Drug WarRant

[DdC]

San Diego Supervisors To Appeal Prop. 215 Ruling
NORML: December 14, 2006 - San Diego, CA, USA

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 this week to appeal a recent Superior Court decision rejecting the county's challenge to California's medicinal cannabis laws.

Last week, Superior Court Judge William Nevitt denied the county's lawsuit, which had argued that both Prop. 215 and the state's medical marijuana ID card program should be pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

In his opinion, Nevitt declared that the state's decade-old medical marijuana law is legal because it does not "require" conduct that violates federal law.

Nevitt also rejected plaintiffs challenge to California's three-year-old medical ID card system, ruling that "requiring the counties to issue identification cards for the purpose of identifying those whom California chooses not to arrest and prosecute for certain activities involving marijuana does not create a 'positive conflict' [with federal law.]"

On Tuesday, San Diego supervisors reaffirmed in a closed-session vote that they believe California's medical marijuana laws promote drug abuse and should be superceded by federal law.

They intend to file an appeal imminently with California's 4th Appellate District.

NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre strongly criticized the supervisors' decision.

"This appeal is not about politicians seeking clarity in the law; it's about the supervisors opposition to any use of medicinal cannabis," he said.

"Legal experts, including California's Legislative Counsel, the state attorney general, and now a superior court judge have all determined that the physician-supervised medical use of marijuana is legal in the state of California.

The supervisors' decision to appeal this case is an affront to their constituents and a gross waste of taxpayers' dollars."

San Diego's supervisors, along with lawmakers from San Bernardino and Merced counties, initially filed suit in February against the state of California and NORML's San Diego affiliate rather than comply with the statewide ID card program.

For more information, please contact Keith Stroup, NORML Legal Counsel, at (202) 483-5500 or Dale Gieringer, California NORML Coordinator, at (415) 563-5858.

Further discussion of this case, County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML and the State of California, is available on the December 13, 2006 edition of NORML's daily AudioStash at: normlaudiostash

"Marijuana Use and Mortality" April 1997 American Journal of Public Health".
"Relatively few adverse clinical effects from the chronic use of marijuana have been documented in humans. However, the criminalization of marijuana use may itself be a health hazard, since it may expose the users to violence and criminal activity."
-The Kaiser Permanente Study

Sick and Tired of Begging...
Seize This!



Supervisors Again Cite Clash with Federal Law By Jeff McDonald  
CN Source: San Diego Union Tribune December 14, 2006 
A week after a Superior Court judge threw out their case against California's medical-marijuana laws, San Diego County's supervisors have voted to appeal the ruling. The case will be sent to the 4th District Court of Appeal, with county lawyers again arguing that San Diego County should not have to enforce state laws that conflict with federal laws.

Santa Barbarian's Wiley Hyena



Time To Take Pot Back To The Polls? By Jim Trageser
CN Source: North County Times December 13, 2006 San Diego, CA  

Democracy in action, it surely isn't.

I'm not entirely clear whose interests the politicos on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors think they're representing when they file suit to overturn a law passed by the voters. In fact, it's not particularly clear that they know what they're doing.

Earlier this week, the supervisors decided to appeal a court ruling that had dismissed the county's lawsuit against a state law that legalized medicinal use of marijuana.

The supes' argument, such as it is, goes like this: Since federal law still bans marijuana, the county should not be bound by state law allowing it. That, in fact, the state law should be thrown out.

The judge who heard the initial round in this ridiculous bout of political posturing ---- you do all realize we're paying for the lawyers on both sides of this lawsuit? ---- ruled that since the state law doesn't prohibit or interfere with federal agents from enforcing federal law within California, that the Compassionate Use Act does not violate federal law.

It simply contradicts it.

While such a contradiction between state and federal law might drive a legal philosopher around the bend with its lack of consistency, the rest of us ought to be able to live with it.

Particularly those we elect to carry out our wishes.

And it's not as if San Diego voters disagreed with the rest of the state: The Compassionate Use Act was created by ballot measure in 1996, and some 52 percent of San Diego County voters supported it. (Statewide, the measure passed with 54 percent support.)

