| Argument Against | This - 215 | Next Proposition (216) |

Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 215

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.


SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT ATTORNEY TERENCE HALLINAN SAYS . . .

Opponents aren't telling you that law enforcement officers are on both sides of Proposition 215. I support it because I don't want to send cancer patients to jail for using marijuana.

Proposition 215 does not allow ''unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere." It only allows marijuana to be grown for a patient's personal use. Police officers can still arrest anyone who grows too much, or tries to sell it.

Proposition 215 doesn't give kids the okay to use marijuana, either. Police officers can still arrest anyone for marijuana offenses. Proposition 215 simply gives those arrested a defense in court, if they can prove they used marijuana with a doctor's approval.

ASSEMBLYMAN JOHN VASCONCELLOS SAYS . . .

Proposition 215 is based on a bill I sponsored in the California Legislature. It passed both houses with support from both parties, but was vetoed by Governor Wilson. If it were the kind of irresponsible legislation that opponents claim it was, it would not have received such widespread support.

CANCER SURVIVOR JAMES CANTER SAYS . . .

Doctors and patients should decide what medicines are best. Ten years ago, I nearly died from testicular cancer that spread into my lungs. Chemotherapy made me sick and nauseous. The standard drugs, like Marinol, didn't help.

Marijuana blocked the nausea. As a result, I was able to continue the chemotherapy treatments. Today I've beaten the cancer, and no longer smoke marijuana. I credit marijuana as part of the treatment that saved my life.

TERENCE HALLINAN
San Francisco District Attorney

JOHN VASCONCELLOS
Assemblyman, 22nd District
Author, 1995 Medical Marijuana Bill

JAMES CANTER
Cancer survivor, Santa Rosa


| Argument Against | This - 215 | Next Proposition (216) |