ROUNDUP

CALIFORNIA LITIGATION BEGINS WITH CONANT V. MCCAFFREY
On Jan. 14, a group of San Francisco-area doctors and patients filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court to challenge the Clinton administration's threatened crackdown on doctors who recommend marijuana to patients. The plaintiffs in Conant v. McCaffrey argued that the government policy violates physicians' First Amendment right to discuss any treatment with their patients.

On Feb. 27, the Clinton administration sent a letter to medical associations conceding the plaintiffs First Amendment argument, stating, "nothing in federal law prevented a physician, in the context of the legitimate doctor-patient relationship, from merely discussing with a patient the risks and alleged benefits of the use of marijuana to relieve pain or alleviate symptoms." The letter continued, "such discussions, however, have,their limits'. Physicians may not intentionally provide their patients with oral or written statements in order to enable them to obtain controlled substances in violation of federal law." The letter concluded by calling for more research on medical marijuana and left the door open to moving marijuana to Schedule II "when there is adequate scientific evidence."

The next day, the plaintiffs declared victory at a news conference, stating, "the government retreated from its hard-line stance forbidding any discussion of medical marijuana by physicians" in the wake of pressure from their lawsuit.

However, on March 6, a second group of physicians, health organizations, and patients filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs in Pearson v. McCaffrey argue that the federal policy prohibiting physicians from recommending marijuana and patients from possessing or cultivating marijuana in accordance with state law violates not orily the First Amendment, but also the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the Interstate Commerce Clause as well (see "Prop. 215 Test Case: Round II," p. 33).

Meanwhile, attempted settlement meetings in the Conant case failed and, on April 30, Judge Fern Smith granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction while the parties prepare for the trial. The injunction stops the Clinton administration from punishing doctors while the case is before the court. If plaintiffs are victorious, the injunction becomes permanent.

The lead attorneys for the plaintiffs in Conant v. McCaffrey are Lowell Finley of San Francisco's Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Berzon 8c Rubin law firm, and Ann Brick of the American Civil Liberties Union.

SAN FRANOSCO BUYERS' CLUB REOPENS

The San Francisco Cannabis Buyers' Club, now known as the Cannabis Cultivators' Club, reopened its doors on Jan. 15 after being shut down on Aug. 4 by California state law enforcement officials.

CCC's reopening follows a Jan. 8 San Francisco Superior Court's order to allow medical marijuana sales to patients under the provisions of Proposition 215. Judge David Garcia modified the August injunction in compliance with the November initiative which permits marijuana's medicinal use. In addition, the ruling has paved the way for eight newly organized buyers' clubs to open in the San Francisco Bay area.
The California State's Attorney General Dan Lungren's office suggested that his office will examine the initiative thoroughly as it pertains to buyers' clubs. Lungren said in February, "If you t,hink California law enforcement is going to spend time and money running down 79-year-old cancer patients, then you don't know what we do here [in the state's Attorney General's Office] . We don't spend our resources that way."

STATE LEGISLATORS LOOK AT RANGE OF MARIJUANA LEGISLATION
•    California Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-San Jose) introduced S.B. 535 to establish a $6 million Medical Marijuana Research Center at the Univer-
sity of California. The bill would also establish a task force to propose a safe and effective legal distribution system for medical marijuana, and ensure that thôse charged with marijuana offenses have the right to a pretrial hearing to present their medical claims. By April 15, two senate committees had supported the bill.
•    In New Hampshire, Rep. Tim Robertson (D-Cheshire) and four cosponsors introduced a marijuana decriminalization bill on Jan. 8. House Bill 118-FN would, if enacted, lessen the penalty for possession of less than 1.5 ounces of marijuana from a Class A misdemeanor (punishable by a one-year jail term and/or a $1,000 fine) to a violation (punishable only by a small fine).
•    On Jan. 22, the Massachusetts Department of Health issued regulations to create a legal defense for patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes. This defense can only be used by patients who are in the state's medical marijuana therapeutic research program, which certifies marijuana to treat glaucoma, asthma, or the nausea associated with chemotherapy, but not AIDS wasting syndrome or other unspecified ailments. These regulations were mandated by the medical marijuana bill Gov. William Weld (R) signed into law on August 8, 1996. This law expands a 1991 law also signed by Weld that set up the therapeutic research program.
•    A bill introduced in the Wyoming Senate's Appropriations Committee (SF 132) would reschedule marijuana to allow its medical use. The proposal sustains the prohibition of doctor prescriptions, but recognizes marijuana's medical utility. The aim of the bill is to provide patients who are arrested a legal defense in court.
•    In Hawaii, Rep. David Tarnas (D-Oahu) introduced House Bill 604 that would allow doctors to "dispense, prescribe, or distribute marijuana for medical purposes" as well as provide an affirmative medical defense for users of medicinal marijuana. The bill went before the state's Health Committee.
•    Maine State Sen. Ann Rand (D-Portland) drafted legislation to create an affirmative defense for medical marijuana users. If patients are charged with possession or cultivation of marijuana, they will be able to use a medical necessity defense if a licensed
physician has recommended the drug.