That's still a majority, no?

On the other hand, this is at least partially our own fault ---- we did, after all, elect the folks currently sitting on the Board of Supervisors and thumbing their noses at us. And spending tens of thousands of our dollars on a lawsuit that basically tells us where to stick our silly little ideas on democracy.

Obviously, Bill Horn's handy re-election last summer in the face of his unwillingness to abide by voters' decisions means that the supes have little to fear in terms of backlash on this issue. Yes, we in the electorate want medicinal use of pot to be legal ---- but we're not going to get all worked up over it and throw anyone out of office for defying us.

So the ongoing requests from medical use activists for the county to drop this asinine lawsuit are likely to fall on deaf (or at least hubristic) ears.

Does that leave the rest of us ---- those who still believe in things like democracy and, oh, I don't know, sanity maybe? ---- with no options?

Not necessarily.

Perhaps another ballot measure, this one directing the Board of Supervisors to drop the lawsuit against the Compassionate Use Act and obey its provisions, could be placed before county voters.

Assuming voters haven't changed their minds since the state measure was passed a decade ago, it might be that such a vote would be a clear enough message that even our local supervisors could understand it.

And hopefully act on it.

Contact: letters@nctimes.com * Website

Americans For Safe Access



Supes Vote To Persist Wif MMJ Challenge
By Gig Conaughton Ganja Worrier Corespondent
CN Source: No'th County Times December 13, 2006 San DEAga, CA

As specked, San DEAaga County superviso's voted Tuesday t'continue their corntrovahsial legal challenge t'ovahturn Califo'nia's 10-year-old, voter-approved medical marygwana law.

Board Chairman Billy Joe Ho'n said th' board voted in closed sesshun t'appeal Superio' Court Billy Joe R. Nevitt's week-old rulin' thet dismissed th' county's argoomnt thet Califo'nia's Compasshunate Use Ack sh'd be pre-empped by federal law on account o' federal law is "supreme."

Th' county's challenge has nashunal implicashuns, patients an' govment officials say, on account o' it marks th' fust time thet enny county has sued t'ovahturn enny of th' medical marygwana laws voters haf approved in 11 states.

Califo'nia's Compasshunate Use Ack, approved by 56 percent of voters statewide in 1996, says thet seriously ill varmints who haf a docko''s recommendashun kin use marygwana t'ease their pain an' sufferin'.

Th' federal Controlled Substances Ack says marygwana has no medicinal value an' is illegal in all cases -- even though it also says thet synthetically created tetrahydrocannibinol, th' ackive in'redient in marygwana, does haf medicinal value an' kin be prexcribed by docko's.

Despite th' seemin' cornflick between Califo'nia's law an' th' federal law, Nevitt dismissed th' county's pre-empshun argoomnt last week. Shet mah mouth! Nevitt ruled thet thar was no legal cornflick on account o' Califo'nia's law did not compel varmints t'bust th' federal law an' thet federal ajunts c'd still arress marygwana users.

Nevitt also ruled thet in some cases, state's laws is "supreme" on over federal law.

Ho'n, howevah, said Tuesday thet th' county superviso's believe in their argoomnt, an''d file an appeal wif th' Califo'nia's 4th Appellate Districk.

"We feel thet th' judge skated (ovah) th' entire (pre-empshun) issue," Ho'n said, cuss it all t' tarnation. "We've gone this hyar far. It jest behooves us t'go th' next step."

San DEAaga County superviso's angered local medical marygwana patients an' state an' nashunal medical marygwana advocacy groups in December 2005, when they decided t'file their lawsueyt t'try t'ovahturn th' Compasshunate Use Ack, fo'merly known as Proposishun 215.

Superviso's said th' ack was "bad law" an''d promote drug abuse.

Howevah, patients who say they use medical marygwana fo' a host of serious problems, rangin' fum sevahe burns t'crushed spines, kincer an' other ailments, haf repeatedly told superviso's on over th' last year thet marygwana was th' only drug thet seemed t'he'p them, dawgone it.

