Prop 64, the recreational law for California, made it illegal to dispense oil in schools. The Peron Resolution restores Prop 215 for those under age 21 and allows for use in schools private and public and centers for a development disabled centers. Dennis Peron is terminally ill.
The Peron Resolution
A request for a California State Assembly and Senate Joint Resolution to address the immediate necessity for special use regulations for those under age 21 for Cannabis Oil in Public Schools, Private Schools, and Centers for the Developmentally Disabled.
On November 8, 2016 California joined multiple other states with Proposition 64 allowing for the use of recreational marijuana. Within the vast amount of regulation within Proposition 64 there lies within a deep problem that surely can plague the state budget. With the passage of prop 64 the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, many ambiguous elements of said voter approved proposition failed to meet the definition of the name itself. Any law enacted by voter approval allowing for the use of marijuana by adults specifically for recreational purposes should not have had such a title while also creating havoc for the states most vulnerable citizens – disabled children.
Specifically, Section 11362.45 (f) of the AUMA/Prop 64, while attempting to create a drug free workplace, actually created a loophole in which the states most vulnerable licensed medicinal users under Proposition 215 are no longer capable of gaining their natural and medical compassionate use of oils at anyplace somebody may work. While the AUMA was supposedly meant to create a recreational marijuana usage law, instead it created a roadblock for students in schools, private schools, and those at Developmental Disability Centers. Reading 11362.45(f) makes the need for a joint resolution stating the need for creation of regulation beyond a necessity. “The rights and obligations of public and private employers to maintain a drug and alcohol free workplace or require an employer to permit or accommodate the use, consumption, possession, transfer, display, transportation, sale or growth of marijuana in the workplace, or affect the ability of employers to have policies prohibiting the use of marijuana by employees and prospective employees, or prevent employers from complying with state or federal law.” (11362.45 f)
California now trails both New Jersey and Colorado who have enacted specific legislation for this allowance. With the populous of one of the nation’s biggest states to consider and the sheer number of school districts in the state of California, it’s beyond a guess that Cannabis Oils are already being administered by School Nurses and others showing care about our states most vulnerable children and want them to succeed vs. seize at school. Proposition 64 turns those individuals into those failing to comply with Federal law in just one of the many very ambiguous elements of it. As a ‘special education advocate’ for children in special education, I have specific knowledge about oil already being given in California Schools with no laws in place that would ‘Prevent employees from complying with state or federal law’. So, while the Prop 64 created a meaningful way to collect tax revenue and afford allowance for recreational usage for adults – it conflicts with Proposition 215 in ways that not only cost children lives in order for adults to smoke marijuana but also make criminals out of those working to care for them.
The nation’s original Compassion Act for the use of Medicinal Marijuana, the model for the US and the balance of the globe (Proposition 215) is now overburdened by the Proposition 64’s ambiguous verbiage the interferes with the medicinal necessity of children under age 21.
The overbearing problems caused by 1362.45 (j) alone create a denial of compassion to children in public and private schools as well as developmental disability centers. Voters approved the proposition without full knowledge, or we believe any knowledge, that this would occur. For this reason this request is being made on behalf of the same party that brought forth the Compassion Act (Prop 215) and is rightfully named as such after Dennis Peron.
Furthermore, unlike the states of Colorado and New Jersey, California has not enacted law to regulate the use of Medicinal Cannabis (Oils) to be dispensed by schools, private schools, and centers for developmental disability. The two states mentioned have created a legislative model that California could work from. There’s no possible way that anyone working within a school program or after school program for developmentally disabled children could be at all involved with, witness the giving of, or be in anyway or in any part knowledgeable of the use of Cannabis Oils that are legal to be dispensed to the child under state law (Prop. 215). Prop. 64’s passage has created an environment in such workplaces that has suddenly put good people at risk. Those with meaningful purpose to follow a doctor’s orders under prop 215 are now breaking the law unknowingly.
Without any question the California State Legislature has a burden upon them to create regulation within legislation that will allow for special usage within the state’s public and private schools as well as the states centers for developmentally disabled. Failing to come to a resolution to do such and provide for a temporary ability for the dispensing of such oils as recommended by physician could surely move the state towards multiple negative outcomes.
- Without question the state could face actions brought forth by employees in such entities as stated herein and as shall be stated in the final draft of The Peron Resolution – a meaningful first step by the state of California to enact actual legislation that regulates the use of Cannabis in oils in such entities as so stated (Public and Private Schools, Centers for the Developmentally Disabled).
- In a worst case scenario, the state could face the loss or withholding of federal funding. Of course this is a drastic example but a very real one. Multiple rural Ca. School districts are (rightfully so) allowing their students to receive CBD/Cannabidiol or any type of Cannabis oil at school. Should this practice be discontinued? At the cost of young lives, No. Should there be a resolution immediately followed by actual legislation protecting the state and those children from a Recreational Marijuana Law? Yes.
With respect and gratitude,
Dennis Peron, Cannabis Patient and Activist