cannabisnews.com: Marin D.A. Calls Foes Thuggish Marin D.A. Calls Foes Thuggish Posted by FoM on February 08, 2001 at 06:26:18 PT By Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff Writer Source: San Francisco Chronicle Marin County District Attorney Paula Kamena defended herself yesterday against a recall campaign that is already provoking debate over California's confusing medical marijuana initiative. Advocates of medical marijuana have forced a May 22 recall election of Kamena because of what they say are her harsh, "inhumane" policies on pot possession. She is one of six district attorneys throughout the state who have been designated for a recall by users of medicinal pot, but so far she is the only one facing a vote. Kamena fired back during a news conference yesterday, calling her opponents "small minded" litigants who misrepresented their cause in an attempt to make the courts "bend to their thuggish aims." "They want you to believe this is about medical marijuana. It is not," Kamena said. "This process is about the rule of law and the entire legal process." Kamena's predicament can be traced to the vague wording of Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that allows people to use marijuana for medicinal purposes if they have a doctor's approval. The law conflicts with federal law, which makes possession of marijuana illegal, creating confusion for prosecutors and law enforcement personnel across the state. The recall in Marin comes despite what Kamena says is her progressive view about medical marijuana. She is one of the few district attorneys who adopted a list of guidelines on marijuana prosecutions, exempting, for instance, people with fewer than seven mature plants and less than a half pound of dried cannabis. State Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara, reintroduced a bill yesterday that would clarify what amount of marijuana would be allowed under state law and set up a statewide registration system for medical marijuana users. The bill, however, faces stiff opposition and plenty of debate before it becomes law. Meanwhile, Kamena and others are forced to fend for themselves. Kamena said her office handled only 73 drug cases from 1998 to 2000 in which medical marijuana use was claimed as a defense. Of those, 37 were dismissed, 26 of the defendants pleaded guilty and 10 are still pending. Only one case, involving 178 plants and proof of drug sales, went to trial. Lynnette Shaw, founding director of the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, argued that those who were arrested -- and many others who were not --had their cannabis confiscated. "We're looking at 300 people who lost their pot," Shaw said. "After they get arrested and lose their pot and go through all these hoops, only then are they let go." Kamena's supporters pointed out yesterday that the petition for the recall did not even mention medical marijuana. Instead, it attacked Kamena for the prosecution of Carol Mardeusz, a woman who was convicted by a jury of falsifying a court order in an attempt to steal custody of her daughter. Mardeusz was one of several disgruntled divorced parents who wanted to recall Marin's family law judges. They enlisted the help of the Alliance for Medical Marijuana when their effort fizzled. After the recall petition was filed, the Marin County League of Women Voters and dozens of individuals complained that they had been misled. Retired Judge William Stephens said he views the recall effort as "a fraud being perpetrated on the citizens of this county." "There is substantial evidence that the petition qualified only because the signers were induced by false representations as to its official purpose," Stephens said. "The primary interest of those seeking to advance the petition is to have the district attorney look away when marijuana is used." Whatever the reasons, there will be a recall election and it will cost the county about $500,000. That is money that legal experts agree could have been saved with a better initiative and should be cleared up with a new law that sets clearer guidelines on medical marijuana. "It's a very convoluted and complex law that needs to be fixed," Kamena said. "Law enforcement is just screaming for some kind of consistency."Note: May recall vote over position on medical marijuana. E-mail Peter Fimrite at: pfimrite sfchronicle.comSource: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Peter Fimrite, Chronicle Staff WriterPublished: Thursday, February 8, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco ChronicleAddress: 901 Mission St., San Francisco CA 94103Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/Feedback: http://www.sfgate.com/select.feedback.htmlRelated Articles & Web Site: Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana http://www.cbcmarin.com/Medical Pot Backers Warn of More Recalls http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8565.shtmlMarijuana Activists Seek Pot Guidelines http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8535.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #14 posted by mungojelly on February 09, 2001 at 05:05:40 PT: if y'all support these recalls... If y'all support these recalls, you should really start asking yourself: why can't our other public officials be recalled? Why is it that no matter what the President does, he is our President whether we want him to be or not? It's little wonder that campaign promises are never fulfilled, when we provide no tools to enforce them. The worst we can do is say "shame on you, Bush Senior, you said Read My Lips and then you passed New Taxes, you naughty boy. Oh well." Yet... it IS possible to form a government in which local bodies send MANDATED representatives to regional bodies. In fact, it is possible to form governments in which there are no "representatives," and everyone retains their own right to make political decisions. So let's start asking ourselves: do governments still derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed?" [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by military officer guy on February 08, 2001 at 21:17:59 PT power to the people... power to the people...we can win this war... [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Frank on February 08, 2001 at 16:12:05 PT Recall Her -- Kick Her Out of Office! How strange it is when they start to lose their power and position. Now it’s serious! Bite them with their own dog; a recall. It will scare the hell out to the rest of the brown shirts. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Toker00 on February 08, 2001 at 12:51:28 PT Let's make a list. I think, come election time, there should be a list of candidates from every state who support our cause. If they support our cause, which is returning our rights and ending the War on Some Drugs, we should give them space on this site to List their names and platforms. I don't care any more what party they come from. We would at least have a list at our fingertips, accessable with just a click. If you disagreed with their other issues, you wouldn't HAVE to vote for them. But I think we need a list. What do you think, FoM? 2002 is just around the corner. Would give us some good practice for the BIG election in 2004.Peace. Realize, then Legalize. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Morgan on February 08, 2001 at 11:23:12 PT War One really shouldn't expect to get into a war with people and not get shot at. They've had it so good for so long in using their weapons (the law) against people. Now that we're using the same weapon in defense against them, they cry that it's unfair. Waaaaahhh! It's a WAR. Get it? All is fair. Get used to it.******************************************************* [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by yep on February 08, 2001 at 11:21:13 PT yep They have awakened the sleeping dragon ! [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Duzt on February 08, 2001 at 09:26:39 PT the law Prop 215 doesn't specify amounts, but the amounts that they tell us we can have are too small. 6 plants?? most new growers kill far more than that. Under Claifornia's jury instructions, it states, "A person is not guilty of the unlawful [possession][or][cultivation][or][transportation] of marijuana when the acts of [defendant][a primary care] are authorized law for compassionate use.[A "primary caregiver" means the individual designated by [the person exempted] who is consistently assigned responsibility for the housing, health, OR safety of that person]The defendant has the burden of proving by a proponderance of evidence all of the facts necessary to establish the elements of this defense, namely:1. A physician recommended or approved orally or in writing [the defendant's] personal use of marijuana;[2.] The amount of marijuana [possessed][or][cultivated] was reasonably related to then current medical needs[.][;or][2.] The amount of the marijuana transported at the time of the defendant's arrest was, considering the quantity, method, timing and distance of the transportation, reasonably related to the defendant's then medical needs.This seems clear to me. People who have 100 pounds of marijuana aren't using only medicinally. 1 pound? 5 pounds? That's not unreasonable. If someone is selling marijuana, then they don't apply under 215. If a person has a doctors recommendation and has however many plants, and the police have absolutely no evidence or proof that the person is selling, they shouldn't be able to arrest. Simply saying they have too much so they must be selling is far from proving anything. If I have 200 plants, but I don't sell, how is that worse than 6 plants? I love to grow, to create new strains, and to do this, I have to grow a lot more than 6 plants, but I have never sold in my life, nor will I. They need to focus their attention elseware, there is no excuse for harrassing sick people for taking their medicine. Until these people commit a crime, leave them alone. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Dr. Ganj on February 08, 2001 at 09:15:20 PT Marin DA Should Get Boot I say make them pay, and get Kamena out of her office and bring in a more realisic person like the DA in Mendocino county. Having seven plants as a guideline is absurd. How about no limit, that is what it should be. Leave us all alone. That's what's right.Take them to trial, recall them. Make them spend money.See you all in court.Dr. Ganj http://www.wamm.org/home.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Info on February 08, 2001 at 08:27:13 PT The Law I don't think the law is quite that simple. Like any other law, the provisions of 215 must be clarified to determine to whom it applies. Of key importance, the State has the right and obligation to determine if marijuana possessed by an individual was "for the personal medical purposes of the patient." Since this is a carved-out exemption from what would otherwise be criminal misconduct, the State does not have to rely on the bare assertion of the person that the marijuana was for personal medical purposes, but can establish reasonable presumptions regarding the exemption.Second, the law defines caregiver rather specifically: "(e) For the purposes of this section, "primary caregiver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this act who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person." The State must take steps to ensure that persons in possession of marijuana meet this definition, since only those persons are entitled under the law to benefit from its provisions. In other words, just 'cause someone says so doesn't mean he or she can claim the exemption. That's what the rule of law is all about. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by michael segesta on February 08, 2001 at 07:46:08 PT: The irony is so intense, I'm in pain from laughter I laughed so hard when I saw the title of this article......talk about the pot (no pun intended) calling the kettle black? Captain is right on when he says, ". The sad part is, she really can't make the logical leap of deduction which would cause her to realize that she and her ilk are thugs."I could say it better myself. The real credit for today's chuckle -- this article -- goes to whoever came up with the line for the DA to use when she refeers (pun intended) to her opponents as "thugs."The finance reviewed in this article ($500,000 for a recall election plus resources the DA will have to expend) make me think Mr. Kubby is on to something with his recall strategy.....maybe it should be expanded. See Toker00's comment to article entitled: " Ashcroft To Focus on Crime, Drugs"; maybe this the kind of non-violent resistance he seeks? Maybe it would work given the financial leverage Mr. Kubby stumbled upon?I'd like to know what y'all think about this.Be well. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by m segesta on February 08, 2001 at 07:45:12 PT: The irony is so intense, I'm in pain from laughter I laughed so hard when I saw the title of this article......talk about the pot (no pun intended) calling the kettle black? Captain is right on when he says, ". The sad part is, she really can't make the logical leap of deduction which would cause her to realize that she and her ilk are thugs."I could say it better myself. The real credit for today's chuckle -- this article -- goes to whoever came up with the line for the DA to use when she refeers (pun intended) to her opponents as "thugs."The finance reviewed in this article ($500,000 for a recall election plus resources the DA will have to expend) make me think Mr. Kubby is on to something with his recall strategy.....maybe it should be expanded. See Toker00's comment to article entitled: " Ashcroft To Focus on Crime, Drugs"; maybe this the kind of non-violent resistance he seeks? Maybe it would work given the financial leverage Mr. Kubby stumbled upon?I'd like to know what y'all think about this.Be well. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Duzt on February 08, 2001 at 07:43:51 PT it's working I live in California (El Dorado county) and we are trying to do a recall here as well. If these people continue to arrest sick people (or, in my opinion, anybody with marijuana), they need to be removed because they no longer represent the people. So it costs $500,000. How much does it cost us for them to go against a law that the people were forced to initiate. The people made this law, we put it on the ballot and got it passed. Without us it would never have been introduced. Most people don't seem to realize that we can remove elected officials that tread on our rights. These people are scared and will continue to point fingers, but if we recall enough peoplem they will listen. We can't just express our frustrations here, we have to fight on a higher level, Steve Kubby is doing amazing things here, they screwd with him and now he's screwing back. Anything I can do to help here in California (more than I do here in my area) please contact me at dustinbermingham hotmail.com [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on February 08, 2001 at 07:16:13 PT: "Thuggish?" Who has the guns and jackboots? 'Kamena fired back during a news conference yesterday, calling her opponents "small minded" litigants who misrepresented their cause in an attempt to make the courts "bend to their thuggish aims.""They want you to believe this is about medical marijuana. It is not," Kamena said. "This process is about the rule of law and the entire legal process." 'Yes, indeed, it is. It is entirely about the 'rule of law' and the 'entire legal process'. And how those who are sworn to protect us from the 'rule of men' have been trampling those very same ideals of the 'rule of law' that Ms. Kamena trumpets so ringingly. The sad part is, she really can't make the logical leap of deduction which would cause her to realize that she and her ilk are thugs. Such a leap would require her to admit that she has engaged in institutionalized sadism. There's simply no other way to view the harrassment endured by those targeted by her and her friends.But even worse, she has been an accessory to murder. For it was the (Un)Justice system she so fervently defends with such clarion tones which murdered-by-decree Peter McWilliamsand is trying to do the same with Todd McCormick.She's so distraught about the seeming threat to the 'rule of law'. OK, here's the law: The complete text of Proposition 215:http://www.rxcbc.org/exa.htmlNow, for the sake of this poor, middle-aged simpleton (me), will someone here puh-lease tell me how this law can possibly be made any less "complex"? Can anyone who reads these very simple paragraphs possibly misconstrue it as being "convoluted"?It becomes increasingly evident that the antis are desperately stalling for time until a pharmaceutical company can market a cannabinoid analog...and enable the antis to continue to prosecute their war against basic freedoms. And those who espouse them. Nothing more, nothing less. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Dan B on February 08, 2001 at 07:10:33 PT: Here's an Idea! "It's a very convoluted and complex law that needs to be fixed," Kamena said. "Law enforcement is just screaming for some kind of consistency."I know! Why not try enforcing the law as it is written! Wow! That would be an amazingly effective way of being consistent, now wouldn't it? Dan B [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: