cannabisnews.com: Narcotics Officers Ordered to Return M. Marijuana





Narcotics Officers Ordered to Return M. Marijuana
Posted by FoM on March 01, 2000 at 07:09:34 PT
Judge ruled pot be returned to a user
Source: BaysInsider
A 40-year-old Sonoma man, who survived breaking his neck twice, awaited delivery of 1 1/4 pounds of marijuana from narcotics officers Tuesday -- under a court order. Superior Court Judge Gayle Guynup of Sonoma County on Friday ordered the return of Scott Teeter's marijuana based on a doctor's prescription that it is necessary for medicinal purposes. 
It is the first time in Sonoma County that a judge ruled pot be returned to a user. Teeter said Monday that the processed marijuana, along with 50 plants in various growth stages, were seized by the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department on Oct. 1, 1998 after deputies attempted to serve an arrest warrant on another person at Teeter's home. Teeter claims the warrant was bogus. Immunity Issue:He said he had received immunity from the district attorney's office for possession of marijuana when he helped authorities convict people who burglarized his home 2 1/2 years ago. Teeter said he was cited for misdemeanor possession of more than an ounce of marijuana following the seizure. But the charge was dismissed July 9. Teeter said a two-day hearing was held last week during which his doctor and an expert in medicinal marijuana testified. He said the judge ordered the return of his processed marijuana, but he will not get back the plants, which would have died by now. Received Prescription:Teeter said he received a prescription from his doctor after the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, which allows possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes. He said he smokes five to 10 grams per day to treat chronic pain syndrome that developed after his two major neck injuries. He said deputies left him a quarter-ounce and two plants, one of which was in a vegetative state. He said one plant died soon after the seizure and the remaining marijuana lasted him about two days. Guidelines Requested:Michael Heald, commander of the Sonoma County Narcotics Task Force, which has been formed since the seizure, said the case proves that the state attorney general needs to create guidelines to help officers enforce the law. He said narcotics officers are not bad guys ``out there to take out people's medicinal marijuana.'' He said Proposition 215 opened a Pandora's box of conflicting issues, such as how to preserve the marijuana in case of its eventual return to a person. He said the problem is that marijuana is ``also a controlled substance, and we have two diametrically opposed laws.'' Santa Rosa:Published: March 1, 2000 © 2000 Cox Interactive Media CannabisNews Medical Marijuana News Search & Archives:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtmlhttp://www.alltheweb.com/cgi-bin/asearch?type=all&query=cannabisnews+medical
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on March 01, 2000 at 08:32:27 PT
Sometimes it pays to be vague
Michael Heald, commander of the Sonoma County Narcotics Task Force, which has been formed since the seizure, said the case proves that the state attorney general needs to create guidelines to help officers enforce the law. He said narcotics officers are not bad guys ``out there to take out people's medicinal marijuana.''He said Proposition 215 opened a Pandora's box of conflicting issues, such as how to preserve the marijuana in case of its eventual return to a person. He said the problem is that marijuana is ``also a controlled substance, and we have two diametrically opposed laws.'' Tell me something? How do you distinguish legally 'good' marijuana from legally 'bad' marijuana? Does it have a different color? Scent? Smell when burnt? Quality of high? (Well, I'm told that the stuff the government still gives to Compassionate Use recipients is inferior to hydro; I have to take their word on that).My point is easily understood, and makes up the crux of the argument against MJ prohibition. If one form of marijuana is legally acceptable and another isn't, how do you tell which is which? By looking at the recipient of it? If he wears a Brookes Brothers suit and a crew cut instead of a tie-dye shirt and an Andrew Weil beard, does that make him legitimate? You see where this is going?The framers of Prop215 have been vilified by some in this forum. And for all I know (I live in MD, not CA) there may well be legitimate beefs. But I believe that in a few years, we will see a lot more of Prop215 type legislation being introduced - and passed - in various State legislatures. Because it is the *only way* to extract this country from a pointless prohibition. By being so vague, it opens the door for the relatively painless public admission of law enforcement that it was an exercise in futility; if the people vote for it, then who are the police to stand in the way of democracy? (I know, some have, like that sheriff in Shasta County, but in the end, he'll get what he deserves.) By having the States do it, just as they did with alocohol Prohibition, it relieves the Federal government of any responsibility... save that of taxing it, of course. (I can just see it now: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firerams and Cannabis [shudder!]. Well, maybe they'll 'test' some of the cannabis and mellow out from being the 'jackbooted thugs' they've been pegged as.)Yes, Prop215 is vague. Deliberately so. But it may just be the stone that starts the avelanche that will bury MJ prohibition once and for all.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: