TO: Editors, Los Angeles Times

Dear Editors,

In your article on the courage of San Francisco District Attorney Terrence Hallinan in offering to continue distributing medical marijuana even if the attorney general shuts down the buyer’s clubs, you quote Dan Lungren "on the campaign trail" piously explaining his opposition to medical marijuana: "All I know is I took an oath to uphold the law…and I would hope San Francisco officials would do the same."

But what is the law? Section 1(C) of Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code, "The California Compassionate Use Act of 1996" (formerly Proposition 215), reads:

"To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana."

That’s the law, voted for by more Californians than have ever voted for Dan Lungren in any election. So who is fulfilling his "oath to uphold the law," Lungren or Hallinan?

As a cancer survivor living with AIDS who uses marijuana as part of my comprehensive medical program to keep me alive, to me the answer is clear.

Sincerely,

Peter McWilliams