California, Lassen

[palmspringsbum]

Susanville City Council bans dispensaries - July 26, 2005, from the Lassen County Times.

[palmspringsbum]

Supervisors do not support medical marijuana ID card

Posted on Friday, December 23 @ 06:02:29 GMT

<b><i>The medical marijuana identification card program is “nothing more than another scheme from the enemy within to destroy this society,”</i> Supervisor Bob Pyle said last week.</b>

By Shayla Ashmore
Managing Editor
The Lassen County Times


Pyle was perhaps the most straightforward, but every supervisor expressed doubts about the program at the board's Tuesday, Dec. 13 meeting. Taking no action, the supervisors agreed to wait and see how other counties handle the legal requirement that each county approve the program and set up an application process.

San Diego County reportedly plans to sue the state to avoid implementing the program, according to County Administrative Officer John Ketelsen.

“I don't know that the medical use of marijuana for patients that need it is a good thing or a bad thing,” Sheriff Steve Warren told the board. “I think that for someone to be able to drive around in a car with eight ounces of marijuana and a card that says it's OK is not a good thing.”

Warren said possession of marijuana “clearly is against federal law and not too long ago it was against state law.”

Marijuana possession for medical use became legal in California with passage of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that a federal ban on marijuana trumps any state laws allowing its use, including Prop 215.

To complicate things further the U.S. Supreme Court on June 6 decided the federal government may prosecute people who use homegrown marijuana. It said state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

Warren said California's Attorney General issued an opinion saying, “The Supreme Court didn't say anything about mandating local and state officials to enforce federal law.” The attorney general concluded local and state officials should not enforce federal marijuana laws.

He said the voluntary ID card program simply gives medical marijuana users something to show law enforcement saying the bearer is entitled to carry eight ounces of marijuana.

[palmspringsbum]

Nurse urges board to set fee for medical marijuana identification card

Posted on Tuesday, February 28 @ 18:25:11 GMT

<b><i>The medical marijuana identification card program came up again at the Tuesday, Feb. 21 Lassen County Board of Supervisors meeting.</i></b>

By Shayla Ashmore
Managing Editor
The Lassen County Times

Jill Miller, of the Lassen County Health Department, urged the board to set up the fees for medical marijuana ID cards established in 1996 by Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act.

Every supervisor expressed doubts about the program at the board's Tuesday, Dec. 13 meeting. Taking no action, the supervisors agreed to wait and see how other counties handle the legal requirement that each county approve the program and set up an application process.

“The impression was that the board of supervisors needed to approve the medical marijuana state ID program,” Miller told the board at its Tuesday, Feb. 21 meeting. “Basically, the board according to the county policies, just needed to OK the fee that we were charging.”

Senate Bill 420 specifies a patient who has documentation from a physician verifying the client suffers from a serious medical condition and the use of medical marijuana is appropriate must also pay a $65 fee. The county must verify the address of the person applying for a card by checking proof of residency and a government-issued photo ID.

The state issues the card after the county health department screens the application and reviews it for completeness. If anything is missing the state automatically denies the application.

Once the application is entered into a computer the state will issue a card within five days. The county will notify the user when the card is available for pickup.

Miller said the board must approve any new fee or change to an existing fee.

[palmspringsbum]

Jury will hear evidence of Ziegler’s medical marijuana patient, caregiver status

Posted on Tuesday, May 23 @ 16:59:32 GMT

<b><i>When a Susanville man is tried for cultivating marijuana, the jury will hear evidence that he was a patient and a primary caregiver under California’s medical marijuana law.</i></b>

By Shayla Ashmore
News Editor
The Lassen County Times

At a Friday, May 19 dispositional conference and hearing to determine admissibility of evidence, Superior Court Judge Stephen Bradbury denied Prosecutor Dean Archibald’s motion to exclude defense evidence. Public Defender David Marcus claims Timothy Ziegler, 45, was both a patient and a primary caregiver under the state’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996, or California's Proposition 215.

Lassen County Narcotics Task Force officers seized about 100 marijuana plants when they arrested Ziegler in September 2004.

