Senate Bill 420

Summary
Senate Bill 420 was passed by the California Legislature to address vague provisions of Proposition 215. The bill was signed into effect by outgoing Governor Gray Davis in 2003.

SB 420, which reflects a compromise between patients’ advocates and law enforcement, includes controversial state guidelines regarding how much Marijuana patients may grow and possess without being subject to arrest. It also requires counties to implement a voluntary patient identification card system and other provisions to protect patients and their caregivers from arrest. The guidelines, which were hotly disputed by California NORML and other patients’ advocates, allow patients up to 6 mature or 12 immature plants and up to one-half pound of dried, processed marijuana. Patient advocates had pushed for more liberal guidelines, such as those adopted by Sonoma County, which allow up to 99 plants in a 100 square foot growing area plus 3 pounds of marijuana. The final guidelines were decided in a last-minute legislative deal by Attorney General Lockyer and Sen. Vasconcellos in order to get the bill passed.

Exceptions to Guidelines
In recognition of the fact that the guidelines are inadequate for many very ill patients, SB 420 allows patients to be exempted from them if they obtain a physician’s statement that they need more. In deference to local autonomy, SB 420 also allows counties and cities to establish higher - but not lower - guidelines if they so choose. As a result, the new law will not overturn liberal guidelines that are now in effect in Sonoma and elsewhere. However, it should force more restrictive counties, such as San Bernardino and Fresno, which have heretofore had "zero tolerance" policies, to honor the new statewide minimum standard. Many counties have increase the limits of possession and cultivation since the passage of the law in 2003.

State to Establish Voluntary ID Card System
Identification cards under the new state program are issued by county health departments. There are registration fees to cover the costs of the program, with a 50% discount for Medi-Cal patients. Registrations will be valid for one year. There will be a 24-hour telephone hot-line by which law enforcement can verify the validity of the cards. The system is designed with safeguards to protect patient privacy like the current San Francisco and Oakland ID card system. Police will not be able to identify whether persons are medical marijuana patients by their name or address, but only by a unique identification number appearing on their card. Although some patient advocates have expressed qualms about the privacy of the new identification system, California NORML recommends that patients register to protect themselves from arrest. Similar ID card programs have been in effect in other states for several years, with no reports of abuse.

Regardless of the purported success of the voluntary ID card system, an exception to the rule occurred in Ukiah, California. Sheriff Craver required all medical marijuana patients to obtain their ID cards at his sheriff station, at the same place where rapists and convicted drug offenders got their criminal ID cards. K.C. Meadows reported this anomaly in the April 6, 2005 edition of the Ukiah Daily Journal, and it was chronicled on the area420 website, the latter now defunct. This made the creation of a centralized medical marijuana patient database by law enforcement organizations not only hypothetical, but a reality. This is what 420 proponents said would never happen. Ukiah has since changed its card distribution policy.

Persons designated as "primary caregivers" are also be eligible for ID cards. Each patient may designate a single caregiver. Caregivers may receive reasonable compensation for their services. However, cultivation or distribution "for profit" are not authorized. In a quirky provision, SB 420 forbids caregivers from having more than one patient unless all of them reside in the same "city or county" as the caregiver. This means that no one may be a caregiver for both a spouse and a parent if they happen to reside in different counties. California NORML attorneys believe that this is an unconstitutional restriction on Prop 215 and intends to challenge it in court. In 2006, San Diego County was sued for refusing to implement an ID card system as required under SB 420. In response, San Diego County filed a lawsuit against the State of California to overturn Prop. 215 and SB 420. San Diego Superior Court Judge, William R. Nevitt Jr. struck down San Diego's claim in the court's December 6 ruling. San Diego County has filed an appeal in the case.

Other Provisions of SB 420
In other provisions, SB 420: • Recognizes the right of patients and caregivers to associate collectively or cooperatively to cultivate medical marijuana. • Disallows marijuana smoking in no smoking zones, within 1000 feet of a school or youth center except in private residences, on school buses, in a motor vehicle that is being operated, or while operating a boat.. • Protects patients and caregivers from arrest for transportation and other miscellaneous charges not covered in 215. • Allows probationers, parolees, and prisoners to apply for permission to use medical marijuana; however, such permission may be refused at the discretion of the authorities. • Makes it a crime to fraudulently provide misinformation to obtain a card, to steal or misuse the card of another, to counterfeit a card, or to breach the confidentiality of patient records in the card program.