cannabisnews.com: Prosecutor Snuffs Out Pot Shops





Prosecutor Snuffs Out Pot Shops
Posted by CN Staff on May 04, 2004 at 08:06:30 PT
By Dave Moller 
Source: The Union
Law enforcement officials are warning three Nevada County men who want to sell medical marijuana locally that their plan is nothing more than a pipe dream. One of the men is currently selling pot out of a Colfax storefront, and the other two are providing patients with the drug from a secret location. All three say their operations are legal and are simply helping sick people get their medicine. The county prosecutor, however, said the law is not on the entrepreneurs' side.
"Show me some law that says it's OK to do what they're doing." Nevada County District Attorney Michael Ferguson said. "I think it's illegal to disperse marijuana." Ferguson said Proposition 215 and case law only allow medical marijuana to be grown and possessed. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent Gordon Taylor said he does not care what California law says; federal statutes contend marijuana is illegal to grow, possess or sell. Ron Black and John Brajcki grow marijuana for their own afflictions and say they have the legal documentation to do so. Patients with doctors' recommendations come to them to buy mostly one-eighth or one-fourth ounce of pot at a time, Black said. "I was hoping they would buy ounces," Black said, but he admits they have made more money selling smaller quantities. "We've made $13,000 this year or since last October." Marijuana growers often are vulnerable to thieves, and Black said he has slept with his plants more than once to protect them. "Once we got our OK to grow our crop, we became a bull's-eye." Black said there are "no illegal sales" in his operation, but he wants to set up a retail store outlet with Ferguson's blessing. "He's not receptive at this moment," Black said of the district attorney Black said he backed off from the idea of opening a shop after consulting Auburn attorney William O'Neill, who contacted Ferguson's office on his behalf. "I talked to one of the deputy district attorneys in Nevada County, and he said they would aggressively prosecute anyone not entitled to their own 10 (marijuana) plants," O'Neill said. "We were surprised to find Placer County has a totally different take on the situation than Nevada County. "Mr. Black was wise to check with the DA and an attorney. You don't advise a client to flout the law." Black's partner, Brajcki, said under new state law SB 420 he and Black can sell what is left over from the 10 plants they put in last year for their own use. "I need the ability for a storefront office like everyone else," Brajcki said. "They're opening up all around us; why can't we be in the ball game, too?" For the past few weeks, Jim Henry has been selling medical marijuana out of a low-key operation off Highway 174 in Colfax. "We opened a club about a month ago. We provide medical cannabis for critically ill patients," Henry said, listing the major illnesses as AIDS, cancer, hepatitis and chronic pain. "These people are sick; some are in wheelchairs coming in here." Henry said many of his appreciative customers are from Nevada County and glad they do not have to travel to the Bay Area to get their pot. "We check them thoroughly," he said of his review of doctors' recommendations and California identification. Henry said he tried to open an outlet in Nevada County but Ferguson would not let him. He said he has his eye on a location, "but we're in limbo" because of the district attorney's interpretation of the law. Even if he can surmount local law-enforcement obstacles, Henry could still be busted by federal agents. "We take exception to the term 'medical marijuana,'" DEA agent Taylor said. "If someone is going to operate a medical marijuana business, they are violating federal law and opening themselves to investigation and prosecution." People need to remember that marijuana is no longer the mild drug it was in the 1970s, Taylor said. "The potency is much higher," and today's pot puts several hundred thousand people in drug treatment programs every year, many of them teens, he said. Note: Nevada County proves stricter than Placer. Source: Union, The (CA)Author:  Dave Moller Published: May 4, 2004Copyright: 2004 Nevada County Publishing CompanyContact: letters theunion.comWebsite: http://www.theunion.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Medicinal Cannabis Research Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/research.htmMedical Pot for Sale in Colfaxhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18786.shtmlReefer Resource - The Unionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18368.shtmlThe Pot Shop - Roseville Press-Tribune http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18294.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on May 05, 2004 at 04:05:59 PT
Objection: asked and answered.
From: Jose Melendez jose xxxxxxxx
 Date: Tue May 4, 2004 12:13:49 US/Eastern
 To: mike.ferguson co.nevada.ca.us, peter.vanzant co.nevada.ca.us, keith.royal co.nevada.ca.us, legalize marijuana.com
 Cc: newcase.atr usdoj.gov, xxxx becker-poliakoff.com, others
 Subject: antitrust violations
 
 "Show me some law that says it's OK to do what they're doing." Nevada County District Attorney Michael Ferguson said. "I think it's illegal to disperse marijuana."
 
 STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND GUIDELINES
 OF THE ANTITRUST DIVISION 1
 
 1. SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7
 
 § 1 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1
 
 Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
 
 Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
 
 § 2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2
 
 Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
 
-snip
 
http://www.marijuana.com/420/showthread.php?p=288556#post288556
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by agog on May 04, 2004 at 14:04:08 PT:
Additional Game Playing
Let's cloud the water further....Within the last week wasn't there a Canadian article that stated the average potency was in the 6% range? I also find it interesting how someone has to prove that they are nearly "terminal" to even qualify under the eyes of the law.... If this substance is so inherently dangerous as the prohibs would have us believe.... Why oh Why can so many individuals with severely compromised immune systems consume it on a regular basis with not only no additional ill effects, but in many case measurable therapeutic ones?Easier to reach LD50 with water and Aspirin.Dear Journalists/Science Editors.... please start exercising your grey matter! If we are such a "stupid/ignorant" amotivational syndrome afflicted bunch of "stoners" how come we can connect the dots and see through this smoke screen and you can't?I'm still......
Agog
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on May 04, 2004 at 11:43:48 PT:
Actually, they have only one argument
Because the one concerning 'stronger pot' is itself unprovable.The antis have this bad habit of relying on the data they had from poorly stored, wildly divergent qualities of cannabis that had been warehoused in less than optimal conditions back in the 1970's. THC has this nasty habit of oxidizing faster than metals do; if you've ever made hash oil and left it exposed to air and sunlight, the golden hue quickly turns dark black. That's oxidation...and the ruination of the essential oils that comprise it. That's what happened to all the weed and weed products so poorly stored...and were then incorrectly touted as a 'baseline' to measure THC composition from. Not to mention the fact that they had stored various strains and types and really had no idea as to what was what. The 'research' which the antis are constantly pointing to therefore is fundamentally flawed as no such *scientifically repeatable* baseline had ever been delineated. It's really funny, in a way: the antis insist upon rigorous scientific proofs from us...and rely upon the most specious and slipshod research imaginable to shore up their claims.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by phil_debowl on May 04, 2004 at 11:37:26 PT
Why do i keep forgetting
that these people are paid by the state, and not the feds! It is total bs that any of them are trying to bypass and find loopholes in state law. WE PAY THEIR SALARIES!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by fearfull on May 04, 2004 at 10:40:50 PT
Mama
So true. Stronger pot means you don't have to smoke as much.
Only as much as "you" need.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by mamawillie on May 04, 2004 at 10:30:21 PT
the last argument
Looks like the antis are down to 2 arguments....since I keep seeing these in various articles from around the country:1) "People need to remember that marijuana is no longer the mild drug it was in the 1970s, Taylor said. "The potency is much higher..."2) "Today's pot puts several hundred thousand people in drug treatment programs every year, many of them teens, he said".It is laughable what they are down to. Legalizing marijuana would keep it out of the hands of teens. And today's testing of THC is more advanced than in the 60s. Now people know not to keep it lying around in open air in bright lights.... in other words, the THC content isn't necessarily higher... the methods of testing have gotten better.The "not your daddy's pot" argument is soooo overblown....Mama
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment