Pot Clubs' Concerns Closer to Home

June 8, 2005 -- -- Jane Weirick, who has worked with some three dozen cannabis clubs since California legalized medical marijuana nine years ago, is more concerned with what happens in San Francisco City Hall, than in the halls of the U.S. Supreme Court.

San Francisco is one of some 40 California cities and counties that have instituted temporary bans on new medical marijuana dispensaries over the past few months as they attempt to come up with regulations to govern the operation of the cannabis clubs, storefront operations that provide marijuana to people with doctors' prescriptions for the drug as treatment for chronic pain, the side effects of chemotherapy or other conditions.

It's an effort that Weirick and others who advocate for medical marijuana say they welcome.

"It's really something that should have been done a long time ago," Weirick said.

She said the lack of regulation has allowed a few "profiteers" to potentially ruin things for the majority of those who operate dispensaries out of concern that patients who need marijuana are able to get it.

"We don't want to see anarchy on every corner," said Weirick, the president of the Medical Cannabis Association. "We want to see it regulated. Most of us would like to see it taxed, so it could help pay for education."

On Monday, however, the Supreme Court weighed in on the controversial issue in the case of Gonzales v. Raich -- affirming the federal government's right to prosecute medical marijuana users and those who provide them with pot, even in states that have legalized the use of the drug by those suffering from certain illnesses. The decision brought San Francisco's efforts to draw up cannabis club rules to a halt, as city officials consider what effect it might have.

"The main reason for the pause is to make sure we will not be setting anybody up for federal arrest and to maintain patient confidentiality," said Ross Mirkarimi, the member of the city Board of Supervisors who led the call for regulation and the city's moratorium on new clubs.

He had believed that the draft regulations had successfully "pirouetted around these land mines," but with the court ruling he is worried that the protections included would not have been strong enough.

Creating Legitimacy

The hope is that when the new regulations -- which will include zoning rules, health inspections and other controls -- are in place, the legitimacy they offer the dispensaries will help to shield the operators of medical marijuana dispensaries and patients who use them, Mirkarimi said.

San Francisco has been in many ways the leader in cannabis clubs. It was in San Francisco that the first dispensary in the state opened, and with more than 40 currently operating there, it has more than any other city or county in California.

Mirkarimi said many other communities have been watching San Francisco, to see what its regulations look like before completing regulations of their own.

California was the first state to legalize the medical use of marijuana, and was the first to allow the formation of not-for-profit pot clubs to supply the drug to those who have a doctor's prescription for its use.

But the law that made it legal did not specify how those dispensaries should be regulated, which has allowed the clubs to create their own rules, to some extent.

Though a couple of cities have followed the lead of Rocklin, outside Sacramento, in instituting outright bans on such clubs, in most cases the moratoriums are designed to give the authorities a chance to assess the impact the clubs have had and decide what rules are needed.

"A lot of the moratoriums are driven by people wanting to come to the aid of people and establish dispensaries in the communities," said Kris Hermes, the legal campaign director of Americans for Safe Access, a group that advocates for the legalization of medical marijuana. "They go to the local boards and that sets off alarms that, 'Oh, we don't have anything to regulate this process.' "

'People Shouldn't Panic'

As for the Supreme Court's ruling, Hermes said she does not believe it will change how the Drug Enforcement Agency operates.

"The court ruling really did nothing. It's just semantics," Weirick said. "Nothing has changed for us."

That was the message from California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, as well.

"People shouldn't panic. There aren't going to be many changes," Lockyer said Monday after the Supreme Court ruling. "Nothing is different today than it was two days ago, in terms of real world impact."

Many cannabis club operators around the state echoed Weirick's feelings in interviews with local media, but not all reacted to the court's ruling with such unconcern. Several other people involved with medical marijuana dispensaries declined to talk to ABCNews.com, saying they feared drawing attention to themselves.

A spokeswoman with the DEA said the Supreme Court ruling does not change the agency's view on the use of marijuana or its approach to enforcing federal law.

"Neither our mission nor our enforcement strategy have changed in light of the Supreme Court ruling," DEA spokeswoman Rogene Waite said. "We don't target the sick, but we will continue to go after large scale growing and trafficking."

Opinion Divided

Despite the ruling, the director of legal affairs for Drug Policy Alliance, based in Oakland, Calif., said he doesn't expect the federal government to really push prosecution in medical marijuana-related cases.

"I don't see why the federal government, particularly in the time now when we're fighting terrorists on our borders, would choose to use its limited resources to go after sick people," the DPA's Daniel Abrahamson said.

According to a study by the DPA that has not yet been published, there have been less than 20 federal prosecutions of medical marijuana users or those who supply them since 1996, when California legalized pot for medicinal use. Of those prosecutions, the vast majority were of growers of 1,000 plants or more, Abrahamson said.

"There's been a federal raid here and there, but the federal authorities really focus on the growers who have over 1,000 plants," he said. "They're going after the big growers and they have laid off the smaller dispensaries."

Local reactions to federal raids on dispensaries has often been negative, and has drawn protests even from elected officials. When federal officials raided the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz in 2002, for example, the city and county joined the cannabis club in a suit against the federal government.

However, some public policy experts said they do expect the feds to go after California's pot clubs.

"I think what they fear is that these buyers' clubs are a slippery slope toward Dutch-style cannibis coffee shops," said Robert Maccoun, a professor of public policy at U.C. Berkeley's law school.

He said the Supreme Court decision encourages Congress to take action on the issue of medical marijuana, but he doesn't expect that to happen.

"I think we'll see a lot of timidity," Maccoun said. "For example, I think there's a strong case to be made for rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule II drug [as opposed to its current status as a Schedule I drug], but I don't think there's the political willpower to make that happen."

ABC News affiliate KGO-TV in San Francisco checked with every member of the Bay Area's congressional delegation, and every one except Republican Richard Pombo said they would support a repeal of the federal restrictions on medical marijuana.

In the meantime, communities around the state are attempting to draw up rules to regulate the distribution of marijuana to patients.

"I think it is going to be interesting to see what happens," Abrahamson said. "The resolutions are going to be unique in that they will each address local concerns, so it's not clear to me that what one city does will affect what another city does.

ABC News affiliate KGO-TV in San Francisco contributed to this report.