cannabisnews.com: Where Does Your Pot Grow? Where Does Your Pot Grow? Posted by CN Staff on July 26, 2002 at 08:17:54 PT Editorial Source: San Francisco Chronicle It's easy to mock Supervisor Mark Leno's proposal for San Francisco to grow and distribute its own medical marijuana. Leno even provided extra fodder for late-night comedians by suggesting that vacant lots could be turned into pot patches and that the city's venture into agriculture could provide job training for the unemployed. One Australian newspaper this week headlined a story about the proposed November ballot measure: "Dopey plan for Frisco." There is, to be sure, an eye-rolling aspect to the notion of this Board of Supervisors venturing into the drug business. Beyond the one-liners, however, is the serious matter of how to get medical marijuana to patients in a structured, limited way that fulfills the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters who passed Proposition 215 in 1996. John Walters, the federal drug czar, is right when he argues that some advocates of legalizing marijuana are trying to use the medical issue to get around drug laws. He worries about the young people who are trying potent strains of marijuana at early ages. He points to evidence that experimentation with marijuana is linked to exposure to other drugs. We share all those concerns, but we don't accept Walters' argument that keeping pot away from healthy teens requires denying it to a middle-aged patient trying to offset the effects of chemotherapy. "I kind of hope the people of the city don't do this," he said when asked about the Leno plan during a meeting with The Chronicle on Thursday. His message was clear: "I like San Francisco," and feel the pain of people trying to get relief through medical marijuana, but don't look to Washington for help. Therein lies this administration's -- and its predecessor's -- disconnect with reality. The U.S. government's song remains the same: The scientific evidence on the efficacy of medical marijuana remains inconclusive, federal law trumps state law, and these "buyers' clubs" are part of the illicit drug trade and must be stopped. But most Washington politicians, fearful about appearing "soft on drugs," have done little if anything to address those issues in a way that will let people with AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma and various other conditions use marijuana under a doctor's prescription. Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/07/26/ED87124.DTLSource: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Published: Friday, July 26, 2002 Copyright: San Francisco Chronicle - Page A - 24 Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles:Voters To Decide On Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13523.shtmlSan Francisco Puts Growing Marijuana on Ballot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13517.shtmlSan Francisco Eyes Marijuana Farminghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13512.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #10 posted by ekim on July 26, 2002 at 22:04:53 PT BARBARA SWEENEY -- MEDICAL POT ACTIVIST Pubdate: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Webpage: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/07/25/B A13548.DTL Copyright: 2002 Hearst Communications Inc. Contact: letters s... Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388 Author: Pamela J. Podger, Chronicle Staff WriterBARBARA SWEENEY -- MEDICAL POT ACTIVISTMarin County AIDS and medical marijuana activist Barbara Sweeney died July 21 at Marin General Hospital from pancreatitis. She was 49.Ms. Sweeney is survived by her 12-year-old daughter, Cassie, who will be raised by guardians that her mother selected in the final years of her 13-year battle with AIDS and hepatitis C.Ms. Sweeney helped start and manage the now-defunct Flower Therapy clinic in San Francisco for medical marijuana. She was named by activist Dennis Peron as one of the people who inspired him to co-write state Proposition 215, the 1996 voter-approved initiative that legalized the medical use of marijuana.Friends said Ms. Sweeney frequently spoke about AIDS prevention at local schools, jails and prisons.In 1992, Ms. Sweeney was arrested for growing two marijuana plants, which she used to alleviate the nausea from her medications, but friends said the Marin County district attorney's office had declined to prosecute. On Oct. 11, 1992, the town of Fairfax passed a resolution supporting the use of medical marijuana.Longtime pal Stephenie Hendricks, an independent television producer, recalled an early 1990s episode of "Bay TV," the talk show with TV anchor Pete Wilson, where Ms. Sweeney spoke about medical