palmspringsbum

by **palmspringsbum** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 3:34 pm

The Santa Cruz Sentinel wrote:October 27, 2005

State to tax medical marijuana dispensaries

By Brian Seals
Sentinel staff writer
www.santacruzsentinel.com

The state approved a policy this week that opens the door for medical marijuana distributors to collect and pay state sales tax.

The policy, while requiring marijuana retailers to feed state coffers just like department stores or any other California retailer, also considers their unique fear of being targeted by federal authorities because of legal questions surrounding their product.

While California approved medical marijuana in 1996, it remains illegal under federal law.

Under the new policy passed by the state Board of Equalization, businesses can get what is known as a sellers permit, allowing them to collect sales tax, without indicating whether their merchandise is lawful to sell.

Like the federal government, the state Board of Equalization considers any kind of marijuana sale to be unlawful.

"We didn't want to inadvertently be in the position of putting medicinal marijuana dealers in a trouble spot," said board member Betty T. Yee of San Francisco.

Currently, some retailers of medical marijuana are registered with the board, while others are not.

Lee said the move "levels the playing field" for dispensaries that have sought to comply with state tax laws.

That was welcome news to Lisa Molyneux, who opened a dispensary in the Harvey West area of Santa Cruz last month.

"Most of us want to comply with the law and do all we should as a regular business," said Molyneux, who obtained both city business and special-use permits as part of opening the shop on DuBois Street.

In agreement was Valerie Corral, co-founder of the area cooperative Wo/men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, who said such dispensaries should be treated like other businesses.

A sellers permit is required to pay sales tax on tangible personal property and up until now those permits were not issued to businesses the board deemed to be engaged in "unlawful" sales.

But applying that "unlawful" label to marijuana in California became a bit sticky after it was legalized by voters in 1996 under the Compassionate Use Act.

"That act was silent on sales," Yee said. "That's where we have a bit of a problem."

Another complicating factor was the federal government's view of medical marijuana, Yee said.

Allowing businesses to get a permit without stating the legal status of their product was an effort to provide some level of security from federal scrutiny, Lee explained.

The state has some data sharing arrangements with the federal government.

However, Corral doubts there will be much security from federal bodies.

"There is no adequate protection against the federal government," she said.

At least one medical marijuana advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access, opposed the board's action.

That group said any dispensaries should be categorized as "health facilities" where medicine like marijuana would be exempt from taxation.

The state believes any revenue realized from sales tax on medical pot would be negligible.

Sales taxes generally go into the state's general fund. Local governments may add to the state rate with that portion going to those localities.

About 27 medicinal pot operations have sellers permits, according to a Board of Equalization staff report.

This week's Board of Equalization vote was 4-1, with a representative for state Controller Steve Westly voting no.

A call to Westly's press office was not immediately returned.

The five-member board consists of four elected members and the state controller.

Contact Brian Seals at bseals@santacruzsentinel.com.

by **budman** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:41 pm

The Press Enterprise wrote:Legal pot use can make jobs go up in smoke

DECISION: The state Supreme Court agrees to decide limits for workers and employers.

<table class=posttable align=right width=200><tr><td class=postimg><img src=bin\dixon-donna.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap>Donna Dixon takes a puff of medical marijuana. She is among a growing number of Riverside County residents who have turned to marijuana to relieve the symptoms of a chronic medical condition.</td></tr></table>07:45 AM PST on Friday, December 30, 2005

By KIMBERLY TRONE / The Press Enterprise

Donna Dixon found out the hard way that a state law allowing her to use marijuana for glaucoma didn't keep her from getting fired from a casino job after a positive drug test.

In 1996, California voters passed the Compassion Use Act that allowed the cultivation, transportation and use of marijuana by patients and caregivers with a doctor's recommendation.

It did not, however, include job protection, said Michael Shapiro of the University of Southern California School of Law, an expert in constitutional issues.

The California Supreme Court this month agreed to hear the case of Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications to decide whether employers can fire employees for off-duty use of marijuana in accordance with state laws.

The justices have not set a date to hear the case.

Workers who have been fired or disciplined for using medicinal marijuana have filed numerous complaints with the state, claiming their employers violated California labor law, which prohibits people from being punished for performing a legal act while off duty, said Dean Fryer, spokesman for the California Department of Industrial Relations.

But the state is not processing their complaints.

"We are not accepting any claims for discrimination regarding the use of medical marijuana because federal law makes it illegal and therefore it is not lawful off-duty conduct," Fryer said, adding that the California labor code does not distinguish between state and federal law.

Clarity Sought 

Dixon, the mother of two teenage boys, was fired earlier this year for testing positive for marijuana during a random drug test. She worked in the Pechanga Resort & Casino for almost three years, first as a housekeeper and later counting money.

Pechanga representatives did not respond to requests for an interview, but an arbitration agreement between Dixon and the tribe said Pechanga employees are subject to discharge in the event of a positive drug test.

Dixon, 50, said she is optimistic the California justices will decide in favor of medicinal users, who use the drug to treat symptoms of chronic or debilitating illnesses such as migraines and cancer.

"I want clarity. There are a lot of people who want clarity on this," Dixon said from her Lake Elsinore-area home.

Court Ruling 

Some employers say the issue was clarified when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that state laws do not protect medicinal-marijuana users from federal laws that make such behavior criminal.

Jim Richardson, regional director of the California Association of Employers, said companies were concerned about how to handle employees' medical-marijuana use until that decision.

The not-for-profit employers association of 500 members assists small-to-medium companies with human-resources issues.

"Our association is now able to give (our members) assurance they do not have to balance a duty to accommodate an applicant or employee whose drug use impairs their performance and poses a potential liability should an accident occur," Richardson said.

He said, however, that employers could consider accommodating an employee or job applicant if there are no safety issues that are involved in their work.

Those accommodations could also include steering the user toward a prescription drug such as Marinol, although medical-marijuana advocates argue the synthetic pharmaceutical is not nearly as effective.

Under a mandate from the state, Riverside County began issuing identification cards for medicinal medical users on Dec. 1. The card alerts police that the holder has the appropriate documentation to use and transport marijuana.

Riverside County, which has about 17,000 employees, is closely monitoring the court cases, said the county's director of human resources, Ron Komers.

And even though the county is issuing the cards, job applicants and employees of Riverside County are disqualified from employment for using marijuana -- even if they use the substance with the recommendation of a physician, Komers said.

"We are an interesting situation," Komers said. "Because we do receive federal funds we are subject to federal transportation guidelines to fire or discipline somebody who utilizes an illegal substance."

<table class=posttable align=right width=200>
<tr><td class=postcell>

<center>MARIJUANA LAWS </center>

1996 

California Compassionate Use Act: Allows patients and primary caregivers to cultivate, transport and use marijuana for medical conditions with a doctor's recommendation.

2003 

SB 420: Permits medical-marijuana use to treat symptoms of AIDS, anorexia, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraines, seizures, severe nausea and other illnesses. The law requires the state to maintain a voluntary identification card program. Allows possession of no more than 8 ounces of dried marijuana.

2005 

U.S. Supreme Court rules that patients in states with compassionate-use laws may still face criminal prosecution for transporting and using marijuana. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling does not overturn California law.

Riverside County begins issuing medical-marijuana identification cards. San Bernardino County is expected to begin the identification-card program in January.

2006 

California Supreme Court is expected to decide whether employees can be fired for off-duty use of medicinal marijuana.
</tr></td>
</table>Conflicting Laws 

Advocates for medicinal marijuana say it is a mistake to confuse federal criminal laws with state employment laws when marijuana is legitimately being used to treat a person's disability.

"No person should lose their job solely because they use medical marijuana," said Nikos Leverenz, associate director of the Drug Policy Alliance in Sacramento, which supports medical-marijuana use.

The alliance urged the state Supreme Court to hear the case of Gary Ross, a computer systems administrator who was terminated after testing positive for marijuana.

He said he used the drug at home to alleviate chronic back pain.

"Workers and job applicants with disabilities may be compelled to choose between employment opportunity and medical treatment," the alliance argued in a 12-page letter filed with the court.

Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, said advocates are not suggesting employers don't have a right to be concerned about productivity, safety and workplace performance.

"Obviously they do," Mirken said, adding that many employers may not have revised their decades-old drug-use policies in light of new laws allowing medical-marijuana use.

Dixon said she told her employer about her use of marijuana from the day she was hired until she was fired from the $12.40-an-hour job at Pechanga.

"I had a good work record, good write-ups. I was in no danger of being fired, but after that (drug test) it was like I had the plague," Dixon said. "They took a person who worked every day -- a law-abiding person -- and turned me into a welfare case by taking away my job."

Dixon appealed a Pechanga denial of unemployment benefits and prevailed.

The arbitrator, Stephen B. Chan, agreed that Dixon was candid about her marijuana use and concluded she was "discharged for reasons other than misconduct."

Since being fired, Dixon believes she was disqualified from two solid job prospects, one for a large supermarket chain and the other for a large soda pop company, after mentioning her use of medical marijuana during job interviews.

"It is about principles," she said. "The people of this state said it is OK for me to use marijuana as long as me and my doctor agree. I am exercising my legal rights. Why should I lie?"

Safety Concerns 

Critics say pre-employment and random drug tests are an invasion of privacy, performed almost solely to weed out marijuana users, even though alcohol use poses more of a workplace hazard.

All a urine drug test tells you is that an individual has used a drug within the past six weeks and one of the drug residuals that remains in a person's system longest is marijuana, said Dr. David Bearman, a Santa Barbara physician helping to lead a national campaign to legitimize marijuana for medicinal uses.

"The most significant drug of abuse is alcohol and alcohol is cleared relatively rapidly from the urine. This test cannot tell you about the drug most likely to interfere with an employee's job performance," Bearman contends.

Richardson of the employers association said drug testing is an important safety tool and the courts have upheld its use.

"Drug testing provides employers a means of deterring people who use illegal substances from entering the workplace and removing employees who may pose a danger to themselves and/or others," Richardson said.

Reach Kimberly Trone at (951) 368-9456 or ktrone@pe.com

<table class=posttable align=center width=98%>
<tr><td class=postcell>

<center>Survey </center>

Do you think it's fair for medical marijuana users to lose their jobs for testing positive for using the drug? Comment 

January 10, 2006 07:38 a.m. 
No. IT is completely not fair. And what is worse is that the people who are making these laws are the ones who are going purely on heresay regarding its use. The anti-marijuana laws are punitive and lacking in compassion.

January 7, 2006 07:13 p.m. 
NO its not there fault that they have the chronic condition. They should be fires if for some reason they cannot work because of the marijuana or they show lack of work or behavior. Other than that if they r using the drug and working and has no problems then there is absolutely no reason. I smoke and its the best thing for me.

January 3, 2006 11:06 a.m. 
I have the solution for those of you who don't think it's fair to be fired for smoking pot. Start your own company! Become a business owner, hire all of your medical marijuana smoking friends, and see just how productive and safe your company is.

January 2, 2006 07:18 p.m. 
Of course not. Even recreational marijuana consumers should be left alone, since marijuana is far less destructive than alcohol. If employers really looked at the issue objectively, they would be glad an employee consumes marijuana (after work, at home) instead of alcohol.

The truth is, the current laws just make it okay to discriminate against - and PERSECUTE - innocent people.

January 2, 2006 09:04 a.m. 
Urine analysis drug testing is a lazy management tool with easy pass/fail results. No thought is required on the part of managers. I can't understand why Employers still confuse these tests with an effective safety program. The companies Ive worked for with the most aggressive Drug testing programs have the worst safety records. The reason is that these employers have excluded the best, most qualified and imaginative employees. Marijuana use in the workplace is very easy to detect since marijuana has a rather distinctive odor when burned to smoke. Does anyone believe that impaired people are hard to detect and a chemical test is required for a safe work place?

January 2, 2006 08:37 a.m. 
If it allows you to have the quality of life that keeps pain and discomfort at bay , then no they should not be fired. I know a lot of people who smoke marijuana for medicinal and recreational use and I would rather work beside someone who is high rather than someone who is drunk. Check the stats on how many people have died from marijuana versus how many die from alcohol. If it is for medical use and they can prove it, leave them alone. You can take all kinds of other drugs at work, that can have a more adverse effects than marijuana.

January 1, 2006 02:15 p.m. 
No, if the Doctor prescribs it, then leave them alone.

January 1, 2006 12:37 a.m. 
you bet----what part of illegal drugs don't you understand????????????

DRUGS ARE THE DECAY OF OUR YOUTH--ADULTS--SOCIETY--COUNTRY------

MOST OF THESE FOLKS ARE PULLING OUR CHAIN!!!!!!

January 1, 2006 03:55 a.m. 
Most employers only send people for drug test for just cause. ie: Post accident investigation, irratic behavior, etc. Someone who is high on prescribed medication, illegal drugs or alcohol must abide by the employers policies if they want to work there. Employment isn't a right. If you don't like the policies or morals of an employer - quit.

January 1, 2006 00:22 a.m. 
No. It is a great alternative to the highly addictive pain killers. Its a plant. Drug tests only really effect marijuana users. Its sad. It was outlawed because they thought it turned african americans crazy. They made it illegal in the south west to drive the mexicans out. Everyone thinks of the '70s hippy' when they think of a 'marijuana user'. That is not the full case in this day in age. Doctors, lawyers, politicians and probably your cousin, aunt, mom, dad and grandmother all smoke cannabis. If it was regulated through the government, they could add a tax to it and make some much needed money. Alcohol and cigarettes have killed more people in the last 10 minutes then cannabis ever will. Riverside needs to join Denver. Good day

December 31, 2005 08:29 p.m. 
Only if it has a detrimental affect on their work performance, or if they work in an area of public safety. Otherwise, it shouldn't be an issue as it is medically prescribed!

December 31, 2005 03:11 p.m. 
I THINK IT SHOULD BE HANDLED IN THE SAME WAY ANY OTHER PAIN RELIEVER USE WOULD BE HANDLED. IF THE PRESCRIBING DR. PUT RESTRICTIONS ON IT THEN THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. WHY SHOULD THE PATIENT USING MARIJUANA BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST? I HAVE A PRESCRIPTION FOR VICODIN AND DARVOCET AND NO ONE CARES ABOUT THAT.

December 31, 2005 02:16 p.m. 
Of course. An employer should not be required to employ anyone who uses any form of narcotic. What a no brainer.

December 31, 2005 12:40 a.m. 
It all depends on what type of job is involved. While it might be ok for the person who is sweeping the parking lot to be under the influence, you would not want the Police Officer, or Pilot of the aircraft you were in to be under the influence.

The more significant the job, the less tolorance for drug use.

December 31, 2005 12:36 a.m. 
NO...... We shouldn't be controlled by a bunch of right wing radicals.

December 31, 2005 12:01 a.m. 
I agree that an employer has a right to determine if a person is drunk/drinking, high/smoking on the job. Currently though, tests for marijuana use can only say Yes/No if a person has smoked in the last 4 weeks. So, a responsible CA law abiding citizen who uses prescribed medical marijuana during their time at home will forfeit their jobs weeks later as result of their legal use of the drug. Basically, if they could come up with a test that can be used to determine if someone is high that moment (like they have with breathalizers for alcohol)then it would be a perfectly fine screening tool. Whereas current marijuana screening tools were basically used to detect illegal activity in prior 4 weeks (Ie. Parolees), what we need to recognize is that in California marijuana is grown and used legally in some medical cases. This being said, we need to make sure people are not drunk/high on the job. It just seems we need to have new screnning methods that will indicate a person is "High" vs "Used marijuana in the last 4 weeks".

December 31, 2005 11:39 a.m. 
No , Not Fair At All

December 31, 2005 10:38 a.m. 
If we allow people to use medication perscribed by their physician that is made by major drug manufacturing companies, then why not cannabis?

Cannabis is safer than "MOST" manufactured drugs, in that NO ONE has ever died from it's use. We can NOT say that about MOST manufactured "Chemical" drugs. In fact the incidence of death and overdose is far greater with so called "Prescribed" medicines. Cannabis DOES NOT belong on the Schedule One "Non-Medical Use, and if the truth be known, alcohol use is far more damaging then cannabis could ever be. There are NO substantial facts, or PROOF, that cannabis is more harmful, then alcohol, or prescribed medications. In FACT just the opposite is true, in that cannabis can not be specifically linked to causal effect, as is alcohol, opiates, etc. No "Gateway To Other Drug Use" has ever been legitimized, and Government Propaganda is exactly that, propaganda and nothing more. Allow further study, in legitimate scientific research, then decide. Right now, there is no substantial PROOF, only Government propaganda. When my kids were enrolled in the "D.A.R.E." program, all they got from it was what "Drugs" they would like to experiment with, based upon what the instructor had to say about each. Is this the information we want spread to our youth? Cannabis is safe, effective, and legal in this State, if you quallify. Can't quallify, then don't attempt to get it and use it, simple as that. Why do we have Law if it is not EQUAL for all?

December 31, 2005 10:16 a.m. 
Yes because we are suppose to be a drug fee community. We all have some kind of pain somewhere. If its illegal its illegal.

December 31, 2005 09:19 a.m. 
Pot heads should not be in jobs where public safety may be compromised, e.g., driving buses, trucks, and cabs, or preparing foodstuffs, working with hazardous materials, etc. A user of 'legal' pot is no different from an addict or recreational user.

December 31, 2005 07:34 a.m. 
Not at all provided they are using the pot as prescribed, and I would bet the majority, if not all, medical marijuana users do NOT abuse their prescription. I think Big Brother needs to take a rest...

December 31, 2005 07:31 a.m. 
----------NO------------------

December 31, 2005 06:46 a.m. 
No, since the state law allows it. Conservatives should heed their own "states' rights" mantra and abandon their incursions into citizens' private lives. The hypocrisy is simply dumbfounding.

December 31, 2005 06:37 a.m. 
The presumption is that possession of marijuana is still a Federal crime in spite of any California laws to the contrary. Employers are well within their right to establish policies forbidding employees from engaging in illegal activities both on and off the job since the interest of the employer is to maintain a stable and reliable workforce. Employees who possess marijuana for any reason are at risk of being arrested at any time for a Federal crime, and they are, therefore, by definition unreliable. It is not the employers responsibility to be arbiters of which laws are fairer, more compassionate, or correct.

December 31, 2005 02:28 a.m. 
In California marijuana is a legal medicine just like any other medicine. No business should be able to discriminate based on the type of medicine a person takes. Business should conduct impairment testing and not allow anyone to work if they are actually impaired, from use of a legal drug - including medical marijuana, lack of sleep, or whatever - but only on each specific day they are found to be impaired. If a business can not follow our laws, then they should move to another state.

December 30, 2005 05:56 p.m. 
I don't think it's fair.

December 30, 2005 05:51 p.m. 
Yes. Because it's a drug. Medical Marijuana is an excuse. If your symptoms or pain is so bad that you need to smoke medical marijuana, you shouldnt be working. You should be disabled. Otherwise your just using it as an excuse to smoke pot legally..

December 30, 2005 03:20 p.m. 
People can use oxycontin, Vicodin and all those doctor presecribed narcotics on the job, then why shouldn't they be allowed to use marijuana which is less disorienting than any of those other drugs. The deciding factor should be whether their use of ANY drug impairs their ability to perform the job. If it doesn't impair job performance, then it should not be a factor. Decisions which impact person's health and welfare need to be made on a rational, scientific basis - these knee-jerk reactions by business and government need to stop. If you would like to learn more about medical marijuana, get in touch with Riverside County's only medical marijuana patient support group at 760-799-2055 or www. marijuananews.org.

December 30, 2005 02:19 p.m. 
Our prisons are NOT filled with drug users, this is a fact, (Drug use is a misdemeanor) The State and Federal Gov.'s need to be forced into a workable comprimise by good case law.

December 30, 2005 12:14 a.m. 
Yes, if we are going to enforce archaic laws and fill our prisons with drug users to the point of overcrowding, then employers' must have the option and responsibility to obey the laws of our nation. Employers should not be responsible for determining which laws are fair and which laws must be enforced. If employers are forced to allow employees the use of medically approved marijuana, then are they expected to permit employees having a "medical crisis" to smoke marijauna on a lunch break, during a paid work break or while driving around on company business? Is the company relieved of liability if their high employee causes an accident? I don't think so. I personally believe most drugs should be legalized to the same point as liquor with the understanding that employers may restrict the use of the product while at work and/or in the workplace.

December 30, 2005 10:06 a.m. 
Of course not, in this new century we need to throw out the antiquated views of the world.

December 30, 2005 09:25 a.m. 
Yes it is fair. Everyone knows that drugs and alcohol are not tolerated in the workplace and just because someone is getting Marijuana legally doesn't exempt them from the policies of an employer. If using the drug is the only way for them to cope with their illness, then they need to adjust their lifestyle or discuss it with the employer upfront and see what the company's position is. We all have a legal right to work and employer's all have a legal right to hire and fire on their terms, legally.

