S A F E A C C E S S N O W F. AARON SMITH, CALIFORNIA COORDINATOR

SPONDENG 539 Carr Ave Santa Rosa, CA 95404 - Ernall fa-smith@yahoo corn Phone (707) 291-0076 - Fax: (866) 204-1341

P Q j ~ i f f 2 April 13,2006

To: Stanislaus County Board of Supervisors Attn: Supervisor Ray Simon, Chairman CC: Cleopathia Moore, Stanislaus Public Health Administration

Rick Robinson, Stanislaus County Executive Officer

Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors,

Safe Access Now is a statewide advocacy group focusing on local governments' compliance with California's Compassionate Use A d (Prop. 215) as well as the Medical Man~~ana Program A d (SB 420). We are committed to ensuring all patients using medicinal Cannabis legitimately under state law are free from the risk of arrest, detainment or seizure of their medicine. We are writing you because your board is poised to make an important policy decision in order to move into compliance with California's medical marijuana laws.

In 1996, Califomia voters approved Proposition 215 because they felt that seriously ill patients should be able to use marijuana under their doctor's recommendation without any legal repercussions. Currently an estimated 150,000 patients in the state are legally using medical marijuana to address the symptoms of such afflictions as AIDS, glaucoma, chronic pain as well as curbing the side effects from chemotherapy and hepatitis-C treatments. To reinforce the rights of patients and caregivers established by The Compassionate Use Ad, the California Legislature and the Governor enacted Senate Bill 420 (H&S code § I 1362.7 though §I 1362.83) in October of 2003.

SB 420 requires counties to administer a statewide voluntary Medical Marijuana ID Card (MMIC) program. This identification card program, among its other benefits, is designed to aid law enforcement in identifying legal medical marijuana patients with better ease and efficiency. Using the web-based database maintained by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS), a peace officer can look up an MMlC number in seconds. This system works to protect those patients using medical Cannabis under state law from unnecessary arrest or seizure of their medicine, while allowing law enforcement to focus on genuine criminal activity. It is for this reason that the law enforcement community has generally embraced this program.

Counties are allowed to set a fee to recover costs associated with administering the MMlC program at the county level. A similar ID card program was implemented by the state of Oregon in 1999, operating solely on patient fees. Unexpectedly, the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program was able to report a $986,000 budget surplus by 2004. This money was available to be used for other patient services with $26,000 left over for the state's general fund. This example proves that an effective MMlC program is not only revenue-neutral, but has the potential to create a modest revenue enhancement for the administering county agency.

It has been brought to our attention that the Stanislaus County Department of Public Health is awaiting direction from your board in order to move forward with the Califomia Medical Marijuana ID Card Program. Although this program is mandated by state law, some administrative details, such-as the fee structure need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors before the county can be compliant with § I 1362.7.

Currently, twenty California counties have operating MMlC programs and dozens more are on their way toward full implementation. Because of the fundamental importance of this program to patients, caregivers and law enforcement personnel, we urge you to direct the Stanislaus County Public Health Department to immediately move forward with the state mandated medical marijuana program.

Qay zd'2 To assist you in your decision making. we are providina the following information:

1 .) A copy of State Attorney General, Bill Locker's legal opinion on the status of the Medical Marijuana ID Card Program

2.) A news article from The Statesman Journal (8120104) reporting on the budget surplus created by the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program

3.) An independent opinion poll on California's medical marijuana laws. The survey, conducted by "The Field Poll" in 2004 shows an 18% increase in voters' support of Proposition 215 (The Compassionate Use Act) since its passage in 1996. 74% of California voters favor the implementation of the law (83% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans)

4.) Additional information outlining the benefits of the Medical Marijuana ID Card

5.) A copy of Cannabis Yields and Dosage: a Guide to the Pmduction and Use of Medical Marijuana

Please contact me at the number below when a timeline can be established for the implementation of the MMlC or if you have any questions regarding this policy. Patients in Stanislaus County are eagerly awaiting the ID card program, as promised to them by state law.

Thank you for taking decisive action to uphold state law and the will of California voters.

Sincerely,

F. Aaron Smith Safe Access Now (707) 291-0076

PROVIDED BY: SAFE ACCESS NOW

The ID card protects patients and caregivers from lengthy detainment, arrest, seizure of property or unnecessary court proceedings. While patients are not required to participate in the ID card program, many choose to because they cannot afford the personal risk of wrongful prosecution that those without ID cards face.

