Virtual Candidate Forum: Where do the judge candidates stand on medical marijuana?

Several readers have contacted me seeking information on the candidates for Superior Court judge and what their stances are around marijuana and medical marijuana -- especially because of the recent council action on medical marijuana dispensaries.

I've written them an email and asked that they respond in the next couple of days so that I can do a post on Friday or Saturday with their responses. I also made it clear to them that I will be either be letting you know they didn't respond or posting their responses (I hope to post them word for word assuming their responses are not too long). I am hoping we can set a good example and model for future Q&A's with candidates by very much respecting those that do respond -- especially considering the nature of this issue.

Given the above are there questions you would like asked of other candidates? I was thinking this might be a good thing to do with the 3rd District Supervisor candidates next week. If you have any questions, list them here and I will consider including them in an email I will send to them this weekend.

Did the DEA overstep their bounds?

Santa Barbara Housing Bubble Blog had a creative and interesting post last week about marijuana dispensaries -- something we have had a few comments on over the last few months here at BlogaBarbara. Taking a script out of Leave It to Beaver, Saint Barbara told the story of a small cottage on Victoria Street that was recently sold. The untold story in the real estate sections of the newspaper was that it was a dispensary of gange, mota, Mary Jane...(add your favorite Weeds vocabulary here).

A side story included in the post was the following:

Just last month (March 2008), DEA agents hand-delivered another round of threatening notices to the remaining 10 or so local dispensaries. During the weekend of March 15, DEA agents, in cooperation with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department, purportedly raided and shut down Pacific Greens on North Milpas Street (located within Santa Barbara’s city limits). A few days later, on March 18, the Santa Barbara City Council finally approved a new city ordinance governing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries (or "clubs") within city limits. For details, see this 3/20/08 Independent article....

The City's efforts were designed to create more security and certainty as to where the dispensaries are located and to create a more transparent process. Good for them as medical marijuana was an issue approved and voted on by an overwhelming number of Californians...although, as has been pointed out in other articles, it doesn't mean we need more of them than the many Starbucks we have in town or near schools and the like.

The DEA showing who da' man begs the question, however, as to whether their actions undermined the efforts of council. Apparently, the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department made a foray into city limits to assist the Feds. Does this require at least tacit approval from the SBPD? Is the relative quiet from council on this rather clear violation of city government jurisdiction not worth fighting because of the subject matter? Sure -- Feds trump the City any day of the week, but this is murky legal water for which they must have had approval to tread.

No matter where any of us come down on the addictive qualities of marijuana -- one has to want to protect someone's right to obtain it (if they desire) when they are suffering from cancer, glaucoma and the like. It is state law -- whether the DEA and the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department disagree with the result of a statewide election or not. That being said -- yes, let's bust dispensaries that are selling to anyone that shouldn't receive medical marijuana under state and local law. I am all for it...but did they have to choose that time to do it and what kind of precedent does it set?

If you want to put them on your real estate watch list or save them on Google Maps -- NORML has a list of Santa Barbara/Goleta dispensaries on their web site. Hopefully, DEA raids prior to public policies being set will not become a common occurrence -- it could be construed as intimidating.

Community Post: Dr. David Bearman on Medicinal MJ

For some time local authorities have raised the legitimate concern about the need for adequate regulation of cannabis dispensaries. Setting aside the allegation that former DA Thomas Sneddon refused to address this issue with the City Council, the real fault for this problem can be laid squarely at the feet of the federal government and their encroachment on states rights. (see opinions of Thomas and O'Connor in Gonzalez v. Raich ). We once had such regulations regarding medicinal cannabis. That is, until the U.S. government abrogated states rights and stepped in with the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act (declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 in the Timothy Leary case).

Pharmacists had been dispensing cannabis in powdered, whole leaf and tincture form, either alone or in combination with other ingredients at least since 1854 when cannabis was first placed in the United States Pharmacopeia (USP). Pharmacists continued to dispense cannabis containing drugs, under existing regulations, until 1941 when, due to the cumbersomeness of the tax, most pharmaceutical companies stopped making cannabis containing pharmaceuticals and it was dropped from the USP.

Dr. Ron Paul (R) TX, a physician and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has pointed out that over the last 40 years, U.S. Presidents have expanded their power at the expense of Congress, and Congress has expanded their power by impinging on states' rights.

Dr. Paul's position is consistent with the dissent in the Gonzalez v. Raich, by conservative Supreme Court Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas and the late Chief Justice Rehnquest who pointed out that the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution granted the power to regulate medicine to the several states. The federal government should not thwart the will of the voters by preventing doctors from writing cannabis prescriptions and pharmacists from filling them.


Recent articles in local media have strongly implied that if someone looks healthy, they are healthy. Any doctor who took such a position would be guilty of malpractice and you and I would consider them a quack.. You cannot discern if a person is disease free merely by looking at them. That is why we physicians do a history and physical, review medical records and order x-rays and lab tests where required, before making a determination of good or ill health.

PTSD, for example, is a very debilitating condition where the patient looks fine to the naked eye.. A recent federal government report estimates that over 35% of our troops returning from Iraq will suffer from PTSD. Only a small percentage of our troops with PTSD have been physically maimed in combat. All the rest suffering from PTSD look like healthy young men. Research and experience has demonstrated that cannabis is frequently effective in treating PTSD Do we deny these returning veterans an effective treatment for PTSD because they look great?

Most people with migraines, seizures, fibromyalgia, complex regional pain syndrome, failed back surgery syndrome, and many other conditions may look healthy to the casual observer. Sadly the mere fact that someone looks healthy has little bearing on whether or not they are healthy.

Frankly we must not let common sense fly out the window when discussing medicants arbitrarily labeled as illicit. If we are comfortable with existing regulations for pharmacies, pharmacists and physicians lets let them practice their professions according to the dictates of science, their experience, training and professional ethics. Right now the federal government's usurpation of our allegedly constitutionally guaranteed States Rights trumps common sense.

Sincerely,

David Bearman, M.D.

PS: This issue has a long and interesting history. For more extensive coverage read my 132 page book "Demons, Discrimination and Dollars: A Brief History of the Origins of American Drug Laws". In November my 4X longer book "Drugs, Discrimination, Demons and Dollars: A Not So Brief History of American Substance Control Policy" should be available.