Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
I am saddened by the recent request from the Yes on B coalition regarding amending MCC 9.31 to transform it from a civil nuisance ordinance into a criminal ordinance. It seems that certain people will not be satisfied unless all pot growers are arrested and locked up. The Board of Supervisors adopted MCC 9.31 in January of this year, limiting the amount of cannabis plants at no more than 25 plants per assessors parcel number.
The Yes on B coalition repeatedly made statements and assurances during the campaign that they were not targeting medical marijuana patients; they were concerned with "large scale criminal grows." The measure passed in districts 1 & 2, and failed in districts 3, 4, and 5, passing in total by a mere 52 percent. Here is a direct quote from their Web site: "Measure B must pass by a large margin to send a message to our elected officials that marijuana must not be allowed to destroy the quality of life in Mendocino County and it will send a message to commercial marijuana growers that they are no longer welcome." But it didn't pass by a large margin. There was hardly a cut and dry winner, it was much closer than anyone expected. They wasted no time in setting up a "Yes on B hotline" so neighbors could "copy their complaint" to them and the Yes on B coalition would "follow up" on it to assure law enforcement was doing its job. But what they didn't realize is that law enforcement does not abate civil nuisance complaints.
The Plant limits in Measure B have been stayed per Judge Behnke's order dated August 8, 2008 in Laguna/Hanamoto v. Ranochack, and the only clear guidelines in Mendocino County are MCC 9.31. MCC 9.31 is a civil nuisance code. Violations of a civil nuisance code are handled in the planning and code enforcement departments, not by the sheriff's office.
The limits passed in Measure B are currently in limbo pending a decision by the California Supreme Court on whether or not to review the 2nd Appellate decision in People v. Patrick Kelly, a decision which ruled the limits set in SB 420 -- the same limits voted in by Measure B -- unconstitutional! Measure B plant limit enforcement is stayed until Judge Behnke lifts the order he signed August 8, 2008 in the Laguna/Hanamoto case, which challenges the constitutionality of the plant limits in Measure B. The Yes on B immediately sent out a press release stating their intentions to present their requested amendments to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
Because plant limitations in Measure B are not in effect right now, and the Planning Department handles the preliminary steps of civil nuisance complaints, the Yes on B coalition has tried to come up with a way to change that by changing the process into a criminal investigation. They seek to reintroduce immediate plant eradication by sheriff's deputies. The civil nuisance abatement process can be lengthy, and the Yes on B coalition is not happy about that. Ross Liberty stated that by the time you could get a court order to enforce the abatement, the growers have already harvested. They prefer that deputies can come out, seize the plants, and arrest the patient. By the time the patient is through with court, possibly being successful in fighting the criminal charges, his or her medicine has been destroyed. They now want to make a violation of MCC 9.31 to include "off site" odor, "off site" visibility, and require all patients to have mandatory Sheriff-issued Zip Tags. By requiring all patients to obtain these zip tags; they are forcing patients to enroll in a voluntary ID card program. The only way you can obtain a zip tag is to possess a valid state-issued ID card from the health department. How can a low or fixed income patient afford to: 1) cultivate indoors if they live in the city, 2) pay for a State MMIC patient ID card, and 3) pay the as yet undetermined zip tag fee?
What is wrong with people? Where is the compassion? We are not talking about criminal growers, we are talking about patients!
Measure B was sold to voters by claiming to be targeting large scale criminal grows; it was successful in passing the repeal of Measure G. Now, the same people who said medical marijuana patients would not be harmed are coming for the patients! The last speaker, Mrs. Puterbaugh made statements that this is not about medicine this is about greedy growers, essentially calling all patients greedy criminals!
The supporters and endorsers of Measure B, with the exception of a few, were duped and mislead throughout the campaign. They believed that Measure B would not target the patients. They believed it was to assist the county in stopping large scale commercial growers. But now we know otherwise.
We need to stop the fighting and dividing and come together to find a common ground. Until that happens, patients need to stand up for their rights and speak out against those who wish to punish them for others' actions. Let your voice be heard!
Jeanette Bogue
Calpella
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Ukiah Daily Journal
Copyright: 2008 Ukiah Daily Journal
Contact: Contact Us - Ukiah Daily Journal
Website: No to Yes on B amendments - Ukiah Daily Journal
The Yes on B coalition repeatedly made statements and assurances during the campaign that they were not targeting medical marijuana patients; they were concerned with "large scale criminal grows." The measure passed in districts 1 & 2, and failed in districts 3, 4, and 5, passing in total by a mere 52 percent. Here is a direct quote from their Web site: "Measure B must pass by a large margin to send a message to our elected officials that marijuana must not be allowed to destroy the quality of life in Mendocino County and it will send a message to commercial marijuana growers that they are no longer welcome." But it didn't pass by a large margin. There was hardly a cut and dry winner, it was much closer than anyone expected. They wasted no time in setting up a "Yes on B hotline" so neighbors could "copy their complaint" to them and the Yes on B coalition would "follow up" on it to assure law enforcement was doing its job. But what they didn't realize is that law enforcement does not abate civil nuisance complaints.
The Plant limits in Measure B have been stayed per Judge Behnke's order dated August 8, 2008 in Laguna/Hanamoto v. Ranochack, and the only clear guidelines in Mendocino County are MCC 9.31. MCC 9.31 is a civil nuisance code. Violations of a civil nuisance code are handled in the planning and code enforcement departments, not by the sheriff's office.
The limits passed in Measure B are currently in limbo pending a decision by the California Supreme Court on whether or not to review the 2nd Appellate decision in People v. Patrick Kelly, a decision which ruled the limits set in SB 420 -- the same limits voted in by Measure B -- unconstitutional! Measure B plant limit enforcement is stayed until Judge Behnke lifts the order he signed August 8, 2008 in the Laguna/Hanamoto case, which challenges the constitutionality of the plant limits in Measure B. The Yes on B immediately sent out a press release stating their intentions to present their requested amendments to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.
Because plant limitations in Measure B are not in effect right now, and the Planning Department handles the preliminary steps of civil nuisance complaints, the Yes on B coalition has tried to come up with a way to change that by changing the process into a criminal investigation. They seek to reintroduce immediate plant eradication by sheriff's deputies. The civil nuisance abatement process can be lengthy, and the Yes on B coalition is not happy about that. Ross Liberty stated that by the time you could get a court order to enforce the abatement, the growers have already harvested. They prefer that deputies can come out, seize the plants, and arrest the patient. By the time the patient is through with court, possibly being successful in fighting the criminal charges, his or her medicine has been destroyed. They now want to make a violation of MCC 9.31 to include "off site" odor, "off site" visibility, and require all patients to have mandatory Sheriff-issued Zip Tags. By requiring all patients to obtain these zip tags; they are forcing patients to enroll in a voluntary ID card program. The only way you can obtain a zip tag is to possess a valid state-issued ID card from the health department. How can a low or fixed income patient afford to: 1) cultivate indoors if they live in the city, 2) pay for a State MMIC patient ID card, and 3) pay the as yet undetermined zip tag fee?
What is wrong with people? Where is the compassion? We are not talking about criminal growers, we are talking about patients!
Measure B was sold to voters by claiming to be targeting large scale criminal grows; it was successful in passing the repeal of Measure G. Now, the same people who said medical marijuana patients would not be harmed are coming for the patients! The last speaker, Mrs. Puterbaugh made statements that this is not about medicine this is about greedy growers, essentially calling all patients greedy criminals!
The supporters and endorsers of Measure B, with the exception of a few, were duped and mislead throughout the campaign. They believed that Measure B would not target the patients. They believed it was to assist the county in stopping large scale commercial growers. But now we know otherwise.
We need to stop the fighting and dividing and come together to find a common ground. Until that happens, patients need to stand up for their rights and speak out against those who wish to punish them for others' actions. Let your voice be heard!
Jeanette Bogue
Calpella
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Ukiah Daily Journal
Copyright: 2008 Ukiah Daily Journal
Contact: Contact Us - Ukiah Daily Journal
Website: No to Yes on B amendments - Ukiah Daily Journal
