cannabisnews.com: Medical Pot Advocates Turn Out for Growers Hearing





Medical Pot Advocates Turn Out for Growers Hearing
Posted by FoM on April 16, 2000 at 19:55:55 PT
By Clark Mason, Press Democrat Staff Writer 
Source: Press Democrat 
Medical marijuana patients filled a Sonoma County courtroom Thursday to support three defendants who claim they are unfairly being prosecuted for growing medical pot.Kenneth Hayes, Cheryl Sequeira and Michael Foley face charges of cultivating and possessing marijuana in connection with the seizure of more than 800 plants, about 20 pounds of dried marijuana and one pound of dried hashish confiscated last May at their King Road home in Petaluma.
Hayes, 32, executive director of a San Francisco-based cannabis club, contends the operation was a cooperative that provides medical pot for more than 1,000 seriously ill people in the Bay Area.Sonoma County authorities, however, are attempting to portray the growers as driven by profit, no different from other illicit marijuana growers.The court case could help settle the question about marijuana co-ops in the wake of Proposition 215, the initiative approved by California voters in 1996 allowing the use of medical marijuana. While the initiative legalized its use, it did not specify how people were supposed to get the drug.Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins has taken actions to allow patients with doctor approval to grow plants for personal use. But he says nothing in the generally worded law allows people to grow large amounts of marijuana to sell or distribute.William Panzer, Hayes' attorney and a co-author of Proposition 215, said higher courts have recognized the right of a caregiver to grow marijuana for more than one patient.Hayes' organization, CHAMP, or Cannabis Helping Alleviate Medical Problems, has been commended for its work by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Mayor Willie Brown in resolutions passed last year.Chris Andrian, the Santa Rosa attorney representing Sequeira, said, "We have a situation where the city and county of San Francisco were lauding them and the County of Sonoma is condemning them."On Thursday, the long-delayed preliminary hearing got under way in Judge Frank Passalacqua's courtroom in front of about 40 medical marijuana advocates who rode up on a chartered bus from San Francisco.In three hours of testimony Thursday, Sonoma County sheriff's narcotics deputy Steve Gossett detailed the number of plants that were seized at the King Road home and greenhouse, along with a loaded .22 rifle and $3,300 in cash.Gossett testified that some of the written records, or "pay-owes," he seized from the house convinced him the marijuana was for the purposes of sale and resale.But Panzer told the court the defendants were going to be reimbursed for their growing and costs.The hearing continues today.Published: April 14, 2000© 2000 The Press DemocratRelated Articles & Web Site:C.H.A.M.P.http://www.champsf.org/Justice Department Ask for Rehearing of Medical Marijuana Rulinghttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3459.shtmlCannabisNews Articles On William Panzer & C.H.A.M.P.http://google.com/search?lc=&num=10&q=cannabisnews+panzer+site:cannabisnews.comhttp://google.com/search?lc=&num=10&q=cannabisnews+C.H.A.M.P.+site:cannabisnews.com
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by Mark Tide on April 19, 2000 at 16:19:36 PT:
Thanks and Remarks on Below
Thanks for this continued discussion. Very civilized. FoM is great, but he's misstated one matter. The "legalizers" can't very well blame medical cannabis reform for "causing legalizing drugs not to happen." This reform -actually- brought this broader legalization issue forward with renewed vigor, and it continues to do so. It's a marvelous wedge into the nonsense of cannabis prohibition. It doesn't need to be sacrificed to that eventual end result.FoM, I do agree that "what [almost] every facet of marijuana and drug policy reform people are doing," is very valuable. I'm a pedigreed, working member of that tribe, for many, many years. We just differ over some of these details (which I believe are important)."Uniformity," Dr. Ganj, for P215 implementation throughout this entire state of California, is and has been a political impossibility ever since the beginning. Here's the paradox: Any law broad enough couldn't get passed and signed, and any law narrow enough to get passed and signed is either essentially useless, legally / practically suspect, or subject to various and valid challenges.We're dependent on local government implementation for a while, and much better resource and advocacy should have been, and should now be, devoted to this specific purpose. Why isn't this happening? Arguments have been made for years on this crucial front, only to be submerged under the weight of this full-legalization-eventually (as patients suffer in the meantime) view.As you probably are thoroughly aware, this issue was put on the 1996 ballot for these same political reasons. Perhaps in another decade the Cal. Capitol will become capable of performing such policy, but that time has not yet arrived.The fact that Ken Hayes, et al, "thought they were doing everything legal under Prop 215[,]" reminds one of Marvin Chavez' valiant defiance of merciless persecution (political) by Orange County DA (of course Asst. DA Armbrust's stunningly revealing violations of Marvin's rights at his trial now have predicated Marvin's release). Lawful "distribution" according to P215, must be based on the adoption of relevant law by local governments (by default of action in Sac.). Or else, medical necessity is available as a compelling defense theory.But Sonoma Co. (unike Oakland, Arcata, -- and now very relevantly -- Santa Cruz) doesn't have a good law in place. Persons are exposed to uncompassionate legal persecution on that basis. It's a matter of DA discretion. It's essentially a political harassment, cloaked under purportedly lawful charging authority. I'm certainly in support of Hayes, et al, regardless of any kind of price disputes that are an evolving process of this implementation. Please believe that.As for the connection (no pun intended) with evolution of broader reform happening: "Maybe not as quickly as we would all like, but I am pleased with the progress being made." :Dr. Ganj, I'm very happy that you work to satisfy the needs of these patients, but you need to understand (let me remind you) that many persons (not you I'm sure) go --- Hungry and Homeless --- because of the rationale you are using to set the value of medicine. You need to re-think your ethic and your processes. "[L]egal sanctions against growers are lifted," as you say, within a proper implementation program. There is no good reason to keep those high prices. Arguably, we're at the cusp of this transition (largely because of the failures of implementation advocacy which I've partially noted). Perhaps, the new wave of policy emerging in Santa Cruz (& Arcata as well) will help you along that path.Good Luck, and let the muses be with you
Arcata Journal
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by FoM on April 18, 2000 at 21:56:05 PT
My 2 Cents
Interesting discussion about details that I never thought about. When medical marijuana is allowed everywhere these are a few questions that this discussion has brought to my mind.What will people do that live in an Apartment and it would be impossible for them to grow their own?Will sick people be allowed to grow their own medicine if they have minors in the house? How will price be determinded. Will there be trading allowed of stock from one patient to another or one grower to another?What if a person can't affored to pay a higher price for their medicine, is it wrong if they sell a little to help defray the cost? There are so many questions and so many answers that we don't know yet.As far as legalize reform groups slowing up the process Mark I respectfully disagree because it could be turned around and legalizer could say it is the medical marijuana movement that is causing legalizing drugs not to happen. That is just my opinion. The best way to defeat an enemy is slowly and methodically chisel away at the foundation until it all falls apart. That is what every facet of marijuana and drug policy reform people are doing. We must keep chiseling away at the very core base of the hypocrisy that we have been fed all these years and we will win. I believe Medical Marijuana will be the first to be freed, at least by rescheduling, and harm reduction will slowly take the place of our current system. Legalizing will probably be the last part of the puzzle to fit til it is all said and done.Thanks and Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Dr. Ganj on April 18, 2000 at 20:02:13 PT
Good Medicine For All
I, Dr. Ganj, operate a medical marijuana dispensary in the Bay Area. We dispense the finest medical grade/organic cannabis for the lowest prices in the Bay Area. We do however, have exceptions for our seriously ill members where it is dispensed at no cost . We also supply female plants ready to be flowered, and growlights. We teach many of our members how to grow their medicine, which gives them their own supply and saves them money. Trying to lower prices at around $1,600.00/lb, because Prop 215 is currently so closely intertwined with the black market prices, and with its obvious legal dangers, we won't see this occur until legal sanctions against growers are lifted. Let me remind you Mark, that this whole discussion started because Ken Hayes, and two other people are charged with multiple FELONY counts in Sonoma county. They thought they were doing everything legal under Prop 215. Not until there is uniformity in California pertaining to cultivation for others, and distribution, will we see the lowering of the price of medical marijuana. When there is the risk of losing one's freedom, there is going to be a directly proportional price increase. As to PUMI in Mendocino, although it might not be legally binding, it will be a tremendous boon for the residents there. After it passes, and it will, this will cause further debate on the legal status of marijuana in California. First 215, then PUMI, then decriminalization. Maybe not as quickly as we would all like, but I am pleased with the progress being made.Dr. Ganj 
http://www.maps.org
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Mark Tide on April 18, 2000 at 10:16:37 PT:
Let's Examine Dr. Ganj's View
Most importantly, you premise your view on eventual, general legalization (elimination of black-market), as if P215 were nothing more than a stalking horse for this result (and as most drug reform org.s unfortunately treat it). Your basic premise is that patients cannot be trusted with affordable medicine, because they'll just sell it on black market (which they could also do if they can grow their own, thus the bare complaint otherwise is only that: patients - not black-marketeers - would be making a big profit).Of course, this premise of distrusting patients runs corruptly in the face of the clear intent and letter of the law. I've heard it from many of those who have a vested interest in making black-market money in this game. It's not realistic, nor compassionate. It stinks. And it will be stopped.It's not only that some patients are "too ill to grow," but that MOST persons lack some crucial facet of the practical ability to grow. The majority of patients will always be in this condition, for various reasons, and access for them must be "affordable" (and from some form of surplus white-market supply) to be legal, despite (I would argue) -- manageable -- risks associated with medicinal cultivations."Time, effort, and money" involved in cultivation is clearly reflected in prices of $1600 / pound, or $100 per ounce. This price is only arbitrary to the extent that some number must be used as a leverage point of this concept ("afordability"). Alternatively, as the new Santa Cruz ord. attempts, reimbursement for reasonable cost is lawful; but $4,000 / lb. and $60 / eighth-oz is clealy UN-affordable. The whole idea of P215 was to separate the medical needs of patients from the black-market.One large reason that matters of reform have moved so slowly, is that advocacy from drug policy reform orgs. is aiming at legalization, NOT practical and strategic P215 implementation. The perfect example of this is Americans for Med. Rights / Geo. Soros, striving to enact unworkable law as national, political billboards for broader reform notions.This initiative in Mendocino Co. is simply an advisory measure, with no binding force of law. If it were more, the courts would strike it down as being inconsistent with still existing state law. The policy in Mendocino Co., through DA and Sheriff, is -- already -- consistent with this level of policy. This (PUMI) initiative is mainly just a public relations effort by local Green Party folks (Bruce Hering, for example, who admits to what I'm saying here). And to the extent it's misunderstood, it's a serious distraction from more critical subjects, like enacting a Santa Cruz style ordinance in Mendocino Co. While, Dr. Ganj predicates his whole view on more of this "let's wait and see" attitude.We've been doing that for quite a while. It's taken more than 2 years for Santa Cruz to enact an Arcata style ordinance. Advocacy for successful reform is the biggest problem. It's been awful. Like waiting years for Sacramento to enact state law, which is not politically possible, consistent with broad policy of P215. It's simply a game some folks like to play (usually for various self-serving reasons).Until competent and durable advocacy helps to create a surplus of white-market, medicinal cannabis, we will remain the victims of what P215 meant to reform. So, Dr. Ganj, what are you doing to help in this profound, difficult, but essential effort? Or are you content to be an apologist for the continued suffering of patients?