December 30, 2005 08:43 a.m. 
depends on the job

in this case

absolutely unfair

if she was a machinist or something that would be a different case

but shes not

these anti-marijuanna people crack me up

i think youre only allowed to be against marijuanna if you are also against alcohol, cigarettes, and junk food

you cant just choose ONE of those things, they are all equally harmful

December 30, 2005 08:25 a.m. 
Yes. Marijuana is proven to impair judgment. How good of a job can one do when high?

December 30, 2005 07:40 a.m. 
No. I do not support the way in which the employers are handling these kinds of situations. If the voters in California passed Proposition 215 allowing the use of marijuana for specialized medical reasons, who are employers in this state to think that federal law is more important?

December 30, 2005 07:29 a.m. 
I do not agree with the use of something that is federally banned. If it is wrong for the use of it, then it should be for all. What happens if someone proves that crack relieves some type of pain for something? Are we going to make that medically available as well?

December 30, 2005 05:47 a.m. 
No! That is absurd.

by **budman** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:03 pm

News Target.com wrote:NewsTarget.com
Originally published June 28 2006

Leno-Devore Bill To Permit Farming Of Industrial Hemp Passes Senate Public Safety Committee

SACRAMENTO -- Assembly Bill 1147 authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine), permitting California farmers to grow industrial hemp for the sale of seed, oil and fiber to manufacturers passed the Senate Public Safety Committee today on a vote of 4 to 2.

"California farmers are missing out on a multimillion dollar market that already exists in California," said Assemblyman Mark Leno. "Hundreds of hemp products are made right here in California, but manufactures are forced to import hemp seed, oil and fiber from other countries. This measure will allow California to lead the way in tapping into a $270 million industry that's growing by $26 million each year."

Sponsored by Vote Hemp, AB 1147 would permit California farmers to grow industrial hemp, a variety of cannabis that grows up to 16 feet tall, resembles bamboo, and has no psychoactive properties. Under the bill, industrial hemp is defined as cannabis having 0.3% THC or less and its cultivation is only permitted as an agricultural field crop or in a research setting. Cultivation in groves, yards, or other locations is prohibited.

"Our bill is about letting California farmers grow a crop that's legal worldwide. We can import hemp, we can process it into shampoo, plastics, and food, but we won't let our farmers grow it. AB 1147 is a common sense measure that regulates the industrial farming of hemp to conform with federal law while relieving law enforcement of the burden of having to discern legal hemp from illegal marijuana grown in clandestine groves," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.

Hemp is one of the strongest natural fibers known and is grown and processed throughout the world for paper, fuel, clothing, building materials, canvas, rope, beauty care products, food and automobile parts, among others. The seed has many nutritional benefits because it contains essential amino acids, including omega-3 commonly found in fish, and is an alternative source of protein. Hemp also has strong environmental benefits. It's a source for paper that could enable us to save our trees for higher end uses such as lumber. Hemp can be used as a raw material for ethanol fuel with no net addition to greenhouse gases. It requires little or no agricultural chemicals, smothers weeds, and improves soil conditions, making it an excellent rotational crop.

"Once this bill is enacted, it will create a more efficient market, leading to better prices for the consumer, and provide an opportunity to expand the market for the nutritious hemp seed," said David Bronner, head of Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, an Escondido-based company is the number one producer of natural soaps in the world with sales near $20 million annually. Mr. Bronner says his company has spent $800,000 in the last five years importing hemp oil from Canada.

For years, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has scheduled live cannabis plants as a controlled substance despite the fact that hemp has no psychoactive effects. Hemp has less than three tenths of one percent THC while marijuana contains five to twenty-five percent THC. In 2004, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the DEA did not have the authority to regulate industrial hemp under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The DEA decided not to appeal that decision and the Court's ruling now stands as U.S. law on the issue.

<center>### </center>

by **palmspringsbum** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Inside Bay Area wrote:Drug policy reformers take hits from lawmakers

Amendment to stop federal raids in states with medical pot laws is nixed

Inside Bay Area
By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER

Drug-reform advocates took a one-two punch as state lawmakers changed the treatment-not-jail sentencing law for drug users and the House nixed an amendment to halt federal pot raids in states with medical marijuana laws.

State lawmakers late Tuesday night approved changes to the drug-treatment law — passed as Proposition 36 by 61 percent of voters in November 2000 — so judges now will be able to impose two to five days of jail time to punish drug-use relapses during treatment. Opponents say this "flash incarceration" doesn't make treatment more effective and dilutes the law's original intent.

Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the national Drug Policy Alliance, which helped pass Proposition 36, said he supposes advocates were "naive" to believe evidence that the original law cut costs, reduced the prison population and improved lives would persuade lawmakers to let it alone.

"When push came to shove, the same law enforcement establishment that opposed Proposition 36 back in 2000 didn't let up," he said.

The changes approved Tuesday are "almost definitely unconstitutional" because they alter a voter-approved ballot measure without another popular vote, he said. "We are going to be in court on this issue. It ain't over yet."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger predicated his Proposition 36 earmark in next year's state budget on these changes being made, so he'll almost surely sign the bill. The Drug Policy Alliance and other groups could sue by early next week, but the bill requires that it automatically be put on the ballot if a court strikes any part of it down.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted 259-163 against a budget amendment introduced for the fourth consecutive year by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, to bar use of federal funds to arrest and prosecute patients and providers in the 11 states, including California, with medical marijuana laws.

The amendment got two more votes Wednesday than it did last year, compared to 148 in 2004 and 152 in 2003, still far short of the 218 it would need to pass.

"Basically, the Republicans managed to keep strong party discipline... They feel they can't break with the White House on this," Nadelmann said.

That is despite an unexpected show of support from Citizens Against Government Waste, a conservative fiscal watchdog group who issued a report Monday on the federal war on drugs, finding that "(i)n this time of excessive waste and expanding deficits, Congress must start sending a signal that its priorities are in order."

Federal prosecution of medical marijuana use in states which have decided to allow it wastes "valuable resources and taxpayer dollars," the report said, urging the amendment's passage.

Marijuana Policy Project communications director Bruce Mirken said Wednesday advocates are "doing our best to see the glass as half full, knowing that this is an election year and politicians tend to run for cover in election years... But it's still dismaying how out of touch Congress is with the public on this.

"Virtually all of the debate from the other side had nothing to do with the amendment itself," Mirken said. "It was all about marijuana being bad for kids and a gateway drug... all of which has nothing to do with whether it should be allowed for patients with cancer or AIDS when their states decide it should be."

Caren Woodson, government affairs director of Americans for Safe Access, agreed the amendment wasn't about medical marijuana's merits but rather "was designed to support federal law enforcement" by letting the Justice Department "re-allocate valuable monies to our country's most pressing illicit drug control issues, instead of spending funds to arrest and prosecute seriously ill, state certified, cannabis patients."

A detailed roll call was unavailable later Wednesday; the only greater-Bay Area members of Congress who opposed the amendment in past years were Dennis Cardoza, D-Atwater, and Richard Pombo, R-Tracy.

The Proposition 36 rewrite first was put forth as SB 803 by state Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego. The Assembly Public Safety Committee — chaired by Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, a Proposition 36 supporter — held a public hearing on SB 803 last August but delayed its vote until last week; Ducheny then pulled her bill at the last minute and moved its language into SB 1137, the state budget trailer approved late Tuesday.

Proposition 36 advocates also complain lawmakers and the governor are starving the program for money. The original law earmarked $120 million per year, but that funding sunsets Friday. It looks like it'll get $145 million next year, but critics say that amount won't even cover treatment at current levels, much less account for inflation or the added difficulty of treating more long-term addicts than originally expected.

Contact Josh Richman at jrichman@angnewspapers.com

by **budman** » Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:56 pm

The Drug Policy Alliance wrote:Groups Stand Up for Patients in California

The Drug Policy Alliance
Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Several medical marijuana dispensaries were raided by federal and local officials in San Diego last week. Against this backdrop of fear and intimidation, drug policy reform groups have taken action to stand up for patients.

The Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a motion on July 7 to intervene in San Diego's lawsuit against the state, which seeks to overturn California's medical marijuana law, Proposition 215.

Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance, explained, "Our motion to intervene will allow the court to recognize the harm done to patients by the county's frivolous lawsuit." Patients are already in a state of fear and uncertainty about access to their medicine, and will be further hurt if Proposition 215 is overturned.

The lawsuit, initiated by San Diego and joined later by San Bernardino and Merced counties, argues that federal laws prohibiting marijuana use invalidate state laws that permit qualified patients to use medical marijuana. The suit challenges California's laws permitting patients to use, and doctors to recommend, medical marijuana. It also challenges a law requiring the implementation of an identification card program to help protect legitimate patients from prosecution by local and state officials.

Abrahamson said, "We are confident the court will require the state's medical marijuana program to be implemented in San Diego, as required by law. Renegade politicians in San Diego are simply postponing the inevitable, while thousands of sick people suffer."

The groups that filed the motion maintain that states are free to implement medical marijuana policies of their own design, even though the federal government is free to enforce its own prohibition on medical marijuana. The California attorney general's office has taken the same stance on this issue.

The state attorney general will defend California's medical marijuana statutes, while the groups are intervening to assure adequate representation of those most directly impacted: medical marijuana patients, and their caregivers and doctors.

by **budman** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:13 pm

The Los Angeles Times wrote:George Skelton:
Capitol Journal

Bill's Authors Are Trying to Rope In Support for Hemp

The Los Angeles Times
July 17 2006

AB 1147 is not the biggest bill of this legislative session, but it is one of the most intriguing — and most fun.

Start with its purpose: to legalize the growing of hemp, a cousin of marijuana — both members of the notorious cannabis family.

Then proceed to the bill's joint authors, a pun that's unavoidable.

One is a liberal San Francisco Democrat, Assemblyman Mark Leno; the other a conservative Irvine Republican, Chuck DeVore.

If nothing else, this bill shows it is possible for two legislators of diametrically opposite ideologies to acknowledge some common ground and work together to change public policy.

Both agree that hemp — advocates call it industrial hemp — is taking off worldwide as a plant used for fiber (in car door panels, for example), food (energy bars, granola, smoothies) and body care (shampoos, soaps).

And they think it's illogical that the federal government allows the importation of foreign hemp for American manufacturing into legally sold products, but bans the growing of hemp by American farmers. So they're trying to force the issue.

Their bill would sanction the growing of hemp in California for sale within the state, but forbid interstate commerce of "viable" seeds — those that can germinate — in an effort to keep the feds from nosing around. No doubt federal courts ultimately would sort it all out.

The bill also would define hemp, under California law, as a safe crop, not a drug.

Hemp contains only a trace of the dope THC, three-tenths of 1%. Marijuana has from 3% to 15%.

"There's no more THC in hemp than the poppy seed on your bagel has opium," asserts Leno. "Beyond that, industrial hemp is marijuana's natural eradicator." Cross-pollination with hemp takes the kick out of pot, experts report.

"Not only will you not get a high" by smoking hemp, says Patrick Goggins of San Francisco, counsel for the Hemp Industries Assn., "you'll get a headache and need a Tylenol."

But hemp is a nutritious food, its boosters claim: The seed oil replaces unhealthy fats with beneficial fatty acids that help fight high cholesterol and rheumatoid arthritis. Fish also contain fatty acids, advocates continue, but are becoming increasingly scarce and polluted with mercury.

Hemp has a long and distinguished history, at least until it was unfairly maligned by drug warriors during the last century. Rope, sails and paper have been made from hemp all through civilization. The Declaration of Independence was drafted on hemp paper. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew it.

In the 1800s, hemp was America's third-largest agricultural product. But it was labor-intensive and became less economical because of the cotton gin and the abolition of slavery. Still, hemp was grown in California until the Depression, when the feds cracked down on marijuana and mistakenly booked its innocent cousin in the bust.

During World War II, Washington begged farmers to resume growing the crop, promoting a "Hemp for Victory" campaign. But in 1970, cultivation was banned under the Controlled Substances Act. Any hemp needed for making products had to be imported.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, soon after President Bush took office, tried to outlaw the sale of all hemp foods. But it got slapped down in 2004 by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The DEA had no jurisdiction over hemp, the court ruled. But the jurists didn't say whether farmers could cultivate the plant. And that's where we stand today. The Bush administration didn't appeal.

California entrepreneurs, equipped with new technology, are eager to expand the hemp industry and grow the crop in the Central and Imperial valleys.

"The potential is enormous," says David Bronner, whose grandfather founded Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps in Escondido. His company, the largest manufacturer of natural soaps in the country, now imports its hemp from Canada. He figures it could save 20% by buying locally.

John Roulac of Ojai, founder of Nutiva, says he'd like to build a processing plant in Bakersfield to handle locally grown hemp. Either there, or he plans to build it in North Dakota.

Each month, Roulac says, he trucks three loads of Canadian-produced hemp products to a warehouse in Santa Paula. "Our sales are growing 120% a year," he says. "I have no problem selling. I have a supply issue."

The Leno-DeVore bill has passed the Assembly. Its next hurdle will be the Senate Appropriations Committee.

You'd think that such a business-friendly, job-creation proposal would be overwhelmingly supported by Republicans. Hardly. Only two GOP lawmakers favor it: DeVore and the independent-minded Sen. Tom McClintock of Thousand Oaks. The rest are skittish about being tagged as soft on drugs.

"Some have told me," DeVore says, "that 'This is not a smart thing to do, Chuck. You're exposing yourself to future hit pieces' " in a Republican primary.

"My rejoinder is this is the right thing. Who are we in government to tell farmers what they can and cannot grow if a drug is not involved? It's crazy."

One major opponent is the 7,000-member California Narcotic Officers' Assn. It says officers would have trouble distinguishing between marijuana and hemp. Pot is a short plant. And although hemp grown for fiber is bamboo-tall, when it's cultivated just for seed, the plant looks more like marijuana.

"If the Canadian Mounties can understand the difference, don't you think American law enforcement could?" responds Roulac. "It's an insult to the intelligence of American officers."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't taken a position. But why wouldn't he sign such a bill? It offers an economic boost. Hemp benefits the environment, using relatively little water. And he always has promoted nutritional supplements.

"No matter what any of the politicians do," Roulac asserts, "the marketplace is saying 'yes' for hemp. Eventually, economics will trump politics."

Besides intriguing and fun, AB 1147 is sensible. Not allowing farmers to grow marijuana's harmless cousin is akin to reefer madness.

<hr>

George Skelton writes Mondays and Thursdays. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com

by **palmspringsbum** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:38 pm

The Drug Policy Alliance wrote:DPA Files Brief on Behalf of Leading Health Organizations in Medical Marijuana Job Discrimination Case

The Drug Policy Alliance
Wednesday, July 26, 2006

On Monday July 24, the Drug Policy Alliance filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of leading public health organizations in the case of Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, Inc. The brief supports the appeal of Gary Ross, a medical marijuana patient under California's Compassionate Use Act, who was fired by his employer after testing positive for medical marijuana he used during off-hours in accordance with his doctor’s recommendation for the treatment of severe pain. The outcome of the Ross case has the potential to affect the ability of thousands of Californians suffering from debilitating medical conditions and chronic pain to effectively manage their health care while remaining active and productive members of the workforce.

Amici argue for the need for physicians and medical professionals to work with patients to identify the best course of individualized treatment without repercussion (e.g., loss of their job), and outline the sound evidence that marijuana is medically appropriate treatment for chronic pain and other serious medical conditions. Signatories to the brief consist of a powerful contingent of medical and public health organizations that represent a broad class of patient-employees. The organizations include the American Pain Foundation, the American Medical Women’s Association, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, the American Nurses Association, the California Nurses' Association, the AIDS Action Council, the National Women’s Health Network, Doctors of the World – USA and the Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

The case concerns Gary Ross, who treats his chronic pain and muscle spasms from a military injury with physician-recommended medical marijuana. Mr. Ross provided his company with his physician’s recommendation but was fired after eight days on the job because he tested positive for THC in a pre-employment drug test. Mr. Ross filed suit alleging wrongful termination but two lower courts sided with the employer, holding that the company did not discriminate against Mr. Ross based on his disability and chosen treatment. The intermediate appellate court's opinion, which will be reviewed by the State Supreme Court, focused largely on the illegality of marijuana under federal law. Drug Policy Alliance filed an amicus letter with the State Supreme Court urging the Court to review the case and overturn the lower court decision. Shortly after receiving the letter, the Supreme Court agreed to take the Ross case. The Alliance then prepared the amicus brief filed on July 24, 2006. Joe Elford, the Legal Director for Americans with Safe Access (ASA), is co-counsel for Mr. Ross in the California Supreme Court.

The Alliance’s participation in the Ross case continues the work DPA has undertaken for more than a decade to enact and implement California’s Compassionate Use Act. At the heart of the Act is the core principle that persons who can benefit from medical marijuana should not be discriminated against for their use of a medication necessary to their health, and that public policy regarding medical marijuana should be grounded in science, reason, compassion and justice.

See Also: California | Legal pot can make jobs go up in smoke

See Also: Oregon | Court sides with employers in medical marijuana case

See Also: SocioEconomic | Employment | Calif. Supremes Hear From Friends in High Places on Employee's Marijuana Use

See Also: SocioEconomic | Employment

by **Midnight toker** » Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:27 pm

The ACLU wrote:Medical Marijuana Patients Get Say in Counties’ Legal Challenge to California Medical Marijuana Law (8/4/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
The American Civil Liberties Union

ACLU, Drug Policy Alliance and Americans for Safe Access Step In to Represent Medical Marijuana Patients in Lawsuit

SAN DIEGO – A San Diego Superior Court ruled today that lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access and the Drug Policy Alliance will be permitted to intervene in a lawsuit brought by several California counties seeking to thwart the state’s Compassionate Use Act, which makes medical marijuana legal for patients with a doctor’s recommendation. The groups joined the case on behalf of medical marijuana patients and their caregivers and doctors in order to assure their adequate representation in the legal proceedings.

“We look forward to the opportunity to stand together with patients in defense of the rights of states to allow medicine to those in need,” said David Blair-Loy, an attorney with the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. “We are heartened that the court recognized the necessity of giving voice to those truly at risk from the counties’ ill-conceived actions.”

San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced counties argued in a lawsuit filed in state court that federal laws prohibiting all use of marijuana invalidate state laws that allow qualified patients to use medical marijuana. The ACLU, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and the Drug Policy Alliance (the Alliance) filed legal papers on July 7, 2006 seeking to intervene in the proceedings.

“As the largest grassroots organization of patients, doctors and scientists advocating for safe and legal access, we feel it’s critically important that California’s medical marijuana laws be respected by everyone,” said Steph Sherer, executive director of ASA.

Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Alliance, added, “These county governments have ignored the needs of their sick and dying residents and the advice of California's physicians. By intervening in the lawsuit, patients will have the chance to confront their rogue county officials in court and defend the legality of the Compassionate Use Act.”

In addition to entering the case, the group’s filing asked for a court order compelling the counties to abide by and implement California’s medical marijuana laws, as well as an order affirming that the state’s medical marijuana laws are not preempted by contrary federal statutes.

The lawsuit, initially brought by San Diego County and later joined by San Bernardino and Merced counties, challenges state laws that permit patients to use, and doctors to recommend, medical marijuana under explicit exemptions from state criminal laws that otherwise prohibit all marijuana use. The counties’ lawsuit further challenges the state’s Medical Marijuana Program Act, which calls for the implementation of an identification card program that would allow police and others to more easily identify legitimate medical marijuana patients.

The ACLU, the Alliance and ASA maintain that state medical marijuana laws are not preempted by the federal ban on medical marijuana. While the federal government is free to enforce its prohibition on medical marijuana, even in states such as California that permit its use, all states remain free to adopt and implement policies of their own design – an opinion shared by the California Attorney General’s office and the attorneys general of several other states, including Colorado, Hawaii and Oregon, that permit medical use of marijuana.

The groups represent Wendy Christakes, Pamela Sakuda, William Britt and Yvonne Westbrook, Californians who use physician-recommended marijuana to treat medical conditions and their side-effects, including chronic pain and sciatica, multiple sclerosis, rectal cancer, epilepsy and post-polio syndrome. The groups also represent Sakuda’s spouse and caregiver, Norbert Litzinger, as well as Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a physician who specializes in HIV/AIDS treatment in Oakland, California, and believes that many of his seriously ill patients benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

In addition to being co-counsel, ASA is also a party to the proceedings on behalf of its membership, which includes thousands of medical marijuana patients, caregivers and physicians residing in California. The Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) is also represented by the groups. WAMM is a medical marijuana collective and hospice located in Santa Cruz, California, whose 250 members, the majority of whom are terminally ill, use marijuana to treat a range of conditions.

