Better Late Than Never: Judge Candidate and County Counsel Attorney Kevin Ready Responds on Marijuana Issues

People are often frustrated when they ask judicial candidates straightforward questions and they don’t get straightforward answers. A judge candidate is limited in what they can say by the Canons of Judicial Ethics, we cannot pre-judge an issue we might be called on to rule on in court. We are also limited in the ways we can propose changes to laws and what the proper place for a judge is in the formation of changes to laws.

The Voters of California have voted in favor of allowing medical marijuana use, and in doing so they left untouched the penalties associated with non-medical use. A California trial court judge’s duty is to apply the law of the state to the cases before him or her. I consider it my duty as a judge to apply the law as set out by the voters acting under their power of initiative and by the Legislature. The current problem with medical marijuana laws is the confrontation between California law and federal law, one allowing medical marijuana usage and one which does not. A state trial judge has no power to intervene to affect the outcome of such a conflict of laws. It is up to the People to get the federal government to change its approach, or else the current impasse will remain. As far as the state law issue, I consider the state of the law settled as to the general law, the local implementation, such as clinic location, may have more to be resolved, but a judge should not get involved for reasons discussed above.

I think any observer looking at our drug problems objectively will recognize that the core problems we face are not centered around marijuana. The meth culture, designer drugs and trafficking of imported drugs are where the focus of our efforts to improve our society needs to be. However, even with this recognition, there is not a lot a trial judge can do, nor should you want your judges to be engaged in the politics of changing our laws. What a judge can do is make sure the emphasis in court is on dealing with real problems. We need to expand the scope of usefulness of our drug courts to give people assistance in correcting their problems and not mere punishment. Society is coming around to a different dialectic on marijuana use and differentiating its use from the debilitation effects of meth and other drugs. Our courts are reflecting that change. I think it is healthy for our system of justice.

Another thing a judge can do is recognize the effect on individuals that drug use may have in the other matters that come before the courts. While some attorneys (and judicial candidates) focus solely on the criminal aspect of the situation, I think it is necessary that other areas, like juvenile law, family law and possibly others areas of civil law need to recognize the change in people’s perception of drug use and the problems, or non-problems, associated with it.

What people need to recognize in the choice of a judge is the sum total of the experience, attitude, character and life accomplishments of the judge. Will the background of a judge allow them to provide justice? Do they have the breadth of experience to be able to provide both a prosecutorial and defense perspective to the problem? From the perspective of drug related issues, simply advocating a presumably progressive campaign spiel is not enough, is there any substance, represented by experience and commitment over the years? A limited set of experience for a few years in prosecuting crimes does not provide the wisdom and insight into the human condition that a judge needs. In my case, the entirety of my life experience, and the perspective I have advocated over many years is the basis of my understanding and position. While I cannot give a full recounting of my past political position on these issues within this judicial camapign, I have a track record as a Democratic Candidate for Congress on two occasions that stands for itself. Look at the record and past positions, not mere jargon.

On Medical Marijuana: Judge Candidate and Senior County Prosecutor John MacKinnon

Again thank you for the allowing me to answer this question... it has been asked of me several times during the campagain.

In response to your question about medical use of marijuana..... in 1996 voters in California passed the Compassionate Use Act. This act is now part of section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code which states in the statute that its goal is:

"To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraines, or other illness for which marijuana provides relief."

As to the legalization of marijuana in general... that is also a decision to be made by the legislature or by the People of California. A Superior Court Judge or Appellate Court Justice does not decide on whether a stature is "good law" or "bad law", so long as it is Constitutional.

As a Judge of the Superior Court, my mandate and duty is to follow the law as it is written...... again so long as it does not violate the Constitution. The decision to make the use of any substance legal or illegal, and/or the permitting of marijuana dispensaries is to be made by the Legislature, the city council, or the people by way of Propositions. Therefore, a Judge must respect and follow the law regardless of whether he personally approves or disapproves of the policy being made by our lawmakers.... all while being detached and neutral. The People of the State of California have declared the medicinal marijuana use is not a crime under state law if a medical doctor has recommended its use. The Compassionate Care Act also stated that recreational use of marijuana shall continue to be illegal. This is the law that I am required to follow.

Let me say though that marijuana is not an epidemic facing our county and community the way that methamphetamine and other drugs are. I have served for the last 18 months in our Substance Abuse Treatment Court where we see the ravages of substance abuse. We see pregnant mothers who inject methamphetamine, college students who are addicted to heroin, and young people who are look as if their very life force is being drained from their bodies. I have worked in this therapeutic system to help people get their lives together. I have seen first hand the miracles that can occur.... the former pregnant mother who gives birth to a clean baby, the parent who gets her children back from CPS, the young man who re-enrolls himself back into school and his life on track. These are the stories of hope and change that I am able to see..... as well as the tragedy.

When I first came to the Substance Abuse Treatment Court we only had approximately 20 people in the treatment program. In less than two years we have been able to get those numbers to almost 80. In Santa Maria we also have over 300 drug users in our Prop 36 treatment program. I am proud that former addicts/turned counselors ask me for bumper stickers, yard signs, ect.... These former addicts want to see me on the bench to continue to work that we do everyday. That really is the greatest endorsement.... recovered drug users who are supporting a D.A. for Judge.... I think it really shows that you can be a D.A. and still be compassionate and care for people in our community.

Respectfully,

John MacKinnon
Candidate for Superior Court Judge

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.