Ann Arbor News' opposition to Proposal C comes as no surprise to organizers. AAN ran several news stories about Granholm's and AG Cox's criticism of Proposal C, and AAN never called any organizers for a response to their criticism. I, Rich Birkett, called the AAN editorial department and offered to answer any questions they may have, then or later. They didn't ask any questions then, nor did they call back with any questions. We could have easily rebutted their criticisms.
Back in 1990, when the fine was raised from $5 to $25, the AAN opposed it, not because they liked the $5 fine, but because they wanted to repeal Ann Arbor's marijuana law entirely. They felt the $25 fine made full repeal more difficult and unlikely.
Fortunately, their criticisms were not too damaging. At one point, they contradicted themselves. They wrote, "Getting physicians ... to recommend marijuana for medical use, which Proposal C requires for a person to smoke it, also would be difficult and highly impractical.", and then later wrote "In California, public health departments now work with people who have received recommendations for medical marijuana from physicians." Involving public health departments wouldn't necessarily make acquiring a physician's recommendation easier or more practical. If Proposal C is adopted, it would not prevent public health departments from assisting in verifying the authenticity of recommendations. Proposal C would not interfere with other procedures the police, prosecutors or judges may use to verify authenticity, except any requirements of other laws, or, any injunctions or restraints by a judge. Its true, acquiring a physician's recommendation may cost more than (the small risk of having to pay) the $25 fine and $25 costs ($50). Most patients will probably forego getting a recommendation, instead opting to assert an affirmative defense. If an affirmative defense is rejected, and the defendant is found responsible, the defendant could then decide whether to pursue a recommendation or pay $50.
Their assertion "Getting physicians ... to recommend marijuana for medical use, which Proposal C requires" is not entirely true because a defendant could assert an affirmative defense, which does not require a recommendation. Recommendations need only be proved before or during police encounters, before or at the beginning of a court hearing, as evidence in an assertion of an affirmative defense, or before fines are required to be paid. Court clerks could even refund fines if a recommendation is acquired after payment of $50. If police don't accept the proof, the defendant has opportunities later to prove their recommendation to the prosecutor or judge. The judge alone also determines whether an affirmatiive defense, permitted with or without a recommendation, meets the provision's requirements. With only $50 at stake, its unlikely many losing defendants will appeal.
-Rich Birkett
View the editorial "Let medical marijuana get state approval first" at mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1098888757214630.xml?aanews?NEE