Time for the City of Santa Cruz to enact its Office of Compassionate Use

NOTE TO READER: With President Barack Obama making good on his campaign promise to end DEA and FBI operations to arrest and remove medical marijuana patients, their caregivers, and dispensaries operating in States which have passed medical marijuana legislation, it's time for the City of Santa Cruz to implement its "Office of Compassionate Use".

Here is the full text of the ordinance:

Chapter 6.92
MEDICAL MARIJUANA – OFFICE OF COMPASSIONATE USE*

* Editor’s Note Regarding Effective Date of Ordinance Codified in this Chapter. Section 3 of Ordinance 2005-28 states: “This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of its adoption, but the OCU shall not cultivate, obtain, possess or distribute any marijuana pursuant to this ordinance until such time as a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final order finding such activity to be permissible under federal law. As used herein, the term ‘final order’ shall not include a court order which has been appealed or is under review or appeal.”

Sections:

6.92.010 Definitions.

6.92.020 Creating an office of compassionate use to provide marijuana to seriously ill patients.

6.92.030 Creating an OCU commission to advise the OCU in implementing this chapter.

6.92.040 Compassionate provision of medical marijuana to qualified patients.

6.92.050 Patient records.

6.92.060 Possession, transportation and storage of medical marijuana.

6.92.070 Prior investigation by law enforcement.

6.92.080 Miscellaneous applications.

6.92.090 Review of medical literature to ensure necessity of medical use.

6.92.100 Revenue neutral.

6.92.010 DEFINITIONS.

1. Qualified Patients. A “qualified patient” is one that is entitled to possess medical marijuana pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5. There are two categories of qualified patients:

A. Critical-Use Patient. A “critical-use patient” is a qualified patient who (a) obtains a recommendation to use marijuana for medical purposes from a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of California and (b) for whom there is no comparable or satisfactory alternative drug available.

B. Compassionate-Use Patient. A “compassionate-use patient” is a qualified patient who obtains a recommendation to use marijuana for medical purposes from a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of California.

2. Primary Caregiver. “Primary caregiver” means the individual designated by a qualified patient who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of the patient, or who has consistently assumed responsibility for the provision of medical marijuana to the qualified patient.

3. Marijuana. “Marijuana” means all parts of Cannabis plants, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seed or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.

4. Legal Source. A “legal source” refers to marijuana obtained or cultivated legally under current law or court order, organically grown in accordance with California certified organic farmers certification standards.

5. Medical Review Officer. A “medical review officer” is a physician with expertise concerning the medical use of marijuana.

6. California State Medical Marijuana Provisions. California state medical marijuana provisions refers to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, codified as Health and Safety Code section 11362.5, and the Medical Marijuana Program, codified as Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 et seq.

(Ord. 2005-32 § 1, 2005: Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

6.92.020 CREATING AN OFFICE OF COMPASSIONATE USE TO PROVIDE MARIJUANA TO SERIOUSLY ILL PATIENTS.

The city of Santa Cruz hereby establishes an Office of Compassionate Use (“OCU”). The OCU shall be responsible for:

1. Providing medical marijuana to qualified patients in accord with this chapter. The OCU shall utilize medical marijuana from a legal source and store it in a secure location. If marijuana from a legal source is not available in sufficient amounts to care for all qualified patients who are residents of Santa Cruz county, the OCU shall so notify the Santa Cruz city council.

2. Associating with a medical review officer to serve the functions set forth in this chapter.

(Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

6.92.030 CREATING AN OCU COMMISSION TO ADVISE THE OCU IN IMPLEMENTING THIS CHAPTER.

The city of Santa Cruz further hereby establishes an OCU commission to advise and assist the OCU in carrying out the duties specified in Section 6.92.020 of this chapter and in further implementing this chapter. The OCU commission shall be comprised of five (5) persons appointed by the Santa Cruz city council, of whom at least two (2) shall be qualified patients or caregivers and at least two (2) others shall be health care professionals. The OCU commission shall issue regular reports to the Santa Cruz city council concerning the implementation of this chapter.

(Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

6.92.040 COMPASSIONATE PROVISION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO QUALIFIED PATIENTS.

When presented with a valid compassionate-use identification card issued by the health services agency of Santa Cruz County pursuant to Chapter 7.124 of the county code, the OCU shall provide the patient, or the primary caregiver, with the amount of marijuana recommended by the physician for use over a one-month period. If the physician has not recommended a specific amount of marijuana, the OCU shall consult with and provide the amount of marijuana recommended by the medical review officer for use over a one-month period, taking into account the potency of the marijuana to be provided, the severity of the patient’s symptoms, the patient’s physiology, the patient’s familiarity with medical marijuana, and the anticipated mode of ingestion. In no event shall the amount of marijuana provided for any patient over a one-year period be more than permitted under the California state medical marijuana provisions and Santa Cruz County ordinances. If there is insufficient marijuana available to treat all qualified patients, critical-use patients shall have priority in the receipt of medical marijuana.

(Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

6.92.050 PATIENT RECORDS.

The OCU will maintain a record of the patients who have been provided medical marijuana pursuant to this chapter. These records shall contain (1) the serial number provided to each patient by the health services agency of Santa Cruz County pursuant to Chapter 7.124 of the county code, (2) the amount of marijuana recommended by either the patient’s physician or the medical review officer and (3) the amount of marijuana provided to each patient. These records shall not contain the names or other identifying information of any patients or primary caregivers.

(Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

6.92.060 POSSESSION, TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

The possession, transportation or storage of medical marijuana by the OCU or its employees in accord with the California state medical marijuana law provisions and this chapter shall be lawful.

(Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

6.92.070 PRIOR INVESTIGATION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.

When an alleged marijuana possession is discovered by law enforcement personnel, all reasonable efforts shall be made to investigate and determine whether or not the possession is for medical purposes in accord with the California state medical marijuana law provisions and this chapter. Such investigation shall be conducted prior to any seizure or arrest.

(Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

6.92.080 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS.

Possession, transportation and use of the following items shall be lawful when used in accord with the California state medical marijuana law provisions and this chapter:

(1) Pipes, papers, water pipes, vaporizers and other related paraphernalia;

(2) Marijuana, marijuana seeds and marijuana products (such as baked goods, tinctures, infusions, oils, salves and any other marijuana derivatives).

(Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

6.92.090 REVIEW OF MEDICAL LITERATURE TO ENSURE NECESSITY OF MEDICAL USE.

Every two years, the OCU shall conduct a review of the current scientific research into the status of medical marijuana. The OCU shall promptly prepare a report and provide it to the city council summarizing the status of research into medical marijuana.

(Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

6.92.100 REVENUE NEUTRAL.

The city of Santa Cruz shall enact administrative regulations governing the imposition of fees for participation in the compassionate use program, to ensure that the OCU is revenue neutral. Notwithstanding this section, no resident of Santa Cruz county will be refused the compassionate use of marijuana under this chapter because of indigence.

(Ord. 2005-28 § 1 (part), 2005).

Find this online at: http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/html/SantaCruz06/SantaCruz0692.html

An Asthmatic Against the Smoking Ban

Linda Lemaster August 1, 2008 Photo by Becky Johnson




by Lighthouse Linda
October 20, 2009


Last Chance Road, Santa Cruz County, Ca. -- The issue Becky Johnson is educating us about is a very important one, to me. A person's sovereignty is more crucial than the ever-widening freeway of dependency by decree under the state (and "popular opinion, as well, but at least opinion is a more enlivening phenomenon to alter). The other concern is that I/ME, personally, would like to walk where the townspeople can walk, drink from their fountains, stand in their regular queues instead of needing the oft-demeaning "special attention" to get any social, chore, or bureaucratic trafficking done. Two things at odds: why has this frustration "silenced" me?

I am impressed by Becky Johnson's information. She has convinced me that the phenomenon of "secondhand smoke" is one of those mostly-conjured public policies.

This happens. People in positions of power try to oversimplify things and so end up lying to the rest of us. Then there's the other 25% (guessing) of people who are just so fixated on their own trip they care little about integrity or how their words or work affects others. I was glad to see Becky's example of Johnson & Johnson's. They are some of the criminal exploiters who could care LESS about the rest of us as also-human but rather see us as consuming carriers of credit cards - a resource to be had, like aluminum ore or coke for making steel. It leads to THIS: we who prefer to actually be able to think for ourselves (and our families and loved ones, perhaps?) and to take some responsibility -- as best we can -- for our knowledge and our actions are up against such deceit.

I am an asthmatic, now with COPD. I can't even be near some Huffsters who I care deeply about without asthma reactions and risk of immunological breakdowns. I can't breathe at all in many downtown locations. Not even with all the drugs money can buy (or, the state is willing to buy, at any rate, but that's a whole other story!). I am banished in effect because to stay alive, to breathe, I have to avoid toxified air and poisons in many forms.

I have learned much, but the asthma and lungs continue to get worse because we all live in such a cesspool. Granted, less of one in Santa Cruz than most citified places (unless you're on the edge of our otherwise beautiful San Lorenzo River for too long, or hovering over the grease and nitrites of hot dogs at the Boardwalk in order to work, or .....) I mean, it's nicer here than any place I've ever lived, except Seattle. So there! Make of this what you will.

I'm one hundred percent against the new Smoking Ban! The "smoking" gun seems to be just another way to "blame the victim" while the rivers and, in industrial areas and big commuting zones, the air, gets tox'ed to death. I just know that having lived with a husband for seven years who chain smoked, my lungs were not helped a bit. Yet what "did me in," from the best research and study I can manage, is OTHER poisons! Examples follow.