The groups’ legal papers are available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/26 ... 60707.html

The ACLU’s January 19, 2006 letter to the San Diego Supervisors explaining why California’s medical marijuana laws are not preempted by federal law is online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/23 ... 60119.html

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s opinion issued to the state’s Department of Health Services affirming the validity of the state’s medical marijuana laws is available at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/21 ... 50715.html

Additional background on the case can be found at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/23 ... 60124.html

by **budman** » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:40 pm

The San Francisco Chronicle wrote:Judge allows medical marijuana advocates to oppose San Diego suit

- By ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer
The San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, August 4, 2006

(08-04) 17:59 PDT SAN DIEGO, (AP) --

Medical marijuana advocates and patients will be allowed to oppose a lawsuit filed by San Diego County seeking to overturn a state law legalizing medicinal use of the drug, a state court judge ruled Friday.

The county sued the state of California and its director of health services in San Diego Superior Court in February, saying federal laws prohibiting marijuana use trump the state law permitting individuals to use the drug with a physician's approval.

The San Diego chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws is also named in the suit.

California approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes with the passage of Proposition 215, which won 55 percent of votes cast in 1996.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr. permits six California patients and caregivers — represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Drug Policy Alliance — and the advocacy groups Americans for Safe Access and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana to intervene in the case on the side of the defendants.

"Medical marijuana patients deserve a place at the table in this litigation," said Allen Hopper, an attorney with the ACLU's Drug Reform Project who is working on the case. "We're confident that the state will be there to defend its own laws, but we want to make sure that patients will be represented."

Two other California counties, San Bernardino and Merced, have joined San Diego as plaintiffs in the suit. All three counties have refused to comply with a state requirement that counties issue identification cards for medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards.

Hearings on the suit are scheduled for November.

by **Midnight toker** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:01 pm

PCH Press wrote:Counties Challenge Legality to California Medical Marijuana Law

by KRISS PERRAS
PCH Press
August 5, 2006 11:51 AM PDT

MALIBU - The State's Medical Marijuana Act is coming under scrutiny from the counties. However, proponents of the law are stepping in to ensure the law stays in tact. On Friday, a San Diego Superior Court ruled that lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) will be permitted to intervene in a lawsuit brought by several California counties seeking to thwart the state’s Compassionate Use Act. The act makes medical marijuana legal for patients with a doctor’s recommendation.

“We are heartened that the court recognized the necessity of giving voice to those truly at risk from the counties’ ill-conceived actions,” David Blair-Loy, an attorney with the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, said in a statement.

San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced counties argued in a lawsuit filed in state court that federal laws prohibiting all use of marijuana invalidate state laws that allow qualified patients to use medical marijuana. The ACLU, ASA and the DPA filed legal papers on July 7, 2006 seeking to intervene in the proceedings.

"We feel it’s critically important that California’s medical marijuana laws be respected by everyone,” Steph Sherer, executive director of ASA, said in a statement last Friday.

One such dispensary is located within the city limits of Malibu. And, our local government has been hot on the trail of this issue by imposition of a moratorium so no further such dispensaries can crop up here.

City Council Christi Hogin reported at a June Council meeting that crime rates increase when such facilities are present.

However, proponents of such dispensaries are standing firm in their defense of the Act.

Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Alliance, added, “These county governments have ignored the needs of their sick and dying residents and the advice of California's physicians. By intervening in the lawsuit, patients will have the chance to confront their rogue county officials in court and defend the legality of the Compassionate Use Act.”

The ACLU, DPA and ASA maintain that state medical marijuana laws are not preempted by the federal ban on medical marijuana. While the federal government is free to enforce its prohibition on medical marijuana, even in states such as California that permit its use, all states remain free to adopt and implement policies of their own design – an opinion shared by the California Attorney General’s office and the attorneys general of several other states, including Colorado, Hawaii and Oregon, that permit medical use of marijuana.

The groups represent Wendy Christakes, Pamela Sakuda, William Britt and Yvonne Westbrook, Californians who use physician-recommended marijuana to treat medical conditions and their side-effects, including chronic pain and sciatica, multiple sclerosis, rectal cancer, epilepsy and post-polio syndrome. The groups also represent Sakuda’s spouse and caregiver, Norbert Litzinger, as well as Dr. Stephen O’Brien, a physician who specializes in HIV/AIDS treatment in Oakland, California, and believes that many of his seriously ill patients benefit from the medical use of marijuana.

In addition to entering the case, the group’s filing asked for a court order compelling the counties to abide by and implement California’s medical marijuana laws, as well as an order affirming that the state’s medical marijuana laws are not preempted by contrary federal statutes.

The lawsuit, initially brought by San Diego County and later joined by San Bernardino and Merced counties, challenges state laws that permit patients to use, and doctors to recommend, medical marijuana under explicit exemptions from state criminal laws that otherwise prohibit all marijuana use. The counties’ lawsuit further challenges the state’s Medical Marijuana Program Act, which calls for the implementation of an identification card program that would allow police and others to more easily identify legitimate medical marijuana patients.

© PCH Press 2006. All Rights Reserved.

by **Midnight toker** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:57 pm

The Drug Policy Alliance wrote:Patients Get a Voice in CA Medical Marijuana Lawsuit

Tuesday, August 8, 2006
The Drug Policy Alliance

Thursday, August 3, a San Diego Superior Court judge ruled that the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans for Safe Access (ASA) can intervene in a lawsuit brought by several California counties against the state over its Compassionate Use Act. The Compassionate Use Act makes medical marijuana legal for patients with a doctor's recommendation.

In the lawsuit, San Diego County, San Bernardino and Merced counties are arguing that federal laws making marijuana illegal trump state medical marijuana laws. However, the California attorney general's office issued an opinion last year that the state is free to make and implement its own policies, despite prohibition and enforcement at the federal level.

The California attorney general will defend the state in the case, with the groups intervening to represent the interests of patients, their caregivers and doctors. Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for DPA, said, "These county governments have ignored the needs of their sick and dying residents and the advice of California's physicians. By intervening in the lawsuit, patients will have the chance to confront their rogue county officials in court and defend the legality of the Compassionate Use Act."

Now that the groups have been permitted to intervene, they will file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. This will allow the Court to review the complaint and assess whether there is sufficient information, based on what has been argued, to enter judgment for or against San Diego and the other counties. This motion will be filed in September.

by **palmspringsbum** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:37 am

The Sacramento Bee wrote:<table class=posttable align=right width=180><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/folsom-lake_raid-map.gif></td></tr></table>Pot raid near Folsom Lake

Hillside growers tied to gang

By David Richie -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The Sacramento Bee

The statewide war against marijuana moved ahead with a rush Monday as authorities seized nearly 2,000 plants -- many more than 6 feet tall -- in two gardens within a few miles of some of El Dorado County's most expensive homes.

Law enforcement investigators believe that just as many plants had already been harvested. The street value of the gardens raided Monday was probably in the $5 million to $8 million range considering what was confiscated and what had been harvested.

<table class=posttable align=left width=180><tr><td class=postcell>><img src=bin/folsom-lake_raid-1.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap>Gordon Taylor, with the federal Drug Enforcement Administration, hauls off marijuana seized Monday in El Dorado County. </td></tr></table>The camouflaged gardens on public lands were spread across steep, brush-covered hillsides off Salmon Falls Road, within sight of $1 million homes and Folsom Lake, about three miles from El Dorado Hills.

"We don't usually find many grows this close to civilization," said Gordon Taylor, assistant special agent in charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Eastern Division of California.

Investigators linked the marijuana patches to one of Southern California's toughest criminal gangs.

Markings carved into a tree and evidence found on the hillside indicate that the marijuana growing operation was orchestrated by the Sureños, a Southern California-based gang that is in turn linked to the Mexican Mafia, Taylor said.

"This is organized crime and that is what we are finding with a lot of these operations that use Mexican nationals," Taylor said. "This is big business."

Even though California voters legalized marijuana use for medical purposes, law enforcement officials still view the weed as a damaging and pervasive problem.

Special Weapons and Tactics teams from three counties spearheaded the early morning sweep near Salmon Falls Road. They were accompanied by California National Guard soldiers, DEA agents and other personnel associated with the state Department of Justice Campaign Against Marijuana Planting.

CAMP officials told The Bee in June that they expected to confiscate a bumper crop like they did in 2005, a record year, because of the wet spring season, better surveillance technology and an expanded enforcement program.

<table class=posttable align=right width=320><tr><td class=postcell><img src=bin/folsom-lake_raid-2.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap>Plants were moved to where they could be taken out of the steep, brushy area by copter. </td></tr></table>Already, it looks like a busy local marijuana season. Earlier this month a similar outdoor garden was eradicated near the El Dorado County community of Greenwood. During the same time frame a joint task force broke up an indoor growing operation in Elk Grove and seized 2,000 plants.

On Monday, at least 40 heavily armed law enforcement officers participated. The first units into the area moved warily, making sure that no armed guards or booby-traps were in the area.

Manzanita, buck brush and poison oak grew so thick along the steep hillsides that individuals could easily have hidden in the area.

Along with the pot, they found an abandoned camp strewn with garbage, some ammunition and an intricately designed drip irrigation system.

As the summer sun rose, the officers and agents began the back-breaking job of hand-pulling the plants before hauling them out to loading zones. The piles were placed in large mesh baskets and hauled away by helicopters. The rugged terrain and lack of access made the work slow and hard.

Black plastic pipe extended throughout the area, providing water to plants placed individually and in small clumps. One growing area used water piped out of Sweetwater Creek while the other system tapped water out of Falls Creek.

Although the gardeners had carefully sited their operation in an attempt to keep it hidden, their irrigation system gave them away.

"This investigation started in May when a citizen observed PVC pipe that looked suspicious," Taylor said.

In one garden officers found a lean-to drying room with about 20 plants hanging inside. Plants in that garden were about 3 feet tall. Plants in the other location were more robust, with many at least 6 feet tall.

"This is a pretty typical Mexican national garden," said Ray LeLoup, special agent with the federal Bureau of Land Management.

LeLoup was looking over the pile of garbage, a propane stove, shovels, fertilizer and other debris that had been left behind along the damaged hillside.

During the "harvest season" LeLoup spends a lot of time busting brush in an area that stretches from near Fresno all the way to Redding.

"I probably do two or three of these a week," LeLoup said.

CAMP is run by the state Department of Justice in conjunction with federal and local law enforcement.

<hr class=postrule>
About the writer:
The Bee's David Richie can be reached at (916) 608-7455 or drichie@sacbee.com.

by **budman** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:59 am

The Ukiah Daily Journal wrote:Article Last Updated: 08/23/2006 07:26:19 AM PDT

Ag hemp bill headed to governor
Ukiah Daily Journal Staff

The Daily Journal

On Monday, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act was approved by the Assembly on a vote of 44-29. The bill is now taking steps toward Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk for his signature.

"I believe that the bill was passed at about 5 p.m. last night and all of us are very excited," said Adam Eidinger, communications director at Vote Hemp. "We've had a few meetings with the governor's staff and there wasn't much opposition to this bill. But they are tight-lipped about which side they are leaning to so we are unsure exactly if they are for or against it. I believe that he has until Sept. 30 to sign the bill."

AB 1147 has gained momentum as more legislators learned that California businesses spend millions of dollars each year to import hemp from Canada, China and Europe.

"This bill would allow for the growth of the hemp industry here in California," Eidinger said. "The bill is very straightforward and now there isn't confusion between this bill and a bill legalizing marijuana."

The demand for hemp and its use in numerous products, such as food, body care, clothing, paper and even auto parts, has been growing rapidly in recent years. The U.S. hemp market now exceeds an estimated $270 million in annual retail sales, and the new law would give farmers the ability to legally supply U.S. manufacturers with hemp seed, oil and fiber and would not weaken anti-drug laws.

"There is tremendous potential for growing hemp here in California. It would be an optimum place to grow industrial hemp because of its yearlong growing season.

"Hemp also helps to make the soil better by controlling the amount of nematodes that eat the roots of other crops. So you could grow a crop of hemp in one season and then grow another different crop and not have to spray for these very small worms," Eidinger said.

In February 2005, the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act was introduced by Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno. This year, the bill was amended and Republican Assemblyman Chuck Devore joined as co-author. In the bipartisan spirit of the legislation, the bill was managed on the floor of the Senate by Republican Tom McClintock and received support from Sen. Able Maldonado, a farmer and Republican member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Another influential Republican senator who supported the bill was Sam Aanestad, vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The support of Democratic Assemblywoman Barbara Matthews, chairwoman of the Assembly Agriculture Committee, was also helpful in the passage of the bill, supporters said.

"The bill gained a lot of support last week from both Republicans and Democrats," Eidinger said.

AB 1147 has been carefully crafted to comply with federal law and minimize the impact to law enforcement. It includes tough regulations without placing an undue burden on farmers. The bill permits cultivation of only ultra-low-THC industrial hemp grown as an agricultural field crop or in a research setting. Growing hemp in a backyard setting or the horticultural cultivation of hemp is prohibited, and any hidden or secret groves of cannabis will be considered a controlled substance regardless of its THC content.

"While seven other states grow hemp, this law to grow industrial hemp in California wouldn't require the DEA to give a license to the people growing it," Eidinger said. "And the state has guidelines and laws to keep people from abusing this bill."

Locally, some activists point out a possible drawback to the growing of agricultural hemp in Mendocino County.

"I am trying to advise not to grow hemp here in Mendocino County because of the chance of cross-pollination between the plants used for medical marijuana," said Johanna Schultz, the public relations director and board secretary at the Hemp Industries Association. "We are trying to help hemp agriculture stay generally within the Central Valley."

The problem of cross-pollination would develop because if industrial hemp was grown within a 10-mile radius of medical marijuana, the hemp would start to have higher levels of THC and not conform the regulations of industrial hemp. The same could also be said for the medical marijuana being grown because the level of THC would go down if plants were to be cross-pollinated. And while Schultz and the HIA don't suggest that it would be a good idea to grow hemp in Mendocino County, the passing of AB 1147 would be good for local businesses that are involved with it.

"We have about 500 members and support activists, and the signing of this bill would help a lot of our members here and all across the country," Schultz said.

by **Midnight toker** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:29 pm

The Santa Cruz Sentinel wrote:August 25, 2006

Hemp bill heads for Schwarzenegger's desk

By TOM RAGAN
SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
The Santa Cruz Sentinel

WATSONVILLE — Wine grapes move over.

Strawberries watch it.

Salinas lettuce, you may be a top moneymaker now in the Salad Bowl of the World, but don't let that turn your head.

California-grown hemp could crop up as a contender.

Farmers aren't sowing their fields with hemp seeds just yet, but a few Pajaro Valley growers, along with the county Farm Bureau, are hoping Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs a bill that would permit farmers to grow hemp legally.

Translation: A year from now the fiber in that cool hemp sweater that you buy could come from a field in California — as opposed to Canada, China or Europe.

The bill, known as AB 1147 or the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act, is headed for the governor's desk, where it will be vetoed or signed by late September, the governor's press office said Thursday.

Advocates of legalization like Vanessa Bogenholm, a Pajaro Valley strawberry farmer, said she believes the governor will sign the bill into law — if only because he hasn't expressed opposition to it in the past.

"It's amazing that the time has finally come where growers will be able to legally grow hemp if they want to," she said. "We need other alternatives, other choices, other options. And that's the point of all this.

"But it could run into some problems like medical marijuana."

The legislation, which passed by a 2-to-1 margin in the Assembly a week ago, was inspired by the fact that United States manufacturers spend millions of dollars to import hemp from such countries as Canada, China and Europe.

The demand for hemp is everywhere — in the chic clothing found in alternative stores in cities across the country, in body lotions and ointments that protect skin from aging, in snack bars at nutrition stores and in paper.

Last year, the product accounted for $270 million in annual retail sales, according to hemp advocates.

Did you know that the Declaration of Independence was actually signed on paper made of hemp?

That's some of the information being touted by advocates trying to show hemp has been pervasive and accepted in the past, and how difficult it's been to pass a law giving California farmers an advantage when overseas competition is tough.

The problem, they contend, is that hemp has long been confused with its illegal genetic cousin, marijuana — which contains the psychoactive ingredient tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

Under the proposed legislation, only ultra-low-THC industrial hemp can be grown, and it can be produced only as an agricultural field crop or in a research setting.

Backyard or horticultural cultivation is not allowed.

Any clandestine grove of cannabis would be considered marijuana, regardless of its THC content.

Steve Bontadelli, president-elect of the county Farm Bureau, said any crop that can make farmers cash is "welcome" as far as the bureau is concerned.

"But it's not going to appear overnight," he said.

"It's going to take time to figure out where to grow it, and how best to grow it, and under what conditions."

<hr class=postrule>
<center>Contact Tom Ragan at tragan@santacruzsentinel.com</center>

by **palmspringsbum** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:04 pm

The San Luis Obispo Tribune wrote:
September 16, 2006
The San Luis Obispo Tribune

RANCHO CORDOVA, Calif. - Police have seized at least 100 marijuana plants from a suburban Sacramento area home, the latest in a year of record seizures.

Since early August, federal and local agents have seized more than 13,000 marijuana plants worth more than $50 million from houses in Elk Grove and the Natomas section of Sacramento. Authorities suspect the marijuana-growing operations are being run by people in the Bay Area.

Stockton police also raided seven homes this week, seizing more than 2,000 plants and arresting four Bay Area residents. Authorities have been investigating whether the Stockton operation is linked to those in Elk Grove and Natomas.

Authorities say the homes were being used solely to grow marijuana and they suspect that organized crime groups may be involved. These criminal operations may be moving from the Bay Area to the Central Valley because housing prices are lower there.

Across California, authorities have seized more than 2 million marijuana plants, surpassing last year's total, which was itself a record. Officials say they expect to seize 25 percent more plants this year than last.

by **Midnight toker** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:04 pm

The Drug Policy Alliance wrote:DPA Wins Fight on Medical Marijuana Expenses in California

The Drug Policy Alliance
Friday, September 29, 2006

DPA's Office of Legal Affairs achieved a victory for California patients this week after a protracted legal battle. As a result of a court decision on September 25, indigent medical marijuana patients in California who receive public assistance benefits through the Department of Health Services may qualify for reimbursement of the cost of their medicine.

The case centered around Sylvia Price, who uses medical marijuana to alleviate severe, constant pain associated with lupus, a seizure disorder, reflux sympathetic dystrophy, and osteoporosis. Ms. Price sought and received reimbursements for the cost of her medical marijuana under Lake County's public assistance program, which took into account Ms. Price's out-of-pocket expenditures for medical marijuana when determining what level of assistance she should receive.

Then, three years ago, Lake County suddenly stopped reimbursing Ms. Price, claiming that federal law prohibited it from doing so. DPA took on her case, and after three administrative hearings and one appeal, the administrative court this week finally resolved the issue.

The decision, written on behalf of the California Department of Health and Human Services (DHS), made clear that DHS policy is to permit reimbursement of medical marijuana claims for patients who receive public assistance from that agency. DHS's administrative court also made clear that federal marijuana laws do not prevent the state agency from honoring California's medical marijuana law and enforcing department policy.

The decision held, in relevant part: "The disparity between federal law treating marijuana as a controlled and illegal substance and California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act has been decided and it is now established that DHS regards medical marijuana used consistent with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act as a bona fide medical expense."

This means that medical marijuana patients receiving public assistance benefits through DHS may qualify for reimbursement of reasonable, documented expenses incurred in obtaining their physician-recommended marijuana.

As for Ms. Price, she in all likelihood will be retroactively reimbursed for several thousand dollars of past out-of-pocket costs in purchasing medical marijuana.

by **budman** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:41 am

The Santa Cruz Sentinel wrote:October 3, 2006

Governor vetoes the legalization of hemp over the weekend

By TOM RAGAN
SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
The Santa Cruz Sentinel

WATSONVILLE — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's weekend decision to veto a bill that legalized growing hemp in California was greeted with disdain by the state assemblyman who supported it.

The Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau also was frustrated with the veto, saying growers are always looking for viable crop alternatives, and that hemp could have been one given demand.

But Schwarzenegger, in a statement Saturday, said while he supports the development of new crops in the state, he felt he could not approve the legalization of hemp, a type of cannabis related to marijuana but without the euphoric effects: "Unfortunately, I am very concerned that this bill would give legitimate growers a false sense of security and a belief that production of 'industrial hemp' is somehow a legal activity under federal law."

State Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, introduced AB 1147 this year to reduce the reliance of U.S. man-ufacturers on imported hemp from Canada and China. Monday, Leno called the veto just "short of absurd."

"It's just another example of myth and politics trumping science and sound public policy," Leno said. "But we're not through yet. We're not going to give up. I'll probably try to introduce it again ... in January."

The bill passed both the Assembly and the Senate, with backers stressing that industrial hemp is a $300 million industry in the United States but that it cannot be grown here legally.

"Farmers could have made so much money by capitalizing on the popularity of the industry, but now they're just going to continue to lose it," Leno said.

Products made of hemp are common, and it can be found in clothes, food, snack bars, even paper. Proponents of the bill pointed to the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which was penned on hemp.

But the governor, with advice from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, said there currently is no legal distinction between industrial hemp and marijuana, which contains tetrahydrocannabinols. THC creates euphoria when consumed; its production and consumption are outlawed by the federal government.

Any person wishing to grow hemp or marijuana must first obtain permission and register with the DEA. Failure to do so is a violation of federal law and subject to criminal penalties.

But Leno said there are huge differences between the two plants and that there was "no way" that law enforcement would have trouble distinguishing one from the other — a reservation expressed by bill opponents in Sacramento.

"What's the problem?" Leno said. "Marijuana grows 6 feet tall. Hemp grows as high as 16 feet. People plant marijuana 4 feet apart. Hemp is planted inches from one another. I don't know what was so difficult. They're two entirely different plants we're talking about here."

North Dakota is the only state that allows growing hemp for industrial purposes.

"You'd have to smoke a joint the size of telephone pole in order to get a headache," said Ken Junkert of the North Dakota Department of Agriculture in Bismarck.

The state's decision to legalize hemp was to diversify crops in a state where agriculture has taken a financial hit of late but still remains the No. 1 industry.

Hemp is a perfect plant, Junkert said, because it grows in all sorts of conditions and requires no pesticides or herbicides. It also serves as a rotational crop, putting nutrients back in the soil.

But even Junkert anticipates legal problems.

Though farmers can now apply for a license to grow hemp, he expects DEA opposition, which could lead to legal battles.

"We'll know in the next couple of months as farmers come in and start to apply for the permits," he said.

Contact Tom Ragan at tragan@santacruzsentinel.com.

by **budman** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:51 am

The Drug Policy Alliance wrote:Feature: More California Medical Marijuana Raids: The New Status Quo?

The Drug Policy Alliance
October 6, 2006

At least five California different medical marijuana dispensaries have been raided in the last ten days, bringing the total so far this year to more than 30, according to medical marijuana supporters. But that means nearly 200 existing dispensaries have not been raided, suggesting that what is occurring is more like a low-level battle of attrition than an all-out assault by the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and its allies among recalcitrant state and local law enforcement and elected officials.

Here is the latest casualty list:

<table class=posttable align=right width=250><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/dispensary-demo_1.jpg></td></tr></table>Last Wednesday in Modesto, one day after the city of Modesto voted to repeal a municipal provision exempting nonprofits from its ordinance banning dispensaries, DEA agents raided the nonprofit California Healthcare Collective, one of only two remaining dispensaries in the area. A DEA spokesperson told Drug War Chronicle this week the Modesto Police Department began investigating the dispensary, then handed the case over to the feds. Four people were arrested on federal marijuana distribution charges.

The following day, DEA and local law enforcement agents raided the North Valley Discount Caregivers dispensary in Grenada Hills and seized all the medicinal cannabis at the site. The two operators were arrested on state marijuana charges.

That same day, Stanislaus County Sheriff's deputies raided the 2816 Collective in a rural area near Modesto using a state search warrant. Police seized about two pounds of dried marijuana and patient files. The collective had closed the day before because of the Modesto raid. With both California Healthcare in Modesto and the 2816 Collective gone, the entire region is now destitute of dispensaries, leaving hundreds of patients in the lurch.

On Tuesday, the DEA raided at least eight locations in the San Francisco Bay area, seizing more than 12,000 plants, $125,000 cash, and a fancy sports car. Despite somewhat hysterical initial reports in the local media, all the raids were connected with the New Remedies dispensary in San Francisco, which involved the same people involved in Compassionate Caregivers, which was raided by the DEA in Los Angeles in May 2005, when the feds found more than $300,000 in cash, sparking the investigation that culminated in the Monday raids.

On Wednesday, DEA and local law enforcement officers raided the Palm Springs Caregivers dispensary in Riverside County, seizing medicinal cannabis, but not making any arrests at the time. The raid came one day after the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted to ban dispensaries in unincorporated county areas, which does not include Palm Springs, and one month after Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask issued a white paper arguing that dispensaries are illegal under both state and federal law.

The raids triggered the Emergency Response Project of the medical marijuana defense group Americans for Safe Access, which brought out protestors last Friday at DEA headquarters in Los Angeles, as well as Modesto, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco and Santa Ana. Demonstrators also greeted the Tuesday raids in San Francisco, and more actions are set for today.

"With our emergency response program, every time there is a federal raid -- and we can usually find that out in a matter of hours -- we activate our local response, as we did in San Francisco this week," said ASA's Caren Woodson. "But now, we're activating the national emergency response for Friday. It's a call-in day. We are urging everyone to call in to DEA administrator Karen Tandy and let her know how they feel about these raids. Karen Tandy has a lot of discretion, and she needs to exercise it."

While ASA is leading the immediate battle, it is not alone among movement groups in trying to figure out just what is going on. According to the DEA, it's nothing special, just enforcing the federal marijuana laws. "The two cases in which our office was involved, Modesto last week and here in the Bay area this week, were both the culmination of long-term investigations," said San Francisco DEA public information officer Casey McEnry. "In Modesto, the Modesto police began investigating and then passed it on to us, and with New Remedies, we had served warrants on them as Compassionate Caregivers in LA in May 2005, and we learned in December 2005 that they had changed their name and set up shop in Oakland," she told Drug War Chronicle.

"We can't read the DEA's mind, but there is no sign of an all-out offensive," said Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP). "These guys in San Francisco were already in the crosshairs -- they were victims of their own success -- but there are certainly plenty of other places operating openly. If the DEA wanted to, it could go after them with little effort, but it seems like a decision has been made not to do that."

<table class=posttable align=left width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/dispensary-demo_2.jpg></td></tr></table>The DEA's McEnry did not respond directly to questions about whether the agency had taken a political decision to not aggressively crack down on the state's roughly 200 dispensaries, but she did issue a warning. "The magic plant count number is zero, the distribution number is zero if you want to be safe from us possibly knocking at your door," she said. "Anyone who cultivates or distributes marijuana is at risk."

While that may be bluster given the agency's limited resources, it is worrisome for dispensaries and their supporters. "These state-certified legal cannabis dispensaries look to the DEA like drug distribution havens," said Woodson. "If a dispensary is serving 150 people a day, the operator looks like a drug kingpin to them. They're like sitting ducks, they're listed in the phone book. And now some of these people are facing very severe sentences, some of up to life in prison.

It isn't just the DEA. "We have sporadic local police involvement in raids, mostly in counties where local government is not supportive, like Modesto or Riverside County, which is where Palm Springs is," said Mirken. "That tells us it is really important that local governments understand Proposition 215 and hear from their constituents that access to medicinal cannabis is important."

"They're picking locations where local decision-makers don't have a friendly attitude," said ASA's Woodson.

"These raids are really a drop in the bucket when you have 200 dispensaries out there," said Dale Gieringer, head of California NORML, "but we don't want to see them spread. I fear this is going to be a battlefield for awhile here until we come up with a regime that allows for better systems of dispensaries and production. The lack of a legal production system causes a lot of problems, and everybody in the dispensary business is operating in the black or grey market and vulnerable to legal uncertainties."

While medical marijuana dispensaries remain numerous in Los Angeles and the Bay area, the raids are having a very real impact on availability in some areas of the state. "In San Diego, a few months ago there were a dozen dispensaries in operation, but after the raids, they're gone and access to medical cannabis is largely gone," said Woodson. "There are only a handful of delivery services now, and they can't handle the demand. It's a similar situation in Modesto -- there aren't any dispensaries in the area now."

"I think it's going to continue for the short term, until something happens politically to change the dynamic," said Mirken. "That might not be until there is regime change in Washington, and maybe not even then, depending on how smart the Democrats are. It doesn't seem like anything is going to change drastically in California in the near term. Most people in the state government some local governments at least pay lip service to supporting Proposition 215, but we haven't seen much strong action from state officials with the clout to try to stop the raids. I really don't see anything moving on the state level," he said.

ASA's Woodson wasn't quite ready to give up on state government. "Here in California, we need to see more state officials standing up and denouncing these raids," she said. "The state legislature as a whole needs to take this issue on and create guidelines or craft prohibitions directing state and local law enforcement not to participate in these medical marijuana raids. The legislature is not doing its job if it is not properly protecting patients."

Another thing the legislature could do is restate and expand on its support for Proposition 215. "They should re-codify it and take a stand against the federal raids," said Woodson. "And they should demand our federal delegation pay more attention to this issue. All Diane Feinstein can talk about is meth; she and Barbara Boxer haven't raised a finger to help on medical marijuana. We would also like to see more law enforcement officers trained on the medical cannabis issue."

"California will do nothing statewide until federal law changes," predicted Gieringer. "I see this pattern of sporadic raids continuing until there is a change in the federal law. Two or three years ago, I would have said we were in mortal danger, but in fact, we've had nothing but an increase in the number of dispensaries even after we lost two Supreme Court decisions. Somehow I have a hard time believing that this is going to be reversed, especially given what happened in LA. Two years ago, there weren't any clubs in LA, now there are a hundred. It looks to me like the nation's second largest city is firmly infected with dispensaries. When it was just the Bay area, I was concerned the feds could shut it down, but they blew their chance. Now all they can do is bust someone every once in awhile and try to tarnish the image of the dispensaries, but they are here to stay."

by **budman** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:40 pm

NORML wrote:California: Medical Pot Patients May Receive Financial Reimbursement

October 5, 2006 - Sacramento, CA, USA
NORML

Sacramento, CA: The purchase of medicinal cannabis by state-authorized patients is a "bona fide" medical expense and may be covered in part by California's Medical Assistance program (Medi-Cal), according to a decision released last week by the director of the California Department of Health Services (DHS).

The plaintiff in the case, who uses medical cannabis under her physician's supervision to alleviate symptoms of lupus and reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), sought financial reimbursement from the state's medical assistance program for several thousand dollars of expenses she incurred in 2003 and 2004 from the purchase of medicinal marijuana.

Writing on behalf of the DHS, director Sandra Shewry determined that the expenses incurred by the plaintiff should be reimbursed by the agency. "State law recognizes the medical use of marijuana," she wrote. "When used consistent with the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and [the] Medical Marijuana Program Act, DHS considers medical marijuana [to be] a bona fide medical expense."

The Office of Legal Affairs of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) offered legal assistance in the case.

For more information, please contact Keith Stroup, NORML Legal Counsel, at (202) 483-5500 or visit: http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/092906mmj.cfm.

by **budman** » Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:25 pm

Counterpunch wrote:Schwarzenegger Vetoes Hemp Bill

By FRED GARDNER
Counterpunch
October 7 / 8, 2006

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has refused to sign AB 1147, "The California Industrial Hemp Farming Act," which earlier this year passed the Senate (by 26 to 13) and Assembly (44 to 29). The bill would have allowed California farmers to grow hemp -the cannabis plant that has been bred for fiber and/or seeds. "Industrial hemp" contains only trace amounts of THC -.3 percent or less, as defined by AB 1147.

Cannabis is a versatile plant, bred for thousands of years to be useful (which is one definition of "sativa"). Hemp fabric can be like canvas or linen. Hempseed oil is uniquely nutiritious. When hemp fell victim to the marijuana prohibition, canaries all over America stopped singing. Nowadays Americans spend an estimated $270 million annually on products imported or made from hemp grown in Europe, Canada, and China. Seven states have legalized hemp cultivation, but the federal prohibition prevents farmers from growing it.

Schwarzenegger cited federal law as the basis for his veto:

"Under current federal statutes there is no definition of 'industrial hemp' nor is there a distinction between cannabis plants based on Tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) content as delineated in AB 1147. In fact, under federal law, all cannabis plants, regardless of variety or THC content, are simply considered to be 'marihuana,' which is a federally regulated schedule I controlled substance. Any person in the United States that wishes to grow cannabis plants for any purpose, including industrial purposes, must first obtain permission and register with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Failure to do so would be a violation of federal law and could subject an individual to criminal penalties.

"...It would be improper to approve a measure that directly conflicts with current federal statutes and court decisions. This only serves to cause confusion and reduce public confidence in our government system.

"Finally, California law enforcement has expressed concerns that implementation of this measure could place a drain on their resources and cause significant problems with drug enforcement activities. This is troubling given the needs in this state for the eradication and prevention of drug production."

Schwarzenegger claims to be "for" medical marijuana, but by the logic of his veto message he would have vetoed Prop 215 had it been enacted by the legislature instead of the voters. (Laws created by initiative take effect immediately and don't require the governor's signature.) Former Gov. Pete Wilson -who is now a Schwarzenegger advisor, vetoed medical marijuana bills passed by the legislature in 1994 and 1995, citing federal law as his rationale.

Schwarzenegger vetoed the hemp bill in deference to law enforcement, according to Patrick Goggin, an attorney employed by the Hemp Industries Association and a Virginia-based lobbying group called Vote Hemp. "At the 11th hour John Lovell, representing the California Narcotics Officers Association and a number of other police groups, sent out a memo expressing extreme opposition," says Goggin. "It was clearly meant to influence the governor. The bill was already heading back to the Assembly for concurrence. His main point was that legal hemp would make it impossible for law enforcement to find illicit marijuana -even though the bill gave them the right to test and to confiscate any plants in excess of .3 percent THC."

Both Goggin and an aide to Assemblyman Mark Leno used the term "political calculus" in describing Schwarzenegger's decision. "He gave the environmentalists a win on greenhouse emissions," explains Goggin. "He's got them; he doesn't need to woo them by supporting hemp."

Supporters of the hemp bill took great pains to distinguish themselves from the medical marijuana industry/movement. The Drug Policy Alliance reportedly offered to provide expert testimony on how different hemp is from marijuana, but the hemp-bill strategists nixed the idea. Their ideal witness was a Republican farmer. "The way you have to approach this is by separating the issue from medical cannabis," says Goggin.

Perhaps "separating the issue" made sense when they were seeking votes from Republican legislators, but once the bill went to the governor for signing -the stage that savvy John Lovell knew was make-or-break- it made no sense at all. Most Californians -including quite a few Republican farmers- know that marijuana is safe and effective medicine and that the federal prohibition is absurd and costly. The Vote Hemp campaign separated the issues, never demanding that Schwarzenegger stand up to the feds re Prohibition. They emphasized the environmental benefits of hemp, economic benefits to California farmers, how easy it would be for law enforcers to tell the difference between good hemp and that bad marijuana Schwarzenegger sensed weakness -political and intellectual- and gave them the big "Nicht."

Our snappy slogan, "Struggle Against Singleissuism!" continues to be ignored. The trend is in the other direction -activists are dividing up the single issues.

NOTE TO PHIL ANGELIDES

Are you tired of being a 150-pound weakling getting sand kicked in your face by a musclebound bully? Why not throw a bale of hemp at the Governor in your upcoming debate? Here's how to put it to him: "Governor, your logic in vetoing the hemp bill would have led you to veto our medical marijuana law if it had been enacted by the legislature instead of the voters. Don't you think California ought to stand up to the federal government when we have the science on our side?" You might have an aide pull up Pete Wilson's veto of the medical marijuana bills passed by the legislature in '94 and '95 -the supremacy of federal law was his rationale, too.

Fred Gardner is the editor of O'Shaughnessy's Journal of the California Cannabis Research Medical Group. He can be reached at: fred@plebesite.com

by **palmspringsbum** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:27 pm

The Union Democrat wrote:Medicinal marijuana advocate dies

Published: October 17, 2006

By JERRY WHITEHEAD III
The Union-Democrat

Myron "Karl" Mower, a longtime Sonora resident and medicinal marijuana proponent, died Friday at a Fresno hospital. He was 44 years old.

He was born in Washington, D.C. and moved to California when he was four weeks old. He grew up in the Bay Area and moved to Sonora in 1982.

Mr. Mower, a diabetic since he was 9, was brought to trial for illegal marijuana possession in 1998, after Tuolumne County narcotics agents searched his Twain Harte-area home and found 31 marijuana plants growing in his basement and among the vegetables in his backyard garden.

He was allowed to grow marijuana by Proposition 215, a medicinal marijuana law passed by California voters in 1996. But investigators said he was growing more than local laws allowed for personal use.

Mr. Mower said he smoked about eight grams of pot per day to alleviate his near constant pain, subdue his nausea and persistent vomiting, aid him in eating and drinking, and clear his vision so he could make out basic shapes with the less than 10 percent capacity that remained in his left eye. He had been declared legally blind at 21.

He was nevertheless convicted in Tuolumne County Superior Court and sentenced to five years probation and a $1,000 fine. Mr. Mower appealed the decision, eventually bringing his case to the California Supreme Court. In 2002, the high court unanimously overturned his conviction.

The decision was seen as a landmark, more clearly defining the rights of patients and legal procedures in dealing with growers of medical marijuana for personal use.

"What he lived for the most was helping people," said his wife, Laurie. "He was very happy when the court decision was made. Very happy."

Mr. Mower died of respiratory failure as a result of pneumonia. He was placed on a respirator but made the decision to have it turned off earlier last week.

"He didn't want to live on a respirator," his mother, Mary McClinton, said.

Mr. Mower is survived by his wife of 12 years, Laurie; stepson, Michael; mother and stepfather, Mary McClinton and Roger Selsor, of Fresno; brother and sister-in-law, Michael T. and Shelley Mower, of Grants Pass, Ore.; niece and nephew, Mariah and Cameron Mower, of Grants Pass; and mother-in-law, Sherry Johnson, and her family, of Sonora.

No services will be held.

McClinton said she will miss her son's positive nature, even in the face of his pain and adversity.

"I will miss his smile and his phone calls," she said. "He checked in with me every day."

His wife, Laurie, echoed those sentiments: "He had a great sense of humor. Considering how sick he was, he was a trouper. He was like the Energizer Bunny - he just kept going and going."

Donations in his name may be made to the American Diabetes Society, P.O. Box 1131, Fairfax, VA 22038-1131.

Contact Jerry Whitehead III at jwhitehead@uniondemocrat.com or 588-4525.

by **palmspringsbum** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:42 am

The North County Times wrote:Monday, October 30, 2006
Last modified Friday, October 27, 2006 9:24 PM PDT

CHP takes right stand on Prop. 215

By: PHIL STRICKLAND - For The Californian

The ridiculous battle continues throughout the state regarding the application of Proposition 215, which legalizes the distribution and possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

It was 10 years ago that California voters passed the landmark legislation that has come to be law in 10 other states. And still, we argue about it.

Up and down the state, in courts and on the streets, medical marijuana remains a lively issue. Federal agents and local authorities marshal their forces to raid marijuana cooperatives and dispensaries from San Francisco to San Diego and many cities and counties refuse to issue identification cards as required by SB 420.

Even so, if you support Prop. 215, there have been some bright spots ---ñ though not in Southwest County. Not only has the legality of possessing medical marijuana been affirmed in court, the return of seized pot was ordered.

And, a state administrative court ruled in September that low-income medical-marijuana users who receive state public assistance may qualify for reimbursement for the cost of medical cannabis. At least there's some benefit to being poor and sick.

As for ID cards, 22 of the state's 58 counties are in the process of issuing them and to almost top it all off, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the largest government-workers union, passed a resolution in August at its national convention in Chicago endorsing access to medical marijuana.

But there's even better news for supporters, and though it is more than a year old, unless you're personally interested in the topic, you more than likely missed it.

You, as a patient, can be driving down Interstate 15 in Southwest County with 8 ounces of the healing herb in baggies sitting on the seat next to you and get pulled over by the Highway Patrol without fear of being arrested for possession or having the pot seized.

Important tip: Don't try this without a prescription from your physician in your possession.

You read right. If you've made it from the dispensary to an interstate, you're home free until you exit the highway to go home, at which point you become vulnerable to local and/or federal authorities in our fair region.

The agreement was reached with the California Highway Patrol in August 2005 after a lawsuit was filed against the agency by Americans for Safe Access, a medical-marijuana advocacy group. The suit followed a survey by the organization that found the CHP was the most frequent violator of the law.

It probably helped that state Attorney General Bill Lockyer sent a memo affirming that medical marijuana use is sanctioned by state law despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The policy was made binding last week when a consent decree was signed by CHP officials and counsel for Lockyer and Gov. Schwarzenegger.