Bradbury said the issue was one of law, not whether anyone agreed with patients growing and using marijuana. Ziegler testified that half a dozen people with doctor’s recommendations came to his cooperative to receive marijuana Ziegler obtained in the Bay Area. Bradbury ruled the defense made a sufficient showing that Ziegler was a primary caregiver.

Archibald argued that simply providing marijuana did not meet the provisions of Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and 11362.7, the state’s medical marijuana statutes. The code sections define a primary care provider as someone who assumes responsibility for the health of another.

Bradbury said patients see doctors, surgeons, dentists and eye doctors for various needs.

"It would be rare to have, in the world of medicine, a health care provider who does it all," Bradbury said, adding many specialists assume responsibility for patients’ health.

At the hearing on Friday, Dr. William Toy, who has an office in Grass Valley, testified that he gave Ziegler a temporary recommendation for use of medical marijuana on Dec. 20, 2004, because Ziegler suffered neck and back pain due to an industrial accident in which a wall fell on him.

Toy’s recommendation expired three months later. He gave Ziegler a second three-month recommendation on Oct. 13, 2004.

Ziegler claims primary-caregiver status according to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and 11362.7, the state’s medical marijuana provisions.

Bradbury set a further dispositional conference for 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 13.

[palmspringsbum]

Ziegler case referred for federal prosecution

Posted on Tuesday, September 26 @ 17:39:08 GMT
<blockquote><i>
Sept. 26, 2006 — The October trail date of a Susanville marijuana grower has been vacated and the matter sent to the U.S. Attorney’s office for possible federal prosecution on Tuesday, Sept. 19.</i>
</blockquote>
By Sam Williams
News Editor
swilliams@lassennew.com
The Lassen County Times

Timothy Patrick Ziegler, 47, pleaded not guilty on Feb. 7, 2005, to charges of felony marijuana cultivation, possession for sale, firearm enhancement and possession of parts of a protected bird.

According to the court file, the “People have referred the case to (the) U.S. Attorney in Sacramento, but want to confirm (the) trial date due to filing of People’s amended witness list yesterday (Sept. 18 ). Matter argued, motion to vacate trial granted.”

Ziegler’s public defender had filed a motion to dismiss the case, but Lassen County Superior Court Judge Stephen Bradbury denied that motion.

In May, the defense provided information to allow a “medical marijuana” defense when, “the court found the defense had met the foundational evidentiary standard (‘reasonable doubt’) on two aspects of the defense: 1) that the defendant had a valid medical marijuana recommendation for himself on the date of his arrest on Sept. 20, 2004; and, 2) that the defendant was a ‘primary caregiver’ in terms of the Compassionate Use Act as to a ‘qualified patient’ (or ‘patients’).”

Federal law does not recognize a “medical marijuana” defense, and California law does not apply in federal cases.

According to the court file, “Counsel (is) admonished to follow established procedures for discovery and pursue investigations. Counsel to notify court if (the) U.S. Attorney accepts the case.”

A trial setting conference and a hearing on motions was set for 10 a.m. on Dec. 5, if necessary.

[palmspringsbum]

Prescription drug deaths more common in rural communities

Posted on Tuesday, October 10 @ 12:33:28 GMT

Oct 10, 2006 — During a Lassen County Alcohol and Drug Stakeholder’s meeting on Wednesday, Sept. 27, Alcohol and Drug counselor Lyle Dornon said while working in treatment programs in the Los Angeles area, the typical client deaths were related to heroine addiction.

The Lassen County News
By Ruth Ellis
Staff Writer
rellis@lassennews.com

However, in his experience working in Northeastern California and Nevada rural communities, client related deaths are prescription drugs addicts.

“We’ve seen several die in this community in the last couple of years,” he said.

Heroine is not a popular drug in rural areas, Dornon said, nor is it as available as prescription drugs.

Personally, Dornon said, the two main drugs he’s seen in the rural areas are oxycontin and methadone.

While working in L.A., Dornon said the primary drug of choice was methamphetamine and in the mid-1990s the main drug was cocaine. But he said it isn’t uncommon for drug addicts and alcoholics to steal medications from friends or relatives in order to get high.

As an example, Dornon said someone could go visit their grandparents, look through their medicine cabinet and take some of their medication.

If an addict didn’t have their drug of choice with them, they could pop a pill to get the same effects, he said.

The largest portion of clients the Lassen County Alcohol and Drug Department serves are alcohol and marijuana users and approximately 20 percent are prescription drug addicts.

For those using the prescriptions for medical purposes, Dornon said they have a physical dependency, but might not display characteristics of an addict and wouldn’t understand they have a physical dependency to the medication.

Whereas, others with addictive behavior will scheme and develop plots by which they can get more and more prescriptions in order to get high and stay high, Dornon said.

In addition, people build up tolerance to the drugs and can take high amounts.

He said, “The longer people use medication the higher the tolerance is and the higher the dosage is needed to achieve the effect.”

The problem happens when someone who doesn’t have a tolerance to opiates or other drugs takes the medication.

“The central nervous system doesn’t have the tolerance for a large dosage,” Dornon said.

And it could cause problems, including death, he said.


<span class=postbold>Methadone and Oxycontin</span>

<span class=postbold>Ten years ago, you wouldn’t hear of methadone being used for pain relief</span>, said Dornon.

Rather, it was used to help heroine addicts and was used for narcotic replacement therapy.

In Reno, Dornon said there are at least three methadone clinics for heroine addicts to go to.

He said methadone could be considered an acceptable form of recovery, allowing people to stop using and dealing drugs in the streets and to find employment and housing.

However, Dornon said <span class=postbold>it is much more difficult and dangerous to detox off of methadone.

<b>He said methadone is synthetic and is very potent and stays in the body longer than a natural opiate would.</b>

In addition, it is also difficult for people who are using methadone for chronic pain.</span>

Oxycontin has similar properties to heroine <span class=postbold>and provides a greater euphoric affect</span>.

“It is the most potent pain reliever out there,” he said.

Teens have easy access to prescription drugs and Dornon said when found, teens can sell and distribute them.

What has become a really important message is to tell family members to keep their medications locked up and not accessible to teens, he said.

[palmspringsbum]

Board to discuss medical marijuana ID card after tentative ruling supports Prop

Tuesday, November 28 @ 14:31:20 PST
Lassen County News


<span class=postbold>Nov. 28, 2006 — The medical marijuana identification card program will be back before the Lassen County Board of Supervisors sometime after Jan. 1 due to a San Diego County Superior Court ruling that counties must follow the state’s medical-marijuana laws regardless of federal drug statutes.</span>


By Shayla Ashmore
Staff Writer
sashmore@lassennews.com

The court ruled state statutes “are mandatory on the counties regardless of the fact that there’s this conflict with federal law,” County Administrative Officer John Ketelsen told the board at its Tuesday, Nov. 21 meeting.

The board took no action a year ago on the program pending the outcome of the San Diego County lawsuit, which Merced and San Bernardino counties later joined.

The counties sued stating Senate Bill 420, which implements Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, directly conflicted with federal law. Prop 215 passed with 56 percent of the popular vote.

SB 420 requires each county to approve the program and set up an application process. It specifies each county must issue a medical marijuana ID card after verifying the address of any person applying for a card by checking proof of residency and a government-issued photo ID.

The patient must also pay a $65 fee and submit written documentation from a physician verifying the client suffers from a serious medical condition and that the use of medical marijuana is appropriate. The state will issue the card after the county health department screens the application and reviews it for completeness. If anything is missing the state automatically denies the application.

Once the application is entered into a computer the state will issue a card within five days. The county will notify the user when the card is available for pickup.

The ID card program has been controversial since its inception on Jan. 1, 2004. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2005, that a federal ban on marijuana trumps any state laws allowing its use, including Prop 215.

To complicate things further the U.S. Supreme Court on June 6, 2005, decided the federal government may prosecute people who use homegrown marijuana. It said state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

Last week, District 2 Supervisor Jim Chapman suggested the board issue the cards with a disclaimer stating they do not protect the bearers from federal prosecution.