marijuana with former U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello."She reached into her bra and pulled out a joint, lit it and blew smoke in their faces, saying, 'If you guys don't mellow out, you're going to get heart attacks,' " Hendricks recalled. "I'll never forget the look on Pete's face -- it was priceless, and Barbara was giggling with glee."Pam Lynott of Larkspur, who helped out at Flower Therapy, which served about 3,000 people at its peak and operated from 1996 to 1999. Along with providing a safe place for people to take their medicine, the clinic hosted Sunday potluck dinners and Christmas, Thanksgiving and St. Patrick's Day events."She was a very dear friend of mine," Lynott said. "She had spunk and a heart of gold."Ms. Sweeney was born May 4, 1953, in Bronx, N.Y. She graduated from Brown University in Providence, R.I., with majors in political science and education.Friends said Ms. Sweeney was diagnosed with HIV in 1989 when she became pregnant. She believed she had been infected by her former husband, who used intravenous drugs.Ms. Sweeney moved to Marin County about 20 years ago, most recently living in Fairfax.Visitation hours are tonight from 7 to 8:30 at Mount Tamalpais Cemetery in San Rafael, followed by a private memorial service. In lieu of flowers, donations are requested for a college fund for Cassie Sweeney at the Fairfax branch of the Bank of America, located at 89 Broadway. __________________________________________________________________________ Distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. --- MAP posted-by: Beth [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by paul peterson on July 26, 2002 at 13:29:14 PT: FEDERAL V. STATE-COMMERCE CLAUSE FALLACY Just had to weigh in here for a moment: Yes, Ken Stroup is correct, anything not delegated to the feds is relegated to the states. the states have predominance in the areas of "police & welfare", such as, ahem, the health of citizens of the various SOVEREIGN (Now there is a word!) STATES where they ingest foods or drugs that are of a specifically LOCAL NATURE (and I'm not talkin logo yet either). The general rule is that where there is only an "intrastate" activity going on (such as local sales of guns, or local sales of marijuana near schools-there are cases on these both from the mid-90's), sorry Charlie (that's Chuckie in the movie version) there is no "federal" jursidiction-Where did this go wrong? The 9th Circuit, in Tisor v. US (1996 I think) ruled that aggressive "commercial" sales of methamphetamines, where there are a lot of PHONE TAPES (SOUNDS LIKE PHONE FRAUD TO ME!) "AFFECTED" interstate commerce, I call it the OOZE (ACCROSS STATE LINES) FACTOR. This drug is so dangerous and addictive and destructive that I can appreciate the hope that these DEA people have to control-no, eradicate, this scourge, and so this case tends to follow a proper course, really. What happened, of course, is since marijuana has long been equated with the WORST OF THE WORST drug scourges, with that "GATEWAY" trademark all over it, everybody just assumes that MARIJUANA SALES OOZE OVER THE BORDER JUST AS QUICKLY.But wait-Let's look closer at Brian Epis' case-you know, the guy that just got juiced by the hand picked and VIRGIN JURY (NOT YET weaned on jury nullification and all, oh well). He only sold to people that have that CALIFORNIA CARD, so they were all INSTATE PEOPLE, RIGHT? He has records clearly defining the class of people that got his medicine, right? He can prove that there is absolutely NO AFFECT ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE, RIGHT? BINGO, YOU'RE RIGHT AND I'M GLAD YOU WERE LISTENING. You see, Epis' case is an important test of the COMMERCE CLAUSE & IT'S RIGHT ON TIME.This guy has gotta have lawyers that are not asleep at the switch, and it they are, please somebody get this to them and have them call me or email me and I would be happy to fill them in (or anybody else!). If he doesn't have any OOZE FACTORS GOING ON, this case should be a deadbang winner before that 9th Circuit Court of Appeals!So here is where this hits with the San Francisco County proposal to grow their own- 1) I'm hoping the whole county is in the State of California (please correct me if I'm wrong on this people, OK?) 2) I'm hoping that no water or fertilizer gets "imported" from some other state (that would be tabboo, right?-Let's not use any "electricity" generated through an interstate grid-that means either "solar", "wind", or a gas generator-Use a diesel so you can use hemp seed oil please, that way you can certify that no GEORGE BUSH INTERSTATE IMPORTED OIL GOT USED TO MAKE THE GAS, EH-REMEMBER, WE GOTTA AVOID THAT "OOZE FACTOR" (and just to be safe, keep OOZIE OOZBORN away from this gig, ok?). 