• The successes in Arizona and California prompted at least two other state legislatures to reconsider their medical marijuana laws, while other states reconsidered their criminal codes for the drug.
•    On Jan. 15, Ohio State Sen. Louis Blessing (R-Cincinnati) introduced a bill to repeal a six-month-old law granting medical marijuana users an affirmative defense (no medical marijuana users have yet used this law). The bill passed and was signed by Gov. George Voinovich (R) .
•    On Feb. 18, an attempt to repeal an 18-year-old Virginia law allowing physicians to prescribe marijuana to seriously ill patients failed in the General Assembly. The rarely used law does not provide access to marijuana, but does help patients defend themselves against possession charges. After three hearings, the bill was voted down by the Education and Health Committee.
•    Across the Potomac River, Maryland legislators considered two bills that would dramatically increase marijuana penalties. S.B. 71 would make it a felony to bring 10 or more pounds of marijuana into the state, carrying with it up to $50,000 in fines and 25 years imprisonment. The other bill, S.B. 72, would increase the maximum fine for first-time marijuana offenders from $1,000 to $10,000 and raise the penalty for subsequent offenses to four years in prison and up to $25,000.
•    In Oklahoma, Rep. Danny Hilliard (D-Sulfur) introduced a bill thatwould allow law enforcement officials to spray the herbicide glyphosate (brand name Round-Up) from helicopters in marijuana eradication operations. An article in the February 1993 Global Pesticide Campaigner stated that glyphosate may be the cause of human poisoning and commercial crop
damage.
•    Finally, in December, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Eric Holder Jr. asked the D.C. City Council to toughen marijuana laws making the now misdemeanor offense for distribution of more than 1.5 ounces of marijuana a felony. Bill 12-12 also reintroduces to the District mandatory minimum sentences for a range of drug offenses. Holder, and also the Washington Post, blame marijuana's popularity (rather than prohibition) for increasing violence in the city.
Holder also asked the Council to restore mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenders, which were abandoned last year. The Council's Judiciary Committee held hearings on the "Distribution of Marijuana Amendment Act of 1997" on May 7.
To counter the U.S. Attorney's proposed changes, D.C. AIDS activists sent two ballot initiatives to the Board of Elections and Ethics in December. The first initiative would allow the medical use of marijuana, even though marijuana is a Schedule
V drug in the District. The second initiative would legalize distribution of hypodermic needles. It is unknown when the Board will consider the proposed initiatives for their approval to begin the process of placement on the November 1997 ballot.

For more information on state laws, visit the National Organization for the Reform of Manjuana Law's Web site at:

THE CASE OF THE DRIED POPPIES

Last year, Seattle writer Jim Hogshire became the first person to be prosecuted for possession of dried "opium poppies." Hogshire had bought the dried poppies easily enough — in a flower store.

The arrest resulted from a false tip to the Seattle police that Hogshire was running a drug lab out of his apartment. A SWAT team ransacked the place, but found no drug lab or illegal drugs, so they seized a box of dried poppies. Hogshire had no prior criminal record.

Hogshire was charged with possession with intent to manufacture or distribute opium poppies. The dried flowers, along with Hogshire's 1994 book, Opium for the Masses, were the prosecution's main evidence.
The judge, however, dismissed the case for lack of evidence during a hearing in April 1996, observing that, "My mom has poppies outside of her house."

Nearly two months later, prosecutors dropped a possession charge against Hogshire's wife and brought a new charge of possession of opium poppies against Hogshire. The offense is a Class C felony with a maximum sentence of five years.

Michael Pollan detailed the case — and many other legal and horticultural insights about opium poppies—in "Opium, Made Easy" (April 1997 Harper's magazine). Pollan's article, as in Hogshire's writings, discussed the fact that opium poppies grown throughout the country contain a Schedule II drug—opium. The Drug Enforcement Administration has, according to Pollan, been trying to discourage poppy sales for that reason.

But, as Pollan wrote, Hogshire's book "punctured a set of myths that served the government well for decades." Pollan added that "it seems doubtful Hogshire would have been prosecuted for the possession of store-bought dried poppies" if he had not published Opium for the Masses.

In early March, before the Harper's article appeared, Hogshire had returned to Seattle to face the new charge. The trial is set for June, and Hogshire is represented by Timothy K. Ford in Seattle. But Hogshire is deeply in debt.

If you are interested in supporting Hogshire's defense and fighting Seattle prosecutors' "drug exception" to the First Amendment, send a check payable to Timothy K. Ford, Esq., to: MacDonald, Hoague & Bayless, Hoge Building, 15th Floor, 705 Second Ave., Seattle, WA 98104.

To order a copy of Opium for the Masses, write to Loompanics Unlimited at P.O. Box 1197, Port Townsend, WA 98368, or to