San Bruno bans medical marijuana clubs until 2011


By Joshua Melvin
San Mateo County Times
Posted: 11/11/2009 06:53:26 PM PST
Updated: 11/11/2009 06:53:27 PM PST



SAN BRUNO —— City officials said they needed more time to decide
whether or not allow medical marijuana collectives in town and now they
won't have to consider the matter until 2011.

The City Council decided unanimously Tuesday night to extend a temporary
ban on the setting up of pot clubs in San Bruno to Sept. 25, 2011. Under
state rules, a first moratorium lasts a maximum of 45 days. But if a
City Council opts to extend the hold it jumps to 22 months and 15 days,
according to city documents. The council approved the first moratorium
last month.

"We just wanted a little more information," said Mayor-elect Jim Ruane.
"The idea is to be more well-informed."

Cities get to set the rules for owners who want to set up marijuana
clubs in their jurisdictions. And unlike San Mateo, South San Francisco
and San Mateo County, San Bruno does not have an ordinance governing the
opening of a medical pot collective. So when Pacifica resident Rich
Silva asked what he had to do to set up shop in the city, officials
began to look into it.

A collective is group of medical marijuana patients who provide each
other with medication. Medical marijuana users can possess up to eight
ounces of dried marijuana at a time, according to state rules.

Ruane said the council had questions on how a collective would effect
crime and what kind of people it would attract to the city.

According to a report prepared by Police Chief Neil Telford, a
collective would be bad for San Bruno and would likely increase the
demand for police services.

He listed several incidents in which officers had raided indoor pot
farms in the city as well as several marijuana-related robberies over
the past three years.

Silva did not immediately respond to phone calls seeking comment
Wednesday.

But previously he said a collective would provide the city with
additional tax revenue and jobs.

He said he has private financing and his backers are ready to buy a
building in the city as soon as they get approval to open their doors.

San Bruno's location between San Francisco and the rest of the Peninsula
make it an ideal spot to open, he said.



http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_13766517

New group formed to regulate medical marijuana


written by: Jeffrey Wolf
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=126826&catid=346Dat\
e last updated: 11/11/2009 10:17:41 PM



DENVER - Medical marijuana advocates have established a new business
association designed to regulate Colorado's growing medical marijuana
industry.

Organizers announced the formation of the Colorado Wellness Association
Wednesday morning at Full Spectrum Laboratories in Denver.

The group says it wants to give the state's medical marijuana community
a unified voice while working with local businesses, law enforcement and
the general public to regulate medical marijuana.

"We hope to create some labeling requirements; some quality control.
This is going to be a self-regulating group. We're going to police our
own industry and we're going to hope to police it well so the government
doesn't come in and do it for us," Robert Corry, Jr., with the Colorado
Wellness Association, said.

The Colorado Wellness Association says it plans to outline a standard of
ethical business practices for caregivers as well as establish a
standard of care that patients can expect from their providers.


http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=126826&catid=346

Still no timeline for medical marijuana dispensary's 'cease and desist'


11/11/09
3:25 PM

By Jonathan Partridge



Gilroy city officials have not yet issued a cease and desist order
against a local marijuana dispensary, and Sgt. Kurt Ashley said he did
not know when it would be delivered.

City Manager Tom Haglund said Tuesday evening that he expected a cease
and desist order to be issued against MediLeaf - a medical marijuana
dispensary that popped up Monday night at 1321 First St. without the
city's permission - within 24 hours.

However, Ashley said he is not sure what a cease and desist order would
entail.

"These aren't that common," Ashley said.

City attorney Linda Callon was still drafting the document as of 2:40
p.m., he said.

The store opened between Rock Zone and Andtdawg Universal Strength
Headquarters, surprising city officials after the City Council had
denied an ordinance that would have allowed it to operate under certain
conditions.

City officials met to discuss the dispensary on Tuesday afternoon, and
Police Chief Denise Turner noted before the meeting that the business
had not obtained a business license and that Gilroy's City Council
turned down an ordinance that would regulate such businesses and allow
them to legally exist. In addition, the city building department did not
issue a building permit for interior construction work at the
dispensary, city building department staff said.

Dispensary Co-director Batzi Kuburovich said Monday that his attorney
advised him that the dispensary could operate without a business license
because it was a nonprofit.

"That's not correct," Turner said, adding that the dispensary is
"illegal."

All nonprofits must go through the licensing process just like any other
business, though they are not charged fees, Sgt. Kurt Ashley said. In
addition to licensing issues, the city will also consider whether
MediLeaf's operations constitute illegal drug sales, he said.

Dozens of people, including many Gilroy residents, showed up to the
clinic on Monday, and even more came on Tuesday as word began to get out
about the dispensary. Members and potential members complained of
ailments ranging from pain surrounding amputated limbs to anxiety.

Many of them said they were happy to see a dispensary opening in Gilroy
to prevent them from traveling to Santa Cruz or Oakland for cannabis.

Gilroy resident Robert Vaca said he suffers from back spasms and he is
glad to have the dispensary in town.

"The medicine is just so much better than what you get from the doctor,"
he said, referencing other painkillers, such as Vicodin.

Vaca said he does not have to increase dosages with cannabis as he does
with other painkillers and that the dispensary staff treated him with
respect.

Kelley-Jo Wendlandt, a MediLeaf member who volunteers at the dispensary,
said she has undergone four back surgeries for spinal disorders,
including botched operation. As a result, she has used medical marijuana
for the past nine years and has traveled to dispensaries as far as
Oakland.

"They're doing everything right," she said of MediLeaf. "There have been
a couple of places in Oakland that I didn't think were right at all."

Neighboring businesses this week had mixed reviews. Staff members at
Togo's Eatery and Rock Zone both said Monday that they were happy to see
the dispensary open, touting its medicinal value for patients.

However, Anthony Figueroa, owner of Antdawg's Universal Strength
Headquarters, a martial arts studio that stands next to the dispensary,
said he thinks the dispensary should move next to other pharmacies. Both
he and his brother Angel, who co-owns the business, said several
children belong to their martial arts studio, and they thought the
dispensary was a bad fit for the area. The Figueroas also complained of
particularly young-looking people walking into the dispensary. They
would likely move their business elsewhere if MediLeaf stays in the
shopping center.

Owners of First Street Coffee House also were not enthused.

"I'm not a fan," said Kassi Thomas, whose parents John and Konni Thomas
own the business. "I'm not happy about it. I think it's pretty rude that
they opened without the city's (approval.)"

Konni Thomas said she understands that medical marijuana can help people
such as cancer patients. However, she thought there was a better
location for the dispensary, and she was concerned about its potential
clientele.

"This parking lot has a bad history of drug dealing," she said.

Although many residents who showed up at the dispensary on Tuesday said
they patronized the cooperative solely to help with medical ailments, a
few teenagers - at least one of whom claimed to have no medical problems
at all - were scoping out the store.

As Rock Zone manager Cassie Lopez explained the differences between
medical cannabis and street-bought marijuana, 16-year-old Jeremiah Loyd
proclaimed, "It's the same thing, though - bud's bud."

Loyd had previously entered the front lobby of the dispensary, and he
was flipping through a copy of a magazine and looking at a picture of an
EZ Grow Mushroom Kit as he stood in Rock Zone. Lopez kicked him out of
the store following his comment.

Loyd and his friend, 18-year-old Edwin Dominguez, said they checked out
the inside of the dispensary, but they did not become members.

They said they advised MediLeaf staff to have a menu of their marijuana
options.

Dominguez believed he would be able to obtain a card because he was 18,
although he said he does not suffer from any ailments.

MediLeaf staff members have maintained that only adults with a doctors
note will be able to apply for membership at the cooperative.

Gilroy-based Enterprise Protective Services is providing security for
the clinic, and sales director Miriam Vega said staff will aim to
prevent loitering in the parking lot and prevent problems with any
protesters who might show up. Security measures included 16 cameras and
patrol units, she and Kuburovich said.

Eric Madigan, who is serving as the dispensary's ombudsman and is
handling its security issues, said cities cannot keep up with changes in
the industry.

The American Medical Association this week urged federal officials to
reconsider marijuana's classification as an illegal controlled substance
to allow for clinical research and the use of cannabis-based medicines,
he said.

MediLeaf is working out business license issues, Madigan said, telling a
potential member that the business license was a matter for "technocrats
and bureaucrats to work out."

Still, Haglund said the dispensary must adhere to all federal, state and
city laws, and he said the situation in Gilroy is similarly to one in
the city of Claremont. In that case, a state appellate court ruled in
the city's favor after a dispensary chose to operate without a business
license.

"Unfortunately, (MediLeaf) is an illegally operating business at this
time," Haglund said.

What's is the dispensary like?

After entering the business's glass front door into a sterile lobby
devoid of furniture except for a chair facing a window and counter,
clients pass through another door into a waiting area lined with several
chairs. There, they fill out a clipboard of paperwork, receive an oral
briefing by Kuburovich on the rules and regulations of medical
marijuana, and are searched by a security guard with a metal-detecting
wand. Clients are escorted through two more doors before entering a
large room lined on one wall with a glass counter topped with several
varieties of cannabis - some of the 31 different types the dispensary
sells, Kuburovich said.

What does the law say?

State law permits medical marijuana dispensaries but federal law
prohibits cannabis across the board. Without a local law, City Attorney
Linda Callon said last month that staff are unable to process MediLeaf's
business application. The applicants had argued they deserve due process
in front of the planning commission, which can impose project-specific
conditions on unorthodox business applications.

One of many cases winding its way through state courts came from the
Second District Court of Appeals last month. The court upheld a
Claremont city ban on dispensaries, a move which suggests cities can bar
citizens from setting up shops that are specifically permitted by state
laws. In addition, the Los Angeles County District Attorney announced
last month that prosecutors would pursue hundreds of "over the counter"
collectives in the area that exchange marijuana for cash - a sticky
situation Santa Clara County Deputy District Attorney Steve Lowney told
the council it should avoid by working with District Attorney Dolores
Carr on any proposed ordinance.

While the proposed ordinance would have regulated store hours, security
requirements and products, council members said they were swayed to vote
against it by an outpouring of e-mails and phone calls from
constituents. They also expressed concerns of a dispensary inviting
legal interference from above.

---
Reporter Sara Suddes contributed to this article.

Jonathan Partridge covers community issues for The Dispatch, including
City Hall and public safety. Reach him at 847-7109 or e-mail him at
jpartridge@....



http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/260854-still-no-timeline-for-medical-\
marijuana-dispensarys-cease-and-desist

Marijuana CLE Lawyer: `Let's Not Let Our Clients Be Weakest Ibex
In Herd'


Posted on 11 November 2009

By Ali McNally
LAW WEEK COLORADO



DENVER — Court rulings and promised legislation have complicated
Colorado's medical marijuana law, prompting the Colorado Bar
Association today to hold a discussion on the dichotomy of state and
federal regulations.

Dubbed "Medical Marijuana: Legal Chaos," Colorado defense
lawyers Leonard Frieling and Ann Toney gave advice about zoning,
definitions and technicalities that often get caregivers and patients
alike in legal trouble. The CLE was a prequel to a longer session
planned for Feb. 17 that will look more in-depth at medical marijuana
issues.

"It's really a chaotic situation because no one knows where
we're going with anything concerning medical marijuana," said
CBA program attorney Priscilla Fulmer. "It became such a hot topic
lately that we weren't sure if the public could wait until February
to discuss it. We figured we could use this to touch the high points and
learn what people were most concerned about."

One of the hot issues was how to keep medical marijuana dispensaries and
caregivers in line with the federal government.

