BREAKING NEWS: Sheriff endorses Measure B

[Smokin Moose]

Mendocino County - Sheriff Tom Allman today announced his endorsement of Measure B, the June 3 ballot initiative to repeal Measure G and unify the county's medical marijuana policy with the state's legal protections.

Until today, Allman has steadfastly remained neutral on Measure B but says the No on B campaign's misuse of his image and words has changed his mind.

"Without my knowledge or permission, the opponents of Measure B sent out a campaign mailer that includes my uniformed picture and a quote from me," Allman explained. "First, they have taken the quote attributed to me out of context. Second, by doing so they are implying that I am opposed to Measure B. Because of this misrepresentation, I can no longer remain neutral."

Throughout the controversial campaign on Measure B, Allman has met with both sides and has provided information when asked.

"I have strived to remain neutral on the ballot initiative for the purpose of allowing the voters to decide," Allman said.

Earlier this year Allman made it public that the No on B campaign was misusing a quote he gave the Santa Rosa newspaper last year, and reiterated his stance that, "Investigating violent crime will remain our top priority. We do not, and will not, target small grows. We will continue to focus on large grows and complaints about growers who create a public nuisance, endanger public safety or trash the environment."

Recently, at a Measure B forum before the Employers Council of Mendocino County, Allman, when asked, said that Measure B would make his job easier in that he felt many people now growing 25 marijuana plants or more - simply because they can under Measure G -would voluntarily cut back to the six-plant state limit Measure B adopts.

Today Allman added, "The investigation of violent crimes, the eradication of large commercial marijuana gardens and combating methamphetamine will remain top priorities for the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office."

And he made it clear he was no longer neutral.

"Today, I lend my name and full support to the passage of Measure B. It is the right thing to do for Mendocino County. I urge the voters to vote and vote for Measure B," he said.

The No on B campaign says it is readying its response to the endorsement.

Source: UkiahDailyJournal.com
Copywrite: UkiahDailyJournal.com
Website: Mendocino County's local newspaper - Ukiah Daily Journal

 

[zion richards]

Mr. Moose ! I read a lot of your stuff and it is great ! Hey. The question of opening a dispensary was during a discussion and not something I will do. But it seems strange that no one seems to know the answere to. I go " where " and get " what paper " . I think in the conversation it was like. " Hey I wonde if you just waltz in the court house and ask. Where is the how to open a medical marijuana dispensary office located. ha so any light shone by anyone that dont cost a fee, would be great. peace out
zion

 

[Smokin Moose]

Pot-Laws.com : How to Open a Medical Marijuana Dispensary :: Know Your Medical Marijuana Rights

 

[Smokin Moose]

CALIFORNIA NORML ADVICE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROVIDERS

Despite the fact that scores of medical cannabis dispensaries, clubs, and delivery services are currently in business in California, the sale of medical cannabis is strictly illegal under federal law. Under state law, sale is generally illegal except in narrowly defined circumstances. In particular , non-profit "distribution" is allowed in certain cases for patient cultivation co-ops and small-scale caregiver gardeners.

Under federal law, sale, cultivation and possession of marijuana remain strictly illegal. The DEA has raided dozens of medical marijuana growers, clubs and caregivers in California since the enactment of Prop. 215. For the most part, the targets have been either high-profile activists who have attracted publicity, or commercial-scale growers whom local law enforcement have decided to turn over for federal prosecution.

Under state law, the California Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Prop. 215) exempts patients and their primary caregivers from criminal prosecution for personal possession and cultivation of marijuana, but NOT for distribution or sale to others.

State law was expanded in 2004 by a new law, SB 420 (Health & Safety Code 11362.7-8), which (1) authorizes caregivers who provide marijuana to patients to be compensated for the costs of their services, though not on a for-profit basis; and (2) allows patients to form cultivation "collectives" or "cooperatives." On careful examination, however, neither of these provisions provides a green light for sales of cannabis. Those dispensaries that are selling marijuana over the counter accordingly do so at the tolerance of local authorities. Note that there have been instances where hostile local law enforcement agencies have busted medical cannabis dispensaries and charged their personnel with illegal distribution or sales.

For a list of patients' groups and dispensaries, see Cannabis Patients' Cooperatives

FAQ for Collective Operators: Answers to frequently asked questions about starting a medical cannabis collective or cooperative.
CAREGIVERS:

A "primary caregiver" is narrowly defined under Prop. 215 to be "the individual designated [by a legal patient] who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person." The law does not explicitly allow for multiple caregivers. While caregivers may serve more than one patient, a new provision in SB 420 has made it illegal for them to have more than one patient outside their own "city or county." While the constitutionality of this provision is debatable (not only does it seem to override Prop. 215, but the restriction to a single "city or county" is ambiguous) prospective caregivers should beware of trying to serve large geographical areas.

In general, the courts have held that cannabis clubs cannot serve as legal "primary caregivers" for large numbers of patients. Some persons have claimed caregiver status while growing for multiple numbers of patients on the theory that they are providing for their patients' health or safety. This defense has been successful in court for caregivers growing for small numbers of patients. However, it was explicitly rejected by a state court of appeals in the Peron decision, where the court held that Peron's San Francisco Cannabis Buyers' Club could not reasonably claim to function as a "primary caregiver" for its 8000 clients.

In general, medical cannabis providers who cater to walk-in clients should not hope to rely on the caregiver provision. Caregiver growers should limit themselves to a select membership list of local clients whom they personally know and who do not have other caregivers. Within these constraints, SB 420 allows caregivers to be compensated for the costs of their services, but does NOT specifically authorize distribution or cultivation for profit.
COLLECTIVE GARDENS

SB 420 encourages access to medical marijuana through "collective, cooperative cultivation projects. " Unfortunately, it provides no guidelines or explanation as to how these should operate. Presumably, the basic model is a group of patients and caregivers who plant a garden together and share the crop among themselves. The cultivation cooperative model does not necessarily envision walk-in clients, nor retail sales of medicine to members. Co-ops may be supported by participation in work, donations or membership fees. Under one model, co-op patients pay a set gardening fee for a certain part of the crop, and receive the harvest at no further charge. Unlike caregivers, collective gardens aren't limited to patients from the same "city or county."

A notable example of a patients' collective is the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz WAMM - Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana Homepage. WAMM has over 200 seriously ill members who cultivate a collective garden and attend to each others' health and personal needs. In 2004, WAMM won a federal injunction protecting their right to cultivate under the Raich decision (see below). This did not stop the DEA from busting another collective garden , Eddy's Medicinal Gardens, whose operator was engaged in large-scale cultivation (30,000 plants) for some 2,000 ≠ 3,000 patients. The WAMM injunction was voided in 2005 by the Supreme Court's Raich decision.

Two examples of patients' providers officially structured as "cooperative" corporations under California law were the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Los Angeles Cannabis Research Center. Both would have been legal under SB 420, but both were shut down by the federal government.

The legality of collectives and cooperatives was upheld by the Third District Court of Appeals in the 2005 Urziceanu decision. The Court ruled that while Prop. 215 did not authorize distribution by anyone except primary caregivers, SB 420 allowed for distribution among patients and caregivers through collectives and cooperatives.
FEDERAL LAW

Under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I drug, meaning that it has no accepted medical use. The federal government has interpreted the law strictly to mean that all marijuana is illegal regardless of state laws like Prop. 215. The federal law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Raich v Gonzalez (2005), where it ruled that the CSA's ban on posssession and cultivation did not exceed the federal government's constitutional authority under the interstate commerce clause even in the case of private, personal use by patients. While further constitutional challenges to the CSA are being pursued in federal court, medical marijuana remains completely illegal under current federal law.

The Supreme Court rejected a prior, 2001 challenge to the federal law by upholding an injunction ordering the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other cannabis clubs to cease operations. The court overturned a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the OCBC was entitled to a "medical necessity" defense for distributing marijuana to its members. While the court ruled for the government on the procedural grounds that the CSA did not allow for a necessity defense for distributors, it left open the question whether individual patients might invoke a necessity defense.
FEDERAL FORFEITURE:

Another federal weapon against medical marijuana is property forfeiture. Federal law allows the government to forfeit real estate from owners or landlords who let it be used for marijuana distribution or cultivation. The DEA successfully used forfeiture against the Los Angeles Cannabis Resource Center in 2001. The LACRC's building was actually owned by the city of West Hollywood, which had bought it as a gift for the club. The government had no trouble taking possession of it by means of forfeiture, effectively closing the LACRC. More recently, the government invoked forfeiture to close the Capitol Compassionate Care center in Roseville and to force a landlord to evict another dispensary in West Hollywood. The DEA has threatened to employ forfeiture more widely. So far, the chosen targets have mostly been facilities that actively sought publicity through the media or advertising. Dispensary operators are advised to operate discreetly to avoid DEA attention.
LOCAL REGULATION

Despite the shaky legality of dispensaries, many cities and counties have enacted ordinances aimed at zoning, regulating, or limiting them. Many localities have enacted moratoriums banning new dispensaries altogether, including numerous towns in the Central Valley area and the Peninsula. Others, including Alameda County, Hayward, Berkeley, Santa Rosa, West Hollywood, and Oakland, have put a limit on the number of dispensaries in their area. A few cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, West Hollywood, and Santa Rosa have established licensing schemes for dispensaries. Strict zoning regulations are in effect in many localities. Other regulations that have been adopted include banning on-site consumption and limiting the quantity of marijuana that can be sold or kept on hand.

ASA maintains a list of Local California Dispensary Regulations at ASA : Local California Dispensary Regulations

FAQ for Collective Operators: Answers to frequently asked questions about starting a medical cannabis collective or cooperative.

Anyone interested in opening a medical cannabis facility should be wary about alarming local authorities. Many towns have moved to ban dispensaries after receiving inquiries from prospective operators. However, anyone planning to open a storefront dispensary should seek a business license and comply with local zoning regulations. It is especially important that dispensaries be appropriately sited so as not to disturb neighbors. Neighborhood complaints are the number one cause of police raids. Dispensaries should also be sure that their landlords are comfortable with what they are doing. Landlord complaints are another leading cause of problems.

Dispensaries have been organized in various ways: as sole proprietorships, partnerships, non-profit cooperatives or corporations. Because SB 420 does not specifically protect for-profit operations, non-profit organizations are probably safer. Prospective operators are advised to consult a business attorney (see below).
SALES TAX

The state Board of Equalization has ruled that medical cannabis sales are subject to sales tax, regardless of their legality. (This is consistent with California law, under which medicinal herbs are generally taxable. The only medicines that are not taxable are those provided in licensed pharmacies with a physician's prescription.)
ATTORNEYS

Prospective patient providers are strongly advised to consult an attorney. The following attorneys are familiar with the law on cannabis cooperatives, patients' groups, dispensaries, etc.

*
Matt Kumin (S.F.) 415-434-8454
* Robert Raich (Oakland) 510-338-0700
* James Anthony (Oakland) 510-207-6243 (zoning & land use specialist)
* William Panzer (Oakland) 510-834-1892
* Bill McPike (Fresno) 559-841-3366
* William Kroger (LA) 323 -655-5700
* Bruce Margolin (LA) 310-652-8654

California NORML - January 2006

 

[zion richards]

Moose you are out ta site ! That was the information I needed. My compliments. Your not only damn good you are Fast ! thanks and good vibes to ya man Zeeman

 

[chronicreform]

MEASURE B PASSED and there is a similar movement in hippie friendly Arcata( (Humboldt County) Go online to the Arcata Eye .com which is the local weekly in this college town and see the rants about the "indoor grow houses"...lack of affordable housing,fire hazzards,you name it!!! They will spread fear and loathing about this wonderful medicinal herb.

 

[zion richards]

Thanks kindly to you guys. Moose, Racefan, Chepnut and all you guys, for getting me thru my first serveral grows. I outdoored it since 69 and finally got too warm and quit. Now thanks to the books and you all I've had some great success. The Bonsai moms are doing good and with hope their offspring will grow up in a land where they wont have to hide . Hell.. were gunna have a new Pres. It would be nice to stop the Raids . Thakns also for all the info on the Opening a disp.... Maybe After the election I'll give it a shot. You guys are great thanks again! zeeman

 

[Smokin Moose]

^You are most welcome!