The ID card program will greatly assist law-enforcement in distinguishing patients with legitimate medical marijuana recommendations from those who are using false or counterfeit documentation. The county-administered ID program clarifies the current patchwork of patient documentation and frees our law enforcement and judicial system to focus on genuine criminal activity.

The county will not incur any additional costs by implementing the ID card program because the county is allowed to set its own fees to recoup the start-up and operating costs. For example, the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, implemented in 1999, was - able to realize a $986,000 budget surplus after two years of operation. This also allowed the state to significantly reduce the fees imposed on patients.

The county has a legal responsibility to the State of California to implement the program, refusal to do so will expose the county to the risk of possible legal action at the cost of local taxpayers.

Voters' support of safe and legal access to medical marijuana has only grown stronger since the passage of the Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 21 5) in 1996. According to an independent field poll conducted in 2004, 74% of Californians believe that patients should not be arrested for using marijuana as medicine. The statewide Medical Marijuana ID card program simply provides additional protection to qualified patients and further solidifies our state law and the will of the voters.

For more information, contact:

F. Aaron Smith, California Coordinator Safe Access Now

fa-smith@yahoo.com phone: (707) 291-0076

fax: (866) 204-1 341

Fees for Medical-Marijuana Create Budget Surplus Statesman Journal; August 20,2004 by ctystal Luong

Advccates want more of the funds to go toward patients As the number of medical-marijuana patients continues to rise in Oregon, the accompanying licensing fees have generated a substantial budget surplus.

The Oregon Medical Marijuana Program reported a surplus of about $986,000 by the end of Marcb.

The patient-registration program was created the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act took effect in 1998. The program started without state funding in 1999 and has operated solely on patient fees.

More than 10,000 patients are registered. Estimates for the program's fust years were between 500 and 1,000 participants.

Based on projection$ application fees were set to cover a $100,000 price tag for launching the agency, said Dr. Richard Bayer, Administrative Rules Committee member for the state's medical-marijuana act

The goal was surpassed within two years.

As a result of the greater pa~ticipation, the Depamnent of Human Services cut annual renewal fees in July 2003.

Since then, registration has almost doubled, and further reductions are being sought.

"It's extremely di&cult to @ct this progmw" said Chris G m ~ 4 DHS program support manager.

Some of the surplus will go to the state's general fund and to develop a 24-hour verification system tbat law enforcement officials could use to codkm legal cardholdm.

Medical-marijuana advocates want to see more of the funds W e d to patient-care resources.

Once patients receive their regishy cards, they have no federal referrals about where to go or how to grow plants, said Madeline Martinez, executive director of the Oregon National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

Those issues are beyond the program's realm, according to state Public Health Oflicer Gmnt Higgkwn

"The program is not meant to be an advocate for the medical-marijuana act," Higginson said. "It is nrrrently felt that to provide that information is beyond administrative duties."

The programwill continue to focus only on processing applications, issuing state registry cards and handling renewals. AU information for patients is available on the program's Web site and in printed form, said Mary Leverette, acting program manager.

The m o m include statutes, application instructions, basic facts and statistics.

Although the state does not contniute to the p r o m about $26,000 of its surplus will be transferred to the state general fun4 G m d said

People in the Oregon Health Plan or d v i n g Supplemental Secmity income pay less for applications and renewals

The program's Administrative Work Group is considering further fee reductions, which might take effect as early as 2005, Higgkwn said

Registly fees

Application fees for a pmgram-registry identification card:

A new application is $150, or $50 for people on the Oregon Health Plan or receiving Supplemental Security Income.

A renewal application is $100, or $50 for people on the OHP or receiving SSI.

For more information, call (503) 731-4002, Ext. 233. 0 2004 Statesman Joumal

July 15,2OD5

Raw D. T-t DQu~DjmctcadCbicaCauasel Offioe of Legal scxvim ,

D w bfHeatth StWd~ea

P.O. Box 997413 Saeramm, Cab'Lfmm 95899-7413

D m MI. T m :

On July % 2005, the Depbmt of Hcallh Spvio05 @HS) recluestcd lagal * reg* the impacrt of G a d m v. R&]i on DHS'e -obU@cm ta atabliah and maintalnawitnrrary~grrrmforthsirisusnceafidrmti~oncanis~~dpatiaam3~ ndimdmmijuaas (Sw, e.g.,Health & Saf. Code 8 1136271.)V immorGlatclya&t& our advice, DHS issued apaa mlum ammcing that it had snap& m n p b with thGHealth and Safety Code, pending the receipt of legal advice &om the Anmncy QuamL Far fhc rrraebns discnsscd below, we d u d 0 tbat DH9 nnrat wmpb with &m Health nnd SPfeay Code.

PropmUh 215

& you bow, Pmpoaidau215 was sppmPed by Californiawtm onNovember 5,1996, d BX&S padc& and-^ C B C C ~ && atate la& hib biting the pse99ion and cultivationoPmajjuane whan the possassip or &vrrD:oniS forpersonalmedicaf pmposaq aud

Robert D. T m W Dsputy DirectDr aad QiofCoumd July 15,2005 psgo 2

the possmsian m .&tivation js baaed o n t h e ~ ~ o n of apbysician (5 11362.5.) Tbls b 'v&qa&mia Urn Act of 1996." (&id) While PmpBitlcm 215 txm

q ~ ~ v i ~ s from & stat8 msrijaaaa laws, it do= not grant an abwta immmiy fmm amst. IPeo~lev. Mower Q002) 28 W4th 457,46&470,) Itlstr;aQ Rowtion 215 pamridse a '&it& hmmity horn pkecudan [and] may as a basis f& motion to set asids an indicbnent or infoPmotion prior to a an well as a basis for a deb% at trial." (Id, S

QnOcto'ba 1 2 , M m , t h e O o w a n a r ~ ~ l a r a S s n a t e B i l l 4 U ) ( ~ 4 M ) ~ added Article 2 5 . tirlcd "Medid Marijuana P r o m " to -tar 6 of bivisicm 10 of ths Heal# aad safety ode.. (g 1 1362.7, el pcq.) ;Phe W&sl ~arijnnoa~~ro~ram creates a ~ 1 - ~ ~ ~ e d p s t i m t s r m d ~ v a a t o ~ ~ j d c n t i f i o e t i o n c a r d ~ w i l l ~ thcpll fimn forhdatioo8 of state Isw retam to marijuana. (Sca #! 11362.765 knd 11362.775,) Underfhe MediudMfuijnaoaPra$rpm. DBS is directcdto "ast&ateh ladwhtdn a v o l l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f o r ~ i a s u a m o e o f i W ~ n o e r d d ' O o ~ p s t i ~ a a d ~ caregivms, and to provide a ymoess thm&@ which BWe and b d mhemlW Ofhem ma)' hmdhdyvwify acard's vaIidity, {b 1136271, ePbd (a): 40 11362.71, (dX3).)

~ w b o c u h i ~ a t e o r m e ~ u r m a ~ c o m p l i a n c e ~ ~ m p o ~ z i ~ . (Roichv. Ash& (91$ Cir. 2003) 352 E.3d 1222.) WNmth Circuit cplloluded thatfiere was a uamg ~ ~ t h a t t h e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u n d t a ~ a n d i n e x ~ o f ~ o m g n s s ' s ~ w e s ~ ~ -

C-me Clauae. (Id. at p. 2234.) Wa, theNinth C k d Buud that medial mwuana u s c r s w o u l d s u f f e r s i g n i 5 c a n t ~ p i f ~ ~ o n w a s n o t i d (IMd)

.&?Gales v. Rrdch

On itm 6,2005, the UniM Ststcs Supreme Coarr: revascd the Ninth Citwifs in Raich v. Ashat-@ and &Id that the inIrastate caltiwhn and usa ofmadjuim hmcdical p u r p o e o P m & b y ~ ~ ~ m a y b c p ~ b c d b y ~ & a v a l i d m r & a o f Wnd authority vmda tha Ccmmaw Ckwe. (Gcwmk v. M 545 U.S. [I25 S.Ct 2195.2201-22Iq.j a i t f u , O p t 7 8 *S M ~ m t h s soopa OPC-'~ autbitv undQtha Commerce Clause. the ~ d c a l simificanco of tbo hadsdeibn in tbar federal l l r w & r o m n e p l i ~ ~ ~ & & t o & ~ & d r u g h ~ ~ Califamians Who ~ ~ m u e a m e c l i o a l m a i i j ~ ~ h i s w a s t h e s t a & o f t h e L P W w ~ t h e ~ ~ ~

Robeit D. T o u m Dqmty Direetos: and Chkf Connscl Jaty 15,2005 Pa@ 3

DIt9'a qusstians is that Raid &es nnt indid!& Califarrda's medical djm laws. We now Imn to Dm's spail5c qussticaf3.

(1) Would the imphmMion of program muid by Edth and Srdary Code saDtion 11362.7 ct seq. to provide medical &+ma ulesmahcladsfarthe ' p~nposc of hcilitatiug the possessiojl or cultivation of medical marijuana violate anyt8dcrai cdmhlstatae,i~~butnatlimitadto, aidingsndabdbhgii fdmdorbne?

Wa believe ?.he h e m is no. Firsr, rhe State ofcali&d#, and SMC offihh acting in their OW m@Uy to ~~ a valid state law, cmmt ba " p ~ " within tba ma&g of f e d s r s l ~ s t a b d e s ~ t o m a r i j w n a . A a m ~ t ~ t h s m ~ w o n M r m d c r r m i a a ~ "

sptm of "dual so&ignty" mz&d by the United Satee Cmmitutiaa S u m 4 avm ifatatc ~we~apssaasllndcrfederalaiminallaws,thematijuanaidcmifioationcards~olari& . ac~older'astatuslmdarStatehv. Aud,ssfaraswePadw,tbmmezeislnrnmeampo~of t h s s r s t e ~ n c a n i s & s n o t S a t j s & t h e d ~ c r f a n y ~ ~ o & e a s a

-&t&&sub&- (21 U.S.C. 5 GI.) FRdwl lzm treats rnsr#ms as a amfm~ed irulurtnace. (21 U.S.C. 6 R12(c).) Additionally, aud and D m haa pointed out, it is ill@ to aid aid abet in the nmmfmmm, distribution or possessioa o f d j u a m 08 U.S.C. 5 2;) FrrrthcP, my -t ar mmpkacyto mrrrmfaohur; d i & i cupossessm~uanawould alm be a nime. (21 U.S.C. 8 846.)

f d e d govcmmcn~'s dcEision to aimjnalizo thc pst god p o s ~ ~ o i a n afmnrijaana- Pmdpwpoecs-doeanotm@mCalifomiatodothesame. Itiswell-ssttlcdthatthe"Fcdaal ~ a ~ ~ m t c o m p s l ' t h a ~ h t a s t o ~ ~ b y l e g i s l a t i o n a r a d v e a e ~ $ d e r a l ~ ~ ! ' (Pdmkv. UnitedhYates (1997) 521 U.S. 898,925;New Ywkv. UIPired 9me.9 (1992) 5015 U.S. 144.161 [Ccmgmss may mt wmmcdccrthe Iegislafivepuwew of tbt stutca].) Thcsa reflcot the of4'dual d g a t f mated by tho Wted Ststaa C&t&m. (Bl& v. WdidSfaik~~ qm. a pp. 918-919.)

n&t agaiasl: the Stare ifaeK4' And the same must be said of a

Robcrt D. Tousignant m@Di*mtor and ChiefColmsE] July 15,2005

4

~ w t o a a o ~ c i a l . i a ~ o r h e r o ~ c ~ ~ . ' T o ~ T o g t t h s F e d u n l G o ~ e p t ~ ~ l t b S 8 l r b s , b u t c a n c O n m r l all of i ta offlo- is to say nothing of si-" Weed, it -

-

rneri.111 chsdasniptioa "erngty famtalistic reasoning of the highsm ordar.

The logical ~ a f t h e ~ a C w r t ' s holdj t~~iaAS~iSthet WthefederaI g o ~ e a n m n t ~ v e l y ~ l r m t t o f e c i a l s t o i m p l e m ~ M d c F a l m ~ ~ , t b s a ~ t h e f e d e r a l g o v a n m r m t t ~

. . . ths l l o n d e n t of a pugma A d~tothscrmlrarywarrldobPitarPtetheS~e~aholdinga?~eada)lowtbs . f i b d a a l & o v ~ t a ~ m p W h u g b c r i m i n a l p r o s o ~ t b a t w h i c h i t ~ . e r m a t & ~ legklath. For this nason, we beliwa th4 6dW gov-mt csrmot &me fadrwl mimid h~btilta(r!o~whomaelyin;lpl~vBlidsmlaw-or~obienottomtbme f.detpl law. State law officers who aocapt a ektc medid &&ma idmaiQicstion card, sod d d h t a amst acardholdor* ie inponswaianof&j~ mbjm ta criminal