So, here it is: You can possess 8 ounces or 6 mature plants or 12 youngsters ---ñ more if you're someplace that allows quantities in excess of state law ---- without fear, as long as you're on an interstate and have a prescription.

Meanwhile, officials in Riverside, San Diego and San Bernardino counties remain combined in a wasteful lawsuit to protect us from the collapse of society certain to follow the establishment of medical-marijuana dispensaries.

Boy, there's your tax dollars being well-spent. And, as long as we're talking tax dollars at work, don't forget all the money spent by the feds and local authorities raiding and closing down cooperatives and dispensaries. Thanks, guys.

Just think, if our protectors would spend that money and those resources fighting, oh, the methamphetamine scourge, society might be a little healthier.

Phil Strickland is a regular columnist for The Californian. E-mail: philipestrickland@yahoo.com.

by **palmspringsbum** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 12:44 pm

CBS Channel 13 wrote:Oct 30, 2006 10:18 pm US/Pacific

<table class=posttable align=right width=175><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/garfield-county-sheriff.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap>In mid-August authorities found more than 4,000 plants in Eastern El Dorado County, some along hiking trails and near high end homes.
</td></tr></table>Officials Say Marijuana Crackdown Is Working

<img src=/bin/icon_video.gif> Video

Serene Branson Reporting

(CBS 13) SACRAMENTO Attorney general Bill Lockyear says it's not that the number of pot farms is up, but that their crackdown is working. This season, agents uprooted nearly 1.7 million plants, smoking last year’s record.

Helicopters and armed agents swarmed hillsides and turned pot farms this summer.

In mid-August authorities found more than 4,000 plants in Eastern El Dorado County, some along hiking trails and near high end homes.

In early September agents found 4,000 plants on private land in El Dorado County, the owner didn't know was there. The state says these discoveries are the result of ramping up their camp program, Campaign Against Marijuana Planting.

They carried out 477 raids in 34 counties during the traditional growing season which ends in early October.

Last year agents found more than 1.1 million plants, this year nearly 1.7 an increase of more than half million pot plants.

Officers also made 27 arrests and seized 29 weapons - and that's what makes these operations so scary. In almost all of these cases, agents told us they found ammunition and campsites, meaning people were protecting the grows.

Authorities say seizures have increased because of camp teams hitting the hills, advances in aerial technology and larger garden sizes. As agents eradicate garden after garden, the state says it's the number of pot farms being wiped out that will continue to grow.

The estimated street value of the plants seized this year? 6 point seven billion dollars.

(© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

by **palmspringsbum** » Sun Nov 05, 2006 2:22 pm

The Sioux City Journal wrote:Medical marijuana at a crossroads 10 years later

The Sioux City Journal
November 3, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A decade ago Californians passed the nation's first medical marijuana law, but the future of that statute is no clearer now than when voters headed to the polls on Nov. 5, 1996.

The federal government still refuses to recognize Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act approved by 56 percent of voters. And U.S. authorities have won nearly every major legal battle over the measure, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

"We refer to it as marijuana, not medical marijuana, regardless of its reported destination or use," said Drug Enforcement Administration spokeswoman Casey McEnry, noting that marijuana is an illegal controlled substance under federal law.

The government's war on drugs has also prompted a civil war of sorts within California: three of the state's 58 counties, headed by San Diego County, claim in a lawsuit filed in state court that the measure is illegal.

A hearing is set for Nov. 16 in the lawsuit, which threatens to derail the state's legal tolerance for the medicinal use of a drug that federal law places in the same category as heroin, cocaine and LSD. A victory for those renegade counties might also set legal precedent undermining medical marijuana laws in 10 other states -- Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Voters in South Dakota will consider a medical marijuana measure on Tuesday.

"The state cannot authorize somebody to do something that breaks federal law," said Thomas Bunton, senior deputy counsel for San Diego County.

Medical marijuana is used by thousands of people suffering from AIDS, cancer, anorexia, chronic pain, arthritis, migraines and other illnesses, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. The nation's medical marijuana laws generally allow those with a doctor's recommendation to grow or possess small amounts of the drug.

In 1999, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences expressed concerns about the health risks of smoking marijuana, but acknowledged in a report that "there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting."

Later research suggests it might reduce tumor proliferation and a study this year by the University of California at San Francisco showed marijuana "may offer significant benefit" to those suffering from hepatitis C.

The Food and Drug Administration does not recognize marijuana as having medical benefits.

California is the epicenter of the federal-state medical marijuana battle.

Communities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland and West Hollywood have authorized storefront medical marijuana dispensaries

Proposition 215 does not expressly allow dispensaries, but Americans for Safe Access, a pro-marijuana lobbying group, estimates there are about 200 operating in California. For many backers of the law, it's an imperfect way for patients to get pot.

"I thought we would have had more of a standardized distribution system by now," said William Panser, an Oakland criminal defense lawyer who was among the handful of attorneys that crafted the proposition.

Federal agents have raided more than two dozen California dispensaries over the past decade, according to Americans for Safe Access. Some communities are now assisting in the crackdown, including San Diego, which recently shuttered thirteen.

A dozen dispensaries found on the Internet and contacted by The Associated Press declined comment or did not return messages.

William Dolphin, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, said dispensaries are also operating secretly in other states, even though they are illegal. "I know they are operating in Oregon, Washington and Colorado. It's underground," he said.

So far, the federal government has taken a piecemeal approach to enforcing federal drug laws, cracking down on a few scattered dispensaries.

"The dispensary issue is a fascinating study in sociology," Panser said. "It's like the speed limit, and everybody is breaking the law but it's being tolerated."

Nowhere is medical marijuana more accepted than in San Francisco, birthplace of the movement. The city's top prosecutor, Kamala Harris, steadfastly supports Proposition 215.

"Sick people using medical marijuana as it relates to Proposition 215 are not criminals and will not be prosecuted," she said.

But she acknowledged that a handful of San Francisco dispensaries raided by federal agents "were out of control" because they were selling pot to customers without a doctor's recommendation.

"There were some abuses," Harris said.

The DEA says it is targeting dispensaries and other large-scale growing and selling operations, whether the marijuana is for medical or illicit use. Federal authorities say they might seize individual users' marijuana, but likely wouldn't arrest medicinal users because they are focused on the supply chain.

"Our mission is to come into contact with the cultivators and the distributors of marijuana," said the DEA's McEnry. "We don't target users."

One such user is Angel Raich, who already lost one case before the U.S. Supreme Court and is likely headed back.

The 41-year-old mother of two from Oakland suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other ailments. On her doctor's advice, Raich uses marijuana every couple of hours to ease her pain and bolster a nonexistent appetite. She smokes it, vaporizes it and cooks it into her food.

Last year, the Supreme Court came down against Raich in the court's second ruling against medical marijuana since 2001. Because Congress decided marijuana was illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the justices ruled, users and suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws, even if they lived in a state where medical marijuana was legal.

With that ruling, the legal issue has narrowed to the so-called right to life theory: that marijuana should be allowed if it is the only viable option to keep patients alive. Raich and her doctor say without marijuana, she would likely die.

Ten years after the medical marijuana revolution began, Raich never envisioned that she would still be living with the fear of being arrested, or that her supply chain might be cut off.

"It's so scary," she said. "I thought that the feds would just leave us alone."

Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for more than a decade.

by **budman** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:35 pm

cbs2.com wrote:Nov 3, 2006 8:20 pm US/Pacific

California Law: Medical Marijuana

(CBS) LOS ANGELES The assertion that all medical marijuana is headed for seriously ill patients is misleading. Statistics from the California Branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) shows that a survey of Californians reports the top three reported uses of medicinal marijuana: <ul class=postlist><li>40% Chronic Pain</li>

<li>22% AIDS-Related</li>

<li>15% Mood Disorders</li>

<li>(23% All other categories)</li></ul>In California there is no state regulation or standard of the cultivation and/or distribution medical marijuana. California leaves the establishment of any guidelines to local jurisdictions, which can widely vary. For example, Marin County allows up to six mature plants, and/or a half-pound dried marijuana. It's neighbor, Sonoma County permits possession of three pounds of marijuana, and allows cultivation up to 99 plants, and physicians may recommend more for "exceptional patients."

Local and state law enforcement counterparts cannot distinguish between illegal marijuana grows and grows that qualify as medical exemptions. Many self-designated medical marijuana growers are, in fact, growing marijuana for illegal, "recreational" use.

Elected law enforcement officials, i.e. Sheriffs and District Attorneys in California have been targeted by the "marijuana lobby." Political action by groups such as NORML have endorsed and supported candidates favorable to medical marijuana. NORML tracks local elections and takes credit for the defeats of anti-marijuana candidates. Last year the DEA arrested a major marijuana trafficker in Humboldt County who was an undeclared candidate for sheriff.

The DEA and its local and state counterparts routinely report that large-scale drug traffickers hide behind and invoke Proposition 215, even when there is no evidence of any medical claim. In fact, many large-scale marijuana cultivators and traffickers escape state prosecution because of bogus medical marijuana claims. Prosecutors are reluctant to charge these individuals because of the state of confusion that exists in California. Therefore, high-level traffickers posing as "care givers" are able to sell illegal drugs with impunity.

The California NORML website lists federal defendants for the largest indoor marijuana cultivation operation in the U.S., which occurred in Northern California, as "green prisoners." While unscrupulously claiming to be "medical marijuana" defendants, in fact these two individuals were dangerous, armed fugitives believed to be responsible for drug-related murders and other violence.

DEA's San Francisco Field Division coordinates the statewide Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP). The number of plants eradicated and assets seized represent the largest totals in California history.

(Information from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration)

by **budman** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:43 pm

The L.A. Times wrote:Gathering will mark 10 years of legalized medical pot use

Despite setbacks, veterans of California's pioneering movement will celebrate.

By Eric Bailey, Times Staff Writer
November 4, 2006

SACRAMENTO — With pomp and a bit of pot-inspired pageantry, the battle-tested veterans of California's medical marijuana movement will come together this weekend to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Proposition 215, the milestone ballot measure that redefined cannabis as medicine.

Those planning to gather today at the Gay Community Center in San Francisco include former cannabis club impresario and Proposition 215 author Dennis Peron, celebrated medical marijuana physician Dr. Tod Mikuriya and former San Francisco Dist. Atty. Terence Hallinan.

ADVERTISEMENTOn Nov. 5, 1996, 56% of the California electorate voted to approve the ballot measure, igniting a national controversy and putting the state squarely at odds with the federal government's blanket prohibition on pot.

The last decade has seen dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries raided by federal drug agents and scores of patients arrested. Several disputes over the California law landed on the U.S. Supreme Court's doorstep, most recently with a decision last year upholding prosecutions of patients in federal court.

Despite unwavering federal resistance, 10 other states followed California in approving medical marijuana measures. Voters in South Dakota are scheduled to decide Tuesday whether they want to join the club.

The decade also saw a proliferation of cannabis dispensaries in the Golden State. By some counts, California has more than 250 clinics and distribution networks and 200,000 patients.

There has been backlash. Although two dozen cities and seven counties — including Los Angeles, Riverside and Santa Barbara — have approved regulations allowing dispensaries, three times as many municipalities have passed moratoriums or banned cannabis clubs.

In addition, three counties — San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced — sued the state, questioning the constitutionality of a mandate that conflicts with federal law. A hearing is scheduled for this month.

Many physicians have shied away from recommending marijuana to their patients, despite a pivotal federal court victory upholding doctor-patient privacy rights. More than two dozen cannabis specialists have recommended the drug, authorizing marijuana for thousands of patients suffering a variety of ills, including AIDS wasting, muscle aches and depression — in some cases prompting criticism and professional sanctions.

Fears of rising recreational use among teenagers were unfounded, with rates declining over the decade.

A nationwide Gallup poll a year ago found that 78% of Americans supported allowing doctors to prescribe pot.

Meanwhile, there is movement for even greater legalization of the plant.

On Tuesday, the cities of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Santa Monica will vote on initiatives aimed at eliminating criminal penalties for adult recreational use of cannabis. Two states — Nevada and Colorado — will vote on proposals to legalize adult marijuana use entirely.

Ten years after Proposition 215, "a second marijuana reform shockwave may be in the making," said Dale Gieringer, California director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

<hr class=postrule>
eric.bailey@latimes.com

by **palmspringsbum** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:41 pm

cbs2.com wrote:Nov 6, 2006 6:04 pm US/Pacific

Dr. Feel Good Will See You Now -- For $175

<img src=/bin/icon_video.gif> <a href=http://www.cbs2.com/video/?id=27893@kcbs.dayport.com target=_blank>How We Went Undercover To Uncover 'Dr. Feel Good'</a>

<img src=/bin/icon_video.gif> <a href=http://www.cbs2.com/video/?id=27897@kcbs.dayport.com target=_blank>CONFRONTATION: David Goldstein Interviews Doctor</a>

David Goldstein
Reporting
CBS

Got a headache? Do your high-heeled shoes make your feet hurt? What about dry skin? Undercover, with hidden cameras, we found that with a simple complaint and $175 cash, you can get a recommendation for medical marijuana -- making it legal for you to smoke anywhere in California! We expose how simple it is to skirt the law…

This doctor doesn't want to be on TV.

"I want to talk to you about your practice."

"Turn that off. Turn that off."

One of his employees blocked our camera.

"Don't touch the camera. Don't put it in my face."

"Don't touch the camera."

But we went undercover.

"Hi. You here to see the doctor today?"

"Yeah."

To expose the doctor's specialty -- one that brings in big bucks! Medical marijuana.

"You're a pot doctor aren't you?

"No I don't believe that."

"Phillip? Do we have a Phillip here?"

But the patients who pack this office believe it. This is Pacific Support Services. That's where Dr. James Eisenberg works and sees dozens of people each week.

"How long is the wait?"

"About an hour. Hour and a half."

They wait for hours for a chance to get this! A recommendation for medical marijuana, which under state law would make it legal for them to smoke pot anywhere in the California.

Ten years ago -- California voters approved Proposition 215 -- and became the first state in the nation to allow medical marijuana to help ease the pain of the seriously ill.

"So if you have the certificate the police don't bother you?"

But some of the patients in Dr. Eisenberg's waiting room don't seem seriously ill. In fact some are laughing about what they're going to tell the doctor in order to get a recommendation.

"Any old thing?"

"Oh. I can't eat. I can't sleep."

"I tell him it's for good sex."

Most people we saw walked out with a recommendation -- included this young man who said he was a student at Burbank High.

So we wanted to find out how easy it was. We sent in four people with hidden cameras.
One filled out the questionnaire complaining of dry skin. Another of hair loss. A third -- a 17-year-old with a headache. And a fourth -- this woman. She said her feet hurt when she wore high-heeled shoes. All had to pay $175.00 cash before even seeing the doctor. When they met with him--he just asked a few questions about the ailment. That's it!

He rejected the 17-year-old, saying he was underage.

But the others walked away with this passport. Signed by the doctor making it legal for them to smoke pot.

"Are you handing out these recommendations legitimately?"

"Yes."

Dr. Eisenbereg at first didn't want to stop and talk -- but then defended his practice.

"Do you think someone who complains of foot pain because of high heeled shoes is a legitimate candidate for medical marijuana?"

"All I can do is take my patients statements as factual. That's all I can do with any patient."

But Dr. Eisenberg never got up from behind his desk or even examined any of our people. And according to the state medical board, any doctor has to before recommending marijuana.

"Our policy is very clear. And a good faith examination is a critical part of that policy."

He's certainly not the only doctor. A handful are fueling a virtual explosion of medical marijuana collectives or dispensaries throughout Southern California. Like this one in Hollywood. More than 100 have opened up in Southern California just this year. And most are unregulated!

They have names like C.C.S.C. -- The Compassionate Caregivers of Studio City. Or H.I.P. -- the Herbal Independence Pharmacy.
On this Friday night, we watched people coming and going and caught this man walking away with his bag of marijuana, then turn the corner and wildly celebrate with his friends, sharing his newfound bounty. On the Internet - -the dispensaries advertise grand openings with free joints. Free grams. But not everyone is celebrating.

"Did you vote for Proposition 215?"

"Yes."

Sandra Munz voted for medical marijuana, but now has three dispensaries in her neighborhood, including this one. And she says this isn't what she voted for.

"I always thought it was going to be distributed through pharmacies and a doctor who was not a 'doctor feelgood' distributing to anyone"

Frank Sheftel owns a marijuana dispensary in Toluca Lake. He says he does everything on the up and up -- and "favors" more regulations.

"I think doctors needs to be a little bit less on the dollar side and more on the medical side."

But doctors -- like Dr. Eisenberg -- are taking hundreds of dollars, handing out recommendations every day. And not denying it.

"Aren't you just pushing pot?"

"No."

"It's legalized drug dealing."

"No."

"You're a pot doctor aren't you?"

"No. Hope."

"Do you do anything else in this practice except pot?"

"No."

(© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

by **palmspringsbum** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:04 pm

CBS News wrote:Calif. 'Pot Docs' Put Selves at Risk

California 'pot docs' put selves at risk, 10 years after state legalized medical marijuana

COOL, Calif., Nov. 4, 2006
By LISA LEFF Associated Press Writer
CBS News

<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img src=bin/fry_mollie.jpg width=300></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap>Dr. Mollie Fry is seen in front of her office, Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2006, in Cool, Calif. Fry is under federal indictment for conspiring to distribute marijuana, but claims she is being prosecuted unfairly because she recommended pot for patients under California's medical marijuana law.</td></tr></table>(AP) Dr. Mollie Fry never thought telling her patients where to get the medicine she recommended for pain, depression and nausea would be a problem.

Federal drug agents who raided her home and office thought otherwise, and she was indicted last year on felony charges of conspiring to distribute marijuana.

"I assumed the fact that I had 'M.D.' at the end of my name gave me the right to make judgments about people's health," said Fry, who estimates she has issued thousands of cannabis recommendations since setting up her thriving practice northeast of Sacramento in 1999.

Since California passed the nation's first medical marijuana law a decade ago, a provision requiring written doctor approval to grow and buy pot has created conflict between the state mandate and federal drug laws, and strained the doctor-patient relationship.

Until the stalemate is resolved, doctors recommending marijuana do it with trepidation and a good deal of risk.

Medical marijuana advocates estimate that 1,500 doctors, mostly oncologists and AIDS specialists, have authorized pot for at least one patient. But most recommendations have come from about 15 self-appointed specialists, the so-called "pot docs," who charge $150 and up to walk what the California Medical Association calls "a gray area between the clearly permissible and clearly impermissible categories of action."

Following complaints by local law enforcement, nearly all have been investigated by the state board that licenses and disciplines physicians. Four had devoted their practices to acting as medical marijuana consultants and ultimately were sanctioned, ranging from the public rebuke that Fry got to having their licenses suspended.

California's medical marijuana law, also known as Proposition 215, named a host of ailments for which marijuana might prove helpful in easing symptoms: cancer, anorexia, AIDS, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine.

Unlike medical marijuana laws enacted in 10 other states, California's also gave doctors discretion to certify patients with "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief," leaving open the possibility that recommendations could be made to people who did not need them.

David Thornton, executive director of the California Medical Board, said that until the board issued guidelines two years ago outlining what constituted "accepted medical standards," physicians pretty much had to figure it out on their own. Most concluded it was not worth the risk.

Although a federal appeals court ruled four years ago that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration cannot go after doctors merely because they recommend marijuana to patients, the state medical board's guidelines make it clear the ruling did not amount to immunity either from prosecution or disciplinary proceedings.

The board advises doctors that relying on a patient's word instead of prior medical records to determine whether a marijuana recommendation is appropriate could constitute medical negligence. Failing to conduct an independent exam or to consider whether another drug would be as effective could lead to charges of unprofessional conduct.

The California Medical Association is even more explicit, warning doctors never to tell patients where to get pot and urging them to remind patients of possible side effects. Discussing dosages with patients, opining on whether they should smoke or eat marijuana, and signing a form that enables patients to obtain a state-issued medical marijuana ID card also are steps the medical association cautions could lead to them being sanctioned.

Frank Lucido, a Berkeley physician who devotes about 30 percent of his practice to working with medical marijuana patients, said he abides by those recommendations, but thinks pot docs are being held to higher standards than doctors who prescribe lots of Viagra, prescription painkillers and other abused medications. Doctors who prescribe sleeping pills for patients who complain of insomnia, Lucido noted, are not at risk of being called quacks if they don't do a hands-on exam or develop a long-term treatment plan.

Fry, 50, who is awaiting trial, continues signing recommendation forms for patients who come to see her from throughout the state. She no longer sells her patients starter plants, but freely tells them about what she sees as the spiritual, emotional and economic benefits of growing their own pot.