1. The job I had when 1 was 19, 20, and beyond, where I had to inhale the fumes of photo lithography in order to set headlines for daily and weekly newspapers and "trucks" (ad papers) that sold things for supermarkets. "When the red light is on, do not enter." I was too ignorant to realize I needed ventilation (or more) and the only air I could get while at that work station was opening the door, spoiling the work. I was the "bottom man" on the workplace totem pole, not because I was new, but because I was a female. This was a "real" job, before PC's.

2. While I lived with said husband for 7 years, we moved to Santa Cruz and a year later, I had my first asthma attack. But it wasn't his cig habit, it was the illegal (perhaps underground?) business across the generally quiet street. They were spray-painting cars, and refurbishing them. On the curb, two doors from my place. Averaging two cars a week, sometimes more, and doing this work evenings, when everybody in the neighborhood was around. It is possible that the train (two doors going the other direction) contributed too to my lungs' weakening and illness, but it didn't seem apparent at the time. Twice a day trains. I did not realize the car-painting operation was hurting me until I was forced to move for being politically active while parenting (oh! the audacity!). After I moved, I was off the asthma drugs within three days despite other stress-stuff. I was busy and it didn't occur to me that people ran their illegal businesses right out in front of everybody. Never realized I could "turn in" this culprit. By the time I moved, apparently there had been horribly permanent damage in my lungs.

3. Later, the most comfy-cottage home I ever rented in the City of Santa Cruz (was also a homeowner once) turned out to be a Black Mold stronghold. The mold wasn't discovered until a new owner evicted my family and tore the place apart. What a shocking sight! Yet I didn't realize at the time it was extremely toxic for many people. The mold was in only one room, but it caused serious health damage to my daughter and myself, and for all I know, to my younger son who was born while I was living there. Once my doctor asked me, at the emergency room, "How can you get SO sick, yet heal SO fast in here?" He also predicted I'd die, but that was long ago and luckily I got evicted first.

So this is just a little "tip of the iceberg" true story about serious toxic environments that go way beyond "second hand smoke" and its ability to irritate. For me, it means somehow avoiding, perhaps forever: people who wear perfume n cologne, roof tarring, auto diesel exhaust, ammonia products, and all kinds of food additives, and growing. Not an easy task for anyone.

I believe people should do all they can to avoid breathing in poisons, regardless of degree, since we can't really know. We each have a unique pair of lungs and other equipment (hearts, for starters) to sustain them. I am less angry about the lives I got cheated out of because of our collective ignorance and other people's greed or neglect, when I think maybe some people can see my loss as their opportunity to protect and enjoy their own lungs (a “canary”).

My heart is still broken for my son who started smoking young (school culture cinched it), tho' he's quit finally, well into adulthood. I pray for cigarette addicts, that they may recover from the consumer exploitation that's defining much of their lives. All their senses can recover.

Nonetheless, I cannot take sides with those who would conform us all into pigeonholes because they don't know how to do anything socially, community-wise, besides make more laws and further force and predetermine our lives, our behaviors, or our shared destiny. Over-regulation feels just as pre-emptive to me as having to avoid public places and restaurants during mealtimes and happy hour -- finding when they are nearly empty is critical if I go out.

After much internal turmoil, having read Becky's information and arguments on second-hand smoke, and trying to sort my way through my own difficult conflicted feelings, I'm leaning way towards less regulation of public cigarette smoking. Or at the very least, regulate something fair instead of always creating adversarial solutions.

In addition, as one of the people who worked to help pass Prop 215 (which became SB 420 when it passed) I am simply distraught about the fact that cities are over-regulating the use of public marijuana smoking for disabled people. Those folks, because they need nontoxic help, are getting pushed into the paranoid field of an existing "underground" mentality.

It's hard enough to be a crip (disabled, different, etc) without the extra handicap of having to worry about where you can take the one medicine that makes it possible for your system to handle the other more radical drugs (the ones from the pharmaceutical industry) which are perhaps keeping you alive or giving you back some of your mobility or breath etc. My doctor tells me that many people have been able to cut back and even quit some of their drugs with harsh side effects on account of using pot. (I'm not yet one.)

Smokers need to have places they are safe and comfortable, other than in the doorways of "no smoking" buildings (my pet peeve). And if cigarette butts are an issue, put in ashtrays and a sign that EDUCATES people to not litter because of the inevitable pollution our waterways suffer in our blasé ignorance. It doesn't feel good that smokers can't go where other people go. It doesn't feel good that I can't go where others go. And it doesn't feel right that we join those who would punish the victim instead of taking up arms against the more obvious polluters – commercial corporations which seem to pervert or avoid regulatory systems built to protect us. We need a LOUD VOICE, but not to niggle with each other