Supreme Court Ruling Has "No Effect" on Arkansas Med-MJ Campaign

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 17 Jul 2001
Contact: Denele Campbell

FAYETTEVILLE --  It was two months ago that the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first-ever opinion on medical marijuana. But in Arkansas and elsewhere around the country, the Court ruling against medical marijuana distributors is making very little difference in the campaign to make marijuana medically available nationwide.

Arkansas activists continue gathering signatures that would place a proposed law before voters in the next general election. The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act, sponsored by the Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas, Inc., would allow legal access to marijuana for medical use by qualified patients.

"One of the first things we did after the Supreme Court ruling was to find out what this would mean in the real world," stated Denele Campbell, executive director for the Alliance. "So we looked to Oregon, the state whose law we copied."

"On the day of the ruling, the attorney general of Oregon issued a statement saying that 'because the ruling does not apply directly to state law, we believe enforcement responsibility under the federal law lies exclusively with federal law enforcement agencies, not state or local authorities.' The Oregon program that issues ID cards to patients and caregivers is still up and running, as are similar programs in Alaska and Hawaii. And the medical marijuana laws in California, Maine, and Washington also remain unaffected."

It should be no surprise that individual patients and caregivers are not being arrested in these six states for small-time possession and cultivation, as the Court decision addressed only the question of federal law, not state laws.

What is interesting, however, is that cannabis buyers' clubs are still distributing medical marijuana, which the Supreme Court found to be indefensible under federal law. The Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center is still growing marijuana on-site and selling its product to almost 1,000 patients, despite the fact that its operation (and even street address) has been reported in the mainstream news media -- and is therefore known to federal law-enforcement agencies.

"Frankly, we weren't that concerned about the buyers' clubs issue because our proposed law would not allow buyers' clubs," Ms. Campbell stated. "In Arkansas, we thought most people would want to grow their own. There is a problem for people who need it immediately or for those who don't have any way to grow a few plants. We hope that as more states pass these laws, we'll find viable models for this supply problem."

"We believe it is exciting to see what is happening in four states AFTER the May 14 Supreme Court decision," Ms. Campbell continued.

• On June 14, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn (R) signed a bill into law that sets up a medical marijuana program similar to those in Hawaii, Oregon, and Alaska. (Significantly, the bill also removed criminal penalties for the non-medical use and possession of marijuana!) The medical marijuana part of this bill implements the ballot initiative that 65 percent of Nevada voters passed in November 2000.

• On June 1, the administrative regulations for a similar program in Colorado took effect, as a result of the ballot initiative that 54 percent of Colorado voters passed in November 2000. The state government is now issuing ID cards to patients and caregivers who are permitted to grow and possess marijuana without the fear of being arrested by state or local police. This was despite the opposition of the governor and state attorney general, who urged federal authorities to prosecute anybody who sells, distributes, or grows medical marijuana, even if they qualify for the state program.

• On June 6, the California Senate passed a bill that would expand upon the 1996 medical marijuana law by authorizing patients and caregivers to grow marijuana collectively. This is just one step away from authorizing medical marijuana distribution outright; the difference is that the exchange of money for marijuana or services would probably not be authorized by the California bill, should it take effect.

• And, in Massachusetts, the legislature is considering a model medical marijuana bill developed by the Marijuana Policy Project and similar to a bill introduced in the Arkansas legislature this spring by Rep. Jim Lendall (D-Mabelvale), which would allow patients and caregivers to possess and grow marijuana. Thankfully, while key Massachusetts legislators are aware of the Supreme Court decision, they do not view it as an insurmountable obstacle to passing a good state law.

"We hope to find a good legislative sponsor for our proposed law," Ms. Campbell concluded, "because we want to pursue this issue on two tracks. While we are out there getting signatures for our initiated act, we also are arranging discrete meetings between medical marijuana patients and their state senators and representatives. We believe that once our elected officials learn the facts, they will wholeheartedly work for this reform."