"What did I take an oath to do? To do no harm and to alleviate pain and suffering," Fry said. "I'm going to be true to my oath, and I'm even willing to go to prison for it."

by **palmspringsbum** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:48 pm

The Whittier Daily News wrote:Medical marijuana debate rages

Despite voter approval, users face arrest by feds

By David Kravets Associated Press
Whittier Daily News
November 4, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO - A decade ago, California voters were the nation's first to approve medical marijuana, and 10 other states have since followed suit. But the future of the landmark California statute is no clearer now than when voters headed to the polls Nov. 5, 1996.

The federal government still refuses to recognize Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act approved by 56 percent of voters. And U.S. authorities under both the Clinton and Bush administrations have won nearly every major legal battle over the measure.

"We refer to it as marijuana, not medical marijuana, regardless of its reported destination or use," said Drug Enforcement Administration spokeswoman Casey McEnry, noting that marijuana is an illegal controlled substance under federal law.

The government's war on drugs has also prompted a civil war of sorts within California: three of the state's 58 counties, headed by San Diego County, claim in a lawsuit filed in state court that the measure is illegal.

A hearing is set for Nov. 16 in the lawsuit, which threatens to derail the state's legal tolerance for the medicinal use of a drug that federal law places in the same category as heroin, cocaine and LSD.

A victory for those renegade counties might also set legal precedent undermining medical marijuana laws in other states with such laws - Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Voters in South Dakota will consider a medical marijuana measure Tuesday.

"The state cannot authorize somebody to do something that breaks federal law," said Thomas Bunton, senior deputy counsel for San Diego County.

Medical marijuana is used by thousands of people suffering from AIDS, cancer, anorexia, chronic pain, arthritis, migraines and other illnesses, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. The nation's medical marijuana laws generally allow those with a doctor's recommendation to grow or possess small amounts of the drug.

In 1999, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences expressed concerns about the health risks of smoking marijuana, but acknowledged in a report that "there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting."

Later research suggests it might reduce tumor proliferation and a study this year by the University of California at San Francisco showed marijuana "may offer significant benefit" to those suffering from hepatitis C.

The Food and Drug Administration does not recognize marijuana as having medical benefits.

California is the epicenter of the federal-state medical marijuana battle. Communities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland and West Hollywood have authorized storefront medical marijuana dispensaries

Proposition 215 does not expressly allow dispensaries, but Americans for Safe Access, a pro-marijuana lobbying group, estimates there are about 200 operating in California. For many backers of the law, it's an imperfect way for patients to get pot.

"I thought we would have had more of a standardized distribution system by now," said William Panser, an Oakland criminal defense lawyer who was among the handful of attorneys who crafted the proposition.

Federal agents have raided more than two dozen California dispensaries over the past decade, according to Americans for Safe Access. Some communities are now assisting in the crackdown, including San Diego, which recently shuttered 13.

by **palmspringsbum** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:36 pm

But after a decade, it's time California law enforcement officers stop siding with the feds and defend the state law.

The Sacramento Bee wrote:What a long, strange trip for state's medical marijuana law

By Patrick McCartney - Special to the Bee
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, November 5, 2006
The Sacramento Bee

Ten years after California voters approved Proposition 215, a landmark medical marijuana law, many qualified patients still run a gantlet of federal drug agents and hostile police and prosecutors.

This year, DEA agents, assisted by local law enforcement agencies, have busted dozens of storefront cannabis dispensaries, while city councils across the state have voted to prohibit the facilities.

Proposition 215 meant to exempt patients from prosecution for possession of medical marijuana with a doctor's approval. But elected officials have been reluctant to implement a measure that conflicts with federal law and is still largely opposed by the state's law enforcement community.

Earlier this year, San Diego County supervisors sued to overturn the voter initiative, as well as a 2003 statute that required counties to make voluntary ID cards available to patients and caregivers, and established minimum plant and possession guidelines. San Bernardino and Merced county supervisors have voted to join the suit in San Diego Superior Court. Attorneys with the ACLU and drug-policy groups will represent the patients when the case is heard Nov. 16.

Even if many of its goals remain unrealized, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 spawned a grassroots political movement that is gaining momentum despite opposition from local, state and federal authorities.

As many as a quarter-million Californians have obtained physician approval to use medical marijuana. As Dr. Stephen Ellis, a San Francisco cannabis consultant, put it, cannabis is not a miracle drug pushed by pharmaceutical companies but a traditional folk medicine rediscovered by patients who use it.

Scientific interest has grown, too. In the decade since 56 percent of California voters passed Proposition 215, thousands of medical studies have been published about cannabinoids, the compounds unique to marijuana, and the role they play in human health.

Public acceptance also has increased. A 2004 Field Poll showed that nearly three out of four Californians support a patient's ability to choose marijuana as their medicine. Eleven other states and the District of Columbia followed California's lead and have approved medical marijuana laws. All of the states limit use to a shorter list of medical conditions than California's activist-written measure, and none has created a public distribution system.

Since Senate Bill 420, carried by former Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, allowed patients to form cooperatives, more than 200 storefront dispensaries and delivery services have opened across the state, many in previously unthinkable jurisdictions. With a physician's recommendation, patients outside of the Bay Area for the first time now can exercise choice in how they obtain medical marijuana.

Few of the gains came easily after the passage of Proposition 215. Unfortunately, implementation of the controversial law would fall to the same California police and prosecutors who campaigned against the measure.

Days after the initiative passed, a delegation of California law enforcement officials huddled with federal anti-drug officials in Washington, D.C., to coordinate a response. Two weeks later in Sacramento, then-Attorney General Dan Lungren met with 300 California law enforcement officials, including district attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs and narcotics officers, in Sacramento. Lungren declared that the law should be applied "as narrowly as possible" and gave the green light to arrest marijuana growers and prosecute them for cultivation. Lungren's office maintained that the new law provided only an "affirmative defense" for marijuana suspects to invoke at trial, an interpretation the state Supreme Court declined to review.

Enforcement varied dramatically across the state's 58 counties. Where ballot support was strongest, patients could purchase medical marijuana from storefront dispensaries that sprang up before Proposition 215 passed. But an hour or so from San Francisco, police continued to arrest patients and caregivers. Some of the sick, impoverished by chronic illnesses, were hauled into court, where they pleaded guilty to felony charges in exchange for light sentences.

The fortunes of the patients, caregivers and doctors waxed and waned with court decisions and turnover of state and federal officeholders. The Clinton administration launched anti-marijuana advertising with an annual budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, threatened physicians who approved medical marijuana and filed suits against cannabis dispensaries. The Bush administration followed with more raids against dispensaries and more criminal prosecutions.

Veteran state lawmaker Bill Lockyer succeeded Lungren as California's attorney general in 1998, and defended the Compassionate Use Act with an amicus brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case brought by two California patients. More sympathetic to medical marijuana, Lockyer appointed a stakeholders group of advocates and law enforcement opponents to hash out an implementation bill, something the polarized factions could not manage before the passage of SB 420 five years later. Until an embattled Gov. Gray Davis signed SB 420 in 2003, Lockyer declined to issue new guidelines on possession and cultivation.

As the number of arrests by state and federal authorities grew, patients networked, protested and planned emergency responses. In early 2003, Americans for Safe Access gave the federal government a public-relations black eye, convincing Bay Area jurors to denounce their own guilty verdict in the trial of pot cultivation expert Ed Rosenthal. The Oakland-based advocacy group has since used persuasion and the threat of litigation to win concessions from recalcitrant state agencies and local jurisdictions.

With SB 420, locally elected officials have been drawn into the conflict. City and county governments are confronting Proposition 215's call for "safe and affordable distribution of marijuana" in weighing whether to regulate or prohibit cannabis dispensaries. Nearly a hundred jurisdictions have prohibited marijuana outlets, but three dozen cities and counties have adopted ordinances to regulate their operation.

California law enforcement associations have lobbied against the facilities, citing federal law. Some in the state's law enforcement community have grudgingly accepted the reality, if not the desirability, of medical marijuana. Others remain opposed to the very notion, preferring to view dispensaries and caregivers as traffickers.

"There is no justification for using marijuana as a medicine," declares a position paper on the Web site of the 7,000-member California Narcotics Officers Association.

As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in its 2005 ruling in the California case, only Congress can amend the Controlled Substances Act to declare a cease-fire in the nation's war on medical marijuana.

A decision in San Diego's lawsuit may settle whether state agencies -- including police and prosecutors -- must comply with a state law that conflicts with federal law. Appeals will likely delay the outcome for years. But after a decade, it's time California law enforcement officers stop siding with the feds and defend the state law.

And lawmakers should adopt sensible regulations for dispensing medical marijuana so local and state officials can honor the intent of voters: Protect patients and provide them safe and affordable access to their medicine.

by **palmspringsbum** » Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:58 pm

The Sacramento Bee wrote:Another View: Smokescreen of medical pot clouds view of the dangers

By Gordon D. Taylor - Special to the Bee
Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Sacramento Bee

<table class=posttable align=right width=100><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/taylor_gordon.jpg></td></tr></table>Pro-pot advocates often spread misinformation on the subject of so-called "medical marijuana." It's important to show the other side of the issue.

In the past 10 years, California has seen a surge of organized crime groups that have moved into the marijuana industry in a big way. Heavily armed drug cartels have made a multibillion-dollar business of going into our public lands and clear-cutting our pristine forests so they can cultivate enormous marijuana crops. Sophisticated criminal syndicates are buying homes in the Sacramento region and creating indoor marijuana factories in the midst of our family-oriented neighborhoods.

A rogue "pot club" industry has also developed throughout the state. Over the past two years, the DEA has participated in six enforcement actions against pot clubs operating in the Central Valley and inland Northern California. Shockingly, three of the six pot store owners were convicted felons, each of whom was armed with a handgun during the course of the investigations.

The largest of the six pot clubs sold marijuana to an astounding 400 people a day. Owned by two 26-year-old men, this Modesto pot club reported selling more than $3.4 million in marijuana within a six-month period. This pot club was going so well that the owners were paying their security guards $125 to $150 an hour.

Most of the people buying marijuana from these pot clubs do not appear to be seriously or terminally ill; they are able bodied, some even athletically fit, most in their 20s and some even in their late teens. These young people are purchasing marijuana not because they are seriously or terminally ill, but because they want to use marijuana for recreational purposes. To put it bluntly, they want to smoke marijuana to get high while using state laws as their shield.

Marijuana has no proven safe and effective medical use and therefore remains a prohibited substance under federal law. Contrary to misinformation spread by many medical marijuana advocates, pot is not a harmless or soft drug. In fact, it's eight times more potent today than it was in the early 1970s. Sadly, more teenagers enter drug treatment for marijuana dependency than for all other illegal drugs combined.

It's up to each of us to not only protect our public lands and neighborhoods, but to educate our young people about the dangers of marijuana and help them see through the "medical marijuana" smokescreen.

by **palmspringsbum** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 4:38 pm

The San Jose Mercury wrote:Posted on Thu, Nov. 16, 2006

Judge rejects San Diego challenge to medical marijuana law

ALLISON HOFFMAN
Associated Press
The San Jose Mercury News

SAN DIEGO - A state judge on Thursday rejected San Diego County's challenge of California's decade-old law permitting marijuana use for medical purposes.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr., was tentative. The county's lawyers will have a chance to convince the judge to change his decision during oral arguments scheduled later Thursday.

San Diego County sued the state of California and its health services director in February, saying a federal ban on marijuana use trumps state laws that permit usage of the drug with a physician's approval.

Two other California counties, San Bernardino and Merced, joined San Diego as plaintiffs. All three counties have refused to comply with a state requirement that counties issue identification cards for medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards.

In his ruling, Nevitt agreed with attorneys for the state, who argued that California is entitled to pass its own drug laws and legislate programs that allow marijuana use for medical purposes.

Five California patients and caregivers, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access and other advocacy groups, joined the case on the side of the state. A sixth patient, Pamela Sakuda, who suffered from rectal cancer, died last Friday, said William Dolphin, a spokesman for ASA.

Supporters of the law expressed relief.

"They tried to make California's medical marijuana law null and void, and they lost," said Anjuli Verma, director of advocacy for the ACLU's Drug Law Reform Project.

San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn said he welcomed the clarity of the judge's ruling.

"All we wanted was guidance from the court telling us where we're at so we don't break any rules and lose any funding," Horn said.

He said the county had not considered whether to appeal if the judge affirms his tentative ruling.

California's law allows people suffering AIDS, cancer, anorexia, chronic pain, arthritis and migraine and "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief" to grow or possess small amounts of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

Since California voters passed the law 55 percent approval in 1996, 10 other states have adopted measures protecting qualified patients from prosecution. They are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Last week, voters in South Dakota rejected a ballot measure to permit marijuana use for medical purposes.

In 2003, the California Legislature amended the 1996 bill to direct county health departments to issue ID cards to medical marijuana users.

Counties, which did not receive money to fulfill the requirement, have been slow to issue ID cards, but San Diego was the first to refuse on legal grounds.

by **palmspringsbum** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:08 pm

The Contra Costa Times wrote:Posted on Thu, Nov. 16, 2006

Judge hears San Diego County challenge to medical marijuana law

ALLISON HOFFMAN
Associated Press
The Contra Costa Times

SAN DIEGO - Attorneys for San Diego County argued Thursday before a state court judge that the blanket federal ban on marijuana use precludes states from passing statutes exempting people who use the drug for medical purposes.

San Diego County sued California and its health services director in February over the state's decade-old law permitting use of the drug with a physician's approval. The county says it should not be bound to act to uphold state laws that conflict with federal statutes.

"California has authorized the exact same conduct that federal law has prohibited," argued Thomas Bunton, a senior deputy county counsel. "That's clearly an obstacle to the objective of Congress to prevent drug abuse."

Two other California counties, San Bernardino and Merced, joined San Diego as plaintiffs. All three counties have refused to comply with a state requirement that counties issue identification cards for medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards.

Earlier Thursday, Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr., issued a tentative ruling rejecting the county's suit.

Nevitt sat poker-faced through the two-hour hearing, asking procedural questions but giving little indication of whether he intends to revise his opinion. He did not indicate when a final ruling would be issued but set a Dec. 1 deadline for additional briefs on issues related to the case.

In his tentative ruling, Nevitt agreed with attorneys for the state, who argued that California is entitled to pass its own drug laws and legislate programs that allow marijuana use for medical purposes.

"The counties are not being forced to do anything that would be in violation of federal law," said Leslie Lopez, a deputy state attorney general. "They're simply being asked to carry out state law."

Five California patients and caregivers, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Safe Access and other advocacy groups, joined the case on the side of the state. A sixth patient, Pamela Sakuda, who suffered from rectal cancer, died last Friday, said William Dolphin, a spokesman for ASA.

About 30 medical marijuana users gathered in the courtroom to hear the arguments, many loudly tut-tutting as Bunton and other county attorneys argued that making marijuana available to the ill can enable recreational drug abuse.

County officials said they have not decided whether they will appeal if Nevitt stands by his initial ruling.

"All we wanted was guidance from the court telling us where we're at so we don't break any rules and lose any funding," said San Diego County Supervisor Bill Horn.

Supporters of the law said they were prepared for a fight.

"It will go as far as the counties want to take it," said Adam Wolf, an attorney for the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project who argued part of the case.

California's law allows people suffering AIDS, cancer, anorexia, chronic pain, arthritis and migraine and "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief" to grow or possess small amounts of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.

Since California voters passed the law with 55 percent approval in 1996, 10 other states have adopted measures protecting qualified patients from prosecution. They are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Last week, voters in South Dakota rejected a ballot measure to permit marijuana use for medical purposes.

In 2003, the California Legislature amended the 1996 bill to direct county health departments to issue ID cards to medical marijuana users.

Counties, which did not receive money to fulfill the requirement, have been slow to issue ID cards, but San Diego was the first to refuse on legal grounds.

by **palmspringsbum** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:55 pm

The San Francisco Chronicle wrote:SAN DIEGO

Tentative ruling nixes challenge to medical marijuana

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
The San Francisco Chronicle
Friday, November 17, 2006

A judge in San Diego indicated Thursday that he would reject three counties' challenge to California's medical marijuana law, saying the state could enforce a law allowing people to use the drug even if the federal government bans it.

Federal officers are free to enforce the U.S. law prohibiting possession and cultivation of marijuana, but that doesn't prohibit California from allowing medical use of the drug under its own law, Superior Court Judge William Nevitt said. The voters did just that when they approved Proposition 215 in 1996.

The two laws would be in conflict only if California required its residents or officials to do something that specifically was banned by the federal law, Nevitt said. California's decision to allow medicinal use of marijuana doesn't qualify, he said.

After issuing his tentative ruling, the judge heard arguments from lawyers for San Diego, Merced and San Bernardino counties, the state and medical marijuana advocates, but did not issue a final decision. A ruling is due within 90 days.

Supporters of the medical marijuana law said they were encouraged.

"The core issue is nothing less than the integrity of our democratic process,'' said Adam Wolf, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented patients and doctors. "An overwhelming majority of California voters went to the polls 10 years ago to cast a vote for compassion. ... Three counties are saying they are above the law.''

State Deputy Attorney General Leslie Lopez said Congress, in punishing marijuana use under federal law, never intended to require states to enact identical laws.

Thomas Bunton, a senior deputy counsel for San Diego County, said he hoped the judge would change his mind and conclude that the state law interferes with the federal marijuana ban.

"California authorized use of marijuana for medical purposes, but federal law has said marijuana has no legitimate medical use,'' Bunton said. "California authorizes, and in fact encourages, people to use marijuana, when that is in fact forbidden by federal law.''

The counties' lawsuit could dismantle Prop. 215.

Since the initiative took effect, the federal government has raided and prosecuted medical marijuana suppliers, has won U.S. Supreme Court rulings allowing enforcement of federal law against Californians who were complying with the state initiative, and has sought unsuccessfully to punish doctors who recommended marijuana to their patients. But federal authorities have not argued that California's law is unenforceable.

That argument was advanced in this case by county officials who refused to issue identification cards for medical marijuana users, as required by a state law that took effect last year. Patients and their caregivers can show the cards to police as evidence of a doctor's approval.

Nevitt's tentative ruling rejected the counties' challenge to the identification cards.

The case before Nevitt involves enforcement of Prop. 215 in just those three counties. But a higher state or federal court could invalidate the law statewide if it ruled in the counties' favor.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

Page B - 4

by **palmspringsbum** » Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:21 pm

The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote:Judge turns down county challenge to medical pot

In tentative ruling, argument is called less than persuasive

By Jeff McDonald
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
November 17, 2006

A Superior Court judge yesterday rejected a claim by San Diego County that California's medical-marijuana laws directly conflict with federal drug statutes.

The tentative ruling was issued hours before oral arguments were presented in the lawsuit that the county brought earlier this year against the state, which legalized the use of marijuana for health purposes a decade ago.

Merced and San Bernardino counties later joined San Diego in the case, which is the first of its kind in California and is being closely watched by officials from Sacramento to Washington.

San Diego Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt Jr. took the matter under submission after the two-hour hearing in a crowded downtown courtroom. A final ruling is likely to be issued next month.

The tentative decision makes clear that Nevitt considers the will of voters to be critical. California's medical-marijuana initiative passed with 56 percent support, but its implementation has been hampered by federal drug laws, which prohibit any use or possession of marijuana.

“When the voters passed Proposition 215, they expressly stated that one of their purposes was to 'ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes,' ” Nevitt ruled.

Although not unexpected, the preliminary decision was welcome news to medical-marijuana activists, who showed up in force at the Hall of Justice. One man was on crutches and another used an electric scooter. Outside the courthouse, they cheered the decision as lawyers for advocacy groups appeared before TV cameras.

“California's medical-marijuana laws are safe today,” said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of three groups to join the state as co-defendants in the case. “We now have three counties trying to put politics over science – trying to put politics over the health and well-being of patients.”

Thomas Bunton, a lawyer for San Diego County, said he was disappointed with the tentative ruling. However, he added, “We think there's a good chance the judge will reconsider.”

“I made a good argument,” he said after the hearing.

Bunton declined to speculate on whether the county would appeal the decision if it stands.

His counterpart from Merced, Walter Wall, told the judge that his county would appeal and would request a stay through the length of the litigation.

“In essence, a medical-marijuana cardholder would have a get-out-of-jail card in our county,” Wall said.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to sue California rather than follow a state law that requires counties to issue identification cards to qualified medical-marijuana patients.

The supervisors who voted to file the suit are Pam Slater-Price, Dianne Jacob and board Chairman Bill Horn. Supervisors Greg Cox and Ron Roberts opposed the decision.

Horn did not return a telephone call seeking comment on the tentative ruling. But in an earlier interview, he said he could not enforce a law that conflicts with federal rules without putting the county at risk.