A number of them patients attended Tuesday's meetin' t'ax th' board not t'appeal Nevitt's decishun, an' t'instead foller state legislashun an' create a medical marygwana identificashun card program t'he'p them, dawgone it.

Point Loma resident Ronald Little said marijuana was the only drug that helped save his mother-in-law's eyesight, by reducing the intraocular pressure in her eyes that was making her go blind.

Little suggested that supervisors were sacrificing patients "on the altar of your drug-war ideology."

"I just think it's reprehensible," Little said.

Howevah, a number of speakers fum parent-skoo marm associashuns an' drug-prevenshun groups challenged th' patients.

They urged superviso's t'appeal an' corntinue their fight t'ovahturn th' Compasshunate Use Ack.

Kevin McClure of th' San DEAaga Prevenshun Coalishun said th' law was aidin' drug traffickin' an' thrett upin' Califo'nia's yo'th.

"In our opinion, th' true intenshun of Prop. 215 hides behind th' facade of terminally ill patients," McClure said, cuss it all t' tarnation.

"An' it has been used as a smokexcreen fo' ill-intenshuned profiteers t'make a case fo' sellin' marygwana wifout criminal liability."

Ho'n, meanwhile, said Tuesday's testimony did not figger into th' county's vote t'appeal an' corntinue its fight.

"No, not at all," Ho'n said, cuss it all t' tarnation. "ah reckon it's a bad law. ah mean, as far as th' benefits, them is medical opinions. Thar is probably some medical benefits, eff'n yo' lissen t'th' (patients).

But thass not our point.

Our point is who has jurisdickshun hyar (th' state o' federal govment).

"We didn't git thet fum this hyar judge, so we is a-gonna appeal it," he said, cuss it all t' tarnation.

Ho'n said th' superviso''s closed-sesshun vote was 4-1, but'd not say who opposed th' appeal, ah reckon.

Despite th' lack of unanimity, th' board's appeal was no surprise.

All of th' current superviso's opposed Prop. 215 when it was put on th' ballot in 1996.

Last week, John-Boy Sansone, th' county's lead atto'ney, said he thunk Nevitt's rulin' lef' room fo' an appeal, ah reckon.

Meanwhile, Vista resident Craig McClain, a longtime medical marijuana patient, said he was not surprised by the news Tuesday night.

McClain says he uses marijuana to ease the severe spasms he suffers from a construction-related accident that crushed his spine and left him with six screws holding his pelvis together. He attended Tuesday's board meeting but did not speak.

"Oh, I knew they were going to appeal," McClain said. "You could look at their faces, and it was the same exact deal. They smile and they look at you, but there's a coldness to that room that is just incredible.

"I mean, I don't want to speak ill," he said. "But there's a definite coldness. I guess we're going to the Supreme Court."

Complete Title: Supes Vote To Persist Wif Medical Marygwana Challenge

Contack: letters@nctimes.com * Website

South Car'linans Fo' Safe Access

San Diego County Board Votes To Appeal Rulin'

Courts Give Some Vicko'ies To Th' Varmints

County: Rulin' on Pot Lackin'

The Dialectize

Patients Out of Time


Photos of the government marijuana distributed to federal IND patients

George McMahon's Home Page
George McMahon, one of the remaining patients in the federal medical marijuana program and a founding member of Patients Out of Time

Comments from Elvy Musikka
Gaucoma patient and one of only eight people in the U.S. allowed to receive marijuana legally as medicine from the federal government.
December 14, 1997 Hollywood, Florida



The U.S. Food and Drug Administration states on their web site in an article dated 2/12/02:

"Access to unapproved drugs can occur through many legal mechanisms, including enrolling in clinical trials, a special exception or compassionate exemption, an emergency Investigational New Drug (IND), and a Treatment IND.

If the eligibility criteria in a study protocol are not suitable for a particular patient, it may still be possible to be treated according to the study protocol as a special exception (sometimes called compassionate exemption).

Treating a patient as an exception is at the discretion of the investigator and sponsor, and usually requires filing extra paperwork, including sending a request to the FDA."
(2/12/02) U.S. Food and Drug Administration



San Diego County Board Votes To Appeal MMJ Ruling
CN Source: Associated Press December 12, 2006 San Diego, CA
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to appeal a judge's recent decision to reject the county's challenge to California's decade-old law legalizing marijuana use by the chronically ill. The county sued California and its health services director in February over a state requirement that counties issue identification cards for medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards. San Bernardino and Merced counties joined the suit.



County: Ruling on Pot Lacking By Corinne Reilly
CN Source: Merced Sun-Star December 11, 2006 California
Merced County officials say a state judge's ruling against the county upholding California's medical marijuana law is inadequate. County officials haven't decided whether to appeal the recent ruling, but said in a brief statement issued by the Board of Supervisors on Thursday that the decision "doesn't fully address" whether the county should comply with state or federal marijuana laws.

Finally, Courts Give Some Victories To The People By Phil Strickland
CN Source: North County Times December 11, 2006 California
These last few weeks have been good ones for we the people. One can but hope it stays that way. In two instances, courts decided that voters can determine the law of the land without interference from the sometimes less-than-judicious judicial system. First, a week ago Thursday, California's 4th District Court of Appeal essentially ruled that San Diego County Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett was clueless when she took it upon herself to overturn the will of the more than three-quarters of San Diego voters who approved a proposition designed to keep the Mount Soledad cross standing in the place it has occupied since 1954.



Judge Upholds Ruling Dismissing Counties' Prop. 215 Challenge
NORML's Weekly News Bulletin - December 7, 2006 San Diego, CA
Superior Court Judge William Nevitt upheld last month's preliminary ruling rejecting a lawsuit filed by San Diego County supervisors, who had argued that the state's medical cannabis laws should be pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act.

S.D. Judge Hands Victory To MMJ Advocates By Jeff McDonald
CN Source: San Diego Union Tribune December 07, 2006 San Diego, CA  
A Superior Court judge refused to overturn California's medical marijuana laws yesterday, upholding last month's preliminary ruling that rejected San Diego County's lawsuit against the state. Judge William R. Nevitt Jr. ruled that state law enforcement officials are not obligated to arrest and prosecute people who violate federal laws. The ruling favored the state and a handful of patients and advocacy groups that joined the case after it was filed early this year.

Judge Rejects Counties' Challenge to CA MMJ Law By Allison Hoffman
CN Source: Associated Press December 06, 2006 San Diego, CA 
A state judge on Wednesday upheld California's law permitting the use of medical marijuana for medical purposes, rejecting a lawsuit by three counties challenging the decade-old statute. The counties, led by San Diego, argued that local governments shouldn't be bound to uphold state laws that are weaker than the federal blanket ban on marijuana.

Protest Massive DEAth Raids in San DEAgo!

[DdC]

City Council Poised To Approve Ban on Dispensaries
CN Source: Associated Press January 02, 2007 Azusa, Calif.

The city is poised to join several others across California in banning medical marijuana dispensaries.

The City Council planned to vote Tuesday on an ordinance designed to prohibit the so-called "pot clubs." Officials approved the new rule unanimously on its first reading last month.

Council member Keith Hanks said he understands that marijuana helps people who are sick, but the dispensaries can open up the possibility of abuse in the system.

"How do you become a legal possessor of marijuana and show that you only have it to distribute for helping people who are sick? How can the police enforce the marijuana control laws? They're put in a difficult position," he said.

But advocates for the clubs say regulating them is more effective than banning them.

"In many of the 27 cities and six counties (statewide) that have allowed dispensaries, they reduced crime and reduced complaints and helped patients," said Don Duncan, the Southern California coordinator for Americans for Safe Access.
If the ordinance is approved, Azusa would join several other cities that outlaw the dispensaries, including Pasadena, or have enacted moratoriums that prevent marijuana cooperatives from coming to town.

The measure reads, "Any business, operation or use that cannot be conducted or carried out without being in violation of state or federal law shall be prohibited."

In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, legalizing the drug for therapeutic use. In 2003, state legislation was approved allowing counties to issue identification cards to medical users to protect them from prosecution by local law enforcement.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that federal authorities could still seize and destroy marijuana stashes and arrest growers and consumers even in the 11 states that allow medical marijuana use.

Federal law prohibits any marijuana use.

Complete Title: California City Council Poised To Approve Ban on Pot Dispensaries

[DdC]

Taft Temporarily Prohibits Medical Marijuana Store By Louis Medina
CN Source: Bakersfield Californian January 04, 2007 California  
When Taft Police Chief Bert Pumphrey recently learned someone was looking to open a local medical marijuana dispensary, he acted swiftly in light of unresolved state and federal legal issues in this controversial matter. Pumphrey went to the Taft City Council meeting Dec. 19 "to request an emergency moratorium to allow time for the planning department to look at zoning issues and ... for the resolution of pending litigation in California courts." Continued...cannabisnews/22493

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

Fate of Tracy `Cannabis Club' To Be Decided Today
January 4, 2007 TRACY

While the national debate over the use of medical marijuana has yet to be settled, city officials hope to resolve the confusion over whether or not "cannabis clubs" that distribute the drug to patients are allowed under the city code.

The situation has come to a head after Tracy's own cannabis club, The Valley Wellness Center, 130 W. 11th St., continued to operate after being ordered to close by the city.

A hearing is set to be held 2 p.m. today at Tracy City Hall and according to city officials, a local attorney has volunteered to serve as the hearing officer.

Although there is nothing in the city code specifically banning medical marijuana dispensaries, there's also nothing that allows for it. In November the club was ordered by city code enforcement officers to "discontinue the non-listed use of distributing medical marijuana."

The city also contends the group misrepresented themselves on their business license, saying their activity would be "retail sales conducted by a non-profit corporation."

An attorney for the dispensary said they provide a benefit to the community on a non-profit basis and called the city's legal position — anything not explicitly permitted is therefore prohibited — "dubious and infringes on constitutionally protected property rights."

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215 — the Compassionate Use Act — providing the seriously ill with the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes.

The San Joaquin County District Attorney's office interprets the retail sale of marijuana, even to those who have a doctor's recommendation, as illegal.

[roaringsilence]

In my view, the CA legislature shall past a resolution explicitly nullifies the federal CSA, (as Madison did in Virginia Resolution to Alien and Sedition Acts) or there is no way to get around it unless congress wake up to reschedule it.
_________________
End the war, just simple.

[DdC]

The Great California Weed Rush By Vanessa Grigoriadis
CN Source: Rolling Stone February 07, 2007 California 
THC Breath Strips. That's what Daniel is thinking about -- taking some of those gelatinous Scotch-tape thingies that Listermint makes and putting oil made from marijuana trim in them. There's a guy who's good at producing marijuana concentrates, and he figured out how to bind oil to pullulan, the same carbohydrate gel that Listermint uses for its strips. Now a bunch of people are selling the things, in plastic baggies with a sticker reading for medical use only for five or six dollars a strip.
Continued...cannabisnews/22609

County OKs Medical Marijuana Dispensaries By Sarah Arnquist
CN Source: Tribune February 07, 2007 San Luis Obispo, CA 
The Board of Supervisors gave its final approval Tuesday to allow medical marijuana dispensaries in the county’s unincorporated inland areas.
Dispensaries cannot be in a downtown business area or within 1,000 feet of any school, library, playground, park or youth recreation area under the ordinance that takes effect in 30 days.
Continued...cannabisnews/22602

Pot Growing Moves To Suburbs By John Ritter
CN Source: USA Today February 07, 2007 Lathrop, Calif.  
Rick Estrada didn't think it particularly odd that he never saw his next-door neighbor or that curtains were always drawn. On his block of new homes, everyone was a recent arrival. In fact, some homes still sit empty, owned by investors hoping to "flip" them at a profit. Never in his darkest dreams did Estrada think the two-story house a few feet from his contained an indoor marijuana-growing operation that authorities believe is the latest wrinkle in drug traffickers' efforts to hide their illegal business.
Continued...cannabisnews/22604

Suburbs Attracting Marijuana Growers By Cassandra Braun
CN Source: Contra Costa Times February 07, 2007 California  
Schools, safety, serenity, self-enclosed castles -- these are the qualities that traditionally draw people out to carefully planned suburbs. But homeowners looking for a nice place to raise a family aren't the only ones seeing the appeal of quiet bedroom communities. Marijuana growers also are recognizing their benefits. And they are taking full advantage by turning million-dollar properties into million-dollar-making greenhouses.
Continued...cannabisnews/22605

That Is High By Eliza Strickland
CN Source: SF Weekly February 06, 2007 San Francisco  

A veteran who said she had Gulf War Syndrome sat next to a woman who complained of damaged disks in her back; an HIV-positive man talked to a woman with a seizure disorder. Potent smoke swirled around them and drifted up to blur the fluorescent lights.

It was the latest meeting of medical marijuana activists at the California Marijuana Party's resource center, where fat joints get passed in between impassioned speeches, and where small bags of sticky green "compassion" get handed out for free before everyone disperses.

The activists had gathered to talk about the abrupt, and sizable, fee hike in state-issued medical marijuana ID cards.

The California Department of Health Services sent out the bland letter with the big news in late December. The annual state fee is rising from $13 to $142, in addition to the $33 fee card holders pay to the city.

While patients on MediCal will get a price break, veterans and elderly patients who are receiving federal benefits will not, since the federal government still isn't down with California's medical marijuana experiment.

The cards are meant to protect legitimate patients from arrest and prosecution, and allow the cardholder to legally possess up to eight ounces of pot.

Each card has a photograph of the cardholder and a unique ID number, but no name or address. If a cop pulls someone over who reeks of pot and the driver whips out an ID card, the police officer is supposed to have a dispatcher verify that the card is legitimate, by going to an encrypted Web site listed on the card.

The activists vented their outrage at the fee hike, which they indignantly noted was an increase of 1,000 percent.

"They're creating two different classes of people, those who can afford to buy the protection and those who cannot," says Shona Gochenaur, executive director of the activist group Axis of Love.

The increase prices out people with serious medical conditions who are scraping by on disability or another form of public assistance, she says.

Yet Gochenaur doesn't have a state ID card. Nor did most of the people in the room. The state had distributed only 9,076 cards by the end of January, said a spokeswoman for the Department of Health Services — and she estimates that the state's actual patient population is between 150,000 and 350,000.

When San Francisco distributed a city card of its own, before switching to the state system, more than 11,000 patients signed up.

"There's an unspoken boycott going on," explains Gochenaur. The activists in the room agree. Patients have heard alarming rumors about what can happen when you sign up for the state ID card.

They say it's essentially putting your name on a list of people who are breaking a federal law, and they worry that it's just a matter of time before the Drug Enforcement Agency demands that the state turn over that list.

(The state insists it keeps all information about cardholders and applicants "confidential and secure.")

In an ironic twist, patients' reluctance to sign up with the state system has brought about the current fee hike, which in turn will make it harder and less appealing for patients to sign up.

The state program is out of money, explains Dale Gieringer, a California spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

"They do have a financial crunch because enrollment has not been what they wanted," he says.

The program received a loan from the state for its start-up costs, and was expected to use incoming enrollment fees to pay back the loan. Now, with repayment due when the fiscal year ends in June, the program has raised fees in an attempt to raise money quickly.

It's a counterproductive move if ever there were one, says Gieringer. "If they try to raise the fees like this, they're not going to get anything back," he says. "Because the whole program will collapse!"

In July, the city regulations that Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi hammered out for pot clubs go into effect. The clubs will then be allowed to dispense marijuana only to those with a government-issued ID card; a doctor's recommendation alone will no longer suffice. But patients say the new rule won't drive them to the state program. Instead, many people plan to register in Oakland, since Alameda County still issues its own card.

