cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Record Contradicts Claims of Critics





Marijuana Record Contradicts Claims of Critics
Posted by FoM on April 11, 2001 at 16:17:24 PT
By Gary Klien
Source: Marin Independent Journal 
Of approximately 30,000 cases handled by the Marin County District Attorney's Office between 1998 and 2000, 73 suspects raised the medical marijuana defense, prosecutors said.Out of those 73 cases, District Attorney Paula Kamena filed charges against 60 suspects. But most of those cases were dismissed under Proposition 215; dismissed after a "post and forfeiture" payment - similar to a traffic ticket - ranging from $50 to $250; or resolved through plea bargains and other deals.
Below is a summary of how the 60 cases were resolved. An ounce of marijuana contains about 28 grams, and a joint or marijuana cigarette contains roughly one or two grams.Critics of Marin County District Attorney Paula Kamena say she has been too tough on medical marijuana users, but a review of her prosecutions from 1998 to 2000 indicates otherwise.About two thirds of the marijuana suspects who claimed a medical need eventually had possession charges dismissed, one way or another. And those who did not often faced complicating allegations such as drug sales or weapons possession.Kamena faces a May 22 recall election engineered by opponents of her medical marijuana policies, but her approach has some legal authorities wondering what the critics are complaining about. "I think Paula's getting a bad rap," said Mendocino County District Attorney Norm Vroman, whose marijuana policies influenced Kamena's. "There must be something else going here, because I don't see what they're so upset about."After passage of Proposition 215, the California initiative that legalized medical marijuana in 1996, Kamena issued guidelines to help Marin police officers decide whether to make an arrest. The guidelines say prosecution is unlikely if the marijuana user has a medical need documented by a physician, and is found with fewer than seven mature marijuana plants, fewer than 13 immature plants or less than a half pound of dried marijuana.Of approximately 30,000 criminal referrals for prosecution in Marin during 1998, 1999 and 2000, records in the District Attorney's Office indicate 804 cases were marijuana-related. Of those cases, only 73 defendants raised the medical-marijuana defense. The district attorney's office declined to charge 13 of the 73 medical marijuana suspects outright because medical documentation was immediately available or because of concerns about police searches, said Assistant District Attorney Ed Berberian.Of the remaining 60 cases, the district attorney dismissed 18 under Proposition 215, the records revealed. Two other cases were dismissed by the district attorney for other reasons and one case was dismissed by a judge.In addition, 12 cases were dismissed by the courts after the defendants made a "post and forfeiture" payment of $50 to $250, similar to paying a traffic ticket. Prosecutors said these 12 defendants did not produce valid documentation from a physician, although some provided cards indicating they belonged to a cannabis club.Most of the remaining cases were resolved with plea bargains, diversion or deals with a judge for no prison time. Six cases are pending.The 60 cases involve a wide range of amounts, from less than an ounce to nearly 4 pounds, but prosecutors are quick to emphasize that Kamena's guidelines are just that - guidelines. "It is not an absolute, but it is the most likely outcome," Berberian said. Police "can still make an arrest - it doesn't mean they don't have probable cause - but it doesn't mean it will result in a filing."Kamena contends her policies are a simple and fair guideline to a complicated issue."If you're ill, if your doctor says you need marijuana, if it's an amount consistent with our policy and there are no sales, you won't be prosecuted," she said. "That's it in a nutshell."Walking a Tightrope:Fairfax Police Chief Ken Hughes said Kamena's policy, if anything, is slightly favorable to the defendant."Her guidelines on what she'll consider for prosecution probably fall on the liberal side of the norm," Hughes said. "I haven't seen any evidence of her taking a case that by reasonable standards falls under Proposition 215. If she sees a Proposition 215 issue come along, and it appears to be valid, I fully believe that she backs away from it.""She has a very difficult tightrope to walk," Hughes added. "She's presented with facts from the police department and she has to make a decision. I think she's done her job correctly."But even if the policy is relatively liberal, its results are sometimes inconsistent. In one case, a patient with 500 grams of marijuana - more than a pound - had a case dismissed by the district attorney under Prop. 215. In another case, a medical marijuana patient found with 6 to 8 ounces, half a pound or less, was charged with possession for sale. He took it to trial, got a hung jury, then agreed to plead guilty to possession of less than an ounce.Berberian said the district attorney's office has tried to smooth the wrinkles by funneling all marijuana cases, medical or not, through one prosecutor. Yet some Marin police officials have lost faith in the policy.Twin Cities Police Chief Phil Green said the policy's flaws are best illustrated by the case of Robert Voelker, who was arrested twice for growing marijuana plants at his trailer in Larkspur and keeping about 3 pounds of dried marijuana there. Voelker did not show valid documentation to police but later provided it to prosecutors, who then dismissed the charges. Then, Judge Verna Adams ordered Twin Cities police to return the pot they had seized."Mr. Robert Voelker should have been prosecuted for possession and cultivation," Green said. "It was a clear case of abuse. A prescription's not retroactive and it was our second contact with him."'One Cent Is Too Much'Critics on the other side say that even if cases are eventually dismissed, suspects still have to endure the expense and inconvenience of defending themselves.Clayton Shinn was among the 60 medical-marijuana cases that Kamena charged during the three-year period. Shinn, a retired painter, was arrested on Dec. 19, 1999 - "a date that will live in infamy," he said - after smoking marijuana in a parking lot in downtown Fairfax. Police told Shinn the neighbors were complaining, but Shinn doesn't buy it."In Fairfax, California? I don't think there was a complaint," said Shinn, 46, of San Rafael. "I've been getting high right in front of their cop shop."Hughes, the Fairfax police chief, said Proposition 215 is not a license to smoke marijuana anywhere."I don't care if they have a cannabis club card or a county card, I won't tolerate them smoking in public," he said. "We have complaints about people using drugs in the Parkade and we're sensitive to that. (Proposition) 215 doesn't say anything about smoking the substance in public. That won't be tolerated."Shinn was able to make the charge disappear with a $100 post-and-forfeiture payment. But in his view, even "one cent is too much." With the recall looming, Shinn does not count himself among Paula Kamena's supporters."She is affecting me pretty personally," he said. "I say she should be gone."'Childish Slander'Lynnette Shaw, founding director of the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Fairfax - and a driving force behind the recall initiative - said Kamena's prosecution numbers are too high for a small county like Marin - and are beside the point. The real issue stoking the campaign, she said, is that patients are having their marijuana confiscated by the authorities, whether or not they have valid documentation."The problem is not just dismissing them, it's leaving them alone and letting sick people have their pot," she said. "The patients lose their medicine, and they lose their health and they lose their time. ... They can pull out a doctor's note and call the doctor on the phone, and they still lose their marijuana."Kamena replies: "It's good to know that the Marin Alliance agrees that our record is not at issue. Our guidelines, which are accepted and followed by the police, were promulgated to avoid the very issue of their concern." Shaw also says another Kamena guideline, that a patient should not be on parole or probation, allows local police to harass probationers for marijuana use. The result, she said, are probation violations in which people who tested positive for marijuana are threatened with jail for failing to meet probation orders to stay away from drugs."It's been a travesty," Shaw said. "Because of the new guidelines they started testing everybody who was on probation for pot."But Ron Baylo, who just retired as Marin's chief probation officer, said his office administered drug tests only to those probationers who were ordered by the court to undergo testing - and the district attorney's guidelines had nothing to do with those orders, or the procedures in his office. Furthermore, he said, the probation office's drug screening procedures were in place before Kamena's policies went into effect.Kamena wonders whether Shaw's campaign is about altruism or mere commerce."I think that what's happening is Lynnette Shaw wants to be the dispensary and the agency that determines whether people qualify for medical marijuana," Kamena said. "That's a great marketing plan."Shaw, however, maintains that Kamena is driving up pot sales by seizing her customers' marijuana."She is so far gone," Shaw said. "Her policies are the best thing possible for a dispensary because her policies have caused everyone to lose their plants and go buy it at a dispensary. This is typical of the childish slander that's been coming out of Paula Kamena's mouth."Wrestling With The Law:Even as the debate continues in Marin, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that could provide local authorities some guidance on the medical-marijuana issue. The case, while technically involving only a cannabis club in Oakland, has implications for Shaw's pot club in Fairfax, as well as for law enforcement in numerous states.The question before the justices is not whether Prop. 215 is constitutional, but whether "medical necessity" can override the federal ban on marijuana.Meanwhile, a California Senate bill currently in committee would establish