Rx215.com Prop. 215 and SB-420 Online! We are patients helping patients!!
Showing posts with label marijuana. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marijuana. Show all posts
Sunday, September 10, 2017
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Speaking at a press conference with DEA administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General Eric Holder declared that ending medical marijuana raids
Speaking at a press conference with DEA
administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General
Eric Holder declared that ending medical
marijuana raids "is now American policy."
A reporter asked, "shortly after the
inauguration there were raids on California
medical marijuana dispensaries...do you expect
these to continue?", noting that the President
had promised to end the raids in the campaign.
Holder responded, "What the President said
during the campaign...is consistent with what we
will be doing here in law enforcement. He was my
boss in the campaign....He is my boss now. What
he said in the campaign is now American policy."
!!!
The question appears about 25 minutes into the
press conference, which was devoted to an
operation against the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821
administrator Michelle Leonhart, Attorney General
Eric Holder declared that ending medical
marijuana raids "is now American policy."
A reporter asked, "shortly after the
inauguration there were raids on California
medical marijuana dispensaries...do you expect
these to continue?", noting that the President
had promised to end the raids in the campaign.
Holder responded, "What the President said
during the campaign...is consistent with what we
will be doing here in law enforcement. He was my
boss in the campaign....He is my boss now. What
he said in the campaign is now American policy."
!!!
The question appears about 25 minutes into the
press conference, which was devoted to an
operation against the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Eddy Lepp Gets A Speedy Trial
Eddy Lepp Gets A Speedy Trial
Written by Vanessa Nelson
Thursday, August 28 2008
Eddy Lepp photo by Vanessa NelsonSAN FRANCISCO -- In an unanticipated turn of events, the bust of the world’s largest medical marijuana grow has developed into one of the shortest trials in federal court.
Opening arguments in the United States v. Charles “Eddy” Lepp were delivered yesterday morning to a freshly assembled jury. The judge gave her own speech as well, outlining the procedures in the trial, the elements of the charges, and various reflections on the importance of jury service. The government then proceeded to call all of its witnesses and present all of its exhibits. And when it was finally done, it was almost time for lunch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This approach is a novel one for the government. The prosecution in federal medical marijuana trials is typically vigorous, with witness testimony that spans a full week or more. With this case, however, it’s as though someone has suddenly pushed the turbo button.
The years of pre-trial legal wrangling weren’t exactly fast, but they did have plenty of twists and turns. For instance, Lepp came an inch shy of a key victory when the judge threw out the search warrant that was used against him in August 2004. The bubble burst on that hope, however, when the prosecutor successfully argued that law enforcement agents didn’t need a valid warrant to seize tens of thousands of plants from Lepp’s field. Deciding that issue alone took over a year and the testimony of several witnesses, those watching the case were expecting the same pace for the trial. Instead, the proceedings have whizzed by in a surreal blur.
According to the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hall, the reason for the acceleration is that the defense has stipulated two crucial facts: that the seized plants were marijuana and that they were grown on land owned by Lepp. Such stipulations remove the need for some witnesses, like those who testify about chains of evidence and laboratory test results. However, these omissions alone do not explain the brevity and the bareness of the government’s case. “We’ve boiled it down,” Hall explained to the jury during his opening statement. Indeed they have…and it seems that not much is left.
Hall’s case has focused almost entirely on the events of a single afternoon – August 9th, 2004 – when three local sheriffs took an impromptu joyride through Lepp’s field in the northern California town of Upper Lake. The sheriffs supposedly made the trip in order to observe the large marijuana crop that was said to be growing alongside Highway 20, but it ended up being much more than a quick drive. Things began to go awry when the little squad aroused the suspicions of onlookers, and it ended with the sheriffs claiming they were chased down and assaulted by people from Lepp’s property.
By all appearances, the sheriffs were mistaken for trespassers…and, as Hall described the incident, it was easy to understand why. After all, the sheriffs did enter Lepp’s property without permission, while out of uniform and riding in an unmarked truck. They proceeded to drive slowly down a private dirt road that ran along the perimeter of the field, visually appraising the crops as they went. They soon attracted shouted inquiries from people in the field, but the sheriffs simply ignored the questions put to them about who they were and why they were there. Two men in a sedan then started following them along the dirt road, eventually getting the truck to stop by passing it and then hitting their brakes. The sheriffs responded by leaping out of the truck with guns drawn, shouting, “Lake County Sheriff’s Department!” and ordering the sedan’s occupants down to the ground.
These two men were detained and promptly searched, and the examination turned up $1500 on the one named Dallas Nelson. According to Hall’s account, the wad of cash was causing Nelson’s pants to bulge out, but he told the sheriffs the money was for his monthly living expenses and not from marijuana. Hall didn’t suggest anything to contest this claim, nor did he present any witnesses who did so. Since the government is supposed to be proving a charge of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute, it looked to be something of a deficiency.
The missing parts of the government’s case became more and more conspicuous as the evidence was presented. The witness list consisted only of the three sheriffs who took the ill-fated ride through the field, and they all told similar versions of the events Hall described in his opening statement. These narratives even included repeated accounts of Lepp’s admission that the garden consisted of 18,000 plants for 2400 patients. In one scenario, such a statement might work against Lepp as a confession to distribution. However, it could also work in his favor as a covert, de facto defense to his charges. Either way, the government’s lackadaisical showing leaves the defense with plenty of room to maneuver.
Other than the blocked attempt to get a witness to estimate the monetary worth of the crop, the only other part of the government’s case that hinted at distribution was a snippet of conversation between Lepp and one of the sheriffs. It occurred after, as Hall put it, Lepp drove down from his house “almost like riding in on a white horse” to mediate the confrontation in his field.
Upon arriving at the scene, Lepp was greeted by Sergeant David Garzoli. The two men knew each other from prior association, and this opened the door for seemingly-casual smalltalk. Noticing renovations being made to Lepp’s house, Garzoli commented, “Business must be good, Eddy.”
The response that followed was repeated so frequently in pre-trial hearings that it coined a catch-phrase for the trial long before it ever got underway. “I’m rolling in it, Dave,” was Lepp’s much-quoted reply.
The defendant confirms the statement, but he claims that he made gestures suggestive of rolling a joint as he uttered the phrase. None of the government’s three witnesses mentioned this detail, however. Instead, the sheriffs chose to interpret the comment as Garzoli suggested, to mean that Lepp was “rolling in dough, rolling in money.”
When David Perry took the stand yesterday, he described being particularly dismayed at the idea that Lepp cold be profiting from marijuana sales. Perry, a 20-year employee of the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, was along for the ride to Lepp’s field on August 9th purely for the novelty of it. “Frankly, I had never seen a garden that large, and I was curious,” he testified about his reason for making the trip.
Perry recalled the claim about the marijuana being for 2400 patients, but reported becoming more cynical when he heard Lepp’s now-notorious comment to Garzoli. “I got the feeling he was a benevolent caregiver,” Perry said about Lepp. “Then, he seemed enthused about the money he was making.”
Defense Attorney Michael Hinckley photo by Vanessa NelsonHowever suggestive it may be, the “rolling in it” quote is ultimately an ambiguous line. It’s a shaky place for the government to hang its hat with regard to the distribution elements of the charges, and it does nothing to counter Lepp’s trial strategy. According to the opening statement made by defense attorney Michael Hinckley yesterday, Lepp should be acquitted of the charges against him because he was a step removed from the activities that took place on his property.
Lepp can’t be guilty of manufacturing marijuana or possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute, the defense’s theory argues, because he didn’t cultivate and he didn’t possess. The same concept applies to the second charge, which is conspiracy to distribute or to possess with the intent to distribute. If Lepp never intended to possess the marijuana, the defense posits, then he can’t be guilty of conspiring to do so.
Whether this approach turns out to be masterfully simplistic or blunderingly foolish depends to a large degree on the way that Lepp and his attorneys present their evidence. And, as it appears, the defense will be given wide latitude in the department of spin and rhetoric. For example, talk of medical marijuana in front of a federal jury often earns a defense attorney the stern admonishment that state laws are not to be mentioned in federal court. Hinckley’s opening statement, however, went without objection from the government as he wove an emotionally-rich story about his client’s experiences with the medical and sacramental marijuana.
As his starter, the defense attorney suggested that our adversarial system of justice is responsible for some tricky illusions. He compared it to asking a person to put his hand up in front of his face and then answer the question, “Do you see a hand?” While the obvious answer seems to be yes, Hinckley acknowledged, the real answer is that only half of a hand is seen…that is, until the hand is turned over to the other side. And, to bring the analogy all the way home, Hinckley clarified that when the defense presents its evidence, it will be like turning the hand over to the other side.