"The more [dispensaries look like business, the more the feds, I
think, will less likely go after them," Frieling said.

Highlighting a decision this week from Denver District Chief Judge Larry
Naves, who threw out the state board of health's emergency changes
on the definition of "caregiver," Toney clarified the difference
between medical marijuana caregivers and dispensaries. While caregivers
may cultivate and sell to dispensaries, dispensaries "may only act
as a storefront" to sell to patients, she said.

The event sold out at 120 people in the room and 143 people through a
webinar. Of those in attendance were lawyers, business owners, growers
and politicians.


http://www.lawweekonline.com/?p=1866

Medical marijuana clubhouse sought in Thetford Township


By The Flint Journal
November 11, 2009, 6:00PM



THETFORD TOWNSHIP, Michigan — A cancer survivor wants to open a
medical marijuana clubhouse in Thetford Township.

Jessie Alvarado, 53, has plans to open a gathering place for marijuana
patients and caregivers at Frances Road and Dort Highway.

Township officials, however, want more time before giving him an answer.

"I am personally not in favor of (medical marijuana)," said
Township Supervisor Clyde Howd. "But I want to make sure that we, as
a township, are going to be fair to any resident in our township that
has this condition and has the right to use medical marijuana."

Alvarado said he wants to protect people who use marijuana to treat
medical conditions.

He spent a year on probation after a 2005 marijuana bust that he said
happened while he was undergoing chemotherapy for liver and pancreatic
cancer.

"I want to put an umbrella over patients so they don't fall
victim (to police)," said Alvarado.

Alvarado said he initially wanted to open a medical marijuana dispensary
in the township but those are illegal.

He said he plans to apply for township approval of his clubhouse in
January.

Medical marijuana has become a controversial topic for communities
around the state after voters passed a law last year making the drug
legal for people with conditions such as cancer and chronic pain.

Genesee Township recently gave the go-ahead to a medical marijuana
clubhouse at Center and Richfield roads.

Howd, however, worries about potential safety concerns with such a place
and said patients might drive away from a clubhouse still under the
influence of marijuana.

Township Attorney Robert Swartwood, however, said the township could
open a can of worms and open itself to a lawsuit if it puts too many
regulations on such a clubhouse.

"This is a tough one because the people in the state of Michigan put
it on a ballot and voted for it," Swartwood said. "Those type of
laws get interpreted a little bit different when you've got people
telling you that this is what they want, and then you have some small
political division trying to regulate or control it — you see where
this can go."

Swartwood said there aren't enough legal opinions on the books about
the issue and said the state's attorney general has not weighed in
on the matter.

"I'm just very fearful that if we put any kind of restriction in
place at this point," Swartwood said. "I think we need to
proceed very cautiously."

The Township Board voted unanimously Monday to have Swartwood and
township Police Chief Bob Kenny study the issue and report their
findings to the board at a later date.


http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/11/post_60.html

Judge rules in favor of dispensary in eviction case


By ERIKA I. RITCHIE
2009-11-11 16:09:46



LAKE FOREST – Officials representing a medical marijuana collective
say they have scored a victory in their battle with the city to stay in
business.

David Welch, an attorney with Earth Cann Wellness Center, said that
Superior Court Judge Corey S. Cramin found that Earth Cann was not in
violation of the city's zoning laws and ordered an effort by Earth
Cann's landlord Olen Properties to evict the dispensary to be stopped.

"They found we are not in violation of the municipal code," Welch said
of the Nov. 5 ruling. "It adds a lot to the suit we have saying that
private entities, in this case, Olen, are being forced to act on behalf
of the city. It's a victory for us. Not only does it allow Earth Cann to
continue to operate and supply its member with medication but it also
sheds a light on the improper acts of certain city officials."

Lake Forest City Attorney Scott Smith does not interpret the ruling the
same way.

"The judge found it premature to reach any conclusion regarding the
illegitimacy of activities under the municipal code," he said.
"Regardless of the outcome in the landlord tennant case, the city fully
expects to close Earth Cann."

On Oct. 29, Earth Cann filed the lawsuit against the city and its
landlord saying the city's efforts to prohibit a legally operating
dispensary violates state law. The suit also contended that the city is
forcing the landlord to act on its behalf in pursuing eviction of the
dispensary.

The lawsuit was filed in response to the city's efforts to close
dispensaries and the landlord's efforts to evict Earth Cann, Welch said.

Lake Forest is currently seeking, through court action, to close at
least 21 medical marijuana dispensaries in the city, including Earth
Cann.

The Earth Cann lawsuit stated that the city's efforts through its
municipal code and specific ordinance to prohibit medical marijuana
dispensaries in the city conflict with state law.

"The California Constitution prohibits cities from delegating their
responsibilities on private parties," said Welch. "Here the city is
interfering with Olen Properties to get rid of something they perceive
to be a problem."

Welch said it is the collectives' goal to have Lake Forest set up
regulations for the dispensaries that are consistent with state law.



http://www.ocregister.com/news/city-218944-cann-earth.html

Council Ready To Stir Pot Regs


By Kurt Helin
Editor
Published: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 1:37 PM PST



      City Council members took steps — at times confusing, complex
steps — toward putting restrictions on medical marijuana collectives
that have started to spring up all over Long Beach.

      The end result is that in about a month, City Attorney Robert
Shannon will come back with a new draft ordinance for the City Council
to debate, along with a matrix of the myriad of suggestions by council
members on things that could be added or subtracted from the ordinance.

      Tuesday night's debate had some council members seeking enough
restrictions to make it almost impossible to open a medical marijuana
collective in the city. Others said this is medicine and should be
allowed the same way drug stores are.

      But with council members hearing complaints from residents about the
increase in medical marijuana storefronts — and with an election
five months away — most seemed like they wanted to do something.

      "Not all the collectives have been great neighbors…" said
First District Councilman Robert Garcia. "If they are a nuisance,
then they need to be dealt with as a nuisance."

      However, a number of opponents of the ordinance suggested that the
City Council was going too far with the limits.

      "(The draft ordinance) does appear to be quite onerous, more so
than faces any other business in the city," said Naples Attorney
Richard C. Brizendine, who represents the Belmont Shore Natural Care
center.

      Council members worked off a draft ordinance presented by Shannon.
The second draft will include a number of features:

      • Storefronts would need to be in commercial or industrial areas
and not within 1,000 feet of a school, child care facility or another
medical marijuana collective (and 1,500 feet from a high school). Also,
the facilities could only operate from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.

      • There would be a cap on the number of collectives allowed in
the city, and possibly restrictions on how many per council district so
certain areas do not end up with an over concentration.

      • The collectives would need to register with the city of Long
Beach for a license, something they do not have to do now.

      • To get that license, they would have to provide the city with
the names of members of the collective. However, the council wanted a
way to protect the privacy and names of the patients. This was one of
the most contentious issues, and something opposed by collective members
and operators.

      • An Administrative Use hearing, which would allow the city
flexibility in adding conditions would be required. The results of that
hearing could be appealed to the City Council.

      • There would be limits on how much marijuana could be on site,
but edible products with marijuana in them could be sold.

      • Other potential restrictions include concerns about odor from
the locations, allowing time for the existing collectives to become
legal in the city if the owner so wishes, and more.

      That draft will be back before the City Council in about one month,
likely for considerably more discussion.



http://www.gazettes.com/articles/2009/11/11/community_news/doc4afb26e6d4\
d3b882565814.txt

For your reading, one of about 30 patents on cannabinoids that are owned
by the US government. You never hear them cite any of these in their
propoganda war against marijuana.


Peace

brett


US Patent 6630507 - Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

US Patent Issued on October 7, 2003

Estimated Patent Expiration Date: Icon_subject February 2, 2021

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated
to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids
useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation
associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and
autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular
application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological
damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the
treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such
as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid
toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high
doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular
disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants
is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the
group consisting of H, CH3, and COCH3. ##STR1##


http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html

Dope deliberations

Civil Grand Jury appears to be investigating local medi-pot system


By Dave Maass
Published: 11/10/2009



While medical-marijuana opponents have District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis
leading their posse, San Diego's safe-access community has once
again turned to the San Diego County Civil Grand Jury to investigate the
government on its behalf.

At least two complaints have been filed with the official body that
investigates local government on behalf of citizens, and CityBeat has
confirmed the jury has called at least one medical-cannabis supporter in
for an interview. Badge-bearing jury members reportedly have been
spotted in the audience at the city of San Diego's Medical Marijuana
Task Force meetings.

Grand Jury proceedings are confidential, and foreperson Victoria
Stubblefield could not confirm what the jury was investigating.

Patient and aspiring collective operator Marcus Boyd provided CityBeat
with a copy of the complaint he filed with the jury within days of the
Sept. 9 raids of 14 dispensaries in San Diego County. Boyd specifically
targets Dumanis, accusing her of using "televised shock and awe
enforcement tactics to effectively harass and terrorize the seriously
ill and dying patients."

Boyd received a letter acknowledging the jury received his complaint but
has not been contacted since. Attorney and Southern California NORML
board member Mara Felsen told CityBeat she accompanied another
complainant to jury interviews, though she was not allowed to sit in.

Unlike Boyd's targeted attack on Dumanis, Felsen said her client was
posing more of a "policy issue and a question."

"How is one to know what is legal and illegal, what dispensaries can
do and what they can't do?" Felsen said. "These are very
clear, very basic questions of law. If an agency is enforcing the law,
the law has to be clear so the public can follow it. Otherwise, it
violates the due-process laws of the Constitution."

In 2005, the jury concluded a previous investigation into
medical-marijuana policy with a 58-page document slamming the county for
doing "absolutely nothing" to promulgate protocols and
procedures for providing patients with safe access to cannabis. Although
the jury has subpoena powers, its findings—which can take a year to
complete—have no enforcement teeth.

"We make recommendations and then, of course, [it's up to]
public pressure to implement those recommendations," Stubblefield
said.  "We have found the people in the city and county are good
people who want to make agencies more successful and work better for the
community and the citizens, and there's an effort to bring positive
change. That's what it's about: good positive change."

In the meantime, Boyd is stoking the pressure with a new website,
bonniedamantis.wordpress.com, which includes a clearinghouse of legal
information, the "San Diego Electronic Prohibition Tracking &
Information Collection System."

"The SEPTIC system was born out of the need to provide the
medical-marijuana community with a central location to track the efforts
to deny safe access in San Diego  County," Boyd said.

---
Would you like your online comment to be considered for publication in
our print edition? Include your true full name and neighborhood of
residence.



http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/dope_deliberations/8675/

The phones were buzzing at a recent medical marijuana hearing


published: November 12, 2009



What happens when the state decides to hold a last-minute meeting on a
controversial topic like medical marijuana, then tries to hold it via a
conference call using technology that apparently no one knows how to
work? Comic genius.

The November 3 teleconference's official transcript reveals the chaos
and confusion among those who attended the packed meeting at the office
of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. While the
public was invited to call in and listen to the hearing, it turns out
that no one flicked the right switch or toggled the right doohickey to
make sure the listeners were put on mute. Instead, everyone was allowed
to comment freely over the phone during the meeting — and comment
they did.

The resulting transcript (unedited excerpts follow; see the entire thing
on the Latest Word blog at westword.com -
http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e6/4084788.0.pdf ) reads straight out of
Cheech and Chong Go to Washington. — Joel Warner

UNID MALE: There's about 200 people in this building. Oh, yeah. It's a
madhouse.

UNID MALE 2: (indiscernible) last night.

UNID MALE: (indiscernible) of medical marijuana. You guys will never be
able to (indiscernible) ever. You are way too big.

UNID MALE 2: (indiscernible) laxative.

UNID MALE: Forty million marijuana smokers in America. Gimme a break.
(Simultaneous conversation)

UNID MALE 2: Hey, man. (indiscernible) you need to put your phone on
mute. I know everyone in that room can hear what you're saying, so put
your phone on mute.

UNID MALE 3: We're trying to take a roll call of the board.

UNID MALE: He's going to get the roll call (indiscernible) roll call
(indiscernible).

UNID MALE 2: I got instructions...

UNID FEMALE: We can't hear you. It sounds like three other people have
joined.

UNID MALE: I can hear.

UNID FEMALE 2: We're going to have two separate call lines going. So
some of the beeping that you're hearing is the line that you're not on.

UNID FEMALE 3: I got in.

UNID MALE: (Indiscernible) it's on.

UNID MALE 2: What?

UNID MALE: We're fine here. (indiscernible) everybody else. We know
we've (indiscernible) we're going to (indiscernible) everybody else.

UNID FEMALE: On the conference call, please mute your phones and take
them off speaker phone now.

(Simultaneous conversation)

UNID MALE: (indiscernible) relationship (indiscernible) barbecues every
couple of months. I mean —

UNID MALE 2: Shut up.

UNID MALE: — we do it the way they want it, but —

UNID MALE 3: Whoever is having the conversation about barbecues, your
phone is not on mute. Respect —

LATER IN THE CONVERSATION:

They defined managed as to direct, control, govern, administer, oversee.
The Court also (indiscernible) —

(Music playing)

UNID MALE: Hello. What's going on?

UNID FEMALE: The music, please.

UNID FEMALE 2: Turn that off.

UNID MALE: Somebody has on music. Please turn the music off.

UNID MALE 2: Mute the phone.

UNID MALE: They're going to have to put us all on hold.

(Music playing)

UNID MALE: Hey, idiot with the music, turn it off.

UNID FEMALE: Get rid of the music now.

UNID MALE 2: Can we please get that person off of this call?

UNID MALE: Dude, mute the phone!

UNID FEMALE: This is the most important part of this.

(Music playing)

UNID FEMALE: Is it possible for the moderator to respond?

UNID MALE: There is no moderator. That's why they call this chaos.

UNID FEMALE: I don't think (indiscernible) this music on.

UNID MALE 2: This person is in violation of the law, and in
(indiscernible) —

(Simultaneous conversation)

UNID MALE 2: — the notice. Turn off the music.

(Music playing)

UNID MALE 2: This is a violation of the law. You are violating public
(indiscernible) rules (indiscernible). Turn off your phone and music
now.

LATER IN THE CONVERSATION:

JAN: — regarding 5 C.C.R. 1006-2, regulation 2, definitions,
submitted by Robert J. Corey, Attorney at Law, November 3rd —

(Simultaneous conversation)

JAN: — the proposed —

UNID MALE: Mute your got-damn phone.

JAN: — (indiscernible) is —

UNID FEMALE: Hello.

(Simultaneous conversation)

JAN: — three. And it reads significant responsibility for managing
the well-being of the patient means —

JAN: — more than merely supplying a patient (indiscernible) —

UNID MALE: Shut up about your fucking mango.

LATER IN THE CONVERSATION:

G. SCHLABS: Are there other questions or comments from the board, Karen?

(Simultaneous conversation)

UNID MALE: Legalize it.

K. MULCH: No, there is not.

UNID MALE: Legalize it.

UNID MALE 2: Shut up.

G. SCHLABS: I'd like to thank you all for (indiscernible). And
(indiscernible) any objections (indiscernible), we're adjourned.

(Simultaneous conversation)

UNID MALE: Legalize it.

(Simultaneous conversation)

(Recording ends)


http://www.westword.com/2009-11-12/news/the-phones-were-buzzing-at-a-rec\
ent-medical-marijuana-hearing

A story that ran this morning on Los Angeles TV station KTLA, channel 5
-


KTLA: AMA Calls For Medical Pot Review, Marie Mortera Reports (03:45)


http://www.ktla.com/videobeta/watch/?watch=3a716d2a-25c7-471c-b332-772a6\
e20e483&src=front


Peace

brett

Council votes to deny pot permit appeal

Going the easy route, the council votes to "oppose" cat
declawing, rather banning it.


Published: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 11:04 AM PST

By Olivia Damavandi / Assistant Editor



After Sharon Barovsky and Jefferson Wagner were sworn in as the new
mayor and mayor pro tem, respectively, the city council at its Monday
night meeting voted to deny medical marijuana dispensary Green Angel's
appeal for a conditional use permit. The council also considered changes
regarding temporary use permitting, which could impact the possibility
of lighting on Malibu High School's football field.

In addition, the council also voted to schedule the adoption of an
ordinance to create landscape water conservation standards, and adopted
a resolution opposing the declawing of cats within the city.

The application by Green Angel requested a CUP to allow its continued
operation in an existing commercial building located at 21355 Pacific
Coast Highway near the old Malibu Courthouse. It also requested a
variance to allow it to operate within a 1,000-foot radius of Las Flores
Canyon Park.

Though current city law allows a maximum of three medical marijuana
dispensaries, the council passed a distance ordinance earlier this year
that prohibits any dispensaries from setting up shop within a 1,000-foot
radius of parks, places of religious affiliation and schools, among
other locations. When the city originally approved the operation of
Green Angel approximately a year and a half ago, the distance ordinance
did not exist.

Green Angel attorney Steve Schectman argued that, if calculated over the
mountain ridge and houses that lie between, the dispensary's distance
from the park is less than 1,000 feet, but if one drove to the park, the
distance would be further. But the council disagreed, and even
considered allowing only one dispensary within city limits after Hap
Henry, Malibu High School student body president, said medical marijuana
is infiltrating the school and harm ing the students.

Councilmember says buy earplugs for night games

Henry, along with MHS parents, also voiced his support for temporary
lights to be permitted for night games when the council agreed to
consider potential changes to the Local Coastal Plan, and directed the
Planning Commission to schedule a public hearing regarding the matter.

The California Coastal Commission last month voted to deny the school
district's request for temporary lights during football games because,
among other reasons, it is not allowed in the city's LCP. The city
council voted a few days later to start an expedited process to get that
feature of the LCP changed. Any change to the LCP would have to be
approved by the Coastal Commission.

But numerous residents who live near the school's field protested the
use of any lights at all due to noise, environmental and other concerns.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, a Point Dume resident used to hearing
peacocks in the middle of the night, said many of things in the
community make noise, and recommended that those opposed to occasional
night games invest in a pair of earplugs.

The council then voted to pass a resolution opposing, rather than
banning, the declawing of cats within the City of Malibu after Barovsky
and Conley Ulich referenced contradictory statistics about the practice
from various sources.

The resolution does not prohibit the declawing as originally intended by
Conley Ulich. Instead, it states that they recommend the procedure only
be used as a last resort and only to save a cat's life. The issue of
declawing is highly controversial. Some call it a cruel mutilation while
others see it as a simple solution to a cat that insists on scratching
up the house. Veterinarians say there are many alternatives to
declawing, such as training cats to use a scratching post. But there
have also been cases where multiple efforts have been made and the owner
is faced with the decision to declaw, abandon or euthanize the cat.

Lastly, the council voted to schedule the adoption of an ordinance to
create landscape water conservation standards at its Nov. 23 meeting.
The ordinance is proposed to comply with the Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act of 2006, and to add an outdoor water use reduction
component to the city's green building and sustainability program.

It includes landscape and irrigation design standards that provide for
the following: water conservation by the appropriate use and groupings
of plants; limitations on the amount and locations that turf can be
used; water budget calculations that establish the maximum amount of
water to be applied through the irrigation system; automatic irrigation
systems and irrigation schedules based on climatic conditions, terrains
and soil types and other environmental conditions; and onsite soil
assessment and soil management plans to promote healthy plant growth and
prevent excessive erosion and runoff, among others. Costs for
administering the proposed ordinance would be recovered through
collection of established permit fees.


http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2009/11/11/news/news6.txt

Talk about putting the "j" back in Tejas. LOL. Enjoy. Peace ---brett


Edinburg Police Foiled In Attempt To Give Pot To State Prison Inmates,
Apparently


By Richard Connelly
Wed., Nov. 11 2009 @ 1:04PM




​They do things different down in the Valley. Like, if you're a
police department, you donate some marijuana to inmates at the local
state prison.

Oh sure, Edinburg police are saying it was all a mistake, and no way did
they intend to give 25 pounds of pot to inmates by cleverly concealing
it in a truckload of bananas, but come on, man -- it's the Valley.

We're just surprised they went to the trouble of hiding it.

The McAllen Monitor reports that Edinburg police sent a truckload of
bananas and other fruit to the TDCJ's Segovia Unit, a common practice
since the fruit had been confiscated in a drug raid.

About 1,000 pounds of pot was confiscated in that incident, police said.
Trouble is, there was apparently 1,025 pounds of pot in the truck.

The weed was discovered while inmates working in the kitchen were
unpacking the delivery. In what must be considered either the Upset of
the Year, or evidence that prison truly can be redemptive, one inmate
reported the pot to guards.

That inmate was later killed in the shower. (Not really.)

"We always inspect those donations before they are delivered," Edinburg
police chief Quirino Munoz told the Monitor. "I guess these drugs were
inadvertently missed by the officers and our drug dogs."

Yep. We're buying it. Those drug dogs miss 25 pounds of pot all the
freakin' time.


http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2009/11/edinburg_police_pot_bana\
na.php

Council Approves Draft Pot Shop Law, Will Vote In Future


by Keith Higginbotham
City Beat
11.11.09



Long Beach City Council was another of those
"wake-me-in-the-wee-hours-when-it's-over" affairs, coming under the tape
at just over four hours.

So in the interest of our readers, I will now attempt to distill down
last night's heady brew into something a little more refined and
palatable. Something on the order of taking Hamlet and condensing it
down to the Gilligan's Island version.

Following the opening credits, the Skipper, otherwise known as Val Lerch
last night, felt it important to let all the veterans in the audience
know that President Obama has signed an executive order allowing
veterans to salute while performing the pledge of allegiance, thus
indicating their service. Of course he waited until after the pledge to
mention this. And far be it from the Skipper to let such a statement
focus solely on the veterans. Lerch managed to get in that he would be
saluting the flag from now on, as he was a veteran. But we already knew
this from the episode where the Skipper was sleep-walking and dreaming
of his days in the war and trying to turn the radio into a transmitter.

The first item of the night saw the council agree to sell just over
10,600 square feet of city-owned property at 1652-1660 West 15th St. to
a "long-time eastside business" for industrial redevelopment. While the
city agreed to a sale price for the city property of $371,675, it cost
the Redevelopment Agency just over $1 million to acquire and process the
property, for a net loss on the deal to the RDA of $674,280. The sale
also gives the new owners, the McFadden Family Trust, ownership of the
entire city block between Santa Fe Avenue and Canal Avenue and bordered
by 15th Street on the north and Cowles Street on the south. The Trust
also owns one-quarter of the city block immediately south of Cowles
Street.

The next item saw the council give approval to a business named Pizza Pi
located at 649 E. Broadway, for a short-term permit to allow
entertainment (without dancing by patrons). The business hopes to have
karaoke, belly dancing performances and other live music.