3) All communication between the city council & the plant places must be conducted by smoke signals, or by bicycle courier, just to avoid any interstate highway funds being used to fund the gig, ok? 4) And while we're at it, make sure that no CITY GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS ARE USED TO DO THIS THINGY, WHAT IF THE FEDS GAVE SOME PITTANCE TO BUY SOME URINALS DOWNTOWN OR SOMETHING-THAT MIGHT TRIGGER THE OOZE FACTOR-don't go there! (Am I sounding paranoid, or what-well, kids, we gotta be real careful about those SUPREME BEINGS OUT THERE IN DC LAND, DONTCHA KNOW BOBBY!).OK-NOW THAT WE ARE THERE, WE GET ALL THE FUNDS NON-OOZE, WE KEEP ANY FEDERAL "JOB TRAINING" FUNDS OUTA THE MIX, NOW YOU'RE LEARNING! Then the feds can't possibly say there is any COMMERCE CLAUSE JURISDICTION, AND WON'T ASA JUST GET BLUE IN THE FACE? WON'T THOSE JOHNS JUST HAVE CONIPTIONS? JUST TO BE SAFE, I WOULD ASK THE FEDS TO REMOVE THEIR DEA SCUM FROM THE CITY, POLITELY TELL THEM THAT THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION AT ALL TO BE THERE, MAKE SF A "DEA FREE ZONE" (and I'm done now, and thanks for listening!). CALL IT THE "NEED, SEED, FEED, WEED, INDEED! Program, take two seeds and call me in the morning! PAUL PETERSON- Just please, check ID's people, A guy from Nevada would just blow the whole anti-OOZE PROGRAM BUT GOOD, ok? http://ILLINOIS-MMI.ORG [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by VitaminT on July 26, 2002 at 11:19:18 PT If they interfere they will lose . . . in the court of public opinion! After that, how will they find a jury willing to be deceived like the one in Sacramento a few weeks ago? [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by TroutMask on July 26, 2002 at 10:51:04 PT a link Here's a link discussing this very issue:http://www.drcnet.org/wol/247.html#prop215-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on July 26, 2002 at 09:49:54 PT Fed vs. state In the recent CNN Crossfire debate, Keith Stroup said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the constitution give the states the power to do anything not specifically given to the federal government in the rest of the constitution. Thus, ignoring the interstate commerce thing, Prop 215 should beat the federal schedule one status. Of course, the Feds don't like this, so they ignore it until forced to confront it - in a court, hopefully very soon. Watch CNN Crossfire with Keith Stroup and Asa Hutchinson [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by TroutMask on July 26, 2002 at 09:41:32 PT correction Now I re-read JHarshaw's comment, maybe I misunderstood. To the best of my knowledge, federal law almost always trumps state law. San Francisco is going out on a limb in defiance of federal law with the hope that the feds won't interfere or the hope they WILL interfere and lose in court. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by TroutMask on July 26, 2002 at 09:39:30 PT Fed vs. State You are right, JHarshaw.What we are heading toward is a challenge of federal vs. state law which means a challenge of the right of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, the whole basis for prohibition (at least for marijuana). The reason marijuana falls under federal law is the assumption that during it's manufacture or supply it somehow crosses state lines. This is a pathetically weak argument which we may see destroyed in federal court if the feds don't let San Fran grow. I'd bet they will do just about anything to avoid this possibility.At least, this is my understanding of the issues.-TM [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by JHarshaw on July 26, 2002 at 09:11:19 PT federal law trumps state law I thought that except in very specific circumstances the opposite was true. Please forgive my ignorance if I am wrong. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by krutch on July 26, 2002 at 08:33:54 PT: The best way to keep teens away is to legalize When I was a kid the hardest drug for me to score was alcohol. I had to convince an adult to by it for me. Pot, LSD, meth, and cocaine were avialable on any give day at school. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by xxdr_zombiexx on July 26, 2002 at 08:27:11 PT Ridiculous Laws Require ridiculous efforts to enforce them.Its only logical that counter-measures would become insane as well....but People hve to be free and if we have to grow weed at city and county expense....all I can say is stranger things have happened. In the insane milieu of what was once "america" it really doesn't seem far out... I mean far-fetched. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment