Passage of California's medical marijuana law in November 1996 was a huge victory, but it is only the legal foundation upon which to construct a system that protects a physician's right to recommend marijuana, honours a patient's right to use it, and provides access that is dignified and affordable.
    The process is still at an embryonic stage, and the struggle to maintain the integrity of the new law is being waged in communities and counties, and defended against assaults launched by top officials of the California and US government.
The same grass-roots organizations that authored and worked to pass the law, have been working to ensure its efficient and humane implementation:
 

• cannabis buyers' clubs are evolving into cannabis cultivators' clubs
• some doctors have been intimidated by federal threats, but others have been moved to become more vocal in their resistance
• a test case is moving laboriously through a confused and intransigent Sonoma County court system
• a bill which proposes, among other things, to authorize medical marijuana research in California, is on its way to the state legislature.

    The San Francisco Buyer's Club (SFBC), which was raided and shut down in 1996, has reopened as the San Francisco Cannabis Cultivators' Club, with the approval of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Garcia.
Dennis Peron, club founder, has launched a campaign to stop CAMP, the state-financed Campaign Against Marijuana Planting. "We canvassed our supporters about what could be done to ensure the availability of cheap and pure marijuana to the patients who need it," said Peron. "The response was overwhelming: stop the helicopter flyovers and seizures of marijuana in the production areas."

    In January, physicians and patients filed a class action suit in federal court against US "drug czar" General Barry McCaffrey, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration Thomas Constantine, Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and US Attorney General Janet Reno.
    Dr Marcus Conant, a San Francisco specialist in AIDS treatment and lead plaintiff said, "The federal government has threatened me and doctors like me with dire consequences for simply discussing medical marijuana with my patients."
An attorney for the plaintiffs, Graham Boyd, said, "Our view is that the federal effort to gag physicians is blatantly unconstitutional. Discussions between a physician and patient about the risks and benefits of medical marijuana constitute protected speech under the First Amendment."

    Government opposition to medical marijuana suffered another substantial blow this January, when the New England Journal of Medicine endorsed medical marijuana, referring to the "striking relief" thousands of patients have obtained and calling the federal government's policy "inhumane."
    A group of San Francisco Bay Area doctors turned the blow into a one-two punch by announcing that same day that 75 studies since 1970 demonstrate the herb's effectiveness.
"They all came to the same conclusion," said Kevin Zeese, attorney and author of the review. "Marijuana is a safe and effective medicine."

    Meanwhile, in Sonoma County, Alan Martinez and Jason Miller are testing the new law. Martinez suffers from epilepsy and used marijuana with his doctor's approval, and Miller is his caregiver. In 1996 Martinez's small plants were seized and he and Miller were arrested. The outcome of their cases may help ease the way for others who qualify, as they apparently do, for the medical marijuana patient and caregiver exemption.
    Martinez's attorney, William Panzer, is confident. He knows the new law well, he helped write it.
"I know Alan is not going to jail for three and one half years," said Panzer, after a February 1997 court appearance, adding that neither should Martinez and Miller be subjected to the stress of numerous court dates, including a trial, in the meantime.
"It's been a grave infringement on our privacy," said Martinez, who doesn't enjoy being the centre of attention. There is also a financial hardship: Martinez lost his job as a result of the arrest, and he still hasn't completely paid an increasingly irate bailbondsman who requires $1,100.
    Yet Martinez is determined: "I could take diversion, but the principle outweighs the diversion plan. I'd be abandoning people who have AIDS and cancer."
    "The purpose of the new law is to take patients out of the criminal system," explained panzer. "The law clearly states that people who qualify Ôare not subject to prosecution.' Only attorneys could argue about what that means."
The Sonoma County District Attorney's office argues that the phrase means the defendant can offer an affirmative defense at trial, and the local judges have gone along with that. Martinez's doctor would be expected to testify in open court-in a county whose sheriff was quoted recently in the press as threatening doctors who recommend marijuana with legal action. An appeal is imminent.

    In early February, California Senator John Vasconcellos announced plans to introduce "The Proposition 215 Implementation Act of 1997" in the state legislature.
Vasconcellos has helped carry the medical marijuana standard before, and he says the bill will:
 

i) require that physicians who recommend medical marijuana be licensed in California
ii) provide procedures for patients who are minors
iii) ensure defendants' right to claim the medical marijuana defense in a pre-trial hearing as well as in any subsequent hearing
iv) require that the University of California establish a Medical Marijuana Research Center and fund it with $2 million per year for three years;
v) create a task force to study medical marijuana distribution options and report to the California legislature.
 

For more info...
- The San Francisco Cannabis Cultivators' Club, 1444 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94102. tel (415) 621-3986; fax (415) 621-0604; cbc@marijuana.org; www.marijuana.org.