The most hopeful thing about this is that the patients would be allowed a relatively realistic supply. This is not some nominal compliance like former California AG Lungren’s absurd two plant limit. Ironically, the 250 plant limit is more than the Oakland plan, which is based on the volume that is given to the legal eight medical marijuana users.
See
The Connection Between The Federal Case And The Kubby Case:
The Oakland Model Is Based On The Federal Government’s Own Medical Marijuana Program;
Steve Kubby Based His Level Of Marijuana Cultivation On Oakland’s
Taken at face value, the Feds are acknowledging that they really do have better things to do than deal with medical marijuana patients. Of course, they also don’t want to start losing cases with sympathetic defendants. But what impact did the 9^th Circuit ruling have on this? [Washington State is in the 9^th Circuit.]
See
Washington Citizens for Medical Rights Hails Ruling In Oakland Case
We may find the answer to that question when we find out if this policy applies outside of the 9^th Circuit. Surely, it has been approved at the Justice Department.

Notice the tone of the article. It treats medical marijuana as a "done-deal" and is looking for realistic ways to implement it. The word "controversial" does not appear here. It also is sympathetic to the patients. This reflects the editorial policy of the Seattle Times, which has been great in its commentary on the issue. Remember, the Federal prosecutors live there and have to read what the Times says.)
See
"DON’T GUT MARIJUANA LAW," Says Seattle Times
Washington State Medical Marijuana Law Defended Against Prohibitionist Attacks;
– 2 Articles
and
Seattle Times Editorial Reports Washington State Lt. Governor Brad Owens Fined
For Using Tax Dollars To Campaign Against State Medical Marijuana Initiative
and
Seattle Times Carries Scathing Attack On Hypocrisy Of Opponents Of Medical Marijuana
and
The Seattle Times Says, "The DEA has flouted the public trust."
and
The Seattle Times Says That Congress Should Reject Clinton And Gingrich’s "Shameless Use Of The Media."

December 2, 1999
From The Seattle Times
opinion@seatimes.com
http://www.seattletimes.com/
By Carol M. Ostrom, Seattle Times staff reporter

FEDS CLARIFY MEDICAL-MARIJUANA GUIDELINES; REJECT BUSTING PATIENTS

Local police often hint that federal law still makes possessing marijuana a crime, despite a state law allowing some patients to smoke and grow it.

But Western Washington's top federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Kate Pflaumer, has told Seattle police that her office is not interested in busting patients possessing a 60-day supply or less of marijuana.

In a letter written to Seattle police vice and narcotics Cmdr. Tom Grabicki, Pflaumer said she understood the conflict between state and federal law had put Seattle police in an "uncomfortable position."
(Marijuananews note: Not to mention the patients!)

In the spirit of clarifying her office's stance in a "complex and contradictory area of drug enforcement," Pflaumer wrote, policies already in place preclude her office from charging qualified medical marijuana patients under federal law.

"Given our limited funding and overwhelming responsibilities to enforce an ever larger number of federal offenses, we simply cannot afford to devote prosecutive resources to cases of this magnitude," she wrote.

"We therefore have no interest in the Seattle Police Department investigating or forwarding such cases to us."

Pflaumer's letter, written in August, is just now circulating beyond police circles. And the legal adviser for Seattle police downplayed the letter, saying it referred to "prosecution standards," not actual federal law.

Since late summer, police, the American Civil Liberties Union and others have been meeting to try to agree on guidelines to help officers determine who is a qualified patient and who is not.

A key sticking point has been the definition of what is a "60-day supply" of marijuana.

Many of the issues confronting police arose following a bust in May of a West Seattle man who suffers from seizures. The patient, David Means, was growing dozens of plants in his apartment. But he had documentation from a doctor and maintained police had entered his apartment illegally.

Although King County prosecutors declined the case, Seattle police refused to return the marijuana, arguing that an officer returning it to Means would violate federal law.

But in her letter, Pflaumer told the police that her office would not prosecute an officer returning marijuana to an owner he believes meets the "medical marijuana" standards.

Pflaumer also said: "I am assuming an authorized 60-day supply would be fewer than 250 plants."

Pflaumer, in an interview this week, said the reference to 250 plants does not imply immunity from federal prosecution for a patient possessing fewer than 250 plants.

The threshold standards maintained by her office, she said, are "flexible" and advisory.

"It would be a mistake to say we've given immunity to a certain number of plants," Pflaumer said. "It depends on the circumstances."

For example, she said, standards for smugglers at the U.S.-Canadian border are less, and current cases reflect that. Whatever the amount, Pflaumer added, a legitimate medical marijuana patient "better be prepared to show that that's what's necessary for one patient."

Normally, fewer than 250 plants would be below the level triggering interest by her office, a guideline developed before the medical marijuana law was passed last year.

Pflaumer also discounted police concerns that allowing patients to possess marijuana could jeopardize federal funding for police of the city.

Her letter was applauded by medical-marijuana advocates.

"I commend her for taking that position," said defense lawyer Jeff Steinborn. Police often use the excuse of federal intervention in drug cases, he said.
(Marijuananews note: Jeff Steinborn is a member of the NORML legal committee.)
Dr. Frances Podrebarac, a Seattle medical-marijuana patient who has signed authorization documents for other patients, said he was pleasantly surprised by Pflaumer's letter.

"I feel that the Seattle police have been told that they can in good faith leave patients alone. I think it says that the federal government is not interested in the police department arresting patients," he said.

But Leo Poort, police legal adviser, said Pflaumer's letter didn't change much for the department. "No matter what the policy is, I can't change the fact that it's in violation of federal law."
(Marijuananews note: Yes, but the police may still have to find another excuse for not obeying state law.)
See
Washington State Prosecutors Seek To Nullify State’s New Medical Marijuana Law
By "Fine-Tuning" It. They would "Require physicians to notify the state
every time they advise a patient to try marijuana as a medicine."
Poort is one of a number of interested parties attempting to develop guidelines to help police determine whether a person using or possessing marijuana is a qualified patient under state law.

An issue that has proved troublesome through several drafts is whether patients should have to produce some documentation giving police guidelines as to what a "60-day supply" might be for a given patient.

"Docs would never do that and shouldn't do that, under federal law," said Jerry Sheehan, legislative director for the ACLU's Washington chapter.
See
Washington State Medical Association Betrays Its Patients And Shows Its Collective Incompetence
Podrebarac would like to see Seattle adopt standards similar to Oakland, Calif., where members of a "Medical Marijuana Working Group" recommended authorities follow the "federal standard" they think has been adopted by the government, which supplies medical marijuana to a few qualifying patients.

That amount is approximately a half-pound of smokable marijuana per month. The group recommended patients be allowed to possess a three-month supply of marijuana, which they said translates into not more than 144 plants.
(Marijuananews note: This is really good journalism. The reporter got the facts down. I hope that this practice becomes more widespread in DEAland journalism!)

Poort said the working group here had looked at Oakland's guidelines, but he said California's law on medical marijuana was too different.

As it stands now, if patients won't produce documents attesting to what might be considered a reasonable 60-day supply for them, police encountering a questionable situation are left to rely "on our own experience and knowledge," Poort said.

Marijuana advocates argue that patients need guidelines so they don't live in fear of being busted and hauled into court to prove that they qualify under the law.

"Everyone seems to say they're not interested in putting patients in jail," Podrebarac said. "But we're a year out (from passing the state law), and patients still don't have any rules."
See
Patients In Eastern Washington State Continue To Live In Fear; "We’re all scared."