cannabisnews.com: Pot Growing Limits on Council Agenda





Pot Growing Limits on Council Agenda
Posted by FoM on March 19, 2001 at 15:08:37 PT
By John Geluardi, Daily Planet Staff 
Source: Berkeley Daily Planet
The City Council will have to hash out one final problem in the Medical Marijuana Ordinance it will consider Tuesday night – what amounts individuals and collectives will be allowed to grow and possess.Medical marijuana advocates want the ordinance to match Oakland’s, which allows individuals to grow 144 plants indoors or 60 outdoors. Collective growers have no limits. 
City staff is recommending that Berkeley’s ordinance stay more in line with counties such as Marin and allow individuals to grow no more than 10 plants and limit collectives to 50 plants. The council first referred the issue to the City Attorney’s Office in December 1999 asking for a draft ordinance that would allow chronically ill and terminally ill patients to legally grow and use marijuana.The draft was then sent to the Community Health Commission in July. The CHC revised the ordinance allowing more plants for personal use and possession than city staff had recommended. City Manager Weldon Rucker asked the commission to reduce the allowable numbers. The CHC voted not to reduce the quantity and sent the recommendation to the City Council on Jan. 25.Now the City Council will attempt to decide on reasonable amounts for individuals and collectives to grow.“We had staff look at what was a reasonable dosage and considered legal implications,” said Fred Medrano, director of Health and Human Services. “Oakland allowing 144 plants just doesn’t make any sense. You just don’t need that many for medical purposes.”Lt. Russell Lopes addressed the CHC on Jan. 25 and said the department supports medical marijuana use but does not support growing a large number of plants. He said that large amounts of marijuana being grown in homes or in collectives might encourage burglary and possibly home-invasion robberies.Council member Kriss Worthington said he supports a larger number of allowable plants, but said what number the council will be able to agree on remains to be seen. “Ten plants per year is clearly not sufficient,” he said. “When you say 10 plants you have to remember that not every plant becomes full grown and is usable.”Council member Polly Armstrong said it will be a challenge for the council to determine a fair number. She said she would rather err on the side of smaller amounts. “We want to take care of people who need it and we have a lot of learning to do to know what that means,” she said. “I have to say 144 plants sounds like a lot, but I’m not a farmer or a marijuana cultivator,” she said. “I do know that we don’t want Berkeley to turn into the Amsterdam of northern California.”Tod Mikuriya, a Berkeley resident and former psychiatrist in charge of marijuana research for the National Institute of Mental Health, said Oakland enacted its Medical Marijuana Ordinance two years ago and has not had problems.He said Berkeley should have adopted an ordinance a long time ago and would have if the city attorney and city manager had not tried to stall the issue.“It’s really a disgrace when a city like Oakland, which does not have a reputation for being terribly liberal, can move ahead with a good ordinance,” Mikuriya said “and here in Berkeley we have a city government that’s being run by a group of civil servants against the will of the people.”Court approved cannabis expert Chris Conrad said the problem with lower numbers of allowable plants is that it assumes all the plants will be usable and the grower will experience no problems.“The city manager’s recommendation for 10 plants is utopian in that it assumes your growing system will work perfectly all year around,” he said. “It doesn’t take into consideration things like bug infestations or growers having to stop a crop because their electricity bill is too high.”Co-medical Director of the East Bay Aids Center Steve O’Brien said growing 20 to 25 plants would be reasonable. He said that his patients who grow marijuana usually grow between four and 10 plants at a time. “The number one goal should be to protect the rights of sick people to use the drug,” he said. “If the higher numbers are approved there will be too much room for abuse.” Source: Berkeley Daily Planet (CA)Author: John Geluardi, Daily Planet Staff Published: March 17, 2001Address: 2076 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94704Phone: (510) 841-5600 - Fax: (510) 841-5695Copyright: 2001 Berkeley Daily PlanetContact: opinion berkeleydailyplanet.netWebsite: http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D.http://www.mikuriya.com/althealth/index.htmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by Dan B on March 20, 2001 at 07:02:51 PT:
Six Pounds
Actually, while six pounds does seem like a lot of cannabis, remember that the U.S. government sends exactly that amount to eight patients in the federal marijuana program each year. It turns out that even the federal government can't argue that six pounds is too much.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by m segesta on March 20, 2001 at 04:53:37 PT:
No limits...........
It is important to note that Prop 215 places NO limits on the number of plants or amount of pot. An important consequence of this is that the anti's longtime tactic of calling any large amount of pot or collection of plants a growing operation designed "for trafficking and distribution" regardless of whether there is ANY evidence of sales or not would tend to be critically questioned and perhaps even completely undermined! In other words, why "negotiate" with the state for limits, when the limits would only allow the anti's to use a "presumption" that anything in excess of the limits is intended for distribution or sale? I know they are used to having such a unfair presumption in their back pockets, but one of the best (but not discussed) features of Prop 215 is that is tends to undermine that assumption. If the anti's have actual evidence of sales like undercover buys, scales, baggies, books keeping track of profits (not just expenses and amounts to re-coup costs), then let them use that evidence to show that a person charged with a pot violation has attempted to use their 215 exemption as a ruse to being a "dealer" or "trafficker".The presumption that anyone who has more than "X" amount of pot without any other evidence of sales or intent to sell for profit has always been ridiculous, but it's been around for so long and used to often that it is now hard for people to "think outside the box" so to speak. People almost talk as if the omission of limits in 215 was an oversight, that naturally anyone using pot for an illness would never have more than "X" amount and if he or she did, they are selling the stuff, and thus limits are seen, as expected, as "natural" and "necessary."If the anti's lost the benefit of the "sales presumption" as I call it, they could still prove cases where real traffickers have used 215 improperly by documenting the sales or evidence of sales. Mere possession of a given amount, no matter how large or small, should never have been, nor should it be now, a reason to PRESUME the possessor is a dealer. So, why are we negotiating with the anti's to help them retain this unfair presumption when, and especially if we get a favorable ruling form the Supremes, 215 could help wipe out the unfair use of a asinine "presumption" in all cases?Maybe we do this out of our "habitual oppression"?Take care all,Mike
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on March 19, 2001 at 19:47:46 PT
144 plants
What I think is the 144 plant limit has to have different stages of growing plants so if you look at it that way without doing any figuring the volume would me much less. Doesn't that make some sense?Has anyone thought that maybe it would be easier to set a size of a garden? So many square feet inside or outside. That way it would be up to each medical marijuana patient to try to maximize their garden and just stay within a designated size. Just a thought.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Chris F on March 19, 2001 at 19:44:38 PT:
144 plants is not to much!
If you are growing indoor useing the Sea Of Green techniecin a 4X4 area you would go through your 144 plant max very fast you start with alot of plants then 1/2 become Males and are usless for medicine=o)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by bigstickem on March 19, 2001 at 19:36:54 PT
144 plants???
Dont get me wrong i think sick people should have the right to grow marijuana for themselves but 144 plants is a very large number(probably about 6 pounds) no one needs to smoke 6 pounds of pot a year
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Austin on March 19, 2001 at 18:20:28 PT
limits? 
How can someone who has never grown anything say what is too much . If the patient runs out because they had a problme ( like over reactive narks ) is the city going to pick up the cost to buy that patients medicine until they can bring rise to another usable crop. And the Lt.s reason for limiting the amount is stupid . Thats why we have cops in the first place ,or did he forget that . To top it all off if everyone had the FREEDOME to enjoy MJ we would not have burglaries and home-envasions. Or was he refering to police tactics????
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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