a central registry for medical-marijuana users and require the state health department to hold hearings on appropriate possession amounts. The bill, SB187, is set for hearings on April 18.Both matters are being followed closely by law enforcement officials seeking legal clarity and political relief."All of us, frankly, are struggling with that because the law provides a lot of discretion," said Humboldt County District Attorney Terry Farmer. "You have to read the law and understand a little about your constituency and understand their needs and desires. Kern County is going to take a different approach than San Francisco is."Farmer's medical marijuana guidelines, although more generous than Kamena's, are similar. Farmer, who has been in office since 1983, has set the possession limit at 10 plants or 2 pounds for patients with legitimate documentation. But Farmer said that no matter where a district attorney draws the line, people on both sides are going to be dissatisfied."Some are going to think I'm too strict and others too lenient," he said. "Bottom line: I, frankly, spent a whole lot more time on this issue than the problem merits. Because of a dearth of medical information, because of the lack of standards as to dosages, because of varying degrees of quality of marijuana ... there's just a lack of consensus among the medical community about all those variables."In one Marin case, the lack of consensus led to the dismissal of charges against a patient found with 280 grams of pot. Kamena's expert witnesses couldn't agree on whether 280 grams was an appropriate amount for medical need under Prop. 215."The law was poorly drafted," Farmer said. "It's a bad political document, it's a bad medical document. We're wandering around in the woods, trying to establish who the good guys are and the bad guys are."Vroman, the Mendocino district attorney who beat a 12-year incumbent in 1998 by pledging to implement Prop. 215, called medical-marijuana enforcement "a quagmire." His guidelines call for 18 plants and 2 pounds of dried pot."Part of the problem, and everyone will tell you, is the law is drafted poorly," he said. "Most of the laws we deal with are poorly written. It's up to the district attorney's office to figure out what the hell's going on."I've taken the position up here that if they show a medical need for it, who am I to say how much they need or how little they need?"Even Sonoma County District Attorney Michael Mullins, who doesn't think cannabis clubs are sanctioned under Prop. 215, said the anti-Kamena faction is "barking up the wrong tree.""But the politics are different down there," said Mullins, whose office has set no possession standards and charges on a case-by-case basis. "It's a difficult problem, you're trying to get somebody to possess something that the federal government says is illegal."The Opposition:It would be surprisingly easy for Thomas Van Zandt, the only candidate opposing Kamena, to become the next district attorney of Marin County.If a simple majority approves the recall, Van Zandt, a Sunnyvale patent attorney backed by the marijuana faction, would need only one vote to win. No one else filed to appear on the ballot in the event Kamena is recalled.In essence, Kamena's $143,591-a-year job is riding on how many people bother to vote in an election with no national races, no statewide races and no other local issues - except in Novato, where development plans for the Bahia subdivision are at issue. Hank Fearnley, a political science professor at College of Marin, said he would be shocked if more than 25 percent of registered voters show up at the polls."Turnout is notoriously low in these elections, unless the issue is so overwhelming," he said. "But generally, turnout is very, very low in these special elections. It's hard to get people out unless they're directly involved in the election."Van Zandt has not replied to repeated Independent Journal requests over the past month for a statement on his medical marijuana policy. His campaign Web site, www.tomvanzandt.com, carries a pledge to implement a "fair and lawful policy on the use of medical marijuana," but offers no specifics on grams and ounces, plants and pounds."Tom is dedicated to making sure this county is free from crime, including the criminal acts of abuse of authority," the site says. "One of his main concerns is that Marin citizens not be subjected to the type of capricious and politically motivated prosecutions that have been common over the past two years."Van Zandt is also pledging to launch a probe of the family-law system. He is the brother of Carol Mardeusz, whose child-custody dispute triggered an initial recall movement against several family-law judges. Kamena was added to the recall list after Mardeusz was indicted for allegedly abducting her child from the father. The recall campaign against the judges fizzled out, but the medical-marijuana lobby - led by Shaw - took up the cause and got enough petitioners to put the Kamena recall on the ballot. The actual ballot does not mention the medical marijuana issue, only the Mardeusz case.Kamena is mounting a vigorous campaign to rebuff the recall, but notes that it all comes down to getting people to go to the polls."People need to come out and vote," she said.How Marin Resolved 60 Marijuana Cases:Cases that begin with CR are misdemeanor cases while those with SC are felonies.By Gary Klien1. Case CR104165A. Less than an ounce. The defendant was a cannabis club member but could provide no other documentation. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.2. Case CR104202A. 5.9 grams. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $100, case dismissed.3. Case CR104421. 2.6 grams. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $100, case dismissed.4. Case CR105229. Less than an ounce. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.5. Case CR106237. 5.26 grams. Also possessed 2.4 grams of hashish. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $250, case dismissed.6. Case CR106798A. Less than an ounce. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $100, case dismissed.7. Case CR109984B. Less than an ounce. The defendant produced a cannabis club card but no other valid documentation. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $100, case dismissed.8. Case CR110334A. Less than an ounce. Also booked on suspicion of public intoxication and brandishing a weapon. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Case pending.9. Case CR110517. 8 grams. Doctor's note and cannabis club membership provided. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.10. Case CR110779. One third of an ounce. Medical claim: "A bad cold." No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Case pending.11. Case CR110795A. 6.77 grams. Cannabis club card was provided. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $100, case dismissed.12. Case CR111387. 60 grams. The defendant produced a cannabis club card but no other valid documentation. Disposition: Guilty plea. The sentence was deferred pending the completion of a diversion program. If he successfully completes the program, the case will be dismissed. If he fails, he goes straight to sentencing.13. Case CR111792. Less than an ounce. The defendant invoked the medical defense at the scene but never followed up with valid documentation. Disposition: Case pending.14. Case CR111837. 50 grams. The defendant invoked the medical defense at the scene but never followed up with valid documentation. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $200, case dismissed.15. Case CR111967. Less than an ounce. The defendant invoked the medical defense at the scene but never followed up with valid documentation. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $100, case dismissed.16. Case CR112129. Less than an ounce. The suspect was also booked on a weapon possession count. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Plea bargain. The pot charge was dismissed in exchange for guilty plea on the weapons charge.17. Case CR112350. Less than an ounce. The defendant produced a cannabis club card but no other valid documentation. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $100, case dismissed.18. Case CR112527A. Less than an ounce. The defendant claimed to be carrying the marijuana for an injured friend. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $100, case dismissed.19. Case CR112968A. 11.92 grams. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Case dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.20. Case CR112987A. 29 grams. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Case dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.21. Case CR113587A. 3 grams. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.22. Case CR113587B. Less than a gram. The defendant produced a cannabis club card but no other valid documentation. Bench warrant issued for failure to appear in court. Disposition: A judge dismissed the case for time the defendant already spent in jail.23. Case CR113808. Less than an ounce. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $100, case dismissed.24. Case CR114085A. Less than ounce. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Post and forfeiture of $50, case dismissed.25. Case CR114305A. 75.66 grams. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Pleaded guilty. Sentence: One year of probation, 40 hours of community service and no jail time.26. Case CR114455. 1.5 grams. County Department of Health and Human Services card provided. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.27. Case CR114833. Less than an ounce. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.28. Case CR115252A. 59.82 grams. The defendant also had another drug case pending. Disposition: Plea bargain. The defendant pleaded guilty on one charge and the DA's office dropped the other. The sentence was deferred pending the completion of his diversion program. If he successfully completes the program, the case will be dismissed. If he fails, he goes straight to sentencing.29. Case CR115685. Less than an ounce. Also had two other cases pending. Disposition: Plea bargain. The DA's office dropped the marijuana charge in exchange for guilty pleas in the other cases.30. Case CR116357. 6.9 grams. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.31. Case CR116390. 