cannabisnews.com: Case Tests Limits of Medical Marijuana Law 





Case Tests Limits of Medical Marijuana Law 
Posted by FoM on January 13, 2001 at 13:19:43 PT
By Clark Mason, The Press Democrat
Source: Press Democrat
For the first time in Sonoma County, a jury will try to resolve how many plants a medical marijuana user may grow.A Santa Rosa man, twice arrested on suspicion of felony pot cultivation, is challenging charges that he was growing more pot than necessary for his medical needs. Jury selection is set to start Tuesday in what lawyers say is not only a first in Sonoma County, but one of only a few medical marijuana cases in the state to go to trial.
California counties have differing guidelines for the number of plants patients can grow under a 1996 initiative allowing the medicinal use of marijuana. Some jurisdictions, such as Oakland, allow as many as 96 plants.Most counties allow between four and 10 plants, although some counties -- including Sonoma -- have no specified number and decide on a case-by-case basis what is appropriate.Alan MacFarlane, 47, of Santa Rosa and his lawyers say the 72 plants he was arrested for the first time and the 36 plants that deputies uprooted in a second raid were not an unreasonable amount for personal use, considering that some plants do not grow to maturity, or yield much."There's no guidance whatsoever," said MacFarlane's attorney, Sandy Feinland. "That's what makes it so hard for patients. The problem is there are no guidelines for how much to grow. You're at the mercy of whatever officer shows up at your door."MacFarlane, a disabled Vietnam era veteran, is recovering from thyroid cancer and said he uses marijuana to alleviate chronic pain and nausea.Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins has been criticized for prosecuting some ill medical marijuana users, but he blames the initiative, saying it was poorly crafted and omitted specifics about the amount patients can use, where they should get it, and how they should obtain a physician's approval.Prosecutor Carla Claeys said, "No doctor I know of knows what a person needs -- what the appropriate dosage amount is."MacFarlane, who was first arrested in May 1999 and again in August of the same year, was offered a deal by prosecutors to settle the case if he would plead guilty to misdemeanor possession of more than an ounce of marijuana. But he has steadfastly refused.He said Friday that if convicted, he would not be able to grow any marijuana for himself."I'm fighting for the ability to take care of my medical needs and be unmolested at home."In addition to the marijuana charges, MacFarlane also faces a felony charge of possessing hallucinogenic mushrooms.His attorneys say they were common mushrooms found in many back yards and MacFarlane didn't have any knowledge they contained anything illegal.Although MacFarlane is risking a felony conviction and a potential prison sentence by going to trial, co-defense attorney Steve Spiegelman said medical marijuana users are hoping for the best."A lot of sick people in this county are counting on this case to relieve the situation, so other people don't go through what Alan went through," he said.During pre-trial motions Friday afternoon, Feinland told Judge Robert Boyd that MacFarlane decided to grow marijuana plants in his west Santa Rosa home in 1998 and even wrote a letter to the Sheriff's Department alerting them that he had medical approval to do so.MacFarlane claims a sheriff's detective called him back and told him it was all right to grow the plants, something the prosecution disputes.After a neighbor reported the plants to law enforcement, sheriff's deputies uprooted all of them in May 1999 after obtaining a search warrant.They came back and did the same thing in August after MacFarlane planted more.Police say that in a conversation with MacFarlane's doctor he withdrew his approval of marijuana for MacFarlane, but the defense said the doctor disagrees.Note: SR man challenging charges he was growing more pot than was necessary for treatment. You can reach Staff Writer Clark Mason at 568-5312 or e-mail: cmason pressdemocrat.comSource: Press Democrat, The (CA) Author: Clark Mason, The Press DemocratPublished: January 13, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Press Democrat Address: Letters Editor, P. O. Box 569Santa Rosa CA 95402 Fax: (707) 521-5305 Contact: letters pressdemo.com Website: http://www.pressdemo.com/ Forum: http://www.pressdemo.com/opinion/talk/ Feedback: http://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/letform.html CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #3 posted by dddd on January 13, 2001 at 18:43:30 PT
lawyers
I think I want big daddy in my corner if I go to court.He makes it sound pretty cut and dried.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by big daddy on January 13, 2001 at 18:37:50 PT:
prosecution
EVERY FIRST YEAR LAW STUDENT KNOWS THAT THE LAW IS TO BE NARROWLY CONSTRUED.THE CURRENT LAW SAYS "EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION". THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, NO NUMBERS, OR WEIGHTS. NOWHERE DOES IT SAYTHAT A FINDING OR DETERMINATION OF WHEATHER OR NOT A PROSECUTION SHOULD TAKE PLACE SHOULD OCCUR.THE ONLY POSSIBLE CHARGE IS OF "....WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE" THIS IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 13, 2001 at 15:05:06 PT:
Another Lie to Justify Repression
"No doctor I know of knows what a person needs -- what the appropriate dosage amount is."I do. It's the amount that a patient reasonably needs to control their symptoms. There, that wasn't too hard, was it?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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