What the jurors will see on the other side, the defense attorney suggested, is a version of Eddy Lepp that’s different from the one depicted by the government. Hinckley promised to present a fully-disabled Vietnam veteran whose demons were so vicious that they couldn’t be helped by anything except religion. And the faith that helped his client, he revealed, was the Christian-based Caribbean religion of the Rastafarians. “The most well-known tenant of it is the sacramental use of marijuana,” Hinckley announced.
As the defense attorney told it, Lepp’s discoveries about medical marijuana overlapped his enlightenment about the spiritual uses of marijuana. “It was the only thing that brought solace to his father, who was dying of cancer,” Hinckley said. Lepp was also a keen observer of the way marijuana helped his wife Linda during her decade-long struggle with cancer, aiding her in ways that no other medicine could. After describing this to the jury, Hinckley noted Linda’s recent death with a tone of sorrow. From back at the defense table, Lepp drew a noticeably deep, loud breath in reaction to this topic.
Defense Attorney Michael Hinckley with Eddie Lepp photo by Vanessa Nelson
Going forward with his opening statement, Hinckley spoke at length about the church Lepp started. Earlier, the prosecutor had presented a gigantic blow-up of a photo of Lepp’s home, calling the exhibit a depiction of the cultivation site. Hinckley quickly approached the easel where it sat and began describing the poster-sized enlargement as a picture of the church. “They also opened their doors to drug addicts and the homeless,” Hinckley said of the ministry, then attempted again to weave the strands of medical and spiritual marijuana use. “Many of them were medical marijuana users as well,” he said of the church members.
The parishioners could grow their own sacrament, Hinckley continued, but the one thing they desperately needed was land. As the attorney told it, Lepp donated to the church by allowing its members to grow their sacrament on land he owned across the highway from his house. “The evidence will show it wasn’t Eddy’s marijuana, and he never possessed it,” Hinckley told the jury confidently, concluding his opening statement.
This was just a preview of Lepp’s disarmingly minimalist legal strategy, which will be brought to fulfillment later today. With the defendant himself on schedule to testify, the stakes are remarkably high. It will be Lepp’s one and only opportunity to convey himself emotionally to the jurors, and in a trial that has fed on speed and simplicity, such a connection could make all the difference in the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be first to comment this article
Written by Vanessa Nelson
Thursday, August 28 2008
Eddy Lepp photo by Vanessa NelsonSAN FRANCISCO -- In an unanticipated turn of events, the bust of the world’s largest medical marijuana grow has developed into one of the shortest trials in federal court.
Opening arguments in the United States v. Charles “Eddy” Lepp were delivered yesterday morning to a freshly assembled jury. The judge gave her own speech as well, outlining the procedures in the trial, the elements of the charges, and various reflections on the importance of jury service. The government then proceeded to call all of its witnesses and present all of its exhibits. And when it was finally done, it was almost time for lunch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This approach is a novel one for the government. The prosecution in federal medical marijuana trials is typically vigorous, with witness testimony that spans a full week or more. With this case, however, it’s as though someone has suddenly pushed the turbo button.
The years of pre-trial legal wrangling weren’t exactly fast, but they did have plenty of twists and turns. For instance, Lepp came an inch shy of a key victory when the judge threw out the search warrant that was used against him in August 2004. The bubble burst on that hope, however, when the prosecutor successfully argued that law enforcement agents didn’t need a valid warrant to seize tens of thousands of plants from Lepp’s field. Deciding that issue alone took over a year and the testimony of several witnesses, those watching the case were expecting the same pace for the trial. Instead, the proceedings have whizzed by in a surreal blur.
According to the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hall, the reason for the acceleration is that the defense has stipulated two crucial facts: that the seized plants were marijuana and that they were grown on land owned by Lepp. Such stipulations remove the need for some witnesses, like those who testify about chains of evidence and laboratory test results. However, these omissions alone do not explain the brevity and the bareness of the government’s case. “We’ve boiled it down,” Hall explained to the jury during his opening statement. Indeed they have…and it seems that not much is left.
Hall’s case has focused almost entirely on the events of a single afternoon – August 9th, 2004 – when three local sheriffs took an impromptu joyride through Lepp’s field in the northern California town of Upper Lake. The sheriffs supposedly made the trip in order to observe the large marijuana crop that was said to be growing alongside Highway 20, but it ended up being much more than a quick drive. Things began to go awry when the little squad aroused the suspicions of onlookers, and it ended with the sheriffs claiming they were chased down and assaulted by people from Lepp’s property.