Board history
When the board first considered the ID program in December 2005, Sheriff Steve Warren told the board. “I think that for someone to be able to drive around in a car with eight ounces of marijuana and a card that says it’s OK is not a good thing.”

Warren said possession of marijuana “clearly is against federal law and not too long ago it was against state law.”

Warren said California’s Attorney General issued an opinion saying the Supreme Court didn’t say anything about forcing local and state officials to enforce federal law. The attorney general concluded local and state officials should not enforce federal marijuana laws.

Warren said the voluntary ID card program simply gives medical marijuana users something to show law enforcement saying the bearer is entitled to carry eight ounces of marijuana.

“There’s absolutely no mechanism in place to see how legal that is,” Warren said.

At the same meeting, Public Health Nurse Mary O’Reilly, who presented the ID card program, said there will be a number on the card law enforcement can call to verify its authenticity.

“I will not support something illegal under federal law,” Pyle said last year, adding he is against the whole program and won’t vote for it. “I will not be supporting the use of marijuana.”

O’Reilly said the card program in no way supports marijuana use. She said physicians do not prescribe marijuana because it is not recognized as legal by the federal government. Prop 215 allows doctors to give patients a recommendation for the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

“Federal law criminalizes the use of medical marijuana,” according to the frequently asked questions section of the material O’Reilly gave the board.

She said the state wants the board to recognize the card program is state-mandated and will be occurring in Lassen County.

Ketelsen said he would ask the San Diego County Superior Court for a copy of the unpublished decision. San Diego Superior Court Judge William R. Nevitt, Jr has 90 days to issue the decision following the tentative ruling issued on Thursday, Nov. 16.

The board agreed to schedule a more in-depth discussion of the ruling after the first of the year.

“Let’s keep informed and put it on the agenda,” Pyle said.

[palmspringsbum]

County to apply 'not valid under federal law' sticker to medical marijuana ID cards

Lassen News
August 14th, 2007


Instead of stamping state medical marijuana ID cards “not valid under federal law,” Lassen County officials will apply a sticker with the same message.

Supervisor Jim Chapman insisted on stamping the statement on the cards in red ink when the board approved in June a resolution establishing the medical marijuana ID card program, established in 1996 by Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act.

At the board’s Tuesday, Aug. 14 meeting, Assistant County Administrative Officer Kevin Mannel said state officials vetoed stamping the cards, but there’s nothing to stop the county from adding the sticker. Unless the board instructed him otherwise, Mannel said he planned to have nickel-size yellow stickers printed with red lettering and have Lassen County Public Health staff apply the stickers to the cards and explain to card carriers that the medical marijuana ID card does not protect them from federal prosecution for marijuana possession. None of the five board members objected and Chapman said he was glad the county has the ability to put a sticker on the cards.

A letter dated July 24 from Karen Parr, the chief of the medically indigent services section of the California Department of Public Health, states the cards, or MMICs, are produced through a contracted vendor “and the production price of the MMIC specified within the contract is based on the current design, therefore, it cannot be changed.”

It said any design changes would increase the card costs and any increase “must be passed on to the counties. Furthermore, in order to assist law enforcement in verifying valid medical marijuana patients or caregivers the information contained on the MMICs must be consistent statewide.”

The medical marijuana ID card application informs patients they are not protected from prosecution under federal law, Parr’s letter said, providing “sufficient notification to patients and primary caregivers of possible federal prosecution.”

“It appears that the letter can also be interpreted that we can comply with the sticker to meet the full intent of the previous board action and not conflict with the intent of the MMP program at the state level,” Mannel told the board.

Senate Bill 420, which implements Prop 215 and became law in January 2004, specifies a patient, who has documentation from a physician verifying the client suffers from a serious medical condition and the use of medical marijuana is appropriate, must pay a fee, which the resolution sets at $150, or $117 for those served by MediCal.

The county must verify the address of the person applying for a card by checking proof of residency and a government-issued photo ID. The state issues the card after the county health department screens the application and reviews it for completeness.

If anything is missing the state automatically denies the application.

Once the application is entered into a computer the state will issue a card within five days and send it to the county public health department. Public health staff can then apply the sticker before notifying the user to pick up the ID card.