64.5 grams. Also booked on suspicion of public intoxication and disturbing the peace. Medical claim: "To take the edge off." No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Plea bargain. The DA dropped the marijuana charge in exchange for guilty pleas on the other charges.32. Case CR117232. Less than an ounce. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.33. Case CR117323. 3.25 grams. Disposition: Dismissed on a plea bargain in a different case.34. Case SC101957. 55 grams. The medical defense, for post-operative back pain, was not invoked until sentencing. Disposition: Pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for sale. Judge granted probation instead of jail time because of the back injury.35. Case SC102442A. Seventeen plants. Valid documentation was provided. The suspect was charged with cultivation. Disposition: Dismissed by the DA under Proposition 215.36. Case SC103235A. Thirty-six plants. Valid documentation was provided. The suspect was charged with cultivation. Disposition: No plea deal offered because of allegations of sales. The defendant pleaded guilty and received probation. A subsequent probation search revealed more plants, but the probation-violation case was dropped under Proposition 215.37. Case SC103586A. 3.89 pounds. Valid documentation was provided. The suspect was charged with possession for sale, transportation and possession of more than an ounce. Disposition: Plea bargain. For a guilty plea to possession of more than an ounce, the DA's office dismissed the other counts.38. Case SC104363A. 12 grams. No valid documentation was provided. The suspect was charged with possession for sale, transportation, weapon possession and driving with an expired license. Disposition: Plea bargain. In exchange for a guilty plea to driving with an expired license, the DA's office dismissed the other counts.39. Case SC104381. 280 grams. Valid documentation provided. The suspect was charged with possession for sale and transportation. Disposition: The case was dropped by the DA's office because the prosecution's own expert witnesses disagreed on whether 280 grams was an appropriate amount for medical use.40-42. Cases SC104500A, SC104500B, SC104500C. Fourteen plants were found in a residence with three suspects. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215.43. Case SC105799. 2.4 pounds. The defendant claimed the marijuana was for AIDS patients in Guerneville, but she provided no valid documentation. She was charged with possession for sale, transportation and driving under the influence. Disposition: DA offered to drop other charges in exchange for a guilty plea to possession for sale. The defendant rejected the offer and went to a judge. The judge let the defendant plead guilty to all three charges in exchange for no prison commitment.44-45. Cases SC106648A, SC106648B. Hundreds of plants. Charged with possession for sale, transportation, cultivation and related counts. Disposition: The plants were seized in two raids. The first raid occurred about a month before the passage of Proposition 215. A jury deadlocked in the first case and the two suspects were awaiting a retrial when a second bust occurred in January 1999. After months of legal maneuvering, one suspect pleaded guilty to all five felony counts after the court agreed not to send him to prison. The other pleaded innocent to five felonies and vowed the fight the case, but later agreed to plead guilty to one count of sales. One was sentenced to one year in jail while the other got six months. In sentencing one suspect, Marin Superior Court Judge John Sutro ruled he could possess up to an ounce of marijuana at any time during his five years of probation. Attorneys said it was the first time a Marin judge had set a limit for pot to be possessed as part of a defendant's sentencing terms.46. Case SC107462. 368 grams. Some documentation was provided. The DA pressed charges due to the quantity and to the suspect's alleged possession of another drug. Disposition: Guilty plea.47. Case SC108359. Fourteen plants. Documentation was provided. Disposition: Dismissed by DA under Proposition 215. The amount was higher than allowed under the DA's guidelines, but prosecutors did not think they could get a jury to convict.48. Case SC108773. 6 to 8 ounces. Some documentation was provided. The suspect was charged with possession for sale. Disposition: Trial, hung jury. The defendant later agreed to plead guilty to possession of less than an ounce and was accepted into the diversion program. If he successfully completes the program, the case will be dismissed. If he fails, he goes straight to sentencing.49. Case SC109076. One hundred plants. The suspect was charged with cultivation and weapon possession. The defendant claimed the marijuana was for his mother, who lives with him. The DA's office said the real issue is quantity. Disposition: A trial is set for this month. The defendant's mother was not charged.50. Case SC109630A. Sixty-nine plants. Documentation was provided, but the DA's office filed charges anyway because of the quantity. Disposition: The defendant pleaded guilty to cultivation and was accepted into the diversion program. If he successfully completes the program, the case will be dismissed. If he fails, he goes straight to sentencing.51. Case SC109781A. 60 grams. Methamphetamine was also seized. The defendant provided a cannabis club card but no other valid documentation. Charged with possession for sale, transportation, possession of methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine for sale. Disposition: Plea bargain. The DA dropped marijuana charges in exchange for guilty pleas on the meth charges.52. Case SC110438. 