California, Willits

[Midnight toker]

City considers pot dispensary regs tonight

By The Willits News staff
September 29, 2006


The city Marijuana Ad Hoc Committee, in operation for more than a year, will issue its report and recommendations on the regulation of marijuana dispensaries at tonight's council meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. at city hall.

The document recommends a total ban on dispensaries "with the objective of avoiding the negative secondary effects including increased criminal activity . . . "

An alternative to a total ban calls for a limit on the number of plants or amount of processed marijuana that can be kept on site, limiting the age of customers to at least 18, installation of a security and alarm system approved by the police department, prohibition of loitering on the premises, restrictive zoning requirements; and limitation of hours and the total number of dispensaries.

The extended moratorium on dispensaries within city limits, imposed to give the city time to address the issue, will expire October 22 and cannot be extended further.

Turning its attention from smoke to water, the city will consider awarding an $83,900 contract to West Yost Associates for a Water Supply Action Plan that would identify how to proceed in case of drought and form the basis for projects designed to increase the available water supply. As matters now stand, there is an informal moratorium on major developments within city limits because the supply of water needed to serve them is uncertain.

The city will also consider whether or not to authorize the sixth amendment to its contract with the engineering firm SHN: an increase of $65,000. The amount was identified as the cost of additional work needed to complete a final plan for the new wastewater treatment plant, which has undergone several design changes in response to a turn-around on the part of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

[Midnight toker]

Medical pot dispensaries outlawed

By Claudia Reed/TWN Staff Writer
The Willits News
October 1, 2006

By unanimous vote, Wednesday night, the Willits City Council passed an ordinance outlawing the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries within city limits.

Two key findings were listed as justification for the prohibition:
<ul class=postlist><li> the 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that "there is no medical necessity exception to the federal Controlled Substances Act;" and </li>

<li> the fact that "other communities that permit medical marijuana facilities have experienced criminal activity or calls for service involving theft, robbery, loitering and unlawful sales of marijuana, among others." </li></ul>Definitions within the ordinance extend the prohibition to nearly all pot sales of any kind: "'Medical Marijuana Dispensary' means any facility or location, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is made available to, distributed by, or distributed to two or more of the following: a qualified patient, a person with an identification card, or a primary caregiver."

The words "two or more" are key. An exchange in which one supplier gives or sells marijuana to just one medical user is not prohibited by this ordinance. State law, however, limits that transaction to an exchange between a "primary caregiver" and a qualified medical marijuana patient. The state also defines "primary caregiver" as "the individual, designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person..."

While the city's regulation on marijuana dispensaries does not include a section on enforcement, the previously passed comprehensive code enforcement ordinance applies. The enforcement ordinance allows the city to declare any code violation a nuisance that can be abated through a civil lawsuit, criminal prosecution, or such administrative remedies as increasing fines. If fines go unpaid after a series of warnings the city can go to court to seek a lien on an offender's property.

The prohibition against marijuana dispensaries states both tenant and owner can be held accountable "if he or she knowingly allows property of which he or she is the tenant or owner to be used in violation of this ordinance."

[palmspringsbum]

"Since the medical marijuana thing our town has gone to hell," said Jolene Carrillo. "Every year we have all these creepy people. They sleep behind Safeway and Rays and go to the bathroom there. They go to Our Daily Bread and eat the food poor people need."

City reconsiders pot ban

By Claudia Reed/TWN Staff Writer
The Willits News
Article Launched:10/27/2006 11:39:06 AM PDT

Grow rules haven't solved problems

City attorney James Lance is looking into the legality of banning all marijuana growing within city limits.

An alternative possibility discussed at the October 25 city council meeting is a ban on growing by "caregivers," people authorized to produce medical marijuana for others at the rate of six adult plants per patient. The second alternative could leave medical marijuana patients free to grow their own six plants each.

At issue are complaints from residents and council members - that the existing city ordinance on marijuana growing, which confines the activity to fully enclosed and secured structures, isn't preventing strong odors and intoxicating resins from entering the air. Possible violence associated with marijuana theft was also discussed.

"When I walk around town I'm overwhelmed by the strong smell," said Councilwoman Karen Oslund. Oslund said the odor was strong even in the playground at Blosser Lane Elementary School, where her son was taking part in sports. When the child reported feeling dizzy, Oslund concluded he had been affected by airborne resins.

Resident Laura McBride, who lives near a large enclosed marijuana growing operation, also reports having been affected by resins.

"I had to redo my bookwork because there were so many mistakes," she said, noting the problem occurs only at harvest season. "It takes me three hours to do a one-hour job."

McBride said she and others also suffer from headaches and sinus problems that intensify as the crop reaches maturity.

"People are considering moving," she said.

Resident Joyce Donaldson worried about "a home invasion that was meant for three houses down."

"All we need is gangs from San Francisco with night goggles and semi-automatics."

Councilman Ron Orenstein noted pot growers could be as violent as pot thieves:

"People say this is no different than raising chickens (also legal within city limits), but I bet the building inspector who goes to investigate chicken operations doesn't need police protection."

Resident Brenda Orenstein said a pot grower on a neighboring property slept outside in a tent with a gun by his side and a guard dog that "barked a lot."

"I couldn't have family or guests in the back yard during growing season," she said. "My kids don't visit from the beginning of August to the end of November. This is sad."

Brenda Orenstein also added new complaints to those previously stated: the saturation of her own clothing with the odor of marijuana, making her embarrassed to leave home; and the loss of the scent of roses and lilacs.

Medical marijuana grower Joe Colleton, however, said he feels perfectly safe everywhere in Willits and the smell of marijuana is no more harmful than the wood smoke he regularly inhales from neighboring chimneys. He added he has done everything possible to comply with the existing ordinance, including installing a filter designed to reduce emission of resins and odors.

Community Development Director Alan Falleri, who has taken on the inspection of indoor grow operations, agreed Colleton has been cooperative.

"I didn't feel threatened going to Joe Colleton's place," Falleri said. "I wouldn't characterize all the medical marijuana growers out there as not caring. Most people I've dealt with did try to comply."

Falleri said he has seen a marked decrease in marijuana growing this year as compared to last, proof the existing ordinance is having an effect. He added different people have different reactions to the smell, depending on their own sensitivities and different varieties of marijuana have more intense odors than others. Such factors as air inversions and temperatures may also change odor levels, he said.

Council members discussed the kinds of structures that would comply with definitions of "secure" and "fully enclosed." They concluded no enclosure could eliminate emissions and theft attempts. Greenhouses are hard to secure, given the flimsy materials often used in construction. Grow spaces in general have openings to keep the crop from rotting and doors to allow growers to enter and exit.

City Manager Ross Walker reported three formal complaints about indoor marijuana grows in three different parts of the city this season. Another one was recently communicated to a council member.

Walker said a single complaint is not enough to identify a grow operation as an actionable nuisance.

"Petitions work," he said.

Existing regulations don't specify the number of complaints greater than one, but less than a petition full, that would trigger city action.

Councilman Denny McEntire said fear of retribution silences those who would otherwise complain.

Brenda Orenstein agreed, saying her car was sprayed with grafitti after her husband, Ron Orenstein, helped to develop the first marijuana control ordinance.

Also at issue was the flocks of homeless young people who drift into town every harvest season, presumably looking for a share of the crop or work in the pot fields.

"Since the medical marijuana thing our town has gone to hell," said Jolene Carrillo. "Every year we have all these creepy people. They sleep behind Safeway and Rays and go to the bathroom there. They go to Our Daily Bread and eat the food poor people need."

No agreement was reached on how far a new ordinance would go in reducing the drifter population.

[palmspringsbum]

Atty: Total pot growing ban illegal City reconsiders new ordinance, Nov. 8

By Claudia Reed/TWN Staff Writer
The Willits News
Article Launched:11/08/2006 11:14:20 AM PST

"Issue: Would a new city ordinance which prohibited all marijuana cultivation, indoors or outdoors, in all locations of the city, contradict the state medical marijuana laws?

Conclusion: Yes."

That's the essence of a report by city attorney James Lance to the city council.

At their October 25 meeting, city council members asked Lance to look into the legality of banning all marijuana growing within city limits. The existing ordinance, which allows growing within "fully enclosed" structures, apparently isn't solving the problem of irritation from airborne resins and odors. The fear of violence related to attempted pot theft also remains an issue.

In his report to the city, however, Lance said a total ban on marijuana growing would contradict the state's Medical Marijuana Program Act, which authorizes patients and their "caregivers" to possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana and to maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature plants per patient.

Lance cited last year's opinion by the state attorney general (AG) that cities may legally increase but not decrease the amount of marijuana permitted. While the AG's statements aren't legally binding, Lance wrote, they are often used in court when an interpretation of the law is at issue. Lance pointed out an ordinance that contradicts state law would be difficult to prosecute through state's courts.

He recommended such alternatives as banning growing in greenhouses in order to cut down on emissions; prohibiting caregiver growing, which would limit the number of plants to six adult plants per parcel; limiting the size of the plants; and requiring installation of air filtering devices.

Limiting the number of plants to less than six per parcel, he wrote, would contradict state law, but have a better chance of surviving a court challenge than an outright ban.

An option not in the report, but confirmed in a phone call with TWN, is the designation of a certain section of the city perhaps an industrial zone where marijuana cultivation would be permitted.

Lance believes the state law is preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act, which holds all marijuana possession and use to be illegal, but says his conclusion "has not been made by the courts." The existing ordinance avoids conflict with federal law by prohibiting outdoor growing, but not specifically authorizing indoor growing.

At their November 8 meeting, city council members will consider Lance's report in discussing the options for a new or revised ordinance on marijuana growing within city limits.

[palmspringsbum]

Transients left damage, moved on

BY CLAUDIA REED/TWN STAFF WRITER
The Willits News
Article Launched:11/22/2006 03:08:47 PM PST

Down came the rain and washed the people out at least the young people with backpacks and dogs visible on Willits sidewalks and park grounds over the past month.

That they came here at all at the beginning of the rainy season, rather than in the easy-living summer, has most people convinced they were hoping to help harvest and consume the county's most famous agricultural product.

In the meantime, several of them fouled their surroundings, panhandled for change, smoked pot near the children's playground, loitered in doorways, and generally made a nuisance of themselves.

"The whole character of this town gets to be a real sour thing this time of year," said City Councilman Ron Orenstein during a recent discussion of the subject.

Resident Jolene Carrillo more than agreed. She identified what she considered the source of the pain:

"Since medical marijuana our town has gone to hell," she said. "Every year you have all these creepy people behind Safeway, Ray's. They leave beer bottles, go to the bathroom there, go to Our Daily Bread and eat the food poor people need."

Spokespersons for the food kitchen confirmed they served twice to three times the usual number of meals when the wandering bands arrived in town.

Chief of Police Gerry Gonzalez said the damage this year has been more costly than cleaning excrement from park grounds and collecting beer bottles. He also confirmed the connection between the fall waves of backpackers and the marijuana harvest.

"The homeless people congregate in and destroy railroad cars," he said. "They set fires inside to keep warm. We may take action to have the cars removed. I recall touring those cars when I first came to town. They were just beautiful. Now they're just horrible."

Chief Gonzalez has no doubt who the perpetrators are. He's talked to and arrested some of them:

"It's the same individuals seen walking down the street seeking employment in our agricultural trade. At least one openly said he was here to trim dope. He was lured here for that but he was surprised he was not securing employment or free dope. Several others, when asked, have not denied they are here in that trade. They get the impression 'Gee, it's legal in this county.' That's what they actually thought."

In 2000, Mendocino County voters did pass Measure G, which would have prohibited local sheriff's deputies from arresting anyone with 25 or fewer "adult flowering female marijuana plants or the equivalent in dried marijuana" regardless of the ultimate uses made of the plant. Measure G, however, was pre-empted by state laws on the subject, which permit marijuana growing only as medicine for qualified patients and only at the rate of six mature plants per patient.

The would-be trimmers may also have been unaware that crimes committed in other counties could provoke action in this one.

"I picked up one in the park from a warrant down south," said Chief Gonzalez.

Several, he added were from the Los Angeles and Central Coast areas of the state. One had migrated in from Oklahoma.

Chief Gonzalez said they were easier to deal with this year now that the city has passed an ordinance outlawing camping without the property owner's permission, as well as panhandling.

But why were they panhandling?

Another fact the young people may not have realized is that most large-scale marijuana farms are part of a major, unregulated, for-profit industry, often making full use of contaminating pesticides and armed guards. This season, two people were shot and killed when they came too close to an illegal grow operation.

Those hired for labor in such an industry are likely to be chosen for their ability to work hard, remain alert, and keep their mouths shut. Backpackers eating at food banks and sleeping in parks are not in great demand.

[palmspringsbum]

SELF-HELP LAW: Conflict between state and federal pot laws

by Marc Komer, Columnist, Willits News
November 28th, 2007


Under our federalist system of government, the states, rather than the federal government, are entrusted to exercise a general police power for the benefit of their citizens. Due to this constitutional division of authority between the federal government and the states, the State of California may elect to decriminalize conduct, such as medical marijuana activity, which remains illegal under federal law. Even if law enforcement officers take a personal position on any conflict between state and federal law, they are bound by California's Constitution to uphold only state law.

The California Supreme Court stated in People v. Mower (2002) that the State of California is responsible for enforcement of its own marijuana laws, and not those of the federal government. Under California medical marijuana law, patients and caregivers are exempt from prosecution by the state regardless of federal law.

In People v. Tilehkooh (2003), the court found California courts "long ago recognized that state courts do not enforce the federal criminal statutes." The same court also stated "the federal criminal law is cognizable as such only in the federal courts." In People v. Kelly (1869), it was determined that "State tribunals have no power to punish crimes against the laws of the United States as such. The same act may, in some instances, be an offense against the laws of both, and it is only an offense against the State laws that it can be punished by the State, in any event."

More recently, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer provided some clarification on the role and responsibility of the state in upholding medical marijuana law. The state has assisted a patient in a case where a superior court ruled against the patient, claiming "[medical marijuana cultivation is] still illegal under federal law."

On appeal, Lockyer dismissed the entire federal law argument, stating "the continuing prohibition of marijuana possession under federal law" does not come into play. Instead, Lockyer "acknowledged both generally and in the specific context of interpreting the Compassionate Use Act it is not the province of state courts to enforce federal laws."

In future columns, I will discuss California marijuana laws in more detail.

<small>ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Marc Komer is a legal document assistant and can be reached at 459-2775 or www.mendolegaldocs.com.

[palmspringsbum]

SELF-HELP LAW: California pot laws, Part 2

by Marc Komer, Willits News (CA)
December 12th, 2007


Proposition 215, the California Compassionate Use Act, was enacted by the voters and took effect on November 6, 1996. This law fundamentally changed who can be arrested for possessing marijuana in this state.

Some people, even though they are patients who possess marijuana, can be arrested. There is nothing in Proposition 215 to compel police to accept a patient's medical claim as being valid. Many legal patients have been raided or arrested for having dubious or outdated recommendations, for growing amounts that cops deem excessive, or on account of neighbors' complaints. An essential aim of the state ID card system will be to help avoid undue arrests. Once patients have been charged, it is up to the courts to determine the validity of their medical claim.

A landmark State Supreme Court decision, People vs. Mower, holds that patients have the same legal right to marijuana as to any legally prescribed drug. Under Mower, patients who have been arrested can request dismissal of charges at a pre-trial hearing. If the defendant convinces the court that the prosecution hasn't established probable cause that it was for other than medical purposes, criminal charges are dismissed. If not, the patient goes on to trial, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant was guilty. Those who have had their charges dropped may file to have their property returned, and possibly claim damages.

In many cases, police raid patients and take their medical marijuana without filing criminal charges. In order to reclaim their marijuana, patients must then file a court suit on their own.

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, possession of any marijuana is a misdemeanor and cultivation is a felony. In addition, premises used to sell or cultivate marijuana for sale are subject to forfeiture.

Who qualifies as a physician? Proposition 215 applies to physicians, osteopaths and surgeons who are licensed to practice in California. It does not apply to chiropractors, herbal therapists, etc. Under Proposition 215, physicians are required to state that they "approve" or "recommend" marijuana. Physicians are not allowed to "prescribe" marijuana, as federal law restricts "prescriptions" to drugs licensed for sale in pharmacies.

What illnesses can marijuana be recommended for? Proposition 215 lists "cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief." It qualifies this by stating that its purpose is "to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana." A recent appellate court decision in People v. Spark ruled that the question of whether the patient's medical condition is "serious" is to be made by a physician only. Physicians have recommended marijuana for hundreds of indications, including such common complaints as insomnia, post-traumatic stress, PMS, depression, and substance abuse.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Marc Komer is a legal document assistant and can be reached at 459-2775 or www.mendolegaldocs.com.

[palmspringsbum]

SELF-HELP LAW: California pot laws, Part 3

The Willits News
By Marc Komer/Legal Document Assistant
Article Launched: 12/19/2007 11:00:00 PM PST


Proposition 215, the California Compassionate Use Act, and the subsequent legislative statue SB420 have created a number of interesting legal changes, some of which are still being refined in the counties and in the courts. Some of these rules have led to misunderstanding by the public.

<span class=postbold>Where can medical marijuana be smoked?</span>

Senate Bill 420 does not allow medical marijuana smoking within 1,000 feet of a school or youth center except in private residences; on school buses, in a motor vehicle that is being operated, or while operating a boat. Patients are advised to be discreet when consuming medical marijuana in public. Some state colleges have refused to allow medical marijuana on campus, even in designated smoking areas; the legality of these bans is disputed.

<span class=postbold>Marijuana on the job</span>

State law does not require accommodation of medical use of marijuana at any place of employment. Under Mower, a state court case, patients may have a strong argument in state court that medical marijuana recommendations should be respected. However, employers have broad discretion to reject job applicants in pre-employment tests. Prop 215 is no defense where drug testing is required under federal regulations.

<span class=postbold>Prisoners and probationers</span>

SB420 allows probationers, parolees, and prisoners to apply for permission to use medical marijuana. However, it does not require correctional facilities to accommodate medical marijuana use by prisoners or arrestees.

<span class=postbold>Validity of Marijuana recommendations</span>

Under Prop. 215, a recommendation is valid so long as the doctor says it is. However, patients are required to have their ID cards renewed annually, and many police refuse to recognize recommendations that are older than a year or so. Courts have generally ruled that Prop. 215 does not protect patients who do not have a valid physician's recommendation at the time of their arrest.

<span class=postbold>Identification cards</span>

Patients are not required to get an ID card to enjoy the protection of Prop. 215. All that is needed is a physician's statement saying that marijuana is "approved" or "recommended." A state ID card will be necessary to enjoy the protections from arrest afforded under SB 420. Mendocino County has adopted an ID program.

Mendocino County and Willits marijuana rules will be discussed in future columns.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Marc Komer is a legal document assistant and can be reached at 459-2775 or www.mendolegaldocs.com.

[palmspringsbum]

Council votes to repeal Measure G

The Willits News
By Linda Williams/TWN Staff Writer
Article Launched: 12/26/2007 10:50:44 AM PST


At a special meeting, the Willits City Council voted to send a letter to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors urging them to place a measure on the June 2008 ballot to repeal Measure G and in support of the recently passed county ordinance restricting marijuana cultivation.

Few members of the public attended the Thursday, December 20 evening meeting and only Vice Mayor Larry Stranske, Councilman Greg Kanne and Councilwoman Tami Jorgensen were present representing the council. The vote was unanimous.

The meeting notice was posted at Willits City Hall on Wednesday and met the minimum notification requirements of the Brown Act. The special meeting was considered necessary to allow Willits to provide input to the County Board of Supervisors prior to its meeting on January 8.

One member of the public spoke in opposition to the proposed council action, one spoke in support and one attempted to discuss another matter but was silenced when he refused to stick to the topic.

Measure G passed in 2000 with 58.5 percent of the votes. The measure basically instructed county government to ignore marijuana use by anyone growing or using less than 25 plants whether for medical or recreational use. About 71 percent of the county registered voters cast ballots in the 2000 election.

[palmspringsbum]

'Pot docs' issuing 'Get Out of Jail Free' cards

The Willits News
By Linda Williams /TWN Staff Writer
Article Launched: 12/26/2007 10:51:01 AM PST


While most think of cancer and AIDS when hearing of medical marijuana, in recent years most marijuana recommendations have been issued for far less serious illnesses by a small cadre of "pot docs." Medical marijuana recommendations seem to be evolving into Get Out of Jail Free cards rather than treatment for serious medical conditions.

An estimated 95 percent of patients visiting "pot docs" are already significant pot users seeking approval for their drug use, and a small group of physicians are willing to fulfill their request.

When California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996, the full consequences of the act were not readily apparent to everyone at the time. Proponents reassured the public that marijuana would still be illegal for recreational use and was only meant for Californians with serious health issues.

The act gave seriously ill Californians the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes when recommended by a physician. In 1996, AIDS patients with wasting disease and chemotherapy patients with nausea so bad they could not function were the people featured on advertising sponsored by pro-215 supporters. Proponents urged the passage to "avoid sending cancer patients to jail."

Opponents of the measure included nearly every law enforcement group within the state who described the measure as "a cruel hoax" since it did not actually restrict the use of marijuana to serious illness like cancer or AIDS but left it open to be allowed for any reason without a prescription, examination or age requirement.

Slightly more than 55 percent of the voters supported the proposition in 1996.

Current estimates now have up to 350,000 marijuana users in California with physician recommendations, up from only 100,000 in 2005. Because there is no monitoring of these recommendations and with no requirement to get a state or county marijuana card, there is no way to know how many recommendations have actually been issued.

The National Drug Use Survey in 2003 estimated California had 700,000 daily marijuana users and a million more casual users.

While most physicians have kept faith with the voters' intent, a small minority appear to have used it to feather their own nests or further their own agenda.

By 2005, 15 pot docs had issued an estimated 50,000 marijuana recommendations. About 1,500 other physicians, primarily AIDS and cancer specialists, issued the remaining 50,000 recommendations. California has 30,000 physicians.

These pot docs collect from $150 to $250 from patients for each recommendation. Dr. Tod Mikuriya, a physician who helped draft Prop. 215 issued as many as 10,000 recommendations personally before being sanctioned by the California Medical Association. Mikuriya died earlier this year.

The CMA has sanctioned several doctors but was handcuffed by a 2004 California court ruling restricting its investigations to patients who file a complaint and authorize the release of their medical records. Without a complaint from a pot patient, the CMA has limited ability to review cases.

This ruling has led to an explosion of marijuana prescription clinics springing up across California. These new groups of pot docs advertise in the media and on the internet. Some even maintain around the clock online verification of the recommendations for cannabis clubs or law enforcement purposes.

Some clinics were visited by undercover police and reporters exploring the limits of what the clinics will recommend marijuana for. One Bay Area reporter said her feet hurt when wearing high heels and got a recommendation. An undercover police officer in San Diego requested a marijuana recommendation for his dog, while the pot doc refused to provide one, he did give the officer a caregiver authorization to obtain marijuana for the dog. One reporter received a marijuana recommendation because he had dry skin, another for hair loss.

Those not wishing to visit a pot doc can be designated as a "caregiver" for someone who has.

With most recommendations valid for one year and typical fees of $150 each, these pot docs seem to have found a $45 million a year business opportunity. Should the remaining regular or recreational pot users decide to get their own Get Out of Jail Free cards, the recommendations could generate as much as $255 million annually and essentially legalize all marijuana use in California.

Editors Note: As discussed in the previous article in the series, Marijuana and Medical Science, the active ingredients in marijuana have been shown effective for treating AIDS wasting disease and relieving nausea for some chemotherapy patients. These ingredients also have the potential for treating other serious illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, depression and neuropathic pain.