+maotonly~off&,~&bac&thaa~its~lf~to&&~ elammfs of a fnied- DHS ie not mamdhuhg, dhhibuting, dkpemhg or posrmshg mafiiluaoa (21 U.S.C. 88 812(c) and &l1.) Maw-, thr: obligati& o f - ~ E s 6 &dishand ~ a ~ ~ f o r t h e i ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ d d f i ~ e a r d s t o q ~ e d p ~ and

, ~ ~ ~ d Q p m v i & a g r o c e a g ~ w M s t r t e a a d l o o a l l a w ~ . ofWam may immadiataly vcaifp a c d s validity, does not mmtituts aidiq and abcttiqg. (18 U.S.C. 8 2.)

that ~alifamia & wfio rmmmmd that U~W pm ww m&lam not d l t y d s ~ n g sad or crmspirscy rmdcr fedaal law. (Conmrt v. Walw* (9th Ch: 2002) 309 F.3d 629.

A doctor's anlidpation ofpdent wndwt, howwer, daesaat . '. trdbintoaidiogsndabcttin@lmconspiracy.A~aWPld

aid Hd abet by actia& with ths np&k intent to pmvido a palht withthemcanstosequirem~uana Simkb,a- wourarequireWeclactwhaveknowledgomatapculiemtimende t b a t q u i r e ~ a n b ~ r O h e l p t h e p a t i e n t ~

Robat D. Tarsigrumt Daputymrtcm d Chid Chwd July 15, ZOOS -3

(Id at p. 636 [oitdom olniw e m p h i s in origLLd].)

Hem, theMbfDRSactiaglmderthcMsdicalMmy~prO~arelassWcelyM be ~ i n f c d e r a l e r i m i n a l ~ t y ~ ~ w b o r c c o m m e n d l a n r j u a n a . Pi~'%DHsat& a r e n m r a m m e ~ t h a t ~ u s a & j u a a a D H S ~ ~ ~ ~ o a t ~ ~ t ~ . . adnwutm a w)lmbmy system &at pviclm c~~ of an individual's rights tmder ~GUO law. -aad~rtisdhvgb-DEXSMraa--thsy,wliksStateOf C s l i f f f m i a i ~ a l f , ~ a l a o e n t i t l a 3 W ~ ~ t b s s y s t C a n o f d u a t a o ~ ~ u t l i n e d i n ttlethmmm. . . (Prhtz v. UniredSaw, atslpp. 930-B1.)

~ a ~ a b a v c , w t & n o t b s ~ s v e t h s t c o a q * r m c e w l ~ l . ~ a n d ~ ~ o d e & 1 1 3 M . 7 E t s q l . , v i o h a n y f a l a a l ~ s t a t u t e . BuracwtiawdfaihrrebyDI3[5to camply witb the Hm& and W d y Code, wauld likely munt to aviolarion ofibb CaliFrrmiP CkdiMion, A a i o l s ~ , B c d i o n 3 . 5 o f ~ C ~ ~ ~ p m v i d e s . i n ~ p a r 5 tw

Rabe€t D. T* D e p u t y D ~ a n d C h i e f ~ July 15,2005 -6

~ ~ c a r d w i l l n o t ~ ~ ~ h ~ p r a a a c u t ~ o n , c l i m i a s t e t l l o potential criminal WiEty of tJw Departmatt crr i$ gtPtPl

~ ~ a m , ~ a d o ~ ~ t b t l i s v a ~ ~ h e a t s t a D m y d u t i ~ ~ ~ ~ m b y i b a ~ e a ~ t h r m d SafetyCadcsnbjectDHStofMcaal~liabilitytY Thm,whetherDIiSBhopldproviaS~ pub% with addifiDnal jnfon&m the implhtbm of f e d d law i s a policy qw6t.h frp.DHS. H r v i n g s r i d t b a t , a r e b s l i e v c t h a t s u c h a ~ w t R l k t h a d ~ o f ~ Lmv.

d j ~ l ~ b ~ f ~ ~ a s , l m b e n a e d l ~ ~ a r r e s ~ ~ e ; a e d i c a l marijusna patlsnts d o r primary m v m ?

T b i ~ a u d o n d w a n o t d ~ ~ m t d c $ i l & w r u r b o r m s w c r i t ~ ~ TbebmnMeal

~ ~ o f c o ~ h a a l t h ~ ~ a r t h a - ~ t s d ~ ~ ~ i n b o ~ ~ b ~ DEB- (See, ag., 54 11362.715 [ ~ ~ r m I D 1D qpbenta shall pmvidu the ~ ; 1 1 3 6 2 . 7 2 [ e o ~ ~ ~ l i m i C a d ' - to DmlS Fmhr,tfic ~ d o ~ , n o t i a d i E n t s t l 3 , 0 s o & ~ w . w h y t h C ~ ~ ~ s o b p a a m a e d t h c ' "

NowhWmdin~ ~JJB limited informatifstmwided by tbis auegtion. it a~wgnr that the

rmsoccess~ul~in t p a a b j m e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -fd stets RC&--&~ICI supaC;.&~~~].) I t i a a t s o ~ ' b h t h a t ~ ~ r m ~ c w t d b c n s r r i m a a i m i n a 1 And as datailea a b o P e , ~ 2 1 5 b l a r r a x l d . d . d . d p r D ~ ~ T

htbeevmtthat~islmwiIiingmimp~tbB~lidniju~llp~- .theC~miaSupreaae&&h~laRopcmh~mb'fitylity'astataaf8&~bcliavm law isl in cantlictwith M c d isw, may seek declerptcuy rolief from the cuum: @.a- v. City ( p l a ~ 0 f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , s w 4 ~ a t p . z m , f i n . ) ,

M y ,

5 -K-

For Brr"I,r,OcKm Aaomcy-

THE CALIWRIVIA POLL BY MERVlN FIELD

COPYRIGI-IT 2004 BY FIELD RESEARCH CORPORATION. FOR PUBLICATION BY SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.

Release if2105 Release Date: Friday, January 30,2004

STRONG SUPPORT FOR IMPORTANT: Contract for this senrice is IMPLEMENTATION OF PROP. 215, THE subject to revocation if publication or broadcast STATE'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW. takes place before release date or if contents are CALIFORNIANS' ATTITUDES ABOUT THE divulged to persons outside of subscriber staff DRUG HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME. prior to release time. (ISSN 019511520)

by Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field

There is now greater voter support for allowing the medical use of marijuana than there was when California voters first approved the groundbreaking law eight years ago.

In 1996 a 56% majority of this state's voters passed Proposition 215, the medical marijuana initiative, which exempts from state c r i d laws patients or caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical use when prescribed by a doctor. However, implementation of Prop. 215 has bogged down or been blocked by numerous obstacles raised by federal, state or local authorities.

In a survey completed earlier this month, The Field Poll finds that three in four voters (74%) favors implementation of the law.

Voter support for the implementation of Prop. 215 cuts across all partisan, ideological and age subgroups of the state.

Field Research Corporation is an Equal Opportui~ilily ! Affirmative Action Employer

The FieldPo11 Friday, Janualy 30, 2004

#2105 Page 2

Table 1 Do you favor or oppose implementation of Proposition 215,

to allow for the medical use of marijuana in California? (among registered voters)

Statewide

Partv Democrats

Oppose No opinion

74% 24 2

Republicans 63% 33 4 Non-partisanslothers 73% 27 *

Political ideolow Conservative 53% 44 3 Middle-of-the-road 78% 21 1 Liberal 92% 6 2

L e s s thon K ofl%

Comparing mariiuana use to the consumption of alcohol

Underlying voters' current strong support for the medical marijuana law are some rather profound changes in the attitudes that Californians have about the drug. For example, back in 1969 7he Fieldpoll found that only 16% of this state's residents agreed that the use of marijuana was no more dangerous than the use of alcohol, while 75% disagreed. Now, half of the voting public (50%) believes that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, while slightly fewer (46%) disagree

Attitudes about the perceived dangers of marijuana use are directly related to whether a voter admits to having ever smoked mxijuana before. Among those who have (which includes about halr- 49% - of all voters), 63% feel that the use of marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol. On the other hand, of those who say they have never used the drug, just 37% feel this way.

The FieldPo11 Friday, J a n u a ~ 30,2004

#2105 Page 3

Table 2 Agreeldisagree: "The use of marijuana is no more

dangerous than the use of alcohol." (among registered voters)

&E Disagree No opinion

Statewide 2004 1983 1969

Usage (2004) Have smoked marijuana 63% 34 3 Never smoked marijuana 37% 59 4

N o t e In rhrs andall mcceedrng rables m rh8.r repon, prevzous rumeys were conducredamony- all ahrltx.

Does mariiuana use lead to more dangerous drugs?

The belief that mmijuana leads a person to use more dangerous drugs has also declined over time. In 1969, 83% of the California public supported the view that marijuana leads a person to use more dangerous drugs. Now, opinions are more divided, with 52% saying it does and 45% maintaining that it does not.

Opinions are related to one's past use of marijuana, as well as to a voter's level of education. Majorities of those who have smoked marijuana in the past or who are college graduates disagree that marijuana leads to the use of more dangerous drugs. By contrast, majorities of those who have never smoked marijuana or who have not graduated from college feel that it does lead a person to other, more dangerous drugs.

The Field Poll Fnnday, January 30,2004

#2105 Page 4

---.-.

Agreeldisagree: "While marijuana may not be more dangerous than alcohol, its use leads a person to more dangerous drugs." -

(among registered voters) -

Disagree No opinion Statewide

2004 52% 45 3 1983 58% 39 3 1969 83% 12 5

(2004) Have smoked marijuana 39% 59 2 Never smoked marijuana 66% 30 4

Education (2004) High school or less 61% 37 2 Some college/trade school 62% 35 3 College graduate 41% 56 3 Post graduate work 38% 56 6

Some reservations about mariiuana still exist

Californians' support for the medical use of marijuana has not eliminated some long-held reservations about the use of the drug in nonmedical situations

For example, in 1983,65% of Californians agreed that the use of marijuana can make a person lose control of what he or she is doing. The current survey finds that a large majority of Californians (58%) still hold to this view.

Three-fourths (77%) of those who have never smoked marijuana agree that the drug can result in a person losing control, compared to only 40% of the past marijuana smokers who believe this is the case.

Table 4 Agreeldisagree: "Marijuana is a dangerous drug that can make

a person lose control of what he or she is doing." (among registered voters)

Disaeree No opinion Statewide

2004 58% 39 3 1983 65% 3 1 4

(2004) Have smoked marijuana 40% 56 4 Never smoked mariiuana 77% 19 4

Note: quesrion nor mked m 1969,

The FieldPo11 Friday, Janualy 30, 2004

#2105 Page 5

Legalize mariiuana?

By afive to three margin (56% to 39%), California voters disapprove of the idea of legalizing maijuana and selling it like alcohol or tobacco, so that it can be taxed to generate needed tax moneys for the state.

These findings are not a great deal different from opinions held in 1983, when this idea was opposed by a 64% to 35% margin.

Table 5 Agreeldisagree: "Marijuana should be legalized and sold like

alcohol or tobacco, so it can be taxed to generate needed tax monies for the state." (amone reeistered voters)

Statewide 2004 1983

Usage (2004) Have smoked manJuana Never smoked marijuana

Political ideolow (2004) Conservative Middle-of-the-road Liberal

Agree Disagree

Note: yucstron nor &d in 1969

The Fieldpoll Friday, January 30, 2004

#2105 Page 6

Information About the Survev

Sample Details The fmdings in this report are based on a telephone survey conducted January 5-13.2004 in English and Spanish among a random sample of 500 registered voters in California.

Sampling was completed by means of random digit dialing, which selects telephone exchanges within all area codes serving California in proportion to population. Within each exchange a random sample of telephone numbers was created by adding random digits to the telephone exchange selected, permitting access to both listed and unlisted telephones. Up to five attempts was made to reach a randomly selected voter at each number dialed. After the completion of interviewing, the sample was adjusted slightly to Field Poll estimates of the state's total registered voter population.

According to statistical theory, results from the overall sample of registered voters have a sampling error of +I- 4.5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

There are other possible sources of error in any survey in addition to sampling variability. Different results could occur because of differences in question wording, sequencing or through omissions or errors in sampling, interviewing or data processing. Extensive efforts were made to minimize such potential errors.

Ouestions Asked I am going to read some statements that have been made about marijuana. For each, please tell me whether you agree or disagree. (ITEMS READ IN RANDOM ORDER.) (SEE RELEASE FOR STATEMENTS READ)

As you may recall in November 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, the medical marijuana initiative, which exempted from state criminal laws patients or caregivers who possessed or cultivated marijuana for medical use when prescribed by a doctor. Do you favor or oppose the implementation of Prop. 215 to allow for the medical use of marijuana in California?