Following several comments from the public on various subjects, the
council turned to the six items on the consent calendar, which passed
unanimously without discussion. These items included referring just over
$5 million in recent claims against the city to the City Attorney's
office; approval to execute an annual $275,000 contract for maintenance
and repair service for various vehicles in the city fleet; a contract
extension through December, 2010, for work to restore a stream at El
Dorado Nature Center; acceptance of just over $140,000 in federal grant
funds to be used for Ramona Park improvements; approval of a
person-to-person liquor license transfer for Muldoons Saloon at 5646-48
Paramount Blvd.; and, approval to receive and file the minutes of the
Civil Service Commission's Oct. 21 meeting.

So, less than 20 minutes into the meeting and the council had already
moved on to the regular agenda, which this week contained 13 items.

First up was a motion to request a report from the City Manager in three
weeks on staffing and service levels at the city's 9-1-1 call center.
However, City manager Pat West indicated that city hall staff had
already prepared something for presentation, at which point the council
agreed to amend the agenda item to include an immediate discussion of
the staff report at the next Public Safety meeting.

Lerch then moved and received consent, to move the next item, a
recommendation to receive public input and discuss draft ordinance
regarding medical marijuana, to the end of the meeting.

With this approved, the council moved on to the next item--approval of a
contract with Southern California Edison (SCE) for the implementation of
the 2010-2012 Energy Efficiency Partnership Program.

During the vote on this item, Councilmember Gabelich asked to return to
the 9-1-1 report, which was approved following approval of the SCE
contract.

Gabelich stated that the call center report showed that staffing levels
have remained consistent over the past five years, but that there remain
six budgeted yet vacant positions at the center.

"What caused the drop in the response times, when we fell under the
standards during the summer?" asked Gabelich.

Police Department Deputy Chief J.J. Craig, head of the police Support
Bureau, said that the cause goes back to the call center's
implementation of wireless 9-1-1 in November, 2008. Prior to this
implementation, 9-1-1 calls from cell phones were routed to the
California Highway Patrol before being transferred to the city call
center. The implementation was phased in, with the city taking over
calls from different cell service providers at roughly one per month
until March, 2009, when all providers were routed directly to the city
call center. While expected by the LBPD, the traditionally higher call
period of the summer months caused the response times to dip below the
state standard for wireless 9-1-1 calls.

"Since that time... once the summer months were over and with some
adjustments to staffing that we made, we are back over the state
standard," said Craig. The Deputy Chief also said that the department is
continuing its efforts to fill the vacant call center positions.

Gabelich pointed out that from October 2008 to October 2009, there has
been just over a 68 percent increase in 9-1-1 calls to the center.
Gabelich said she was concerned that given the increase in calls and the
still vacant positions, that perhaps the transfer of wireless calls to
the city call center was implemented too quickly and that she was
hopeful the vacant positions would be filled quickly.

The council then returned to the regular agenda, approving contract
amendments to the tune of $380,000 with various One-Stop Career Center
Service Providers in support of the Workforce Investment Network's
employment services.

The council next approved the receipt of $400,000 in state funds and
$100,000 in federal funds to implement a local Clean Energy Workforce
Training Program and to execute a contract with Long Beach Community
College District in the amount of $390,000 to provide training services.

The next item saw the approval of contracts, paid for from just over
$1.2 million in federal monies, with various "institutions of higher
learning" to provide classroom and skills upgrade training for
vocational programs.

Council members next approved the change of a 100-foot stretch of Oregon
Avenue behind Jesse James' West Coast Choppers shop to West Coast
Choppers Place.

The next item saw the council approve the acquisition by the City
manager's office of office space for the City's 8th Council District
field office at 5641 Atlantic Ave. The move, according to Gabelich, will
save the district more than $27,000 a year.

The next item, composed of three separate motions and all approved
unanimously, concerned the receipt of certain findings related to the
Central, North, and Downtown Redevelopment Project Area Funds.

Council members then approved the issuance of revenue bonds by the
California Statewide Community Development Authority to benefit New Hope
Home, L.P. in an amount not to exceed $9,000,000. The funds will be used
to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of New Hope Home, a
140-unit affordable senior rental housing complex, located at 1150 New
York St. The project was originally approved last year, but according to
the City Manager, the downturn in the economy caused it to be shelved
temporarily.

The last of the previously moved regular agenda items saw the approval
of a recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute all
documents related to the widening of Pacific Coast Highway at Second
Street.

One ordinance motion, concerning landscaping standards for public
right-of-way, was also approved unanimously before the council returned
to the skipped item--public comment and discussion of a draft ordinance
on medical marijuana dispensaries.

Ironically, Skipper Lerch, noticing that the meeting had only run about
40 minutes, chimed in with, "Now if we hurry up we can be out of here by
6 o'clock."

Three hours later, after numerous comments by the public and much
discussion at the dais, the council members essentially approved the
ordinance drafted by City Attorney Bob Shannon, albeit with some
important changes.

Shannon's draft ordinance, seeking to deal with the explosion of
marijuana dispensaries in the city--50 to 60 by the most recent
count--sought to set standards by which medical marijuana dispensaries
could be operated within the city.

The changes approved by the council to Shannon's draft included:
allowing dispensaries in business/residential mixed-use areas; allowing
dispensaries within 1,000 feet of libraries and parks; prohibiting
identification, under patient privacy, of people using dispensaries;
providing a grace period for existing dispensaries to comply with any
ordinance that is approved; and allowing dispensary patients to
cultivate marijuana in their homes.

The ordinance still prohibits dispensaries from being located within
residential areas or within 1,000 feet of licensed child-care
facilities, playgrounds, schools, youth centers and/or other
dispensaries. The ordinance would also limit the dispensaries to operate
only between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. The approved ordinance also restricts
distribution of marijuana to members of the dispensaries only and bans
the production of "edible" marijuana products. Dispensaries under the
ordinance would also be limited to having no more than four pounds of
marijuana at the dispensary location.

The draft, with the approved amendments, must return to the council for
another vote.


http://www.lbpost.com/keith/7301

Is Federal Government Running Roughshod Over Constitution?


Wednesday, November 11, 2009


Watch video segment (15:22) -
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=11499972\
&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5\
74105,00.html

Kevin Gutzman with guest host Judge Andrew Napolitano

This is a rush transcript from "Glenn Beck," November 10, 2009. This
copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, GUEST HOST: Last Saturday, at 11:00 in the
evening, the House of Representatives voted by a five-vote margin to
have the federal government manage the health care of everyone in
America at a cost of over $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

For the first time in American history, if this bill becomes law, the
feds will force you to buy insurance you might not want or may not need
or cannot afford. If you don't purchase what the government tells you to
buy, if you don't do so when they tell you to do it, if you don't buy
just what they say is right for you, the government may fine you,
prosecute you and even put you in jail.

Freedom of choice and control over your own body will be lost. The
privacy of your communications and medical-making decisions with your
physician will be gone. More of your hard-earned dollars will be at the
disposal and tender mercies of federal bureaucrats.

It was not intended to be this way.

We elect the government. It works for us. How did it get so removed, so
unbridled, so arrogant that it can tell us how to live our personal
lives?

Evil rarely comes upon us all at once, and liberty is rarely lost in one
stroke. It happens gradually, over the years and decades, and even
centuries. A little stretch here, a cave-in there, powers are slowly
taken from the states and the people — and before you know it, we
have one big monster government that recognizes no restraints on its
ability to tell us how to live. It claims the power to regulate any
activity, tax any behavior and demand conformity to any standard it
chooses.

In the next few weeks, I will be giving a public lecture on
constitutional law here on the Fox News Channel, on the Fox Business
Network, on FoxNews.com and on Fox Nation.

In anticipation of that, many of you have asked, "What can we do now
about the loss of freedom?"

We can vote the bums out of their cushy federal offices. We can persuade
the state governments to defy the feds in areas like health care where
the Constitution gives the federal government zero authority. We can ask
our state legislatures to threaten to amend the Constitution to abolish
the income tax, to return the selection of U.S. senators to state
legislatures and to nullify — to nullify — all the laws that
Congress has written that are not based on the Constitution.

But there is one thing we can't do: Just sit back and take it.

Here's Kevin Gutzman. He's professor of American history at Western
Connecticut State University and author of "The Politically Incorrect
Guide to the Constitution." And Thomas E. Woods, author of "Meltdown: A
Free Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked
and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse."

They wrote a great book together called "Who Killed the Constitution?
The Fate of American Liberty From World War I to George W. Bush."

Gentlemen, welcome to "The Glenn Beck Program."

Kevin, first to you: What is federalism? What is the concept of the
states have some power and they gave a little bit of it away to the
federal government, but somehow the government keeps taking more from
them?

KEVIN GUTZMAN, AMERICAN HISTORY PROF., WESTERN CONNECTICUT STATE UNIV.:
Well, the underlying theory of revolution was that people wanted local
self-government through legislative elections. That was the procedure
that the British government was denying to the American colonists and it
led to the Declaration of Independence.

So, when the Federal Constitution was made — and note that it's
called a federal, not a national Constitution — when the Federal
Constitution was made, there was this idea that sovereign states were
delegating some — few of their powers which they carefully spelled
out in the Constitution to this new central government. And the great
residual was being retained by the states so that people would still
have control over most areas of their government's behavior through
local legislative elections.

NAPOLITANO: Tom, how did the federal government get so big and so
powerful? We wrote a Constitution that states in it pretty specifically
the 17 unique discreet powers that the Constitution delegates to the
federal government. Is that list even recognizable today if you compare
it to the areas of human behavior that the federal government claims it
can regulate?

THOMAS E. WOODS, AUTHOR, "MELTDOWN": No, they have made a joke out of
it. In fact, in the 1990s, the solicitor general was asked, "Can you
name me one area of American life that in your view the U.S. government
would have no constitutional authority whatsoever to interfere with?"
And he just stood there dumbfounded. He had no answer.

Thomas Jefferson warned us that if the federal government has a monopoly
on determining what its powers are, we have no right to be surprised if
it expands its powers over time. So, Jefferson told us in 1798 that what
we need to do, if the federal government goes beyond those powers that
was delegated, is to use the states. The states are not perfect, but
they're what we have.

NAPOLITANO: Right.

WOODS: And use the states to nullify and refuse to enforce these laws.
And I know that idea would horrify Katie Couric, but I'll take Thomas
Jefferson and the other side can have Katie Couric.

NAPOLITANO: All right. We'll get to nullification in just a minute. And
I'm glad you raised it.

But just in a thumbnail sketch, how did it happen? How did we go from 17
unique discreet powers that only addressed things that were federal like
a post office, like have an army and a navy, like provide a common
defense, like provide for weights and measures and patents to 4,000
different criminal laws, 40,000 pages of tax regulations? How did we get
from a small government with maximum individual liberty that recognized
limitations on it, to a big fat government that doesn't regulate —
that doesn't recognize any limitation of its powers?

GUTZMAN: Well, the short answer is that we trusted the federal
government to determine what the limits of the federal government's
powers were. And just as any other group of people could be expected to
do, over time, the federal government decided it had all powers; that it
was necessary that it be able to regulate everything, to tax everything,
to legislate about every question.

And over time, that came to mean that the principle of federalism that
we talked about a minute ago just vanished from the federal system. We
still call it a federal system but it's really a national system.

NAPOLITANO: Tom, Ronald Reagan used to say the beauty of our system is
you can vote with your feet — meaning, if you didn't like the laws
in New Jersey, you could go and live in Pennsylvania or Connecticut or
Texas. But as the federal government standardizes everything, makes the
laws the same, takes away New Jersey and Connecticut and Texas'
independence — I'm just using them by way of example — the
concept of voting with your feet, of going to a place in the country
where the laws are more to your liking goes away, doesn't it?

WOODS: Right. And, you know, in the old days, the left used to support
this principle. Kirkpatrick Sale, the old left, they liked decentralized
power. They didn't like a gigantic bureaucracy. Whereas now, left and
right seem to like a gigantic bureaucracy that overrides the powers of
the states.

And, in fact, when you look at the history of Western civilization, how
did liberty come to Europe? It came to it because Europe was a bunch of
tiny municipalities, where you — if you the prince was oppressive in
one place — as you say, Judge — you could just vote with your
feet and move someplace else. And that encouraged them all to support
liberty because they didn't want to lose their tax base. When you remove
this incentive, which is a healthy incentive, you get the system we have
now.

NAPOLITANO: All right. Kevin, you and I have talked about this on-air
and off many times, there are a couple of ways to amend the
Constitution, but they all involve the states, either the states demand
— and if enough of them do so — a constitutional convention. The
constitutional convention proposed amendments and then they go back to
the states, or the Congress circulates an amendment and it goes to the
state. In either way, it requires 3/4 of the states to adopt an
amendment and then it becomes part of the Constitution.

Question: Can we amend the Constitution? Can we abolish the income tax?
Which would starve the federal government back down to its footprint.
Can we get the states' governments to elect senators rather than the
people, which would ensure that one of the two houses of the Congress
fought for state sovereignty — or is this just fanciful thinking?

GUTZMAN: Well, we've never used the provision of Article V of the
Constitution that allows for the states to amend the Constitution
without having the Congress be involved. So, we shouldn't be surprised
that, recently, amendments have all about — all been about
furthering empowering the central government.

But fortunately, at the moment, there is a groundswell. I have been
hearing from legislators in several different states who've asked me for
advice about the question how the constitutional convention process
might work. That is, how the states could go about amending the
Constitution to reduce and curb the power of the central government. And
I think that there is a significant chance that this could happen. But
before it can happen, people have to encourage their state legislators
to go out and amend the Constitution.

NAPOLITANO: Tom, you mentioned nullification. In 1834, the state of
Massachusetts nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, meaning you can't kidnap
any runaway slaves in Massachusetts or we'll arrest you for kidnapping
— that defied the federal government. How would nullification work
today?

WOODS: Well, we've already seen examples of it. Really, there are a
couple of dozen states that have effectively nullified the Real I.D.
Act, which is the beginnings of a national I.D. card, to the point where
the federal government has pretty much stopped trying to enforce that
— that law. That's just what Jefferson would want to free people to
do.

We've seen about a dozen states, in effect, nullifying federal laws
regarding medical marijuana. And now, we're starting to see a few states
talking about what they can do to resist this health care measure.

This is what a free society does. We don't have one single one-size-
fits-all system for 300 million people. That's not what the United
States was about. That's the principle that we fought the Revolution
against.

So, if we want to know how this would work, we can just look around us
and see some of the creative legislatures around the country.

NAPOLITANO: Tom Woods, Kevin Gutzman — thanks for joining us.

WOODS: Thank you, Judge.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,574105,00.html

Medical Marijuana Grower Identified in Illegal Growing Operation in
Eugene, West Linn


November 11, 2009




EUGENE, Ore. -- A man registered to grow medical marijuana has been
identified in connection with an illegal growing operation in Eugene and
West Linn.



The 33-year old man is registered under Oregon Medical Marijuana Program
(OMMP) to be a grower for one patient. Multiple charges are pending
against the suspect whose name is withheld until an arrest is made.



After an eight-month long investigation, an interagency Lane County
narcotics enforcement team discovered four indoor growing operations in
Eugene and West Linn this week.





Oregon State Police and Lane County law enforcement served search
warrants at three adjacent houses located on Wilkes Drive in Eugene.
They seized 1127 marijuana plants, two firearms and a large amount of
growing equipment from the three uninhabited houses used solely for the
purpose of growing marijuana.



Investigators also found numerous hazardous electrical code violations
within the houses resulting from modified wiring to power several grow
lights. City of Eugene Code Enforcement was contacted and power to the
houses, which are located within 1,000 feet of a school, was shut down.



Investigators served a search warrant at a fourth house in West Linn
where they seized 149 marijuana plants and a firearm.



The suspect told investigators the grow operation produced about 13
pounds of usable marijuana every 30 days and sold for $3,200 per pound.
He is registered as a grower for one patient under OMMP and is only
permitted to possess 6 mature marijuana plants, 18 seedlings, and 1 1/2
pounds of usable marijuana.





KEZI 9 News Reporter Gia Vang will have more on this developing story
tonight at 5 and 6.





http://kezi.com/page/148585

Drug case goes up in smoke



By PHILIP STRICKLAND
Posted: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 12:00 am



Up in smoke went the drug case against Martin Victor, the Temecula
resident arrested and charged with drug possession with intent to sell.
He said he was running a medical-marijuana collective and had the papers
to prove it.

   To the surprise of everyone, the case was tossed for lack of evidence
by Judge Mark Mandio last week.

   Undeterred, the Riverside County powers have vowed to continue to
arrest and prosecute where they believe the law is being broken. As they
should.

   And, to help navigate the hazy state verbiage, Sheriff Stanley Sniff
any day now will hand down guidelines regarding medical-marijuana cases.

Chief Deputy Jerry Williams, Temecula's top cop when the arrest was
made, says Sniff "wants to be sure it is right and tight."

   Let's hope.

Temecula is no slacker when it comes to opposing medical pot. Various of
the council members have made that clear, particularly in regard to its
distribution.

The consensus seems to be if it is legal, then it should be regulated
through pharmacies like any other approved, prescribed drug.

Thing is, no prescription for, or approval of, the pot is required, and
besides, where would the pharmacies get it?

   The city and county have no choice but to allow collectives. And
collectives have the right to grow for members' use, but any
distribution outside that structure is illegal and should be prosecuted.

   The next move, at least for cities wanting no part of being a
medical-pot destination, should be to re-examine land-use rules ----
already dispensaries are not a permitted use in Temecula ---- to assure
their stand against storefronts is "right and tight."

As for the lawsuit by eight members of Victor's collective seeking $1
million each for the seized pot ---- c'mon, no pot is that good and
given the vague state guidelines, in the spirit of magnanimity, settle
for some primo meds from a dispensary and attorneys fees.


Phil Strickland writes from Temecula. Contact him at
philipestrickland@....


http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/strickland/article_4e62a7\
b3-9c40-57fe-962a-e75fd9fa338b.html

Community says no to pot shops

Loomis Town Council votes down medical marijuana dispensaries


By Joyia Emard Gold Country News Service
Ben Furtado/Auburn Journal file

11/11/09



The Loomis Town Council has voted — there will be no pot shops in
Loomis.

The council unanimously voted to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries
within the town limits at a special meeting on Nov. 3.

Council members were in agreement that there are cases where medical
marijuana is appropriate, but they showed solidarity in their opinions
that having a dispensary in Loomis would not set a good example for the
town youth.

"Instead of having a conversation about how we can get more
marijuana in Loomis we should ask how we can have less," said Mike
Edwards, president of the Loomis Union School District board of
trustees.

Edwards said a district grammar school student recently brought
marijuana on campus.

"We've had the first incident in my seven years on the school
board," he said.

Placer County Sheriff's Captain Dave Harris presented a report to
the council that cited an increase in marijuana use at Colfax High
School after a dispensary opened there.

He said in San Diego, at 15 marijuana dispensaries that were
investigated, 63 percent of medical marijuana permit holders were
between the ages of 18 and 30, and that 10 percent were 17-year-olds. He
said those age groups do not typically suffer from many of the diseases
for which medical marijuana is used.

Vic Markey, of Loomis, gave an impassioned plea to the council against
approval of pot shops.

"I can't believe you're considering allowing an element in
town you have no control over. Children outweigh all other issues in
this argument," Markey said.

Loomis resident Jeremy Sutter told the council, "We don't have
the resources to regulate something like this. Let the bigger cities
that have the resources take care of this."

Harris said that other cities have had problems with oversight of the
medical marijuana dispensaries and that record keeping in many
dispensaries is sloppy.

He listed a number of crimes associated with dispensaries including
burglaries, sales of other illegal drugs, purchase of illicit drugs to
supply the dispensary and illegal drug sales outside dispensaries.

"The youth of our community are important gifts we value. Youth are
impressionable," said councilmember Miguel Ucovich, when citing his
opposition.

Councilmember Rhonda Morillas said she polled business people during the
last few months.

"They aren't in favor of it," she said.

Russ Kelley said patients can legally purchase medical marijuana in
other areas and it should never be for sale in Loomis.

Erik Peterson, a Loomis commercial property owner, and Robert
Dearwester, of Colfax, both spoke in favor of allowing the shops.

Dearwester had notified the council in a letter that he was interested
in opening a pot shop. Peterson also had informed the council he was
interested in opening one.

"It seems the town's wishes have been met," Peterson said
after the council vote to prohibit the shops.

Dearwester declined to comment on the council's decision.

According to Perry Beck, Loomis town manager, a public hearing and first
reading of an ordinance prohibiting medicinal pot shops will be held
Tuesday, Dec. 8 at the regularly scheduled council meeting.

Further public comment will be heard at that time, before the ordinance
is enacted after a second reading in January 2010.


http://auburnjournal.com/detail/134800.html?content_source=&category_id=\
&search_filter=&user_id=&event_mode=&event_ts_from=&event_ts_to=&list_ty\
pe=&order_by=&order_sort=&content_class=1&sub_type=&town_id=

Airing of L.A. pot ordinance set for Monday


Daily News Wire Services
Updated: 11/11/2009 07:18:19 AM PST



An ordinance aimed at regulating medical marijuana in Los Angeles will
be discussed Monday at a joint session of the City Council's Public
Safety and Planning and Land Use committees.

Medical marijuana collectives would be allowed to grow pot only for
members with serious illnesses under the proposal ordinance, which limit
inventories to five pounds of dried pot or 100 plants at any given time.

The city defines a collective as a groups of qualified patients, their
primary caregivers and people whom they authorize to cultivate marijuana
for them.

Councilman Ed Reyes said the idea of limiting inventories and how many
plants can be grown was sure to be the subject of debate.

"My primary concern is making sure we allow enough flexibility so that
people who are sick have access, that we do not create an environment
where the only function of the ordinance will be to eradicate them all,"
Reyes said.

"I don't think that's fair or humane to people who are really sick who
really need it," he added.

City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and District Attorney Steve Cooley have
said that most of the 1,000 or so pot shops around Los Angeles County
are out of step with state law. Attorney General Jerry Brown has said
that medical marijuana outlets are supposed to operate as nonprofit
groups, but few do.

Voters legalized medical marijuana when they approved Proposition 215 in
1996, but there has been little agreement about regulating outlets.
Initially, only individuals were allowed to grow the stuff, but the law
was amended in 2003 to allow collectives to grow plants.

Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter said the City Attorney's
office, which drafted the proposed ordinance, is willing to make
adjustments if necessary.

"Our office is and will continue to work very closely with the council
members in both committees as well as the full City Council on drafting
an ordinance that complies with California law and that meets the
requirements of this city," Carter said.

The proposed ordinance was submitted to the Public Safety Committee a
day after a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the city's
extended moratorium on new medical marijuana outlets was invalid.