“A lot of the money we receive, over $4.3 billion, most of that money comes from the federal government,” Horn said. “And if we violate any of those statutes, we're in jeopardy of losing those dollars.”

The legal arguments hashed out in court yesterday centered on the question of whether states were required to fully enforce federal laws. The state Department of Justice said they were not.

“The federal government cannot require the state to be their exclusive ally,” Deputy Attorney General Leslie Lopez told the judge. “It simply cuts against states' rights.”

Lawyers for San Diego, San Bernardino and Merced counties tried to persuade Nevitt to reverse his tentative ruling.

They said Senate Bill 420, the 2003 legislation that mandated the identification cards and set guidelines for legally growing marijuana plants, should have gone before voters because it substantially changed Proposition 215, the 1996 voter initiative.

They also noted that marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug – the most dangerous classification – and that the federal government has determined it has no medical value.

“It's clear that the medical use of marijuana is drug abuse within the context of the Controlled Substances Act,” Bunton, the county's attorney, told the judge.

Nevitt gave no indication whether his tentative ruling would stand. He asked lawyers for both sides about contingency plans should he change his mind.

In his six-page tentative ruling, however, he said the counties' arguments were less than persuasive, largely because California's medical marijuana laws are voluntary.

“The state convincingly rebuts San Diego County's argument that under (federal law) the (state laws) are pre-empted because they 'authorize' conduct that federal law prohibits,” he wrote.

The court hearing drew attention from all sides in the drug-policy debate.

The advocacy groups Americans for Safe Access and Drug Policy Alliance joined the ACLU in intervening in the case to defend the state medical-marijuana laws in court.

Officials from a number of drug-abuse prevention groups showed up in support of the counties. The San Diego Prevention Coalition issued a news release saying the case was not about the medical value of marijuana but rather the state's ability to pass laws that contradict federal rules.

“Regrettably, the face of terminally ill patients has been utilized as a smokescreen for ill-intentioned profiteers to make a case for selling marijuana for profit,” Executive Director Kevin McClure wrote.

Outside the courthouse, William Britt, a Long Beach man who suffers from polio and epilepsy, applauded the ruling but was angry that government officials have stymied Proposition 215 for so long.

“In the last 10 years, sick and disabled people have been found to be arrested and dragged into court,” said Britt, who walks with crutches. “It's devastating. There's been a conspiracy to ignore and overturn and stop the implementation of the law.”

Steph Sherer of Americans for Safe Access called on the group to observe a moment of silence for Pamela Sakuda, one of several patients who intervened in the case. The San Diego cancer patient died earlier this month.

“Thank you, Pam,” Sherer said a moment later. “We'll miss you.”

<hr class=postrule>Jeff McDonald: (619) 542-4585; jeff.mcdonald@uniontrib.com

by **palmspringsbum** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:58 am

The Record Searchlight wrote:
<table class=posttable align=right width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/tehama_haul.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap>DAY’S WORK: Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker takes a break behind a trailer containing 1,200 marijuana plants that were pulled by deputies Oct. 3 in a remote part of Tehama County.</td></tr></table>

Cultivating solutions: Police, pot advocates debate marijuana use

By Dylan Darling, Record Searchlight
November 21, 2006

Bruce Mirken says he has a simple solution to the pot garden problem in the north state.

Legalize it.

"When marijuana is outlawed, only outlaws will grow marijuana," said Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in San Francisco. "What we have is the guaranteed result of the laws we have."

Many of the law enforcement officers who spend their summers and early falls raiding the gardens and the prosecutors who try to convict the growers agree that the state’s marijuana laws should be changed. But they want to see them made more strict, putting more of a pinch on those who grow pot.

Even with tougher laws, something would need to be done to diminish the demand for pot, said Ross Butler, assistant special agent-in-charge at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s office in Sacramento.

"The real solution is to reduce people's appetite for marijuana," he said. "As long as you have people smoking it, you are going to have people growing it."

While the debate continues over whether selling marijuana should be legal, the pot garden problem in the north state persists. Over the past decade, marijuana gardens hidden on public land have grown in size and number. In addition to being illegal, the gardens are considered a public safety risk by law enforcement officials and a blight on the environment by land managers.

Law enforcement agencies continue to raid these gardens because they aren't grown to supply medical needs, they're grown for "pure profit," said McGregor Scott, U.S. attorney for California's eastern district and former Shasta County district attorney.

Conflicting laws 

Part of the problem with marijuana is that it is regarded differently by state and federal governments.

Under state law, pot can be considered medicine. Since 1996, people with a doctor's recommendation can grow and possess it.

"I consider it to be a medicine," said Chris Conrad, a marijuana proponent in the San Francisco Bay area who has been studying the plant since 1988.

He has a doctor's note allowing him to use marijuana in the state and said he hopes the drug will someday be approved by the federal government as a way to treat ailments such as cataracts and cancer.

But the federal government regards marijuana as a dangerous drug. Since 1971, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has classified drugs in five categories. The federal drug schedules, or lists, determine how they should be regulated. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug, which means it has a "high potential for abuse and no accepted medical uses," said Gordon Taylor, who heads the DEA region that runs from Bakersfield to the Oregon border.

Schedule II drugs, which have a high potential for abuse but an accepted medical use, include methamphetamine and cocaine, according to the DEA.

Taylor said action needs to be taken to stop the normalization of pot through the medical marijuana movement, and the effort to reduce the demand for it needs to continue.

"That can only be done through increased education and treatment," Taylor said.

In addition to conflicting state and federal laws, there are differing penalties for marijuana cultivation. While the county of residence dictates the limit of plants for medicinal use, those convicted of cultivating thousands of plants usually don't get more than three years in state prison, said Jerry Benito, Shasta County District Attorney.

In contrast, penalties for marijuana convictions in federal court range from five years in prison to a life sentence, depending on the number of plants and whether the grower has a criminal history.

Benito said stiffer state penalties would help curb the growth of large marijuana gardens.

"When you don't have sufficient punishment, it's hard to make people not do it," Benito said.

All in the numbers 

When it comes to pot gardens in the north state, it's the numbers that often grab attention -- and also get federal agencies involved.

Thousands of plants are uprooted from hillsides and drainages in Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity counties each year. If the cut and dried marijuana buds had made it out of the woods, they would have been sold for billions of dollars, said police officers and sheriff's deputies.

The latest report by the state Department of Justice, released Oct. 30, estimates that nearly 1.7 million plants -- worth more than $6.7 billion -- were pulled out in federally funded raids throughout the state this year.

But some question how the numbers are crunched to determine how much pot pulled from a garden would have been worth.

A pot plant is worth only as much as the amount of bud it can produce. Most law enforcement officials around the north state use an estimate of more than 1 pound of buds per plant. That puts their estimated value of one pot plant at $4,500.

Most plants produce much less than a pound, said Conrad, the marijuana proponent. A female marijuana plant -- the male plants don't produce buds -- produces about 4 ounces of usable pot, or a quarter of a pound, he said.

The going price for marijuana grown outdoors in the state is $250 per ounce, Conrad said. Using his figures, each plant would be worth $1,000. Plugging that into the Department of Justice tally of plants cuts the wholesale estimate by $5 billion, down to about $1.7 billion.

Raids go on 

Regardless of how much the pot might have fetched on the streets, the federal government is willing to spend money to raid pot gardens in the hills.

Shasta, Siskiyou and Tehama counties all received $118,905 this year from federal grants distributed by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, said spokesman Eric Lamoureux. Trinity County doesn't get funding from the office for marijuana eradication.

Greg Sullivan, a DEA special agent with the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program, refused to say how much money was spent battling pot gardens in the north state this year.

"That's just not something the DEA is willing to release," he said.

The effort to raid and clear the gardens in the north state isn't cheap. Most raids involve a helicopter, which rents for $500 an hour, and several officers working long hours, often on overtime. It's an effort that will continue as long as there is an illicit marijuana market.

"We are going to continue to raid the gardens," said Dave Burns, a special agent with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Redding who spends summer and early fall raiding gardens. "That's really all we can do."

<hr class=postrule>
Reporter Dylan Darling can be reached at 225-8266 or at ddarling@redding.com.

by **palmspringsbum** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 5:02 pm

NORML wrote:Judge Issues Tentative Ruling Rejecting Counties' Prop. 215 Challenge

November 21, 2006 - San Diego, CA, USA
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

San Diego, CA: A Superior Court judge has issued a tentative ruling rejecting a lawsuit filed by San Diego County supervisors which argued that the state's medical cannabis laws should be pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

In his tentative opinion, Superior Court Judge William Nevitt, declared that California's medical marijuana laws could not be pre-empted by US Controlled Substances Act because they did not "require" state citizens to violate federal law. Nevitt further determined that California's statutes do not impede government officials from enforcing federal anti-drug laws.

In 2004, the California legislature amended the state's ten-year-old medical marijuana law by requiring counties to issue identification cards to state-authorized patients. San Diego supervisors filed suit against the state of California and NORML's San Diego affiliate earlier this year rather than comply with the 2004 law. Local governments from San Bernardino and Merced Counties later joined the suit.

"[R]equiring the counties to issue identification cards for the purpose of identifying those whom California chooses not to arrest and prosecute for certain activities involving marijuana does not create a 'positive conflict' [with federal law,]" Judge Nevitt wrote.

Jeremy Blank, attorney for San Diego NORML, called the judge's tentative ruling encouraging. "If it is affirmed then I think it will be a great victory, not only for patients and doctors, but also for the voters of the state of California and the legislature of California," he said. Judge Nevitt has up to 90 days before issuing his final ruling. Prior to the passage of Prop. 215 which exempts authorized patients from state criminal prosecution for the possession and use of medicinal cannabis California's Legislative Counsel determined that the measure would not be in conflict with federal law because it would only "declassify" pot possession "as a crime for the purpose of state law and would not affirmatively sanction [this] act."

San Diego's lawsuit is the first-ever legal challenge to California's medical cannabis laws.

For more information, please contact Keith Stroup, NORML Legal Counsel, at (202) 483-5500. Additional information on the San Diego lawsuit and Judge William Nevitt's tentative decision is available on the November 20, 2006 edition of NORML's Daily AudioStash.

updated: Nov 21, 2006

by **palmspringsbum** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:55 pm

The Santa Cruz Sentinel wrote:November 23, 2006

Activist founded farm worker clinic; wrote over 1,000 marijuana prescriptions

By ROGER SIDEMAN
SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
The Santa Cruz Sentinel

Dr. Michael Alcalay, a medical marijuana advocate and the founder of Salud Para La Gente, the largest health care clinic catering to the Pajaro Valley's farmworker families and the poor, died of leukemia Saturday in Oakland. He was 65.

"Michael had the vision to create an organization that would outlive all of us and provide for the most needy," said Arcadio Viveros, Salud Para La Gente CEO.

In the late 1970s, Alcalay took it upon himself to help undocumented migrant farmworkers by holding free medical clinics out of a Watsonville storefront. While some farmworkers had access to basic health care, their families did not.

"I became interested in migrant workers while I was teaching a pediatrics class," Alcalay told the Sentinel in 1979.

After visiting children at three of the valley's largest migrant camps, Alcalay was alarmed by the lack of basic immunizations. He also found children suffering from poor nutrition, ear infections and iron deficiencies living in large camps of 100 to 200 people.

For nearly a year, Alcalay was the only doctor to volunteer at the clinic, fashioned out of an empty apple shed off Riverside Drive near the river levee. He saw 20 to 30 patients every Thursday night. But it was just a matter of time, Alcalay said, before more nurses and doctors arrived to help.

And come they did.

The clinic grew into Salud Para La Gente, with Alcalay's signature on the bottom of the organization's 1979 charter. The nonprofit now provides 100,000 patient visits each year and employs 150 staff on an annual budget of $15 million, Viveros said.

"With the help of late state Sen. Henry Mello, we were then able to bring in resources from the state and federal level to eventually become an official licensed health facility," Salud co-founder Barbara Garcia said Wednesday.

Alcalay later found himself at the center of a national controversy surrounding medical marijuana and remained a spokesman for the movement.

He left his home in Santa Cruz for Oakland in the late 1980s and later became medical director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, which was shut down in 1998 for violating a federal judge's order not to distribute marijuana. The clinic's future hinged largely on its case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which Alcalay closely followed, having written more than 1,000 prescriptions through the clinic, according to his brother.

Alcalay was openly gay and lived with AIDS for more than 20 years. He also used marijuana medicinally.

"I should've died six years ago from an infection," he told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2001. "I was like a skeleton ... It was medical marijuana that kept my appetite and my spirits up. I think people like myself, living with either chronic or terminal illnesses, living with pain, they don't have to feel they're in the closet" when they can obtain marijuana from a legal dispensary, Alcalay said.

Alcalay said he viewed the medical marijuana movement as unrecognized part of a global movement toward social and economic justice.

His brother Glenn Alcalay, in an interview with national radio show host Amy Goodman on Monday, said Alcalay also grew pot in his backyard and distributed it for free.

Contact Roger Sideman at atrsideman@santacruzsentinel.com.

Dr. Michael Alcalay

BORN: October 23, 1941 in Los Angeles.

DIED: Saturday.

HOME: Oakland.

OCCUPATION: Physician, medical director of Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative.

EDUCATION: Bachelor's degree in psychology from UC Berkeley, 1963; UCLA medical school, 1968; master's degree in public health from UC Berkeley, 1974.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Hosted "AIDS in Focus" on KPFA radio Berkeley; board of directors of two AIDS and medical marijuana related organizations. Alcalay spent a year in Vietnam with the Army, and eventually became a major.

SURVIVORS: Mother Charlene Herbert of Seaside; sons Aaron Edmonston of San Francisco and Nolen Edmonston of Albany; brothers Glenn Alcalay of New York City and Steve Alcalay of Nevada; and sister, Gia of San Diego.

SERVICES: To be announced. Call 415-626-2139 or charlie@lifewish.org for details.

See Also: - Mike Alcalay (1941-2006) Remembered on World AIDS Day

by **palmspringsbum** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 4:33 pm

eCanadaNow wrote:
California High Court Expands Laws Relating to Medical Marijuana

November 28, 2006

Los Angeles (eCanadaNow) - The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday that people who can prove they are transporting quantities of marijuana for their personal medical use can avoid transportation charges.

In a 6-1 decision, the state high court said California’s medical marijuana law will protect patients who transport even relatively large quantities of pot if they can show the amount is consistent with their medical needs and was recommended by a licensed physician.

Monday’s decision “expands the defenses that can be used for medical marijuana,” said Maureen J. Shanahan, an experienced trial lawyer.

Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, said prosecutors had hoped the court would make it more difficult for marijuana traffickers to use a medical defense but said the court’s clarification of the law was helpful.

The court reached its decision in the case of Shaun Eric Wright, who was arrested in Huntington Beach in 2001 and found with more than a pound of marijuana in his truck, along with several small baggies, two large bags and an electronic scale.

Wright was charged with possessing marijuana for sale and with transporting.

Wright asked that jurors be instructed that he did not commit a crime if they agreed the marijuana was recommended by a doctor. A physician testified that he had recommended Wright use marijuana to alleviate pain, abdominal problems and emotional stress.

The doctor said Wright preferred eating marijuana, which requires a larger amount to get the same effect as smoking it. He also said Wright needed a pound of marijuana every two to three months.

The trial judge ruled that the medical marijuana law passed by voters in 1996 did not apply because the amount was too large and the defendant was transporting it. However, the judge permitted Wright to present evidence of medical use to rebut the possession for sale charge.

In the end, Wright was convicted of transportation and possession for sale. An appeals court overturned the conviction on the grounds that the jury should have received a medical marijuana instruction.

The California Supreme Court agreed that Wright was entitled to such an instruction to jurors, but refused to overturn the conviction. The court said the judge’s error was “harmless” because the jury had the option of only convicting Wright for possession, a misdemeanor, but “found beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the drug with the specific intent to sell it,” wrote Justice Carlos Moreno for the majority.

Justice Marvin Baxter wrote separately, saying he agreed that Wright’s conviction should stand but disagreed that Wright was entitled to defense on medical grounds.

“The overwhelming evidence that the defendant possessed the marijuana with the intent of selling it precluded a reasonable doubt as to its personal medical purpose,” he wrote. “This evidence prominently included the electronic scale, the presence of which the defendant never explained.”

by **palmspringsbum** » Tue Nov 28, 2006 8:20 pm

The L.A. Times wrote:Justices rule on transport of medicinal pot

State high court decision protects patients who carry marijuana for their own use. The action expands defense options, attorney says.

By Maura Dolan, Times Staff Writer
November 28, 2006
The Los Angeles Times

SAN FRANCISCO — People charged with transporting marijuana may avoid conviction if they can show that the drug was for their personal medical use, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a 6-1 decision, the state high court said California's medical marijuana law protects patients who transport even relatively large quantities of the drug if they can show that the amount was consistent with their medical needs and recommended by a licensed physician.

The court interpreted a 2004 law passed by the Legislature to address uncertainties that followed voter passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The attorney general's office said the ruling would affect a handful of cases.

Monday's decision "expands the defenses that can be used for medical marijuana," said Maureen J. Shanahan, who represented the defendant in the case.

Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, said prosecutors had hoped the court would make it more difficult for marijuana sellers to use a medical defense but said the court's clarification of the law was helpful.

The court reached its decision in the case of Shaun Eric Wright, who was arrested in Huntington Beach in 2001 while carrying more than a pound of marijuana in his truck. The stash included several small baggies, two large bags and an electronic scale.

Wright was charged with possessing marijuana for sale and with transporting it.

Wright had asked that jurors be instructed that he did not commit a crime if they determined the marijuana was recommended by a doctor. A physician testified that he had recommended Wright use marijuana to alleviate pain, abdominal problems and emotional stress.

The doctor said Wright preferred eating marijuana, which requires a larger amount to get the same effect as smoking it. The doctor said Wright needed a pound of marijuana every two to three months.

The trial judge ruled that the medical marijuana law passed by voters did not apply because the amount was too large and Wright was transporting it. But the judge permitted Wright to present evidence of medical use to rebut the possession for sale charge.

Wright was convicted of transportation and possession for sale. An appeals court overturned the conviction on the grounds that the jury should have been given a medical marijuana instruction.

The California Supreme Court agreed that Wright was entitled to such an instruction but refused to overturn the conviction. The court said the judge's error was "harmless" because the jury had the option of convicting Wright only of possession, a misdemeanor. Instead, the jury "found beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the drug with the specific intent to sell it," wrote Justice Carlos Moreno for the majority.

Justice Marvin Baxter wrote separately, saying he agreed that Wright's conviction should stand but disagreed that Wright was entitled to a medical marijuana defense.

"The overwhelming evidence that defendant possessed the marijuana with the intent of selling it precluded a reasonable doubt as to its personal medical purpose," Baxter wrote. "This evidence prominently included the electronic scale, the presence of which the defendant never explained."

<hr class=postrule>
maura.dolan@latimes.com

by **palmspringsbum** » Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:31 am

The Metropolitan News-Enterprise wrote:Metropolitan News-Enterprise

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Page 1

S.C.: 2003 Medical Marijuana Law Applies Retroactively

By TINA BAY, Staff Writer

The Medical Marijuana Program applies retroactively to cases pending at the time of its 2003 enactment, the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

In a 6-1 decision, the justices held an Orange County man charged in 2001 with transporting and possessing marijuana for sale was entitled to a medical use defense under the MMP.

Concluding the trial judge’s refusal give a jury instruction on the defense was harmless error, however, they reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s ruling overturning Shaun Eric Wright’s convictions and granting him a new trial.

The justices agreed with appellate court decisions holding that the MMP, enacted to supplement and clarify the scope of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, applied retroactively because it lacked a saving clause indicating otherwise.

At the time of Wright’s trial, the only operative law was the 1996 Act, which provided physician-approved personal medical use was an affirmative defense to the crimes of possessing and cultivating marijuana, but did not address the crime of transportation.

Orange Superior Court Judge James A Stotler declined Wright’s request for a “compassionate use” defense jury instruction as to both the transportation and possession charges, reasoning that the amount of marijuana in his possession—19 ounces—precluded his claim that he had it only for personal medicinal use.

Among other things, Stotler instructed the jury that to convict Wright of possession of marijuana for sale, they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the drug with the specific intent to sell it. The jury convicted Wright on both transportation and possession charges.

In a 2-1 decision reversing the convictions, the Fourth District Court of Appeal said Stotler should not have barred the compassionate use defense based on its unlikelihood of success. Justice William Bedsworth, writing for Div. Three, said the issue of whether Wright possessed more marijuana than might have been reasonably necessary to relieve his symptoms was “a jury call.”

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General argued that Wright was not entitled to advance a compassionate use defense to a charge of transporting marijuana. Wright countered that the MMP applied in his case and provided an alternative ground to affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Justice Carlos R. Moreno, writing for the Supreme Court, said that under the MMP, Wright was a “qualified patient” exempt from criminal liability for transporting marijuana.

