medical bill? We feel it is another meaningless piece of legislative pap, another waste of the people's time, and a shameful cop out, compared to the legislation that should have been submitted by Willie Brown this session.

You may recall that in October the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors agreed in principle to support medical legalization, but in fact gutted our medical access proposal. After that hearing San Francisco medical legalization activists Dennis Peron and (Brownie) Mary Rathburn spoke with SCRAP and Sheriff Mark Ihde. Mark was expressing compassion and support for the principle of medical access but insisting that we had to deliver to law enforcement legislation that would allow them legally to permit medical use. Dennis proposed to him a legislative idea that he agreed would do what was needed: add to the current health and safety codes which govern possession and cultivation of cannabis ( 11357 and 11358) four magic words, "except for medical use."

Throughout the winter Peron promised us all that Willie Brown was going to submit this legislation, and we were preparing to go to Sacramento to support and win this one. Then at the last minute, Brown decided it was too radical an approach, would never win, so Marks came up with another piece of meaningless legislative sound and fury signifying nothing, and we're supposed to support this.

80% of San Franciscans voted for medical legalization, and didn't get it. In Santa Cruz it was the same. Marin and Sonoma Supervisors sent legislators statements of support for legislation allowing medical access. Even the State Senate and Assembly voted by an 80% majority to support medical legalization, though they've nothing to manifest their fine intensions. Here in Sonoma County a random radio polls by KZST, Channel 50, and KGO came up with 93% and 94% in favor of medical access. KGO sent us a letter remarking that this percentage is most unusual for such a poll, and even more astounding considering the generally conservative trend among their call in polls.

So how does Willie Brown get by saying this can't win? Why is Sacramento acting like it is political suicide to take responsibility for making this work, NOW? People are suffering needlessly year after year and our legislators refuse to take this politically correct issue in hand.

What is needed, if Sacramento refuses to deliver, is for the entire legalization network to support Peron's "Except for medical use" wording and take this to the voters. It's not too early to begin working on an initiative campaign for '96. If Sacramento is motivated by our focus and passes this legislation first, great. But we would be ready if they don't.

How do I know this is the right focus, for us? Because Sheriff Ihde said so. It's simple. It's direct. It doesn't try to legislate how each county will implement access, and that's good. Each county is going to have to work this thing out, anyway. We need law enforcement to be supportive, and we need simplicity when we take this to the streets. Peron is capable of organizing such a campaign, if we support him and insist that the time has come to settle for nothing less ! and agree to focus on this job till it is done.!!!!!

May 1994

GO TO: Sonoma County Free Press Home Page | Columns | Features | SCRAP Index