Mirkarimi offered a nonbinding resolution last week urging the San Francisco Department of Public Health to abandon the state ID card, and switch back to a local system using city cards. While the resolution wouldn't have the force of law, even that has run into difficulty, as Supervisor Ed Jew prevented a vote on the resolution and shuttled it into committee.

But while San Francisco advocates are hoping the city will go its own way, state activists are watching the local furor with concern. If San Francisco bows out, the state program will have even deeper financial troubles — especially since San Francisco has more cardholders than any other county in the state.

"We are sympathetic to the needs and concerns of patients in San Francisco, but there's something larger going on, and we need to asses the needs of patients throughout the state," says Kris Hermes, legal campaign director for Americans for Safe Access. "If San Francisco pulls out, it endangers the stability of the whole state program, and it also sends a message to other counties that it's OK for them to not comply."

Still, most local patients are rooting for Mirkarimi to succeed, and say bringing back a city card would solve both their privacy and financial concerns. Mike Welch is both a patient and a provider; he runs Sanctuary, a small pot club in the Tenderloin. He says that if the fee hike goes through and the city doesn't present another option, many of his clients will be priced out of the system.

Welch notes that the state ID card expires after one year, and the renewal fee costs the same $142 as the initial fee. In addition, a patient needs a biannual doctor's recommendation to be eligible for the card, and a visit to a cannabis-friendly doctor usually costs between $80 and $200.

"These are people with AIDS, with cancer, people who are too sick to work," he says. "Even $20 is a huge amount of money to people who are living on public assistance."

If his patients can't afford a state ID card, he says, they may go back to buying pot illegally on the street. "They're forcing people out of the green market, and into the black market," he says.

Note: Medical marijuana smokers face a 1,000-percent increase in cost of state ID card, which could force its demise.

Contact: feedback@sfweekly.com
Website

CaNORML

Americans for Safe Access

CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives

California Marijuana Party



New Medical Marijuana Dispensary in The Valley
A new medical marijuana dispensary is in business in Desert Hot Springs. This comes after raids at other shops in Palm Springs and Palm Desert and also around the Los Angeles area.

The Desert Hot Springs City Council faces questions whether the dispensary should open at all. This after other dispensaries around the Valley have been shut down.
Dispensary advocates argue patients should get the medicine they were allowed from California's prop 215.

Mayor Alex Bias tells NewsChannel 3 that the council is still looking into a proposed dispensary moratorium he assumes will pass. That could prevent Organic Solutions of the Desert from doing business.

Residents will be able to express their opinions about this marijuana dispensary tonight at city hall starting at 6:45.



Marina Moves To Ban Pot By Larry Parsons
Source: Monterey County Herald February 06, 2007 California 

The city of Marina is poised to become the first jurisdiction in Monterey County to rule out medical marijuana clinics.

The City Council today will consider zoning amendments that would put a permanent ban on medical marijuana dispensaries in the city codebook.

The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the ban on marijuana clinics.

On Monday, Councilman Ken Gray said Marina is too small a city to get caught up in the conflict between state and federal laws on the medicinal use of marijuana.

"We just don't think the little city of Marina should take on those national issues.

Larger cities with larger financial resources can address those issues," Gray said.

"Marina is just not in a good position to take on a challenge like that."

Though California law is generally supportive of the medicinal use of marijuana, federal drug agents have raided clinics in keeping with federal anti-marijuana laws.
Gray said he hasn't heard any residents of Marina speaking in favor of allowing marijuana clinics in the city.

Both Marina and Seaside now have temporary moratoriums in effect against such clinics -- actions prompted by inquiries last year about the possibility of locating them there.

City staff members say medical marijuana clinics wouldn't promote Marina's general plan policies. The clinics wouldn't generate sale taxes and could prevent tax-generating businesses from finding space in the city.

If the council approves the recommendation, final approval of zoning changes would come Feb. 20, and the ban would take effect 30 days after that.

Note: Critics fear complications from clinics.

Contact: mheditor@montereyherald.com * Website



The Pot Party



The Marijuana Party

Welcome to the US Parliament!
Annual conventions to be located in Monterey, California
on July 4th 2007 – 1st Central California Mini-State Parliament Election