cannabisnews.com: County Jurors To Rule on Medical Marijuana Again County Jurors To Rule on Medical Marijuana Again Posted by FoM on March 12, 2001 at 14:12:11 PT By Clark Mason, The Press Democrat Source: Press Democrat For the second time this year, a Sonoma County jury will be asked to set the limits of California's medical marijuana law. Defense attorneys believe it will be the state's first jury trial involving a medical marijuana supplier.Sonoma County prosecutors have taken a hard line in medical marijuana cases, but a local jury recently said 75 plants weren't too many for a Santa Rosa man who smokes pot daily to alleviate chronic pain. Barely a month after the acquittal of Alan MacFarlane, medical marijuana advocates are counting on another Sonoma County jury to approve a Petaluma pot farm that supplied a buyers club in San Francisco.As that trial gets under way in a Santa Rosa courtroom, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering the legality of the buyers clubs themselves. Clubs opened in Oakland, Ukiah and other cities after voter approval of Proposition 215.Attorney General Bill Lockyer is siding with the clubs in the Supreme Court case, and San Francisco District Attorney Terrance Hallinan is scheduled to testify for the farmers in the Sonoma County case.But Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins said he doesn't want the county to become the pot garden for the rest of the Bay Area. And Mullins said he believes the clubs are illegal.A Proposition 215 co-author, who is defending the Petaluma pot farmers, said Mullins is out of step with California and even his own county.Oakland attorney William Panzer said the 800-plant operation provided marijuana to a San Francisco buyers club that was honored by Mayor Willie Brown and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.Mullins replied that San Francisco officials are entitled to their views on marijuana, but "they're not entitled to grow it in Sonoma County.""Why not grow it in Golden Gate Park?" he asked. "What entitles them to use Sonoma County? It creates a profit-making motive for those people in San Francisco."Panzer said the fact the pot is grown in Sonoma County and used elsewhere should make no difference."If you produce gas at a refinery in Richmond, it doesn't mean you can't sell it in Sonoma County," Panzer said. "Does that mean Sonoma County wine shouldn't be sold in the Bay Area?"Jury selection is under way in the Sonoma County farm case and testimony could begin as early as Tuesday.The defendants, Kenneth E. Hayes and Michael S. Foley, were growing more than 800 plants. They said it was to supply customers of a 1,200-member San Francisco buyers club called CHAMP -- Cannabis Helping Alleviate Medical Problems -- which was run by Hayes.The two men were arrested in May 1999 after officers found the plants in a greenhouse operation on King Road near Petaluma. Also seized were 14 pounds of marijuana, more than a pound of hash and $3,700.Although the cultivation and sales charges are relatively common, the trial may deal with a much larger issue that has grown out of Proposition 215, which allows marijuana possession with a physician's approval for medical patients and their caregivers.The crux of the case is whether Hayes could be designated a "caregiver" for 1,200 people.He says his club, near the old U.S. Mint building on Market Street, has high security and screens its members to ensure they have doctor approval before they are sold marijuana. In some instances, they are given pot if they can't afford it.Club members suffer from AIDS, cancer and other serious diseases, he said.Sonoma County prosecutor Carla Claeys maintains that Hayes' club is not on trial; the two defendants are.She said Hayes did not provide housing, health or safety services for the patients at CHAMP, which is the legal criteria for being considered a caregiver.But co-defense counsel Chris Andrian said the pot club served as a safe environment and provided counseling, support and food, part of being a caregiver.Claeys wants to introduce evidence in the upcoming trial that Hayes was arrested for marijuana cultivation in 1997 in Marin County for more than 50 plants.She also said Foley has a pending marijuana case in San Francisco relating to 365 plants that were seized at his house, along with more than $3,000 in cash.Judge Robert Boyd ruled the other cases can't be disclosed to the jury unless the defendants somehow "opened the door" through their own testimony.The real problem, Mullins said, is Proposition 215 itself.Repeating a view he has stated many times since the measure was approved in 1996, Mullins said Proposition 215 left too many questions unanswered."The people who drafted the statute were committing a fraud on patients, promising something they could deliver when there was no distribution scheme set up," Mullins said.Panzer said Hayes provides a safe method for people to obtain marijuana for medical purposes. "Mr. Mullins is helping business to drug dealers," he said.Mullins said he has allowed patients and their caregivers to grow enough marijuana for their own use and is even open to the idea of small cooperative gardens where two or three individuals or their caregivers can grow plants.As far as whether marijuana has medicinal value, Mullins said, "There hasn't been any scientific research in a long time. I have certainly listened to anecdotal material. That's far different than research. The answer is that it may."Note: Defendants cultivated pot plants in Petaluma to supply buyers club in San Francisco. 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: March 12, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Press Democrat Address: P. O. Box 569, Santa 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.htmlRelated Articles & Web Site:C.H.A.M.P.http://www.champsf.org/Petaluma Pair Facing Trial in Pot-Growing Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5443.shtmlMedical Pot Advocates Turn Out for Growers Hearinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5421.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by aocp on March 12, 2001 at 18:29:19 PT: NIMBY jerks Mullins replied that San Francisco officials are entitled to their views on marijuana, but "they're not entitled to grow it in Sonoma County."Not In My Back Yard! I think what this guy meant was, "*i* won't allow them to grow this arbitrarily-chosen plant that the voters (or, my "boss") have decided is beneficial to those with fairly nasty ailments." Or am i being too harsh? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on March 12, 2001 at 17:48:03 PT Maybe it should! Hi Kapt!Thanks for asking about my husband first of all, that made him smile. He has already been diagnosed with Hepatitis C and now they are looking for other things too. I feel like wringing people's necks if they don't legalize marijuana as a choice for those who use it to feel better. I get madder and madder every day. I almost want to say how DARE them! I'm getting very intolerant of the way they throw their noses in the air and tell us what is best for us when they haven't walked in our shoes. Thanks for reading my rant. I get that way sometimes too you know! LOL!Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on March 12, 2001 at 16:31:28 PT: They never learn, do they? Then perhaps the recall measure that is presently aimed at DA Kamena should be widened; Lockyer sure seems to have gotten the hint. As I've said before, these jerks live a lot closer to their voters than they do to Washington DC. If a few of them lose their jobs because of their intransigence at fairly implementing the law then surely the voters can make them see the errors of their ways.Antis love sending messages; but after the recall effort, they have now dusted off their antennae and are receiving messages...and the ones with enough sense have decided that it's more dangerous politically to piss off their neighbors than it is to curry favor with Washington. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: