Busted Phelan delivery service underscores need for mmj collective ordinance 2. St. Patty Dinner at High Desert

Hi Everyone,

Here's what's here.

1. Busted Phelan delivery service underscores need for mmj collective ordinance
2. St. Patty Dinner at High Desert MAPP meet
3. Radio show - Can Prop. 65 derail medical marijuana ?

Last Tuesday, a delivery service operated out of a small store in Phelan was
raided by San
Bernardino County Sheriff officers and two people were arrested including the
owner Kenneth
Elswick. Although it was a storefront, the collective was being operated as a
delivery service
and sales did not occur on the premises. Apparently, plants were being grown and
marijuana
processed which led to some complaints from neighboring businesses about the
odor that made its
way into their spaces.

A story put out by KABC news reported that "Authorities in San Bernardino County
said they are
aggressively cracking down on violators of a county moratorium against selling
marijuana."
Whether this is the start of a campaign to close down any and all collectives or
is an isolated
incidence of police responding to complaints of neighboring businesses remains
to be seen, but
it is all tied into the moribund medical marijuana collective ordinance that
should have been up
and running by now but hasn't even gotten to the starting gate.

The root of the problem is the inability of the SB Planning Department to
produce a draft
medical marijuana collective ordinance to submit to the Planning Commission -
the first step in
getting an ordinance that would license and regulate medical marijuana
collectives in the
unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County.

The March 2 rally at the SB Board of Supervisors meeting was all about getting
the moribund
ordinance resuscitated and moving forward again. At that meeting patients spoke
about their
frustrations with the halt in developing regulations so that they can have safe,
reliable and
local access. After the patients spoke, Dena Smith, head of the Dept. of Land
Use Services
informed the Board that there had been meetings and that progress was being
made.

This was news to all of us, so after the meeting a small group met for a short
discussion with
Ms. Smith who promised to call the following week with the information on the
meetings and what
was being done. When I spoke with Ms. Smith the following week she had now
decided that the
information relating to what meetings were held, who was there and what was
discussed was none
of the public's business.

The conversation continued to deteriorate from there and ended when she told me
to send her FAX.
At the end of this newsletter, you can get a sneak preview of the FAX that I
will be sending to
her and all the members of the Board of Supervisors on Monday. It will give you
a good overview
of just what is happening and the Alice-In-Wonderland menagerie the process has
turned into.

If you would like a first-hand account of the above, I will be at the High
Desert MAPP meeting
this Wednesday, March 17 to explain it all. But the major reason you want to
come to the meeting
is because there's more than just a meeting going on that day - there's going to
be a St.
Patty's Day celebration right along with it. That's right - celebrate whatever
it is that you
celebrate on St. Patty's Day with a fabulous Corned Beef and Cabbage Dinner with
all the fixins
available for just a paltry $2 dollar donation (but don't hesitate to fork over
more if you can
- it all goes to the cause). The dinner begins at 5 p.m. with the meeting
beginning at 6:30 p.m.


On Wednesday, March 17, come on down or up to (depending on where you are) and
join all the High
Desert folks for a St. Patty's Day Party as can only be celebrated at the famed
Castle Inn in
Landers. The Castle Inn is located 1388 N. Golden Slipper Lane, Landers 92285.

PROP. 65 AND MARIJUANA FOCUS OF RADIO SHOW

On June 19, 2009, the state of California added marijuana smoke to its Prop 65
list of chemicals
that are known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. When listed many
restrictions and
disclosure requirements come into play and this poses interesting questions on
the logistics
involved in the Prop 65 disclosure requirements

Are marijuana smokers going to have to put warnings on their cigarettes to warn
anyone who may
come in the vicinity of the smoke? What about people who use marijuana
prescribed for medicinal
purposes in their homes? Will they need a sign on their door warning anyone who
may come in? Are
these new changes going to affect California's other laws that currently
legalize marijuana
smoking for medical reasons?

Although the carcinogens formed when marijuana burns does produce known
carcinogenic products,
there has never been a study showing any relationship between smoking marijuana
and developing
cancer. In fact, there are a litany of studies that actually show smoking
marijuana can reduce
the likelihood of developing cancers.

This Monday's radio show will feature an interview with David Bush, a mmj
advocate who has
challenged the California Carcinogen Identification Committee, the group who
chooses what will
and will not be listed as carcinogenic, to justify their listing. It is a
convoluted process
that even surpasses SB County's contortions over their mmj collective ordinance.
Join me on Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense with David Bush and learn how
this may and will
affect you and what is being done about it. The show is interactive so if you
have any questions
or comments, please call them into the listener call-in number 888-909-1050.

Marijuana Compassion and Common Sense is heard this Monday, March 15 and every
Monday at 6:05
p.m. on Inland Empire Radio station KCAA 1050AM. It can be heard everywhere in
the western
Inland Empire from Ontario to Moreno Valley, the foothills to Lake Elsinore. If
you can't get it
on your radio - don't despair - you can get it on the Internet at
www.kcaaradio.com. Click on
LISTEN LIVE or you can see what's going on in the studio (sorry - it's nothing
like the Howard
Stern show) by clicking on KCAA TV.

That's it for this newsletter. The FAX to SB's Ms. Smith is below.

Lanny
760-799-2055

March 15, 2010

To: Dena Smith
Department of Land Use Services

From: Lanny Swerdlow

Subject: Medical Marijuana Collective ordinance staff meetings

This FAX contains 3 pages

Per your request near the end of our phone conversation on Friday, March 12, I
am sending you a
FAX with information and questions regarding three staff meetings that you
attended prior to the
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors meeting on March 2.


Medical marijuana patients attended the March 2 Board meeting because of the
no-end-in-sight
delay in drafting an ordinance to allow for medical marijuana collectives to
operate in the
unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County. Many of the cities in the county
are looking for
guidance on how to write and implement ordinances for their communities and the
delay in
drafting an ordinance causes delays throughout the rest of the county. This is
not in keeping
with the commitment made by San Bernardino County to follow and implement state
law following
the loss of their lawsuit to have Prop. 215 declared unconstitutional by the
U.S. Supreme Court
as well as in settlement of the San Bernardino Superior Court Case of Scott
Bledsoe vs. Jim
Lindley.

At a meeting on November 3, 2009 with Jim Squire, Judy Tatman, David Ward and
Trudy Raymundo,
patients and advocates were told that a draft ordinance should be ready in
January and submitted
to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. We were assured that we would
be kept in the
loop and informed of progress being made in the development of the ordinance.

No one from San Bernardino County contacted us about any delay in the process of
drafting the
ordinance so when January came and went with no draft ordinance, a number of
patients started
contacting me and the county wanting to know what was happening. Several spoke
with Ms. Tatman
in February and were informed that the delay had been caused by the inability of
the County
Counsel, District Attorney, Public Health and Planning to meet together at one
time. This was
confirmed by a phone conversation I had with Mr. Squire who now stated that he
had no idea when
any future meeting would take place or when a draft ordinance would be
available. He did state
that everyone is concerned about the current case of Qualified Patients
Association vs. City of
Anaheim now being heard by the 4th District Court of Appeals.

With a decision in that case expected by the end of April, I am now wondering if
the delay in
drafting the ordinance has occurred because some of the agencies involved are
waiting for the
4th District Court of Appeals to issue their ruling. If that is the reason for
the delay, then
please just say so. Sometimes I feel like we are being treated like little
children whose
concerns are trivialized while being patted gently on the head.

When patients brought the delay in the drafting of the ordinance to the
attention of the Board
of Supervisors at the March 2 meeting, you stated, in direct contradiction to
what patients had
been told, that a number of meetings had been held and that progress was being
made on the
ordinance. You did not elaborate on this and after the meeting in a short
discussion I had with
you, you stated you would contact me the following week with information on
these meetings.

When I spoke with you on the phone on Friday, you informed me that you had
personally attended
three meetings with County staff to discuss this issue. When I asked when these
meetings were,
who attended the meetings and what was discussed, you refused to provide that
information
stating that you felt this information was not needed by the public. I disagreed
and said this
information is critical and you agreed to provide additional information within
two weeks of
receipt of a FAX requesting this information.

As per your request, I am listing below the information I requested in our phone
conversation.

1. When were the three meetings held that you were in attendance at?
2. Where there any other meetings regarding the medical marijuana ordinance that
you were not in
attendance at?
3. Who was in attendance at the meetings you attended and at any meetings that
you did not
attend?
4. What was discussed at the meetings you attended and what decisions were made?
What was
discussed and what decisions were made at any meetings that you were not in
attendance at?
5. What is the projected time table for a draft ordinance to be written and
submitted to the
Planning Commission?

I regret that this has become so confrontational. I had thought patients had
established a good
working relationship with San Bernardino County and am disappointed that it has
come to the
point where I have to submit a list of questions to obtain information that
should have been
provided to us freely and openly as a matter of respect and good public policy.

I recognize that the Department of Land Use Services has many irons in the fire
that are of
greater importance than patient access to medicinal marijuana and that this may
be an
uncomfortable issue that many would rather just go away. Well, patients are not
going to go
away, so even though there are issues of greater concern, I find it hard to
believe that the
County can't find one person to coordinate a meeting for the involved County
Agencies so that
Ms. Tatman will have the information she needs to complete the ordinance.

With no ordinance on how medical marijuana is to be distributed, taxpayer money
that is
desperately needed for county services is being wasted as San Bernardino County
medical
marijuana patients and providers are still being arrested and prosecuted. On
Tuesday, March 9, a
medical marijuana delivery service in Phelan was raided by San Bernardino County
Sheriff's
officers and the operators arrested. The cost to county taxpayers of the arrest
and prosecution
of these individuals will most likely exceed $50,000.

KABC news reported the Phelan arrests in a story on Wednesday, March 10 noting
that "Authorities
in San Bernardino County said they are aggressively cracking down on violators
of a county
moratorium against selling marijuana." If this is indeed the policy of San
Bernardino County law
enforcement, how much more money must San Bernardino County continue to
hemorrhage while waiting
for an ordinance to be drafted.