[palmspringsbum]

Ukiahan seeks to overturn Measure G

The Willits News
By Mike A'Dair/TWN Staff Writer
Article Launched: 12/26/2007 11:00:00 PM PST


Local television producer Jimmy Rickel has taken a bold step to answer former Congressman Dan Hamburg's challenge to put Measure G up to a vote.

Measure G is the county voter initiative that declared prosecuting the cultivation of marijuana would be the lowest priority for county law enforcement, and in no case would local law enforcement arrest and no district attorney would prosecute anybody for growing 25 or fewer marijuana plants.

It was approved by 58 percent of the voters in November 2000.

Rickel has authored and has secured permission to circulate an initiative petition called Sensible Medical Marijuana (SSM).

According to him, SSM does four things:
<ol><li>It overturns Measure G.</li>

<li>It sets the plants limits for growing medical marijuana at Senate Bill 420 levels, namely, six mature and 12 immature medical marijuana plants. </li>

<li>It provides that "caregrivers", i.e., those who are growing medical marijuana, may not grow for more than four "patient cards" per year, per parcel.</li>

<li>It directs county government to figure out how to make certain doctors' recommendations for medical marijuana are for serious medical conditions only. </li></ol>
Rickel said the SSM initiative was approved for circulation on Nov. 6, 2007. He has until early April to gather the necessary number of signatures set by county Clerk-Recorder Marsha Wharff at 3,015.

Rickel said that he has about a dozen people helping him gather signatures throughout the county, and could use more help.

People wishing to aid Rickel in his effort to put the SSM initiative on the ballot may call him at 485-7915, or they can email him at sensiblemedicalmarijuana@yahoo.com.

Rickel said he submitted his ballot initiative because that the efforts of the board of supervisors was going to be ineffective. "I knew the board of supervisors was not going to have any teeth in any ordinance they would try to adopt," Rickel said. He added he is aware that his position may not be popular in some circles.

"I'm anticipating crap on this from left, right and center," he said. All I can say is, 'Bring it on.'"

[palmspringsbum]

Supervisors place anti-pot initiative on ballot

The Willits News
By Mike A'Dair/TWN Staff Writer
Article Launched: 01/11/2008 11:50:18 AM PST


Supervisors voted Tuesday to place a measure on the June ballot to repeal Measure G and adopt the state medical marijuana limits.

Measure G was approved by 58.5 percent of county voters in November 2000. Under the initiative's provisions, marijuana cultivation and possession to be given the lowest priority by county law enforcement officers, and the district attorney's office was not forbidden to prosecute any marijuana case involving 25 or fewer adult, flowering plants or the equivalent amount of dried marijuana.

Both former County Counsel Peter Klein and current County Counsel Jeanine Nadel have told supervisors many Measure G provisions are contrary to current law.

Nadel has said several times the Measure G provision that directs the board of supervisors to "use its funding authority to ensure the district attorney shall not prosecute any violation" of marijuana laws involving 25 or fewer plants violates California's constitution, which reserves budgeting authority to elected officials.

Although passed in 2000, the provisions of Measure G were not added to the county's legal codes until April 2007.

In spite of its questionable legality, Measure G has been acknowledged as functionally authoritative by both pro- and anti-pot political forces. The pro-pot community consistently referred to Measure G during the year-long process in which the board's Criminal Justice Committee sought to write a medical marijuana ordinance for Mendocino County.

While Supervisor Michael Delbar preferred a six-plant limit, and Supervisor Jim Wattenburger sought an 18-plant limit, many of those who spoke in defense of growers' rights said the county had no authority to contravene the 25-plant limit encoded in Measure G.

At one point, supervisors agreed with that argument, adopting a 25-plant limit for the county's medical marijuana ordinance in August 2007.

In December, taking part of an idea presented by Supervisor John Pinches, the board changed that limit to 25 plants per assessor's parcel.

The new, as-yet unnumbered ballot initiative states: "A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess or maintain for medical purposes only those amounts as set forth in Health and Safety Code section 11362 and as amended by state or federal law."

That means, if voters approve the initiative, the new limits for medical marijuana in Mendocino County will be six mature or 12 immature plants, and a maximum of eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient.

According to Nadel, a patient could grow or possess more medical marijuana than that if he or she has a doctor's recommendation stipulating that more marijuana is necessary to provide adequate relief for the patient's condition.

The issue was approved by supervisors 4-1, with Supervisor David Colfax opposing.

In December, Colfax voted in favor of the final version of the board's medical marijuana ordinance, which set the plant limit at 25 plants per assessors' parcel, adding he had received many calls from constituents after the December vote. He also acknowledged he had recently done a lot of reading on the topic of marijuana.

Colfax said he felt it was not fair for an initiative to go directly from an idea in a few peoples' minds to the county ballot without first going through the signature-gathering phase. He noted that in 1984 he was a prime mover behind a failed ballot initiative he termed Save Our Local Economy.

"I am not going to support this, because if this goes forward it's going to be known as the 'supervisors'' initiative.' I will not support it. I think it would be an insult. If there are people here who feel it should be on the ballot, great. Get out of here, get out on the street, start getting those signatures. That's what I did in 1984," Colfax said.

Pinches favored putting the question to the voters. "There are only two things that are going to affect marijuana industry here in this county," he said. "One, if the demand goes away, which it isn't going to do and hasn't done now for 40 years. If anything, the demand is going up. So that's not going to change.

"The other thing is, if we are able to increase law enforcement on it by a considerable amount. But that is not going to happen, because we do not have and we will never have enough money to do that. So we have this marijuana thing here. And it is going to stay here.

"I am not worried about people who are growing 20 or 25 or 30 or 50 marijuana plants. I am worried about people who are growing 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 marijuana plants, who are sucking our rivers dry, who are leveling off the tops of our mountains, who are increasing the level of violence in our county. Those are the ones I am worried about.

"To me, that kind of activity is totally unacceptable," he said. "To the people out there who are growing pot to pay doctor bills or make house payments, I do not regard those people as criminals. I would say that a lot of people up in my district in the northern part of the county, a large percentage of the people there make some part of their living from marijuana. I do not regard those people as criminals.

"On the other hand, there seems to be sea change happening on peoples' attitudes toward marijuana right now. So I am going to support this measure, because I think people have a right to vote on whether they want to repeal Measure G or not.

"We have got to come together on this question of marijuana, and I think we are moving forward on it," Pinches said.

The board also voted to reconfirm it wanted its medical marijuana ordinance to become law. That ordinance set the plant limit at 25 plants per assessor's parcel, provided for zip ties, and for setback zones from schools, churches and other youth-oriented facilities.

A motion to reconfirm the ordinance as law was approved 3-2, with Colfax and Pinches voting no.

Delbar clarified that should the "Negative G" ballot measure pass, it would limit medical marijuana cultivation to six mature or 12 immature plants at a given time, per card holder. The 25-plant limit per parcel would still stand; up to four card-carrying growers per parcel could legally grow six medical marijuana plants each.

[palmspringsbum]

Medical marijuana and the federal government

The Willits News
By Linda Williams/TWN Staff Writer
Article Launched: 02/20/2008 11:03:12 AM PST

It remains unclear why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration continues to classify marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, the most dangerous classification available along with heroin, PCP (angel dust) and LSD, while in 1998 classifying Marinol, a synthetic THC (the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana), as a Schedule 3 drug. This despite polls showing most Americans would support reclassification.

Even a reclassification of marijuana to a Schedule 2 category such as cocaine and coca leaves, raw opium and poppy straw, morphine and methamphetamines, would allow physicians to prescribe it for medical patients and pharmacies to dispense it.

In 1996, when California led 12 other states in passing medical marijuana protection, the language in Proposition 215 encouraged the federal and state governments to work together to resolve any conflicts. Many who voted for Prop. 215 assumed it would take little time before doctors could legally prescribe marijuana and patients could pick it up at their local pharmacy.

More than 11 years later, the situation remains conflicted between state, federal and even local laws, which has encouraged an entire new class of lawless "bootleggers" to supply medical marijuana needs, reminiscent to many of the time of Prohibition (1920-1933) when drinking alcohol was illegal in the United States.

Prohibition brought with it the rise of organized crime to supply the illegal market and "speakeasies" with bootleg alcohol. At the time, the cost to enforce Prohibition was high, no tax revenues were received on the illegal hooch and a highly profitable and violent black market system supplied alcohol to nearly every corner of the nation. Some of the alcohol was made locally and some imported illegally from Canada and Mexico. The parallel between the current marijuana culture in Mendocino County and the Prohibition years is striking.

The continued classification of marijuana by the federal government with such serious drugs as heroin and PCP appears to contradict the government's own research. If the Food and Drug Administration had reclassified marijuana sometime since 1996, much of the conflict between state and federal laws associated with medical marijuana would have been resolved. Doctors prescribe Schedule II drugs and pharmacies fill those prescriptions every day throughout the country. Unauthorized use and sale of Schedule II drugs are still illegal but the rules provide a way for doctors legally to prescribe them to patients.

Much of the literature associated with keeping marijuana as a Schedule I drug centers around its addictive qualities, this despite substantial research that has debunked this. It has also been dubbed the "gateway drug" despite the federal governments own research to the contrary. Even the Office of National Drug Control Policy states "smoking marijuana may allow patients to temporarily feel better." Most Schedule 2 drugs are also addictive and many have serious side effects.

There are two ways for a drug to be reclassified, the FDA can do it administratively or Congress can act. The administration of the FDA under both presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush have consistently refused to consider the reclassification in large part because it is a plant and not a formulated drug with full scale testing sponsored by a pharmaceutical drug company. "The federal government-along with many state governments and private antidrug organizations-staunchly maintains that botanical marijuana is a dangerous drug without any legitimate medical use," according to a 2006 congressional policy assessment.

Bills have been defeated during the past five Congressional terms, which would have either reclassified marijuana or prevented the U.S. Department of Justice from prosecuting medical marijuana users, cultivators or distributors.

"Rescheduling seems to be supported by public opinion. A nationwide Gallup

Poll conducted in March 1999 found that 73 percent of American adults favor "making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to reduce pain and suffering." An American Association of Retired Persons poll of American adults age 45 and older conducted in mid-November 2004 found 72 percent agree that adults "should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if recommended by a physician."

[palmspringsbum]

Assignment: Ukiah - Wood$tock '09: Plea$e be our gue$t$!

The Ukiah Daily Journal | By Tommy Wayne Kramer
Updated: 04/06/2009 08:43:35 AM PDT

Assignment: Ukiah - Wood$tock '09: Plea$e be our gue$t$!

No doubt some people will find fault with the plan to bring Woodstock 2009 to Willits. I can already hear the complaints: "Ooh there'll be too much traffic and it'll cause water shortages, and I hate reggae music and boo hoo hoo."

But not me. I welcome the Woodstockheads with open arms and outstretched palms. Where the naysayers can only see negatives, I see a future bursting with possibilities. I see so much to be optimistic about.

In a word I see

<center><span class=postbigbold>O P P O R T U N I T Y.</span></center>

Yes, folks, this is Mendocino County's chance to milk the swollen cow, stick the fatted pig, cook the Golden Goose. Our ship is about to come in and we need to be waiting at the dock, sleeves rolled up and ready to raid it. And I sure hope at least a couple of our county supervisors are reading along with me right now because if they are they can probably see what I see, which is "Budget Solutions '09."

When you were a little kid did you ever daydream about how cool it would be if everybody in the whole world sent you a nickel? A measly nickel - they wouldn't even miss it, but if you had one from every last person in the world you'd be so rich you could buy all your friends bicycles and baseball gloves and your dad a Cadillac and you'd still have money left over!

Well, Woodstock is going to be kinda like that. We'll just take a little bit - they'll hardly miss it - off everyone. And a little bit times a million should add up to Cadillacs for all of us, or at least enough for the Supervisors.

First things first. Starting in June Mendocino County officials will begin issuing local citizen Identification Tags and bumperstickers. All locals will receive "Registered Mendocino County Resident" (RMCR) status, exempting them from paying soon-to-be-announced fees.

Which will include the following:

• A $1 per gallon local surcharge on gasoline prices ($3 for hybrid vehicles) during August.
  
• Electric guitar amplification permits will be issued by the county on a per-player basis, with fees ranging from $500 per day for soloists to $750 per day for groups including multiple guitars. Similar fees will be levied on drums, horns and harmonicas.
  
• A $1,500 per day permit fee for mandatory Port-o-San toilet facilities; Pick-up and Disposal fees will reflect similar charges.
  
• Residents will be encouraged to set up toll gates (similar to the "checkpoints" familiar to those who have traveled in Afghanistan) in their front yards. Fees allowing passage will vary, but are expected to range from $100 to $300.
  
• Only those with official RMCR badges will be permitted to set up concessions stands, with markups not to exceed 600 percent. Available items will include water, rolling papers and 12-foot square sleeping plots. Tents and sleeping bags will be available for an additional charge.
  
• A doctor's booth will be open 24 hours a day where medical marijuana cards can be obtained at $500 each. Too expensive? Sue us. Our local attorneys welcome your fees.

I think we should recruit law enforcement agencies from around the state to stringently enforce all traffic safety laws, and to levy on-the-spot fines on vehicles without sanctioned RMCR "MendoLocal" bumper stickers.

OFFICER; "I'm sorry sir, but your VW van almost came close to nearly touching the double-yellow line. May I see your license, registration, insurance, tax returns going back to 2007, and immunization records? Now if you'd kindly pull into the 130-point vehicle inspection area over there ... "

Two and one-half hours later:

OFFICER: "Thank you sir. It appears your front tire tread is out of compliance with current Mendocino County regulations, and the gap on your No. 5 sparkplug is 20/10,000ths off. There also seems to be excessive wear on the driver's side seatbelt, and your right rear speaker is out. Will this be cash, check or credit card?"

You don't think it'll work? You still think Woodstock 2009 is a terrible idea for Mendocino County? Then let's re-do all the freeway signs in August and shunt incoming Woodstock traffic over to Lake County.

<small>Tommy Wayne Kramer and Tom Hine really have their hopes up that Woodstock 2009 takes place in Willits this summer; they'll be performing as Sha-na-na.</small>