Under the proposed ordinance:

-- over-the-counter sales of medical marijuana would be outlawed;

-- anyone convicted of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude within the
past 10 years, or who is on parole or probation for the sale of
distribution of a controlled substance, would be forbidden from managing
a collective or handling its finances;

-- medical marijuana outlets would have to be inspected by the
Department of Building and Safety, register with the Office of Finance,
and provide information about their members to their City Council
representative and their Neighborhood Council;

-- any pot grown by a collective would have to be grown in accordance
with the health and safety code;

-- collectives would have to be at least 1,000 feet from other
collectives, schools, playgrounds, child care facilities, religious
institutions, public libraries, public parks, hospitals and rehab
centers.

-- all collectives would have to have video security and barred windows;

-- and operating hours would be limited to 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.

The proposed permanent ordinance states that outlets that began
operating before Sept. 14, 2007, and registered with the City Clerk's
Office before Nov. 12, 2007 would be given 180 days to comply with the
ordinance.

Any outlets that opened after Sept. 14, 2007 would have to comply with
the rules immediately.


http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_13757328

Did the Boulder City Council accidentally define illegal weed dealers as
medical-marijuana businesses?


By Michael Roberts
Wed., Nov. 11 2009 @ 8:33AM



Last night, the Boulder City Council considered imposing a temporary
moratorium on new medical-marijuana operations -- and while members
stopped short of putting an outright ban into place, they did establish
a slew of restrictions. Through March 31, 2010, new dispensaries that
didn't file before November 6 can't open in residential areas, or within
500 feet of primary or secondary schools or licensed daycare centers.
Likewise, three dispensaries can't be 500 feet or less from each other.

Cannabis Therapy Institute outreach director Laura Kriho, who was at the
marathon session, calls these restrictions "an effective moratorium on
dispensaries in Boulder. With the retail and rental situation in the
city being what it is, people were having a hard enough time finding a
landlord to rent to them as it was. Now it will be effectively
impossible because of the way the ordinance is written."

The haste with which these rules were assembled -- in "emergency"
fashion, just like the Board of Health ruling about the description of
caregivers that Denver District Court Judge Larry Naves threw out
yesterday -- may have had other unintended consequences, too. Kriho
thinks language adopted by the council might have established that
anyone selling marijuana in the city, whether for medical purposes or
not, now qualifies as a medical-marijuana business.

According to Kriho, the council-validated passage describes a
medical-marijuana business as "(a) any establishment that makes
available marijuana in any form to any other person in exchange for
money, goods or services, or (b) possession of more than six marijuana
plants or more than two ounces of a usable form of marijuana, unless the
possession is by a patient or primary caregiver as defined in Article
XVIII, Section 14 of the Colorado Constitution."

The first part of this text uses the word "marijuana," not "medical
marijuana," as well as the phrase "any other person" as opposed to
"patient" or something along those lines. "To me, it seems like they
made all marijuana dealers in the city legitimate medical-marijuana
businesses," Kriho says. As for the second part of the definition, she
says, "Who has six plants who's not a patient or a medical-marijuana
business? A drug dealer."

Another potential difficulty: What happens to the 500 feet restriction
if a husband and a wife are caregivers for each other? Wouldn't that now
be illegal, at least through March 31? Kriho pigeonholed councilmember
Angelique Espinoza after the meeting broke up to ask that question and
claims to have been told the measure wouldn't be enforced in such an
instance -- a thin reed to cling to for a couple in such a situation.

Other potential problems, in Kriho's view, involve the 500-foot
dispensary saturation limit. "That will effectively eliminate any kind
of wellness center, where one or more caregivers want to get together or
people want to incorporate medical cannabis into their holistic
practice. This is something we were going to give a seminar on. Now, if
you're a message therapist and you want to incorporate medical cannabis
into your practice, you might not be able to do it if someone else in
your building already is doing it. These are ridiculous standards.

"This is what they've done by ramming this through as an emergency
measure," Kriho continues. "And why was it such an emergency? There's a
new city council coming in. It was the last meeting of at least one of
the council members. Why couldn't they wait for the new city council to
address a law that's been on the books for nine years? Why they felt
compelled to deal with it in a lame-duck session is beyond me."

By Kriho's estimate, nearly 200 people attended the council meeting,
which lasted until well after midnight, with approximately 43 of 45
people who spoke supporting medical marijuana and dispensaries in
general. Nonetheless, the council made its move by a 4-2 vote, and there
wasn't a big hubbub about it because, in Kriho's opinion, most people
didn't understand that the regulations were something of a stealth
moratorium.

Then again, there may have been some things the council didn't
understand, either.


http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/11/did_the_boulder_city_counci\
l_a.php

AMA Calls for Feds to Review Marijuana Restrictions


Posted by Stephanie Condon
November 11, 2009 10:36 AM



(CBS) The American Medical Association on Tuesday adopted a resolution
calling for the government to review its classification of marijuana, in
order to ease the way for more research into the use of medical
marijuana.

While the AMA, the largest physician's organization in the U.S.,
explicitly states it does not endorse any current state-based medical
marijuana programs or the legalization of marijuana, the move is a
significant shift that continues a trend toward support for easing
restrictions against the drug.

"Our American Medical Association (AMA) urges that marijuana's status as
a federal Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of
facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of
cannabinoid-based medicines," the AMA's statement (PDF) reads. "This
should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis
programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on
the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a
prescription drug product."

Marijuana is currently classified by the federal government as a
"Schedule I" controlled substance, the most restrictive of five
categories. Schedule I substances are considered to have a high
potential for abuse, no accepted medical use and a lack of accepted
safety for use of the drug. Other drugs in that category include heroin,
LSD and PCP. Less restrictive "Schedule II" substances include cocaine
and methamphetamine.

Previously, the AMA recommended marijuana remain a Schedule I controlled
substance, but it now believes the substance deserves more clinical
research.

"Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number of
randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked cannabis,"
Dr. Edward Langston, an AMA board member, told the Los Angeles Times.
Limited studies, he said, are "insufficient to satisfy the current
standards for a prescription drug product."

The White House drug czar's office gave a muted response to the AMA's
recommendation, the LA Times reports, saying it would defer to "the
FDA's judgment that the raw marijuana plant cannot meet the standards
for identity, strength, quality, purity, packaging and labeling required
of medicine."

While the Obama administration opposes legalization of marijuana, the
Justice Department last month announced it would no longer pursue
prosecution for state-sanctioned medical marijuana sales. As many as 13
states now allow the use of medical marijuana.

The debate over whether to legalize marijuana all together seems to be
gaining steam. A Gallup poll last month showed a record 44 percent of
Americans now support legalizing marijuana. Meanwhile, California
residents may get to vote on a 2010 ballot measure to legalize the drug
in the state.


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry\
5614233.shtml

Gilroy Pot Store Opening Root Of Controversy

Medical Marijuana Dispensary Opens Without City Permit


POSTED: 12:37 am PST November 11, 2009
UPDATED: 12:53 am PST November 11, 2009


Watch story video (3:11) - http://www.ksbw.com/video/21579136/index.html



GILROY, Calif. -- A medical marijuana dispensary that opened in Gilroy
without city permission is causing controversy.

The medical pot clinic opened Monday in a small shopping plaza on the
1300 block of First Street.

As of Tuesday, roughly 100 clients have gone there to buy medicinal pot.

The problem is the clinic is operating without a permit and it opened a
month after the City Council rejected an ordinance that would have
allowed the dispensaries to operate.

Nonetheless, The Pot Club's opening has been met with praise and
criticism.

"I'm very happy that it's here now because normally I have to go to
Santa Cruz, or for long time to Oakland and lots of money in gas. I'm
very happy that this is here," said medicinal marijuana user Robert
Vaca.

"The offices by the hospital -- there's empty buildings in there you
know -- it's medicine right. It kind of belongs in those areas, rather
than in general public where there are kids running around and teens
looking. It's not a good spot for that," said neighbor Anthony Figueroa.

The owners said they don't need a permit to operate because they're a
non-profit.

The police chief said he's not so sure and Tuesday he held emergency
meetings with the city manager and city attorney to discuss their next
move.


http://www.ksbw.com/news/21580958/detail.html

Drug adviser sacking was "humiliation", says colleague

The sacking of the Government's chief drugs adviser was an "unnecessary
humiliation" and shows that political expediency "rules the roost", a
leading scientist who quit over the affair has warned.


By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 2:55PM GMT 11 Nov 2009



Dr Simon Campbell resigned from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of
Drugs on Tuesday after Professor David Nutt was forced to step down for
criticising Government policy, especially relating to cannabis.

He was one of three advisers to go this week taking the total of those
who have resigned in support of Prof Nutt to five.

Dr Campbell, a synthetic organic chemist, said: "I think that was a
clash of personalities. I don't agree with the manner in which he was
dismissed. I think such an abrupt dismissal was an unnecessary
humiliation for such a respected scientist."

Asked about the Government's attitude to science, he added: "I think the
Home Secretary will listen to what the council says but at the end of
the day I think political expediency rules the roost."

Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, dismissed Prof Nutt after accusing him
of "crossing a line" into politics, especially after he criticised the
decision to reclassify cannabis as class B, against ACMD advice.

Dr Campbell said: "When we made our recommendation on cannabis we saw no
reason to change the classification and yet the government has already
decided to move from Class C to Class B.

"That can only be because the government saw it as a votes-catching
exercise."

Dr John Marsden and Dr Ian Ragan also resigned from the council this
week despite a crunch meeting with Mr Johnson.

The meeting had been called because members of the advisory body wanted
reassurances from the Home Secretary that they could continue in "good
conscience" and that their advice would be respected.

Mr Johnson has said a joint code between Government and scientists,
proposed by the Royal Society, was being considered by Prime Minister
Gordon Brown and the Government's chief scientific adviser.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6545069/\
Drug-adviser-sacking-was-humiliation-says-colleague.html

The meeting video is archived at
http://www.lbtv8.com/media/player.asp?id=20 (look for city council
meeting of Nov 10, runs just over 4 hours but you can use the drop down
menu to go directly to the marijuana ordinance discussion, item10.
(09-1203) Recommendation to receive public input and discuss draft
ordinance regarding medical marijuana.) and is worth watching for when
the council debated the ordinance and the questions they raised as the
draft ordinance in Long Beach is almost identical to the Los Angeles
draft that is to be discussed next Monday at the joint (I love that
word) meeting of the Public Safety and Planning and Land Use Management
(PLUM) committees.

Peace

brett


--- In mmjnews@yahoogroups.com, "post2news" <brettsaddress-test1@...>
wrote:

Council supports medical pot rules with some changes


By Paul Eakins, Staff Writer
Posted: 11/10/2009 10:06:00 PM PST


--------Photo--------

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site204/2009/1110/20091110__\
PN11-COUncil_300.JPG

William Britt, executive director of the Association of Patient
Advocates, holds 50 letters from patients opposing new medical marijuana
regulations during a Long Beach (Calif.) city council meeting on
November 10, 2009. (Jeff Gritchen/Press-Telegram)

---------------------



LONG BEACH - The City Council put its support behind much of City
Attorney Bob Shannon's draft ordinance to regulate medical marijuana
collectives Tuesday, but cut some of the more restrictive requirements
from the law.

Council members have been urgently working to create a way to control
the growth of the collectives, which are estimated at 50 to 60 in Long
Beach, and resisted the urging Tuesday by some members of the public and
by council members Rae Gabelich and Dee Andrews to return it to
committee for more discussion.

The council voted unanimously to have Shannon make changes to the
ordinance. The changes were suggested by Councilman Gary DeLong and
echoed the views of several other council members.

However, several council members indicated they still had concerns and
changes to make to the ordinance, which will return to the council again
as a draft in the coming weeks.

"We've gone from a one size fits all to a one size fits none," DeLong
said of Shannon's proposed ordinance.

The changes included, among others, allowing collectives in mixed-use
areas; removing prohibitions against having collectives within 1,000
feet of libraries and parks; improving patient privacy issues so as to
not identify every member of a collective; giving a grace period for
existing collectives to comply once the law goes into effect; and
allowing collective patients to grow marijuana in their homes.

The law would still prohibit collectives in residential areas or within
1,000 feet of schools, licensed child-care facilities, playgrounds,
youth centers or other collectives; limits hours of operation to between
10 a.m. and 8 p.m.; and restrict marijuana distribution to collective
members only.

Medical marijuana patients and collective members spoke out Tuesday
against parts of the law initially proposed by Shannon, especially the
requirement that all members be named and the 1,000-feet rule.

Attorney Rick Brizendine, who represents Belmont Shore Natural Care
medical marijuana collective on Second Street, called the proposed
requirements "onerous," especially the location restrictions.

"It would exclude so many areas as to make it nearly impossible for some
patients to obtain their medicine," Brizendine said.

Neighbors of the collectives have raised safety concerns about that,
noting the appearance of shady characters who appear to be acquiring
medical marijuana for recreational use, rather than medicinal purposes.

"I have no problem with medical marijuana. It serves a good purpose,"
said California Heights resident Vernon Geiger. He added, however, that
a collective next to his apartment building has created parking problems
and said "having three dispensaries within a quarter of a mile of my
residence is ridiculous."

The number of marijuana collectives has exploded in recent months after
the federal government announced a policy that it won't prosecute
collectives that are following state law, despite all marijuana being
illegal at the federal level.

Long Beach's estimated 50 to 60 collectives are much fewer in number in
comparison to the more than 800 in Los Angeles. California voters
approved Proposition 215 in 1996 to allow the use of marijuana for
medicinal purposes. Collectives must register with the state, but the
law allows local governments to create their own regulations as well.

Numerous state, county and city officials in California - including Long
Beach City Prosecutor Tom Reeves - have said they believe many
collectives are selling the drug, which isn't permitted under the
state's medical marijuana laws. Los Angeles County District Attorney
Steve Cooley has said he plans to prosecute collectives that are
violating state law.

paul.eakins@... 562-499-1278


http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_13759905

Drugs adviser says politics rules


Published: 2009/11/11 09:14:25 GMT



Political expediency "rules the roost" over scientific advice, one of
the three latest government drug advisers to resign has told BBC News.

Dr Simon Campbell quit the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs on
Monday, over the sacking of chief drugs adviser Professor David Nutt.

Alan Johnson dismissed Prof Nutt for "crossing a line" into politics.

Dr Campbell said home secretaries would listen to scientific advice but
had usually already made their decisions.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "When we made our recommendation
on cannabis we saw no reason to change the classification and yet the
government has already decided to move from Class C to Class B."

"That can only be because the government saw it as a votes-catching
exercise."

'Humiliation'

But he said giving advice did not feel like a waste of time, because it
was such a vital issue for the nation.

"The misuse of drugs is incredibly important, which is why as unpaid
volunteers, we're prepared to put our time in and hopefully the
government will take notice," he said.

Explaining why he had resigned, he said: "I do not accept the reasons
given for Professor Nutt's dismissal, that was a clash of personalities.

"I do not agree with the manner in which he was dismissed. Such an
abrupt dismissal was a humiliation for such a respected scientist."

On Monday, members of the council had met Alan Johnson seeking
reassurance their independence would not be compromised.

Following the meeting, Dr Campbell, Dr John Marsden, and pharmaceutical
consultant Ian Ragan resigned.

Dr Campbell said his resignation had been announced to the media as he
had been travelling home from the meeting.

"I sent a formal letter to the home secretary late last night, but I'm
dismayed my resignation was on the BBC news as soon as I got home."

Dr Campbell is a synthetic organic chemist who received a CBE for
services to science.

Five members of the council have now resigned following Prof Nutt's
dismissal.

BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton said their absence meant the council
was "stymied" and was effectively now unable to operate under its
current constitution.

He added the remaining 25 members still had outstanding concerns and Mr
Johnson had been presented with "a big problem".

The Home Office confirmed the ACMD had to have 20 members to remain
quorate, and that six positions had to be filled for the advisory group
to function.

Prof Nutt was sacked after calling cannabis less harmful than alcohol
and nicotine, and saying it had been upgraded to Class B for political
reasons.

Mr Johnson said Prof Nutt had "crossed the line between offering advice
and then campaigning against the government on political decisions".



http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8354005.stm

Council supports medical pot rules with some changes


By Paul Eakins, Staff Writer
Posted: 11/10/2009 10:06:00 PM PST


--------Photo--------

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site204/2009/1110/20091110__\
PN11-COUncil_300.JPG

William Britt, executive director of the Association of Patient
Advocates, holds 50 letters from patients opposing new medical marijuana
regulations during a Long Beach (Calif.) city council meeting on
November 10, 2009. (Jeff Gritchen/Press-Telegram)

---------------------



LONG BEACH - The City Council put its support behind much of City
Attorney Bob Shannon's draft ordinance to regulate medical marijuana
collectives Tuesday, but cut some of the more restrictive requirements
from the law.

Council members have been urgently working to create a way to control
the growth of the collectives, which are estimated at 50 to 60 in Long
Beach, and resisted the urging Tuesday by some members of the public and
by council members Rae Gabelich and Dee Andrews to return it to
committee for more discussion.

The council voted unanimously to have Shannon make changes to the
ordinance. The changes were suggested by Councilman Gary DeLong and
echoed the views of several other council members.

However, several council members indicated they still had concerns and
changes to make to the ordinance, which will return to the council again
as a draft in the coming weeks.

"We've gone from a one size fits all to a one size fits none," DeLong
said of Shannon's proposed ordinance.

The changes included, among others, allowing collectives in mixed-use
areas; removing prohibitions against having collectives within 1,000
feet of libraries and parks; improving patient privacy issues so as to
not identify every member of a collective; giving a grace period for
existing collectives to comply once the law goes into effect; and
allowing collective patients to grow marijuana in their homes.

The law would still prohibit collectives in residential areas or within
1,000 feet of schools, licensed child-care facilities, playgrounds,
youth centers or other collectives; limits hours of operation to between
10 a.m. and 8 p.m.; and restrict marijuana distribution to collective
members only.

Medical marijuana patients and collective members spoke out Tuesday
against parts of the law initially proposed by Shannon, especially the
requirement that all members be named and the 1,000-feet rule.

Attorney Rick Brizendine, who represents Belmont Shore Natural Care
medical marijuana collective on Second Street, called the proposed
requirements "onerous," especially the location restrictions.

"It would exclude so many areas as to make it nearly impossible for some
patients to obtain their medicine," Brizendine said.

Neighbors of the collectives have raised safety concerns about that,
noting the appearance of shady characters who appear to be acquiring
medical marijuana for recreational use, rather than medicinal purposes.

"I have no problem with medical marijuana. It serves a good purpose,"
said California Heights resident Vernon Geiger. He added, however, that
a collective next to his apartment building has created parking problems
and said "having three dispensaries within a quarter of a mile of my
residence is ridiculous."

The number of marijuana collectives has exploded in recent months after
the federal government announced a policy that it won't prosecute
collectives that are following state law, despite all marijuana being
illegal at the federal level.

Long Beach's estimated 50 to 60 collectives are much fewer in number in
comparison to the more than 800 in Los Angeles. California voters
approved Proposition 215 in 1996 to allow the use of marijuana for
medicinal purposes. Collectives must register with the state, but the
law allows local governments to create their own regulations as well.

Numerous state, county and city officials in California - including Long
Beach City Prosecutor Tom Reeves - have said they believe many
collectives are selling the drug, which isn't permitted under the
state's medical marijuana laws. Los Angeles County District Attorney
Steve Cooley has said he plans to prosecute collectives that are
violating state law.

paul.eakins@... 562-499-1278


http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_13759905

Redding planning commissioners favor marijuana cultivation limits


By Scott Mobley
Posted November 10, 2009 at 9:29 p.m.



Redding planning commissioners Tuesday endorsed limiting outdoor and
indoor medical marijuana cultivation despite some sharp disagreements
about how severe the restrictions should be.

The commission did not vote Tuesday on a zoning ordinance setting
marijuana cultivation standards and dictating where medical marijuana
collectives may operate in the city. That decision probably won't be
reached before Dec. 8.

Commissioners did spend 3 ½ hours listening to nearly a dozen
speakers and debating among themselves how the city could best use
zoning to strike a balance between safe access to marijuana for
qualified patients while curbing abuses of California's
Compassionate Use Act.

Commissioners Randy Smith and Emmett Burroughs favored putting tight
restrictions on where the city would allow medical marijuana collectives
and cultivation.

"These things (collectives) are so far from pharmacies they don't
even belong in the same paragraph," Smith said. "They don't have
a dose, they don't have a registered licensed person in charge. And
we say we can put this next to Mary Jane's restaurant? No, it's not
okay."

Smith favored restricting collectives to industrial zones, while
Burroughs wanted to limit them to heavy commercial areas.

The majority of commissioners said such restrictions could impose
hardships on patients seeking their medicine.

However, all commission members seemed to want tighter zoning
restrictions on where collectives may operate than those city planners
had recommended. The city would have allowed collectives in most
commercial and industrial areas except those nearest neighborhoods,
under the planners' recommendations.

Commissioners were also somewhat split on whether the city should allow
indoor or outdoor cultivation, with Smith and Burroughs again drawing
the hardest line against.

"I don't know why we need to allow cultivation," said
Burroughs. "This drug has a high potential for abuse. I think we are
opening up a can of worms we won't be able to close.

The majority on the dais agreed with fellow commissioner Lynne Wonacott,
who said patients who cannot afford to buy medical marijuana at
collectives should be able to grow for their own use.

A commission majority rejected the idea of forcing indoor and outdoor
marijuana gardeners to apply for a permit.

Indications are the city's zoning ordinance will not limit indoor
growing other than to insist that wiring and irrigation systems meet
health and safety codes and that the majority of space in the home be
devoted to living, not cultivation.

The ordinance will limit outdoor cultivation to 80 to 120 square feet,
and insist that the gardens be separated from property lines by 25 to 50
feet, in part to protect neighbors from pungent ripening bud aromas.

The law will likely include exceptions from the setback requirements for
small, urban lots.

Some speakers opposed the idea of imposing such limits on outdoor
cultivation, arguing that growers should use common sense and talk to
their neighbors.

"If I put a rose in my backyard it doesn't matter where I put
it, you're going to be able to smell it," said Nick Boosalis, a
disabled Vietnam veteran who grows his own medical marijuana and said
he's always worked out problems with neighbors.

"There are already laws in existence to protect people and children,
if only they were applied," Boosalis said. "The idea you need
new laws is a joke."

Rick Levin, another medical marijuana patient who grows his own medicine
in a caged area of his yard, told commissioners the ordinance cannot
impose any plant limit under Prop. 215 unless voters approve. A city
ordinance should show flexibility for people who may need more plants
for their ailment, and for patients who lose their crops to insects or
disease, he said.

Redding police investigated 36 marijuana cultivation complaints last
month and found that 26 – or about two thirds – were following
the law under Prop. 215 and other legislation creating the medical use
exception, Sgt. Jeff Wallace told commissioners.

But a significant majority were abusing the law by growing far more
marijuana than even a good sized group of patients would need, Wallace
said.

