Cannabis in Oregon
in more than 0,000 to the state’s budget for the Department of Human Services.
Medical cannabis reform activists have filed Initiative 28, an initiative that would create a licensed and regulated medical marijuana supply system through non-profit dispensaries. Supporters of Initiative 28 argue that the measure is needed to ensure that patients have a supply of medical cannabis and that the imposed licensing fees will generate millions of dollars in revenue for the state. The Coalition for Patients Rights turned in over 61,000 signatures on January 11, 2010, to the Oregon Secretary of State and need 82,769 valid signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2010 ballot.
Conflict with federal drug law
United States cannabis laws. States with medical cannabis laws States with decriminalization laws States with both
Physician liability
Physicians who recommend or support marijuana cannot have their licenses revoked according to a September 7, 2000 decision by the U.S. District Court. The case, Dr. Marcus Conant, et al., v. McCaffrey et al., arose from two events: the November 1996 passage of California Proposition 215 which authorized medical marijuana, and a December 30, 1996 response to the law by the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy which said
a practitioner’s action of recommending or prescribing Schedule I controlled substances is not consistent with the ‘public interest’ (as that phrase is used in the federal Controlled Substances Act) and will lead to administrative action by the Drug Enforcement Administration to revoke the practitioner’s registration.
The statement accompanied authorization for the U.S. Inspector General for Health and Human Services to exclude individuals from participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs, such as physicians who recommend marijuana to patients for medical purposes. Clarification two months later affirmed that mere discussion of any drugs with a patient was not grounds for sanction, but affirmed that 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 court’s decision acknowledged that the government has a legitimate concern that physicians might recommend marijuana in bad faith. However, physicians in good faith using honest medical judgment should not fear DEA sanctions. Furthermore,
Given the doctrine of constitutional doubt, the government construction of the Controlled Substances Act cannot stand. The government should be permanently enjoined from (i) revoking any physician class member DEA registration merely because the doctor makes a recommendation for the use of medical marijuana based on a sincere medical judgment and (ii) from initiating any investigation solely on that ground. The injunction should apply whether or not the doctor anticipates that the patient will, in turn, use his or her recommendation to obtain marijuana in violation of federal law.
Law enforcement
In November 2007, a California appeals court ruled that “it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws.” The U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal by the city of Garden Grove in December 2008, upholding the decision. The case began in June 2005 with a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove being pulled over by city police and cited for possession of marijuana, despite his immediate display of proper medical marijuana documentation. The charge against him was later dismissed, but the city refused to return his confiscated eight grams of marijuana, even after being instructed by Orange County Superior Court. The Supreme Court ruling affects 13 U.S. states with medical marijuana laws.
Police departments throughout Oregon decline to press charges, or charges have been dropped for possessing and growing marijuana, even for convicted drug dealers. Salem police estimated they received 30 or 40 calls for marijuana activity in 2007 which were not pursued because the grow operations were legal, even one next to a high school. One grower, a previously convicted felon, was found with evidence of making hash oil, which is not protected, though a grand jury did not indict him.
Thermal imaging searches
Main article: Kyllo v. United States
After a federal agent from the Department of the Interior used a thermal imaging device to determine that Danny Lee Kyllo was using grow lamps to grow marijuana in his home, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person’s home was a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. Because the police in this case did not have a warrant, the Court reversed Kyllo’s conviction for growing marijuana.
See also
Worldwide