Arcata Journal
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Dr. Ganj on April 17, 2000 at 23:17:44 PT
Realistic Medical Cannabis Pricing
As to the reason why cannabis clubs charge close to, or the same as the black market is rather obvious. One must consider these, and other factors before arbitrarily choosing $100.00/ounce for high grade cannabis.First, most cannabis clubs obtain their marijuana from the black market at around $4,000.00/lb. They charge $50.00-$60.00 for 1/8 of an ounce. Even though some large indoor gardens are semi-protected by "Grower's Certificates" from the clubs, this does not completely protect them from all legal repercussions as is demonstrated by Ken Hayes' case in Sonoma county. Plenty of growers understand this perfectly, and since there is still the risk of a total loss of product and equipment, and potential incarceration, the price is close to what the black market is. Add to that, the time, effort, and money it takes to cultivate medical grade marijuana, with the inherent paranoia I might add, and we have a glimpse of the real world clashing with the imaginary one where ailing patients can get good medicine for $100.00/oz.In a closed community, it might work, but offering cannabis for substantially less than the black market will only entice people to sell their medicine for a profit.Until we see decriminalization like what is going to be voted on in Mendocino county this November, the best for now, is to assist people with growing their own. By supplying patients with clones of fine strains, and teaching them growing techniques, this will give them their needed medicine at an affordable price. For the people who are too ill to grow their own, maybe a collective garden like WAMM's in Santa Cruz will be the answer. See link below.Dr. Ganj   
http://www.wamm.org/home.html
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Mark Tide on April 17, 2000 at 20:56:15 PT:
Santa Cruz Ord. trys "affordability" clause
A few hours after prior comment being posted, I have obtained a copy of the NEW municipal ordinance for P215 implementation for the City of Santa Cruz (adopted on April 11, and effective in early May). It is posted up on ezine site -- here provided -- under cannabis (news) page link on top frame. Analysis & Commentary will soon be posted alongside this text.This ordinance attempts to establish "affordability," and that is a significant improvement over other existing ordinances (Arcata, Oakland, Sonoma Co., Mendocino Co., etc. etc.). There are some other improvements, too, but it's still not perfect. A few problems and additional improvements exist for this approach just enacted by Santa Cruz.What's going to happen, I believe, is that Arcata will now amend its own ordinance to further refine this model. Expect other local governmental entities to pay attention, as well, including Humboldt and Mendocino Counties. Actually, a lot of this new Santa Cruz version is predicated on the model first adopted by Arcata back in February of 1998.
Arcata Journal
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Mark Tide on April 17, 2000 at 10:48:45 PT:
Good facts make good law here
Discontinuities are glaring, but the text of P215 clearly protects multiple-patient caregivers, and also contemplates reasonable remuneration for medicinal cannabis access.What is much more relevant is the actual PRICE of access to the vast majority of patients who cannot grow (or not enough) themselves. Language of P215 clearly demands that lawfully distributed (medicinal) cannbis be "AFFORDABLE." Most medicinal cannabis being distributed in Ca. is UN-affordable (price is somewhat the same as black-market). For that reason, it seems to be UN-lawful. Is it the case that these "very large cooperative gardens supplying the cannabis clubs there," produce cannabis at a price to patients that is similar to black-market? UN-affordable?Interviews with Oakland City officials have disclosed that the City is actually afraid to take action to enforce the law in this regard, allegedly because of threats of potential violence (perhaps for other reasons as well). Most recent information is that prices of medicinal cannabis in Bay Area are roughly equivalent to prices on black-market. Why ??? And for how long can this obviously UN-lawful condition persist?Courts have recognized some economic aspects to these matters, as indeed the word, "affordable," clearly indicates. The REAL question is where is the compassionate price for access? Until that issue is resolved, problems will continue. The best way to ensure that medicinal cannabis is just that, lawful med. cannabis, --- is by its price. If it costs $100 per ounce, its lawful; if it costs $250 - $300 per ounce . . . it is not. Simplicity at work, in the patients' interests. How many of these new municipal ordinances protect these crucial interests of patients? Perhaps these ordinances need to be thusly amended.
Arcata Journal
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Dr. Ganj on April 16, 2000 at 23:54:54 PT
Right Idea, Wrong County
This will be very interesting to see play out, as Sonoma county is quite barbaric and inexorable when it comes to Prop 215 cases. In San Francisco, and Oakland, there are several very large cooperative gardens supplying the cannabis clubs there, with the approval of the local police. There are thousands of patients for various reasons, that can not grow their own medicine. This is why these medical gardens are allowed. As long as no product is diverted to the black market, and no other problems occur, the local police have decided not to interfere. It will be nice to see uniformity throughout the state, but progress is always glacial in movement.I sure hope these three don't bargain with evil in Sonoma county. They must go the distance, or pay heavy. Trust me, I know.Dr. Ganj
http://www.champsf.org
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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