Police are worried about increased potential for marijuana thefts and
shootings as people protect their backyard grows, Chief Peter Hansen
told the commission.

"My greatest concern is some 12, 13 or 14 year old hopping the fence
to steal a few plants and is shot by someone defending the garden,"
Hansen said.

The commission's deliberations on marijuana cultivation come after the
City Council last month imposed a 45-day moratorium on new medical
marijuana collectives to allow officials time to develop regulations on
dispensary operations and cultivation.

Redding hosts an estimated 20-plus medical marijuana collectives, with
some observers putting the number as high as 40.

A council majority on Oct. 20 approved a set of regulations that would
subject medical marijuana collectives and their records to police
inspection.

The council is expected Nov. 17 to take a final vote on those
regulations after discussing some proposed minor changes.


http://www.redding.com/news/2009/nov/10/redding-planning-commissioners-f\
avor-marijuana-cul/

Editorial: Stop playing games with medical marijuana law


By THE VOICE OF AURORA
The Aurora Sentinel
Published: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:29 PM MST



Denver District Judge Larry Naves was on the mark Tuesday when he
verbally spanked lawyers for the state health department for throwing a
wrench in the supply of medical marijuana to patients using it.

The whole episode, which started weeks ago and played out late last
month, shows how lightly state and local government officials take the
issue of medical marijuana.

It's serious business to many of those who use it.

For years, as well as just several days ago during a state hearing,
chronically ill people using marijuana have attested to its ability to
stave off pain, nausea and poor appetite. In trying to find a way to
implement the unwieldy state law passed by Colorado voters in 2000,
permitting the use of medical marijuana, state health officials
overstepped their bounds by trying to regulate growers.

A state appeals court last week halted those plans when it ruled against
a woman charged with illegally cultivating marijuana. She told the court
she was growing it for use by sanctioned patients. The high court said
it reads the state constitution as saying that "caregivers," who
supply marijuana to medical patients must have a direct and responsible
relationship with them.

State health officials took that case to mean that they could not weigh
in on who supplies marijuana to Colorado patients, in essence creating a
very real disturbance in the supply of the drug to area
"dispensaries."

Naves said the move jeopardized the health and wellbeing of the 11,000
Colorado residents licensed to acquire and use medical marijuana.

He's right.

Had the state health department been looking at ways to ensure a brand
of antibiotic or heart medicine was being properly distributed,
there's no doubt any of this would be newsworthy. But the issue of
medical marijuana is so scorned and poorly regulated by lawmakers, that
using it is risky business on several levels.

Voters have made their intent clear on this matter by soundly demanding
that those who have a doctor's prescription be able to use
marijuana.

It's up to state officials and lawmakers, like it or not, to find a
way to ensure that marijuana can be safely produced and distributed to
those who are legally entitled to use it.


http://www.aurorasentinel.com/articles/2009/11/10/opinion/editorials/doc\
4afa40d97aca0113673027.txt

Zoning issues for pot collectives


By Anthony Siino

Published: Wednesday, November 11, 2009



Three friends hopped into a white Toyota Corolla and cracked the windows
open as they scanned their surroundings for people. The speakers began
playing Shwayze's "High Together" and that's when they
busted out the two-and-a-half foot bong.

"I'm going to get a massive rip," said Alex Puentes, a
freshman history major. "Just watch."

For Puentes, this was in the name of health.

He suffers from asthma, just one of the conditions physicians can cite
as a reason to provide a patient with a medicinal marijuana
prescription.

Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, allows
doctors in California to prescribe medicinal marijuana to patients
suffering from serious ailments. Senate Bill 420, known as the Medical
Marijuana Program Act, further allowed for the creation of a statewide
ID card system and then developed guidelines for cardholders.

As of right now, Puentes knows of only one place to get his prescription
filled without growing for himself, California Harm Reduction
Cooperative Inc., at 2700 Hegan Ln. in Chico.

"We're the more pharmacological aspect of it," said Vice
President of CHRC Inc. Mike Glasser. "It's pretty clean,
doesn't look like a hippie smoke shop."

CHRC Inc. is not a dispensary, which means any patients who want
medicinal marijuana must register to become members, he said. After
successful registration, members are required to contribute by means of
money, marijuana or anything else that may aid the cooperative in order
to receive.

In only its the first three months of operation, CHRC Inc. has already
registered about 250 members, Glasser said. If it keeps growing at the
current rate, the cooperative will have more than 1,000 members by the
end of its first year.

As a cooperative, CHRC Inc. acts as a non-profit business, which means
Glasser and CEO Cassidy Franklin — the only employees at this time
— work for minimum wage and all profit goes back to fund the
cooperative, Glasser said. In October, CHRC Inc. made about $200.

"This is literally patients helping patients," Franklin said.
"The kindness of others is what keeps us open."

The company is something of a rare breed in Chico for one major reason:
zoning.

Cooperatives and collectives are undoubtedly allowed in the city but,
under current zoning laws, they have no legal place to set up shop
because they require certain rules that do not currently exist in Chico,
said Chico Police Chief Mike Maloney.

Facilities such as these need a specific permit from the planning
commission that has to be approved by the City Council, Maloney said.
Another solution would be to create a general zoning rule that allows
certain areas to house medical marijuana collectives or cooperatives.

Glasser and Franklin are mulling over potential ways to help get the
city properly zoned.

"We're going to look into the legality of it, but we're
going to do a drive for the zoning for the dispensaries, because
it's bullshit," Glasser said. "It's only a couple
thousand dollars. If we get 50 of our members and we just ask everybody
to donate $20, we could pay for it ourselves."

Medical marijuana and dispensaries are becoming frequently discussed
issues in Chico.

The Internal Affairs committee met Tuesday to discuss zoning and other
marijuana-related issues, Maloney said. It will bring the results of its
review to the City Council meeting next Tuesday.

"I'm not convinced that they're a good idea at this time,
based on what I know," said Council Member Larry Wahl during a phone
interview.

People who have come to the council before have tried a heavy-handed
approach, saying state law trumps local law and demanding rights to
collectives and cooperatives in town, said Council Member Scott Gruendl
during a phone interview.

If people want to open up a cooperative or something similar in Chico,
they are going to have to respect the local government's right to
set business permit requirements, he said.

"The good news is that we're at the beginning, so things are
wide open," Gruendl said.

One such group of people planning to open a cannabis collective in Chico
is the Citizen Collective.

Spearheaded by Executive Director Dylan Tellesen, Community Director
Theo Badashi and Director of Operations Taylor Kars, Citizen Collective
is working with the Chico Police Department, City Council, the City of
Chico's Planning Services department, local business owners and
others to bring a cannabis collective to Chico.

"Citizen Collective is excited to provide safe and affordable access
to patients and we're really looking forward to working with
compassionate, intelligent and forward-thinking citizens to build
that," Badashi said.

With the help of Citizen Collective members, Tellesen, Badashi and Kars
hosted an event called the Medicinal Cannabis Stakeholder Forum at 6
p.m. Nov. 5 at the Chico Grange Hall.

The event was invitation only with approximately 100 guests and aimed to
share with the public the goals of the collective, Badashi said.

"We wanted to have an event that was going to bring a lot of
different people, diverse people throughout Chico, together to share
with them our greater vision and get them excited about wanting to
create this facility," he said.

Among the people invited were members of the Chico art community,
prominent business owners, members of Chico law enforcement agencies and
members of the City Council.

A consensus ground that benefits not only medical marijuana patients but
also the entire community should be found, said Council Member Andy
Holcombe.

He wants people to listen and be respectful of other opinions, he said.

"I'm in support of the concept," he said, adding he hopes
the "Chico way" will prevail in the medical marijuana issue.

Michael Nolin, president and CEO of Boss Enterprises, was one of the
speakers at the event. His focus was on community strengthening.

"If we do have a dispensary, which I think would be a great
opportunity here in Chico, it would provide jobs, it would provide
health care, it would provide a standardization in this industry so that
we have the opportunity to share it with other communities and other
municipalities," Nolin said in his speech.

Boss Enterprises is working with the Citizen Collective by sharing its
business models and giving the collective a framework for a reliable,
functional dispensary, he said.

Nolin is also the founder and owner of The Green Door, a successful
dispensary in San Francisco.

Those who operate collectives and cooperatives are doing their best to
make their names known to the community, but residents are the ones who
have to decide whether they want medical marijuana centers in Chico.

Fortunately for medical marijuana advocates, people seem to be accepting
of, or at the very least apathetic toward, the idea.

"Frankly, I think I'd be indifferent to it," said undeclared
freshman Ross Ziemkowski. "I don't have a problem with it, but
it's not like I'm going to go out there and attempt to be a part
of it."

Whether collectives, cooperatives and dispensaries find their way into
the heart of the Chico community, Puentes will remain happy with current
law and his ability to get marijuana when he needs it.

"I do smoke a lot of weed," he said. "Now that I have this,
they can't really touch me."


---
Anthony Siino can be reached at asiino@...


http://www.theorion.com/news/zoning-issues-for-pot-collectives-1.893932

Sheriff's push for marijuana enforcement money draws protest


By Kurtis Alexander - Sentinel Staff Writer

Posted: 11/10/2009 06:39:38 PM PST
Updated: 11/10/2009 06:40:16 PM PST



SANTA CRUZ - The Sheriff's Office, hit hard by budget cuts, is seeking
more than a quarter million dollars of state funds to help crack down on
marijuana growers and traffickers. What's normally a routine bid for
extra money, however, has drawn resistance.

Two of the five county supervisors, who must sign off on monetary
requests, voted Tuesday against the sheriff's funding plan, citing the
enforcement of marijuana laws as a low priority and almost dooming
prospects of the new crime-fighting funds.

"I think it's a waste of energy and resources," said Supervisor Neal
Coonerty who joined John Leopold in trying to block the grant
application. "We have limited resources in the criminal justice system.
There are more serous drugs that have more serious consequences."

Leopold said he, too, cast his vote to reflect a broader sentiment in
the community that marijuana cases shouldn't distract sheriff's deputies
from more pressing matters.

Despite their opposition, the board approved the funding request on a
3-2 vote. None of the supervisors, nor the public, spoke on the issue
during Tuesday's meeting.

The $275,000 state grant, which the county must compete with other
counties for, would allow for the addition of at least one officer to
the county's narcotics team as well as a part-time prosecutor to
litigate marijuana crimes.

The narcotics team's work on marijuana involves locating and
investigating dozens of large-scale gardens in the county each year - 30
this year. The gardens, officers say, pose a risk to the public because
of the violence associated with protecting the plants and are hard on
the natural areas where trees are removed and pesticides used to grow
the crop.

County Sheriff Phil Wowak said Tuesday that officers do not interfere
with marijuana grows that serve medical users, nor would any forthcoming
grant money.

"Our marijuana enforcement has always been focused on those who use
public lands and degrade environmental resources ... and commercial
marijuana growers who do it as an illegal business and hide behind
medical marijuana laws," Wowak said.

He says extra money to staff the narcotics team would be particularly
helpful this year after county budget cuts froze the hiring of 20 new
deputies.

Although the state grant money is designated exclusively for pursuing
marijuana crimes, Wowak said it would allow him to free up staff now
working on marijuana cases to do other drug or police work.

Coonerty, however, says a better solution to the marijuana issue is to
make marijuana legal, removing the sometimes violent drug trade from the
equation and discouraging hidden grows in county parks and other natural
areas.

"I believe if it was decriminalized, you wouldn't have people up there
(on public lands) doing bad environmental things," Coonerty said. "You
would find it in people's backyards or being commercially distributed."


http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_13757203