By all appearances, the sheriffs were mistaken for trespassers…and, as Hall described the incident, it was easy to understand why. After all, the sheriffs did enter Lepp’s property without permission, while out of uniform and riding in an unmarked truck. They proceeded to drive slowly down a private dirt road that ran along the perimeter of the field, visually appraising the crops as they went. They soon attracted shouted inquiries from people in the field, but the sheriffs simply ignored the questions put to them about who they were and why they were there. Two men in a sedan then started following them along the dirt road, eventually getting the truck to stop by passing it and then hitting their brakes. The sheriffs responded by leaping out of the truck with guns drawn, shouting, “Lake County Sheriff’s Department!” and ordering the sedan’s occupants down to the ground.
These two men were detained and promptly searched, and the examination turned up $1500 on the one named Dallas Nelson. According to Hall’s account, the wad of cash was causing Nelson’s pants to bulge out, but he told the sheriffs the money was for his monthly living expenses and not from marijuana. Hall didn’t suggest anything to contest this claim, nor did he present any witnesses who did so. Since the government is supposed to be proving a charge of conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute, it looked to be something of a deficiency.
The missing parts of the government’s case became more and more conspicuous as the evidence was presented. The witness list consisted only of the three sheriffs who took the ill-fated ride through the field, and they all told similar versions of the events Hall described in his opening statement. These narratives even included repeated accounts of Lepp’s admission that the garden consisted of 18,000 plants for 2400 patients. In one scenario, such a statement might work against Lepp as a confession to distribution. However, it could also work in his favor as a covert, de facto defense to his charges. Either way, the government’s lackadaisical showing leaves the defense with plenty of room to maneuver.
Other than the blocked attempt to get a witness to estimate the monetary worth of the crop, the only other part of the government’s case that hinted at distribution was a snippet of conversation between Lepp and one of the sheriffs. It occurred after, as Hall put it, Lepp drove down from his house “almost like riding in on a white horse” to mediate the confrontation in his field.
Upon arriving at the scene, Lepp was greeted by Sergeant David Garzoli. The two men knew each other from prior association, and this opened the door for seemingly-casual smalltalk. Noticing renovations being made to Lepp’s house, Garzoli commented, “Business must be good, Eddy.”
The response that followed was repeated so frequently in pre-trial hearings that it coined a catch-phrase for the trial long before it ever got underway. “I’m rolling in it, Dave,” was Lepp’s much-quoted reply.
The defendant confirms the statement, but he claims that he made gestures suggestive of rolling a joint as he uttered the phrase. None of the government’s three witnesses mentioned this detail, however. Instead, the sheriffs chose to interpret the comment as Garzoli suggested, to mean that Lepp was “rolling in dough, rolling in money.”
When David Perry took the stand yesterday, he described being particularly dismayed at the idea that Lepp cold be profiting from marijuana sales. Perry, a 20-year employee of the Lake County Sheriff’s Department, was along for the ride to Lepp’s field on August 9th purely for the novelty of it. “Frankly, I had never seen a garden that large, and I was curious,” he testified about his reason for making the trip.
Perry recalled the claim about the marijuana being for 2400 patients, but reported becoming more cynical when he heard Lepp’s now-notorious comment to Garzoli. “I got the feeling he was a benevolent caregiver,” Perry said about Lepp. “Then, he seemed enthused about the money he was making.”
Defense Attorney Michael Hinckley photo by Vanessa NelsonHowever suggestive it may be, the “rolling in it” quote is ultimately an ambiguous line. It’s a shaky place for the government to hang its hat with regard to the distribution elements of the charges, and it does nothing to counter Lepp’s trial strategy. According to the opening statement made by defense attorney Michael Hinckley yesterday, Lepp should be acquitted of the charges against him because he was a step removed from the activities that took place on his property.
Lepp can’t be guilty of manufacturing marijuana or possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute, the defense’s theory argues, because he didn’t cultivate and he didn’t possess. The same concept applies to the second charge, which is conspiracy to distribute or to possess with the intent to distribute. If Lepp never intended to possess the marijuana, the defense posits, then he can’t be guilty of conspiring to do so.
Whether this approach turns out to be masterfully simplistic or blunderingly foolish depends to a large degree on the way that Lepp and his attorneys present their evidence. And, as it appears, the defense will be given wide latitude in the department of spin and rhetoric. For example, talk of medical marijuana in front of a federal jury often earns a defense attorney the stern admonishment that state laws are not to be mentioned in federal court. Hinckley’s opening statement, however, went without objection from the government as he wove an emotionally-rich story about his client’s experiences with the medical and sacramental marijuana.
As his starter, the defense attorney suggested that our adversarial system of justice is responsible for some tricky illusions. He compared it to asking a person to put his hand up in front of his face and then answer the question, “Do you see a hand?” While the obvious answer seems to be yes, Hinckley acknowledged, the real answer is that only half of a hand is seen…that is, until the hand is turned over to the other side. And, to bring the analogy all the way home, Hinckley clarified that when the defense presents its evidence, it will be like turning the hand over to the other side.
What the jurors will see on the other side, the defense attorney suggested, is a version of Eddy Lepp that’s different from the one depicted by the government. Hinckley promised to present a fully-disabled Vietnam veteran whose demons were so vicious that they couldn’t be helped by anything except religion. And the faith that helped his client, he revealed, was the Christian-based Caribbean religion of the Rastafarians. “The most well-known tenant of it is the sacramental use of marijuana,” Hinckley announced.
As the defense attorney told it, Lepp’s discoveries about medical marijuana overlapped his enlightenment about the spiritual uses of marijuana. “It was the only thing that brought solace to his father, who was dying of cancer,” Hinckley said. Lepp was also a keen observer of the way marijuana helped his wife Linda during her decade-long struggle with cancer, aiding her in ways that no other medicine could. After describing this to the jury, Hinckley noted Linda’s recent death with a tone of sorrow. From back at the defense table, Lepp drew a noticeably deep, loud breath in reaction to this topic.
Defense Attorney Michael Hinckley with Eddie Lepp photo by Vanessa Nelson
Going forward with his opening statement, Hinckley spoke at length about the church Lepp started. Earlier, the prosecutor had presented a gigantic blow-up of a photo of Lepp’s home, calling the exhibit a depiction of the cultivation site. Hinckley quickly approached the easel where it sat and began describing the poster-sized enlargement as a picture of the church. “They also opened their doors to drug addicts and the homeless,” Hinckley said of the ministry, then attempted again to weave the strands of medical and spiritual marijuana use. “Many of them were medical marijuana users as well,” he said of the church members.
The parishioners could grow their own sacrament, Hinckley continued, but the one thing they desperately needed was land. As the attorney told it, Lepp donated to the church by allowing its members to grow their sacrament on land he owned across the highway from his house. “The evidence will show it wasn’t Eddy’s marijuana, and he never possessed it,” Hinckley told the jury confidently, concluding his opening statement.
This was just a preview of Lepp’s disarmingly minimalist legal strategy, which will be brought to fulfillment later today. With the defendant himself on schedule to testify, the stakes are remarkably high. It will be Lepp’s one and only opportunity to convey himself emotionally to the jurors, and in a trial that has fed on speed and simplicity, such a connection could make all the difference in the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be first to comment this article
Sunday, August 24, 2008
DECISIONS FORCE NEW LOOK AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA
Pubdate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 Source: Ukiah Daily Journal, The (CA) Copyright: 2008 The Ukiah Website: http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/
http://www.mapinc.org/media/581 Referenced: People v. Kelly http://www.canorml.org/news/kellyruling.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Compassionate+Use+Act Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Mendocino+County Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
DECISIONS FORCE NEW LOOK AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA We understand why a local judge struck down the provisions of voter-approved Measure B limiting the number of plants a medical marijuana patient can grow. The California Appeals Court ruled in May that the six mature, 12 immature plant limit and the eight ounce dried marijuana possession limit were unconstitutional because the California Legislature had set the limits by legislation not voter initiative. Measure B's limits were based on the California state law. (The California Supreme Court has now decided to take up the question of the legality of these limits which were rejected a second time in another Appeals Court ruling in July.) Now, medical marijuana growing and possession goes back to the confusing and varied interpretations that existed before the state passed its regulations - regulations that were fervently sought by true medical marijuana patients in order to bring some order and protection to the 1996 initiative that was unfortunately very poorly worded. As of this moment, there are technically no limits on the number of medical marijuana plants a person can grow - but anything they grow has to be strictly for their own personal medical needs. That is the important distinction and one that local marijuana