627.4 grams. No valid documentation was provided. Disposition: Plea bargain. The DA dropped the marijuana charges in exchange for a guilty plea for maintaining a location for unlawfully selling, using or giving away a controlled substance. The defendant admitted selling marijuana to offset his costs, prosecutors said.53. Case SC111588A. 500 grams. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: The DA dropped the charges under Proposition 215.54. Case SC111588B. Less than an ounce. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: The DA's office dropped the charges under Proposition 215.55. Case SC113730. 1 pound. No valid documentation was provided. The suspect was charged with possession for sale with a weapons enhancement. Disposition: Case pending, preliminary hearing set for April 16.56. Case SC114148A. 21 grams. The suspect was also charged with possession of methamphetamine. The defendant never raised the medical marijuana issue with police, but he provided valid documentation during adjudication. Disposition: Plea bargain. The marijuana charge dismissed for a guilty plea on the meth count.57. Case SC114731A. Four plants. The DA's office declined to pursue charges because a more serious parole violation case was already under way.58. Case SC115854. 2.51 grams of marijuana and .31 grams of hashish. Documentation was provided, but the DA still pursued charges due to allegations of sales to minors. Disposition: The marijuana possession charge was dropped in exchange for guilty pleas on two other charges.59. Case SC115909A. Forty-one plants. The defendant claimed the marijuana was for his mother. Disposition: A trial is set for this summer.60. Case SC116212A. Twenty plants. Valid documentation was provided. Disposition: The DA dropped the charges under Proposition 215. Judge Verna Adams then ordered police to return the 14 plants they seized. The other plants were never seized because the DA's guidelines permit possession of up to six plants for medical reasons.Sources: Marin County District Attorney's Office, IJ staff reportsComplete Title: Marijuana Record Contradicts Claims of Kamena Critics Source: Marin Independent Journal (CA)Author: Gary KlienPublished: April 8, 2001Copyright: 2001 Marin Independent Journal Contact: opinion marinij.com Website: http://www.marinij.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana http://www.cbcmarin.com/California Marijuana Advocates Target Prosecutorhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9321.shtmlLockyer Calls Kamena Recall Abuse of System http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8791.shtmlMarin D.A. Calls Foes Thuggishhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8603.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by Cuzn Buzz on April 12, 2001 at 08:52:09 PT:
SEIGE MENTALITY
The many years of oppression many of us have suffered under the prohibitionists have led to a certain seige mentality.If one of us is attacked, we feel we must all rise to defend as though we ourselves had been attacked....if we can shake off our paranoia long enough.In states where we are making progress we guard every nuance of freedom gained as though it were a holy thing...because it is.If in our Jihad the innocent fall before our blade we may take comfort in knowing that if we destroy them all God will still recognize his own.That works for me.I mean we *ARE* talking about lawyers here. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Kevin Hebert on April 12, 2001 at 08:30:45 PT:
Kamena's Time Is Up
She will almost definitely be recalled. It's simple: it's the only issue up for a vote, and the only people who are going to actually go ahead and vote on it are those who have a vested interest in it. I would not be surprised if she is ousted with 90% of the vote.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by fivepounder on April 12, 2001 at 06:41:03 PT
people power
Throw her out!! Send shockwaves thru the pig community. Its about time they stop making such a big deal about weed. Its ridicuous considering our world today that we are still fighting this.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by dddd on April 12, 2001 at 03:44:45 PT
Why?
Hopefully,this will allow the enforcement community to realizehow ridiculous it is to hassle with busting mellow,innocent people,who use Marijuana.A case could be made,that any use of Marijuana is "medical",andwhy not?Just look at all the other ways that people are allowed toself medicate.Aspirin,sleeping pills,hemoriod ointments,nicotine patches,and gum,,,one wonders where these items would be classified in the "medical necessity" realm?...dddd 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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