According to testimony, Wright had been using marijuana since 1991 to relieve chronic pain due to various injuries, and a physician whom he first consulted three months before his arrest had written a letter approving a self-regulating dose of marijuana to treat his ailments.

After his arrest, Wright again consulted the physician and told him he preferred to eat rather than smoke marijuana and when he ingested the drug, a pound of it usually lasted him two to three months. At Wright’s request, the doctor wrote a letter approving his use of a pound of marijuana every two to three months.

When Wright was arrested by Huntington Beach police—who stopped him based on an anonymous tip that his vehicle and a backpack in it smelled of marijuana—the officers found numerous bags of marijuana of various sizes, including one large bag of the drug weighing slightly over 1 pound. They also found an electronic scale, but no drug paraphernalia.

Moreno said:

“He presented evidence at trial that he had purchased the marijuana found in his car on the morning of his arrest for his own personal medical use and was in the process of transporting the marijuana to his home when he was arrested. This testimony was sufficient to merit instruction on the defense to a charge of transporting marijuana set forth in the MMP.”

Ultimately, though, the absence of the requisite instruction had no effect on the outcome, the justice concluded.

“Under the instructions it was given, the jury had the option of convicting defendant for simple possession had it been convinced by his claim that the marijuana found in his possession was for his personal medicinal use,” Moreno said. “Instead, it found beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the drug with the specific intent to sell it.”

In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed that the MMP applied retroactively to Wright’s case and the absence of a compassionate use defense instruction did not affect the trial’s outcome, but asserted Wright presented insufficient evidence entitling him to the instruction

He did not identify himself as a medical marijuana user when arrested and had only two recent physician approvals to support his qualified patient claim, Baxter pointed out. Nor did he show that he had medical approval for the large amounts of marijuana found in his possession.

“[I]t was only after the arrest that defendant obtained Dr. Eidelman’s second approval, which conveniently endorsed the specific amount of marijuana that already had been found in defendant’s backpack and truck,” the justice said, adding that the various-sized baggies and electronic scale indicated the marijuana was packaged for sale.

Baxter noted that Stotler’s instructional rulings should not be characterized as erroneous based solely on law that was not in effect at the time he acted.

“Of course, we do not expect clairvoyance from our courts,” he said. “[E]ven assuming a [compassionate use] instruction was warranted, nunc pro tunc, by virtue of the later-enacted MMP, I would not imply criticism of a diligent and hard-pressed trial court by labeling its failure to anticipate this statute as ‘error.’”

The case is People v. Wright, 06 S.O.S. 5707.

Copyright 2006, Metropolitan News Company

by **palmspringsbum** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 11:46 am

The Drug War Chronicle wrote:Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter

Medical Marijuana: California Supreme Court Rules Patients Can Transport It

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #463, 12/1/06

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state's medical marijuana laws allow people to transport the drug as long as they can show it was for their personal medical use. The court said that the law protects even patients carrying large amounts of weed as long as they can show it is consistent with their medical needs.

The 6-1 decision disappointed prosecutors, said a spokesman for California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Nathan Barankin told the Los Angeles Times prosecutors had hoped the court would make it easier to prosecute marijuana sellers using a medical marijuana defense. Still, Barankin added, the court's clarification was helpful.

The decision "expands the defenses that can be used for medical marijuana," attorney Maureen J. Shanahan told the Times. She represented Shaun Wright, the defendant in the case.

Wright was arrested in Huntington Beach in 2001 and charged with possession of marijuana for sale and transporting it after police found more than a pound of weed, a scale, and several baggies in his truck. During trial Wright's physician testified he had recommended Wright use marijuana for pain, abdominal problems, and stress. The physician also testified that Wright preferred to eat his medicine and thus required more than patients who smoked it. The doctor said Wright needed a pound of pot every two or three months.

Wright asked that jurors be instructed that he did not commit a crime if it was determined he was a legitimate patient, but the trial judge ruled Wright was not protected by the state's medical marijuana laws because of the large quantity and the fact he was transporting it. Wright was convicted on both counts, but an appeals court overturned the conviction, saying jurors should have been given the medical marijuana instruction.

While the state Supreme Court agreed that Wright should have been able to present a medical marijuana defense, it refused to overturn his conviction, saying the jury "found beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the drug with the specific intent to sell it."

The lesson for Golden State pot patients: Leave your scales at home.

by **palmspringsbum** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:20 am

The Fresno Bee wrote:Judge rejects counties' challenge to California marijuana law

By ALLISON HOFFMAN,12/06/06 17:17:31
The Fresno Bee

A state judge on Wednesday upheld California's law permitting the use of medical marijuana for medical purposes, rejecting a lawsuit by three counties challenging the decade-old statute.

The counties, led by San Diego, argued that local governments shouldn't be bound to uphold state laws that are weaker than the federal blanket ban on marijuana.

San Diego County sued California and its health services director in February over a state requirement that counties issue identification cards for medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards. San Bernardino and Merced counties joined the suit.

State attorneys responded that California was entitled to pass its own laws suspending state prosecution for medical marijuana use, and to legislate programs enabling qualified users to access the drug.

Marijuana users in California can still be prosecuted under federal drug laws.

Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr., wrote in his ruling counties would not be breaking federal law by giving out state identification cards.

"Requiring the counties to issue identification cards for the purpose of identifying those whom California chooses not to arrest and prosecute for certain activities involving marijuana use does not create a 'positive conflict,'" Nevitt wrote.

The ruling affirmed a tentative judgment Nevitt issued in November.

The judge emphasized that he was not weighing in on the question of whether marijuana has medical benefits.

Since 55 percent of California voters approved the law in a 1996 vote, 10 other states have adopted measures protecting qualified patients from prosecution. They are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Thomas Bunton, a county attorney who argued the case, said no decision had been made whether to seek an appeal.

Nevitt's ruling stopped short of forcing the counties to begin issuing the cards. Fewer than half of California's 58 counties have so far complied with the state program

by **palmspringsbum** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:31 am

The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote:Judge upholds state's medical marijuana laws

By Jeff McDonald
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
The San Diego Union-Tribune
5:25 p.m. December 6, 2006

SAN DIEGO – A Superior Court judge has refused to overturn California's medical marijuana laws, issuing a final ruling Monday that upholds a decision last month rejecting a lawsuit San Diego County filed against the state.

Judge William R. Nevitt Jr. ruled that state law enforcement officials are not obligated to arrest and prosecute people who violate federal laws.

“The state convincingly rebuts County of San Diego's argument that (medical marijuana laws) are pre-empted because they 'authorize' conduct that the federal government prohibits,” the judge wrote.

The county Board of Supervisors voted to sue California rather than implement the state law permiting chronically ill patients to grow and smoke marijuana. The law was adopted in 1996 after 56 percent of California voters approved an initiative.

After San Diego County filed the lawsuit, Merced and San Bernardino counties joined the case. It was unclear whether county officials would appeal the ruling, although lawyers for Merced County told the court they would appeal if they lost.

Nevitt issued a preliminary ruling in November in favor of the state and a handful of “intervenors” – patients and advocacy groups that claim medical benefits from marijuana, which is illegal under federal laws.

The ruling was welcome news to lawyers and patient advocates.

“The victory here saves state medical marijuana laws from an ill-founded and unsupported attack,” said Adam Wolf, a staff attorney with the ACLU, which co-defended the case. “The law is clear: The fed government cannot force the state of California to arrest and prosecute medical-marijuana patients.”

<hr class=postrule>
Jeff McDonald: (619) 542-4585; jeff.mcdonald@uniontrib.com

by **palmspringsbum** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:40 am

NOW Magazine wrote:Mouldy myths

Cops warn of rampant mould at pot ops but public health says there's no fungus in sight

By MATT MERNAGH
December 7, 2006
Now Magazine

Should a b-movie blob threaten the city, Toronto cops will have lots of experience battling make-believe enemies. Fact is, menacing claims last week by our finest that the grow ops busted at 2600 Jane were rampant with mould may be plain untrue.

According to Dr. Howard Shapiro, Toronto Public Health's associate medical officer of health, who inspected the building last Friday, "We didn't find any visible evidence of mould in the common areas or the units [used as grow ops].''

Police spokesperson Mark Pugash politely refutes the statement. "All I can say is [the officers] did see mould in the rooms."

But genius ganja grower and Pot TV station manager Greg "Marijuana Man" Williams has seen plenty of farming facilities, and he tells me, "Mould doesn't happen unless it's under unusual circumstances. Yet all the grow ops busted by police have mould."

He says overwatering and -misting and dramatic temperature changes will create weed worries before mould ever appears. "The plants would be dead," says Williams about the big North York haul. "They would not survive. With amounts of mould as high as the police claim, those plants would get mushy and die."

Health Canada licensed med grower Mik Mann, who offers farming facility tours on Vancouver Island, explains: "With proper venting there is little problem with mould on the walls. I have white plastic on the walls and have zero mould on it or under it."

Sure, public health suggests mould might happen when mist hits the paper coating on drywall, but Mann says, "If you have your fans running [as you should], mist on the walls dries long before it becomes a problem."

Of course, good airflow is critical for mould prevention in any home. According to Mann, "Mould on the walls may indicate some other problems with the home unrelated to an indoor garden."

Shapiro notes, "In general, you can have mould issues from a leaky pipe or a flooded basement. You get mould in buildings that have structural issues."

The bottom line is, with toking acceptable among most Canadians, cops have had to manufacture public fear about living next door to the greens. But someone battling mould would have poorly budding plants and un-sellable product not the "very high-quality" buds valued at $6.6 million that the police claim to have confiscated from the Jane Street grows.

"They must have been really healthy plants to be worth that much," laughs Williams.

<center>**</center>

by **palmspringsbum** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:58 pm

NORML wrote:Judge Upholds Ruling Dismissing Counties' Prop. 215 Challenge

December 7, 2006 - San Diego, CA, USA
NORML

San Diego, CA: Superior Court Judge William Nevitt upheld last month's preliminary ruling rejecting a lawsuit filed by San Diego County supervisors, who had argued that the state's medical cannabis laws should be pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

In his opinion, Nevitt declared that the state's ten-year-old medical marijuana law is legal because it does not "require" conduct that violates federal law. Nevitt also rejected plaintiffs challenge to California's three-year-old medical ID card system, ruling that "requiring the counties to issue identification cards for the purpose of identifying those whom California chooses not to arrest and prosecute for certain activities involving marijuana does not create a 'positive conflict' [with federal law.]"

In 2004, the California legislature approved legislation calling on counties to issue identification cards to state-authorized medical cannabis patients. San Diego supervisors, along with lawmakers from San Bernardino and Merced counties, filed suit against the state of California and NORML's San Diego affiliate earlier this year rather than comply with the ID card law.

It is unclear whether defendants will appeal Judge Nevitt's ruling.

"We are pleased that the court ruled that San Diego must follow California's medical marijuana law," said California NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer. "[Defendants] would be well advised to stop wasting taxpayers' money on this ill-advised lawsuit. The ID cards will save the county money by avoiding needless arrest and prosecution of legal patients."

For more information, please contact Keith Stroup, NORML Legal Counsel, at (202) 483-5500 or Dale Gieringer, California NORML Coordinator, at (415) 563-5858. Text of the decision in the case, County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML and the State of California, is available online at: http://www.normlaudiostash.com.

by **palmspringsbum** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:13 pm

The Drug Policy Alliance wrote:Huge Victory for Patients in Medical Marijuana Lawsuit

Wednesday, December 13, 2006
The Drug Policy Alliance

We did it! After months of hard work, I am pleased to report that we have achieved a critical victory for patients. Last week, a San Diego Superior Court judge rejected the lawsuit brought by three counties attempting to challenge California's medical marijuana laws. This win not only protects seriously ill Californians, but demonstrates that states do not have to march in lockstep with the federal government's failed war on drugs.

The lawsuit was brought against the state of California in January 2006 by San Diego County, later joined by San Bernardino and Merced counties. These local governments argued that federal laws prohibiting all use of marijuana invalidate state medical marijuana laws.

DPA, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans for Safe Access (ASA), intervened in the case to represent patients, their caregivers, and doctors, to make sure that the people who were most affected by the case had a voice. Not only did we file our own briefs in the case, we also worked closely with the Attorney General's office--charged with protecting the law--to craft persuasive arguments for the court.

Following oral arguments by the three groups in November, the court confirmed the full validity of California's medical marijuana laws. Enacted in 1996, the Compassionate Use Act, also known as Proposition 215, allows qualified patients with a doctor's recommendation to use medical marijuana. The Medical Marijuana Program Act, passed in 2003, requires counties to implement an identification card program that allows law enforcement to properly identify legitimate patients.

Unfortunately, rather than abide by the judge's ruling, at least one county has decided to continue squandering taxpayers' money on this losing crusade. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted on Tuesday, December 12, to appeal the judge's ruling. We expect to learn shortly whether the other two counties will follow suit or cut their losses. Regardless, we stand ready to continue defending the interests of patients and physicians in the higher courts--and we predict victory.

Sincerely,

Daniel Abrahamson
Director of Legal Affairs
Drug Policy Alliance

by **palmspringsbum** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 2:10 pm

The Californian wrote:Cities must enforce laws, too

By: PHIL STRICKLAND - For The Californian
December 18, 2006

It's reassuring to know that the San Diego County supervisors are bent on protecting us from all manner of miscreants. Never mind that the state's voters don't agree.

In defense of the supervisors, they've determined, regardless of what a recent state court ruling says, that it is only right and just that they help the feds in their pursuit of those vile purveyors of medical marijuana.

You probably can bet your paycheck on their desire to see that all laws are enforced -- especially those of federal origin as is indicated by their unflagging dedication to battling California's Compassionate Use Act.

This is no small thing. As you no doubt are aware, federal laws are being violated flagrantly right here in Southern California.

Surely it won't be long before the supervisors bring to bear the full force of their power on behalf of those of us who get up every day, schlep off to work and then, with no thanks to speak of, contribute a significant portion of our wages to support that very government the laws of which are abused with no apology. Indeed, no shame.

You surely can be certain that they'll not fall for the lame excuse that it's a federal matter and no business of us common folk.

Probably anyday now, the supervisors will put on notice all businesses and municipalities over which they hold some legal sway that aiding and abetting illegal immigration is a sure way to end up in their crosshairs.

Supporters of illegal immigrants claim municipalities have no requirement to see that the law is enforced. Never mind that Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 says "States and localities may not adopt policies, formally or informally, that prohibit employees from communicating with INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service, now part of the Department of Homeland Security) regarding the immigration status of individuals."

Twist it any way you want, the bottom line is that these so-called sanctuary cities are violating federal law. Is anyone in National City or San Diego listening?

The next argument is that local police agencies have no power when it comes to illegal immigrants.

Well, there's good news on that front, too.

In fact, there's been good news in that regard since that same immigration reform act was passed 10 years ago. It included a program called 287(G) which makes provisions for state and local law enforcement agencies to be trained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to perform immigration enforcement functions -- such as identification, processing and detention of immigration offenders.

Corrections officers in Riverside, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Orange counties already participate and state and local police agencies from coast to coast are signing up. No police agencies in California have signed up yet.

No doubt Escondido police Chief Jim Maher will push ahead with authorizing his officers to check the immigration status of gang members.

If you're figuring this is an expensive feel-good measure, you'll be interested to know that since November 2005, when its department of corrections began processing immigrant inmates and turning them over to ICE for removal, Arizona reportedly has saved nearly $3 million in addition to freeing up 53,135 bed days.

Not a bad start.

Just wait until San Diego County gets going.

-- Phil Strickland of Temecula is a regular columnist for The Californian. E-mail: philipestrickland@yahoo.com.

by **palmspringsbum** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:35 pm

The Bay Area Reporter wrote:San Diego judge upholds state medical pot law

by Liz Highleyman
December 21, 2006
The Bay Area Reporter

A San Diego judge earlier this month upheld California's medical marijuana law, rejecting a challenge by three counties contending that the state law puts them in conflict with federal policy.

"Medical cannabis patients everywhere can breathe easier," said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, a patient advocacy group, following the December 6 decision. "States can act to protect patients, and local officials are now on notice that they cannot hide behind the federal reluctance to acknowledge medical use."

San Diego County will appeal the decision.

The state's Compassionate Use Act, better known as Proposition 215, passed by a substantial margin in 1996. The law allows individuals with illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, and multiple sclerosis to use cannabis for medicinal purposes with a doctor's recommendation. An additional law passed in 2003 requires counties to implement a patient identification card program to enable police to identify legitimate medical users.

The federal government, however, does not recognize the laws of California and 10 other states, maintaining that marijuana has no legitimate medicinal value and that its use is illegal under all circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2005 that the federal Controlled Substances Act trumps state medical marijuana laws, but did not declare such laws invalid.

This past February, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming that California could not require the county to implement the patient ID card system, since the state law is at odds with federal policy. San Bernardino and Merced counties later signed on to the suit.

"California authorized use of marijuana for medical purposes, but federal law has said marijuana has no legitimate medical use," said San Diego County Counsel Thomas Bunton. "California authorizes, and in fact encourages, people to use marijuana, when that is forbidden by federal law."

On November 16, Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt tentatively ruled that this discrepancy does not prevent California from permitting medicinal cannabis use, as long as the state does not require residents or officials to act in ways that are directly prohibited under federal law.

This month, Nevitt reaffirmed his preliminary decision that the patient ID card system does not constitute a "positive conflict" with federal law.

The state attorney general's office, ASA, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Drug Policy Alliance argued in favor of the Compassionate Use Act. The advocates represented Stephen O'Brien, an Oakland physician who specializes in HIV/AIDS care, and a group of patients who use medical cannabis, including one who died after the lawsuit was filed.

"This is a vital win for patients and a resounding step forward for the medical marijuana movement," said ACLU attorney Adam Wolf, commenting on the most recent court decision.

"This ruling upholds both the will of the voters and the legislature's attempt to help implement it," added ASA chief counsel Joe Elford. "The protections provided to patients under state law have been confirmed."

Deputy state Attorney General Leslie Lopez said Congress never intended to require states to enact identical laws.

"We are pleased that the court ruled that San Diego must follow California's medical marijuana law," said Dale Gieringer of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "The ID cards will save the county money by avoiding needless arrest and prosecution of legal patients."

The week after the ruling was handed down, however, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 in a closed session to file an appeal.

According to board Chairman Bill Horn, the judge did not directly rule on whether the state or federal government has ultimate authority over marijuana policy. "[Nevitt] kind of gave us the politically correct opinion that we ignored the will of the voters," he told the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Maybe the 4th District [Court] will give us an answer."

In contrast, Merced supervisors decided not to appeal Nevitt's ruling, and the county will begin issuing patient ID cards in accordance with California law.

12/21/2006

by **palmspringsbum** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:39 pm

The Drug War Chronicle wrote:Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter

Medical Marijuana: California's Booming Market Offers Substantial Tax Revenues, Report Finds

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #467, 1/5/07

Medical marijuana is a billion dollar a year business in California, according to a new report, and the state's bottom line could improve dramatically if it were taxed like other herbal medicines. The report, "Revenue and Taxes from Oakland's Cannabis Economy," was prepared for that city's Measure Z Oversight Committee by California NORML head Dale Gieringer and and Oakland Civil Liberties Alliance board member Richard Lee.

While the report focused on Oakland, which has seen medical marijuana revenues and the taxes derived from them decline dramatically since the city tightened regulations on dispensaries in recent years, it also looked at state and federal data to attempt to draw a state-wide picture of the size of the therapeutic cannabis industry. According to the data, the state's medical marijuana patients are currently consuming somewhere between $870 million and $2 billion worth of weed a year. That would translate to somewhere between $70 million and $120 million in state sales tax revenues, the authors estimated.

But currently, the state treasury is receiving nowhere near that because many dispensaries do not pay sales taxes or keep financial records that could be used against them in a federal investigation. Other dispensaries and patient groups argue that nonprofit collectives and co-ops should be exempt from taxes.

The study estimated the number of California medical marijuana patients at between 150,000 and 350,000. There is no firm figure, because unlike many other medical marijuana states, there is no comprehensive, statewide registry of patients. Those patients each smoke about a pound of pot a year.

Medical marijuana patients account for about 10% of California marijuana users, the study found, suggesting that tax revenues from a legal recreational marijuana market would skyrocket into the low billions of dollars each year. The state is currently spending about $160 million a year to arrest, prosecute, and imprison marijuana offenders, and not collecting any tax revenue from recreational sales.

State officials have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens they represent. This report makes clear just how miserably California officials are shirking that responsibility.

palmspringsbum

Who is online