growers need to pay attention to. Unfortunately this ruling may encourage more of the commercial backyard growing we've seen from people who will assume that "no limits" means they can get away with anything. We hope that our Sheriff Tom Allman and District Attorney Meredith Lintott will make it clear in their actions that this local court ruling - and the ruling it stems from in People v. Kelly in the State Court of Appeals - still makes it clear that medical marijuana growing must be for personal medical use - and lacking any regulatory direction, not some conglomerate in San Francisco or dispensary in Ukiah. The courts ruled that the Compassionate Use Act does not limit a medical marijuana patient's growing allowance based on a doctor's recommendation. But it is also clear that those needs must be approved by a doctor and clearly defines "caregiver" as a person "designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person." We have long argued that the definition of caregiver from the CUA had been twisted out of all proportion and made mockery of the compassion California voters tried to extend to the truly sick and dying. We will see if the California Supreme Court agrees that regulating the CUA by legislation is constitutional. If not, the CUA will likely be scrutinized and perhaps amended by another voter initiative. If that happens, we believe it is time to set constitutional limits on the number of plants a medical marijuana patient can have, and provide a strict definition of caregiver, limiting that to one person, someone who is personally caring for the patient on a regular basis, not someone in Mendocino County growing 100 plants in their name. The Kelly decision - and the local decision based on it - should not be construed as an open door to more pot growing. These decisions should be viewed as restating the limits envisioned on medical marijuana when the voters passed the CUA, limits that have been ignored up and down the state and which have led voters even in this Emerald Triangle, to reject marijuana growing as greedy and dangerous to their communities.
http://www.mapinc.org/media/581 Referenced: People v. Kelly http://www.canorml.org/news/kellyruling.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Compassionate+Use+Act Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Mendocino+County Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
DECISIONS FORCE NEW LOOK AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA We understand why a local judge struck down the provisions of voter-approved Measure B limiting the number of plants a medical marijuana patient can grow. The California Appeals Court ruled in May that the six mature, 12 immature plant limit and the eight ounce dried marijuana possession limit were unconstitutional because the California Legislature had set the limits by legislation not voter initiative. Measure B's limits were based on the California state law. (The California Supreme Court has now decided to take up the question of the legality of these limits which were rejected a second time in another Appeals Court ruling in July.) Now, medical marijuana growing and possession goes back to the confusing and varied interpretations that existed before the state passed its regulations - regulations that were fervently sought by true medical marijuana patients in order to bring some order and protection to the 1996 initiative that was unfortunately very poorly worded. As of this moment, there are technically no limits on the number of medical marijuana plants a person can grow - but anything they grow has to be strictly for their own personal medical needs. That is the important distinction and one that local marijuana growers need to pay attention to. Unfortunately this ruling may encourage more of the commercial backyard growing we've seen from people who will assume that "no limits" means they can get away with anything. We hope that our Sheriff Tom Allman and District Attorney Meredith Lintott will make it clear in their actions that this local court ruling - and the ruling it stems from in People v. Kelly in the State Court of Appeals - still makes it clear that medical marijuana growing must be for personal medical use - and lacking any regulatory direction, not some conglomerate in San Francisco or dispensary in Ukiah. The courts ruled that the Compassionate Use Act does not limit a medical marijuana patient's growing allowance based on a doctor's recommendation. But it is also clear that those needs must be approved by a doctor and clearly defines "caregiver" as a person "designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person." We have long argued that the definition of caregiver from the CUA had been twisted out of all proportion and made mockery of the compassion California voters tried to extend to the truly sick and dying. We will see if the California Supreme Court agrees that regulating the CUA by legislation is constitutional. If not, the CUA will likely be scrutinized and perhaps amended by another voter initiative. If that happens, we believe it is time to set constitutional limits on the number of plants a medical marijuana patient can have, and provide a strict definition of caregiver, limiting that to one person, someone who is personally caring for the patient on a regular basis, not someone in Mendocino County growing 100 plants in their name. The Kelly decision - and the local decision based on it - should not be construed as an open door to more pot growing. These decisions should be viewed as restating the limits envisioned on medical marijuana when the voters passed the CUA, limits that have been ignored up and down the state and which have led voters even in this Emerald Triangle, to reject marijuana growing as greedy and dangerous to their communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)