It is clear that we have elements in San Diego at the moment that did not start here, they are from out of town and here to make this issue a vehicle for their own purposes. We, San Diegans, really need to listen to what is being said. For instance, do we really need to be informed by the repeated issuing of the same warnings/advertisement for services that an attorney in LA was roundly chastised for since it was believed to be a scam frightening people into "lawyering up"? Or do we need out of town representatives going from collective to collective impugning the legitimacy or credibility of those that have worked in San Diego for change since the beginning? The answer is NO, we do need to listen to each other and not allow the seeds of dissension to be sown in our own back yard.
I am reminded of my studies of white rats when I did my work to become a psychotherapist. What I found is that when too many white rats were put in a cage they started biting each other, eventually killing and eating one another. Problem was that with the addition of even a single rat, it would increase the stress level passed the threshold of civility and the carnage would begin. Those that had lived together in harmony, and even helped one another, turned on each other with an unreasoning violence.
We have not reached that point in our own community, but it is clear that some are feeling the stress of continued oppression, and in some cases, impending Court cases where they can lose their freedom. We cannot allow that stress to create an implosion eliminating any chance we have of success or to impact the present risk to their freedom.
I would humbly suggest that if you hear anyone speaking ill of any of our peaceful warriors that you consider the source. In addition please consider, any attempt to diminish the strength of any of our warriors will diminish our own chances for free and safe access.
Since my return I have heard disturbing rumors about Eugene, Donna and Terrie. Three of the most courageous of our warriors. We cannot afford this kind of division. Any effort to support that kind of division damages us all in the most serious of ways. I am as always willing to meet with old friends and discuss the differences that may develop, but we cannot, and must not, divide ourselves from each other and the support we all need to continue forward.
Today in San Diego we have an opportunity to reach far beyond everyone's expectations. WE can make it happen here if we do not destroy ourselves in the process. ASA remains the voice for patients and collectives, it speaks for no one else and has no other agenda.
Larry Sweet
Patient Member
San Diego City Council Medical Marijuana Taskforce
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Healing our Community
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Walter Davis: Eugene Davidovich Trial
Eugene Davidovich is facing a trial in January and he has been unjustly charged by local law enforcement.
Although authorized to use and distribute Medical Marijuana, he has been arrested, lost his job and is currently a victim of Operation Green RX.
For more information, see my column in East County Magazine here
http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/2299
His story is told below in video; Part one of two in a series. Part two will be out shortly.
This story has appeared on my television show, Progress in San Diego and it will be re-airing in the near future.
Included are direct links to the video, links to our video blog to post comments and html code to be used in other blogs and websites.
PLEASE SUPPORT EUGENE AND ENCOURAGE YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO DO SO AS WELL. REQUEST YOU FORWARD THIS VIDEO TO ALL IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
Direct Link to Blip-TV VIDEO File
http://blip.tv/file/3028741
Video Blog Link
http://sdmegacoalition.blogspot.com/2009/12/progress-in-san-diego-tv-show-americans.html
Eugene’s Website
www.eugenedavidovich.com
Eugene Legal Defense Fund
Walter Davis
760-917-1251
Even if you are on the right track, you will be run over if you just stand there.
Medical Marijuana Recommendations - January 5th (moved from Jan 4th)
January 4th Meeting MOVED to January 5th!
According to the City. January 4th meeting where the City Council was going to hear the recommendations, has been moved to January 5th. No official time has yet been announced.
Please plan to come out on the 5th of January at 202 C St San Diego, CA 92101 and support your San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force as they provide the land use and zoning recommendations for to the San Diego City Council.
Come get your "Target" sticker and help us send a quiet peaceful message, that we support regulations!
Eugene Davidovich
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
Monday, December 28, 2009
January 4th City Council Meeting / MMTF Update
Dear San Diego Medical Marijuana Community and Concerned Citizens,
At the last San Diego City Council meeting public comment on the item of Medical Marijuana Recommendations was heard and the Council voted to continue the item until Monday, January 4 at 2:00pm.
It is critical that we turn out and send a quiet message that we want fair regulations and support the San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force recommendations.
In support of our message we will be handing out “Target” stickers for supporters of the task force recommendations to wear in response to the “no pot shop” stickers handed out by the county funded organizations who spoke out against regulations at the last meeting. We do not support “pot shops” we support regulations and fair treatment of this issue.
Come to the city council meeting on January 4th at 202 C St San Diego, CA 92101 at 2 pm to get your “Target” sticker and help us send a message to the city council.
The next San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force Meetings:
· Thursday, January 21 – 9am – 11am
· Friday, February 5 – 9am – 11am
· Friday, February 19 – 9am – 11am
The meetings will be every other week until the end of October 2010.
www.SafeAccessSD.org
Saturday, December 26, 2009
County issues medical marijuana IDs
Advocates say fear, cost keep many from applying
By EDWARD SIFUENTES - esifuentes@nctimes.com
San Diego County has received 260 applications for medical marijuana ID cards since it launched the program in July, according to county health officials.
Nearly half the applications were from people ages 31-50, according to data provided by the county. A quarter of the applicants lived in North County, most of them in Carlsbad.
All of the applicants paid $166 for the card, which identifies them as legitimate medical marijuana patients entitled to carry up to 8 ounces of pot.
The county implemented the program this past summer after it lost a long legal struggle challenging the state law that required counties to provide the ID cards. The law does not require medical marijuana patients to have a card.
While acknowledging the program has only been in place for six months, medical marijuana advocates say the 260 applicants do not come close to the number of people they believe are legally allowed to use the drug. They say patients may be reluctant to apply for the card, fearing the information on the applications will be used by authorities.
"The problem here in San Diego County is that nobody trusts (the county)," said Rudy Reyes, a medical marijuana patient and activist.
The county says those fears are unfounded. The information on the applications is protected under federal privacy laws. And the county's top prosecutor said people should use the card because it quickly identifies them as legitimate users of the drug.
In recent years, law enforcement agencies in the county have repeatedly cracked down on medical marijuana dispensaries, including a Sept. 9 sweep that shut down 14 of the shops, two of them in North County.
The number of cards issued in San Diego County in the program's first six months appears to be on par with the number issued by neighboring counties in their first year, according to state figures.
For example, Riverside County issued 265 medical marijuana cards its first year, Los Angeles County issued 401 cards and Orange County issued 114 cards. But advocates cite other places, such as Oakland in Alameda County, which issued 1,475 cards in its first year.
Unfounded fears?
There are potentially thousands of eligible patients in San Diego County based on discussions with doctors who recommend pot as medicine, said Eugene Davidovich, a medical marijuana advocate with the group Americans for Safe Access.
"People are afraid," Davidovich said.
County officials said legitimate patients have nothing to fear.
The county does not provide personal information from the applications to anyone, including law enforcement, because it is protected by federal privacy laws, said Adrienne Yancey, assistant deputy director at the county's Health and Human Services Agency.
"We do not," Yancey said. "If we were subpoenaed, I can't say what would happen then ... (but) we have not been subpoenaed."
District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said her office has not asked for the information. She said people should use the ID cards because they help law enforcement identify legitimate patients.
"No one should feel intimidated," Dumanis said. "The county program is totally separate from us."
Of the 260 applications the county received this year through November, 255 were approved. Five were rejected because the county could not get the doctor to confirm the recommendation, Yancey said.
Other statistical information provided to the North County Times by the county includes patients' age range and city of residency. The newspaper also asked for, but did not receive, information on the types of illnesses reported by patients and information about their medical providers.
That information was not provided due to privacy rules, county officials said.
More data
Most of the people who requested a medical marijuana ID are between the ages of 31 and 50, a total of 114 patients, according to the data. Of the 260 applicants, only 14 were between the ages of 18 and 21.
Nearly half of the applicants, 120 people, said they lived in San Diego. Sixty applicants said they lived in North County cities, according to the data. Carlsbad had the highest number of applicants in North County, 14, followed by Vista with 11 and Oceanside with 10, according to the county's data.
Patients' distrust coupled with the $166 price tag for the card may have discouraged people from applying, said James Stacy, a Vista resident who operated one of the medical marijuana dispensaries raided by authorities in September.
The state requires a $66 fee and the county charges $100 to cover staff time and other administrative costs. San Diego County's $166 fee is $13 higher than neighboring Riverside and Los Angeles counties, which charge $153 for the cards.
"Why would I pay $166 to be harassed and be put on a potential arrest list?" Stacy asked.
Stacy faces federal charges of selling marijuana to an undercover officer who posed as a patient at Movement in Action. He has said he did nothing wrong and operated his dispensary according to state guidelines.
In 1996, voters in the state approved the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized marijuana for medical use. The Legislature later passed Senate Bill 420 in 2003, which required counties to participate in the state's medical marijuana ID program.
The county fought the state's medical marijuana law until the case hit a legal dead end earlier this year, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from San Diego and San Bernardino counties.
'Additional protection'
After losing that case, the Board of Supervisors agreed to implement the medical marijuana ID card program.
Officials estimated that they would receive about 100 applications a month based on other counties' experience.
Yancey said the county processed about 100 applications the first month, but the number quickly dropped off in following months.
Since the state began the program in 2004, more than 37,000 medical marijuana ID cards have been issued. The county with the largest number of cards is San Francisco, with more than 13,000, according to the state's Department of Public Health.
Riverside County has 2,180 ID cards and Orange County has 622, according to state figures.
Davidovich said the county could do more to publicize the card and calm people's fears about privacy protection. Davidovich said he has a card and encourages others to get it because it offers an "additional layer of protection" for legitimate patients.
"We go out of our way to tell people to sign up for the program," Davidovich said.
Call staff writer Edward Sifuentes at 760-740-3511.
San Diego County medical marijuana ID program
Patients by age
Ages 18-21: 14
Ages 22-30: 47
Ages 31-50: 114
Ages 50-over: 85
Total: 260
Applications by city
Carlsbad: 14
Chula Vista: 9
Del Mar: 5
El Cajon: 18
Encinitas: 3
Escondido: 7
Imperial Beach: 3
La Mesa: 12
Lemon Grove: 2
National City: 3
Oceanside: 10
Poway: 1
San Diego: 120
San Marcos: 7
Santee: 6
Solana Beach: 2
Vista: 11
Unincorporated: 27
Total: 260
Source: San Diego County Health and Human Service Agency
Cards issued by county
San Diego: 255
Riverside: 2,180
Orange : 622
Los Angeles: 1,579
Imperial: 15
San Bernardino: 200
Source: California Department of Public Health
Friday, December 25, 2009
Anaheim suit may play key role in pot issue
John Hoeffel. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 24, 2009. pg. A.6
(Copyright (c) 2009 Los Angeles Times)
A state appeals court appears likely to grapple with the dispute over whether cities and counties can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries as it reviews a lawsuit challenging Anaheim's ban, a case that could have a major impact on how the drug is distributed throughout California.
On Monday, the day before their decision was due, judges in the Santa Ana-based appellate court asked the lawyers involved in the case for more information on what the Legislature intended when it wrote the 2003 medical marijuana law.
The law was meant to clear up how marijuana could be provided, but it has spawned considerable confusion.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed to try to resolve murky issues, but the Anaheim case is one of the most closely watched because the outcome could inspire more bans or threaten existing ones. About 130 cities and counties have adopted bans that outlaw storefront medical marijuana dispensaries.
Monday's appellate court action means a decision could be months away, but both sides agreed that it appears the court intends to address at least some key issues rather than simply send the case back to Superior Court for a trial.
"I think that they're leaning toward ruling on the merits of the case," said Anthony Curiale, the lawyer for Qualified Patients Assn., which sued Anaheim to overturn its 2007 ban.
On Wednesday, the state Supreme Court declined to hear another appeal Curiale filed that raised similar issues.
In that case, South Coast Patients Collective Assn., a Cathedral City dispensary, asked the state's high court to overturn an injunction that forced it to shut down. Cathedral City has banned dispensaries. The case has not yet come to trial in Superior Court.
"So far, the courts have said they are not going to allow the continued illegal operation of this business while this is working its way through the court system," said Joan Smyth, the deputy city attorney.
Curiale said he was not surprised the Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal. "We took our shot. We thought the issue might be ripe. It's a juicy issue. But they are going to let it percolate up," he said.
In the Anaheim case, the court has asked the lawyers to file briefs on a quirk in the medical marijuana law. The law protects collectives from being charged with a list of specific drug crimes. Included in that list is using a building to sell, store or manufacture a controlled substance. Under state law, however, that is not a crime, it is a nuisance.
The court, puzzled as to why it was included in the law, asked the attorneys to file briefs on whether legislators meant to preempt local ordinances that criminalize medical marijuana activities or whether they meant something else.
Moses W. Johnson IV, an assistant Anaheim city attorney, said the court could choose to invalidate the provision that makes it a misdemeanor to operate a dispensary and still uphold the city's ban.
But Johnson agreed that it appears the court may be preparing to use the case to address whether cities and counties can enact bans. "It's the only appellate case that I know of that specifically deals with the issue," he said.
Curiale said he could not predict what the court would decide, but expressed optimism that the action might be an indication that Anaheim's ban could be overturned.
"I don't think the court is going to go so far as to say the city can gut the medical marijuana act," he said.
"It's like killing a fly with a shotgun, and that's what the cities are trying to do with their ordinances, and I don't think the courts are going to allow them to do that."
Anaheim suit may play key role in pot issue
John Hoeffel. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Dec 24, 2009. pg. A.6
(Copyright (c) 2009 Los Angeles Times)
A state appeals court appears likely to grapple with the dispute over whether cities and counties can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries as it reviews a lawsuit challenging Anaheim's ban, a case that could have a major impact on how the drug is distributed throughout California.
On Monday, the day before their decision was due, judges in the Santa Ana-based appellate court asked the lawyers involved in the case for more information on what the Legislature intended when it wrote the 2003 medical marijuana law.
The law was meant to clear up how marijuana could be provided, but it has spawned considerable confusion.
Numerous lawsuits have been filed to try to resolve murky issues, but the Anaheim case is one of the most closely watched because the outcome could inspire more bans or threaten existing ones. About 130 cities and counties have adopted bans that outlaw storefront medical marijuana dispensaries.
Monday's appellate court action means a decision could be months away, but both sides agreed that it appears the court intends to address at least some key issues rather than simply send the case back to Superior Court for a trial.
"I think that they're leaning toward ruling on the merits of the case," said Anthony Curiale, the lawyer for Qualified Patients Assn., which sued Anaheim to overturn its 2007 ban.
On Wednesday, the state Supreme Court declined to hear another appeal Curiale filed that raised similar issues.
In that case, South Coast Patients Collective Assn., a Cathedral City dispensary, asked the state's high court to overturn an injunction that forced it to shut down. Cathedral City has banned dispensaries. The case has not yet come to trial in Superior Court.
"So far, the courts have said they are not going to allow the continued illegal operation of this business while this is working its way through the court system," said Joan Smyth, the deputy city attorney.
Curiale said he was not surprised the Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal. "We took our shot. We thought the issue might be ripe. It's a juicy issue. But they are going to let it percolate up," he said.
In the Anaheim case, the court has asked the lawyers to file briefs on a quirk in the medical marijuana law. The law protects collectives from being charged with a list of specific drug crimes. Included in that list is using a building to sell, store or manufacture a controlled substance. Under state law, however, that is not a crime, it is a nuisance.
The court, puzzled as to why it was included in the law, asked the attorneys to file briefs on whether legislators meant to preempt local ordinances that criminalize medical marijuana activities or whether they meant something else.
Moses W. Johnson IV, an assistant Anaheim city attorney, said the court could choose to invalidate the provision that makes it a misdemeanor to operate a dispensary and still uphold the city's ban.
But Johnson agreed that it appears the court may be preparing to use the case to address whether cities and counties can enact bans. "It's the only appellate case that I know of that specifically deals with the issue," he said.
Curiale said he could not predict what the court would decide, but expressed optimism that the action might be an indication that Anaheim's ban could be overturned.
"I don't think the court is going to go so far as to say the city can gut the medical marijuana act," he said.
"It's like killing a fly with a shotgun, and that's what the cities are trying to do with their ordinances, and I don't think the courts are going to allow them to do that."
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Obama Entrapped Me
Medical-pot provider mounts a novel criminal defense in federal court
By Dave Maass, San Diego CityBeat
More than most citizens, James Dean Stacy feels betrayed by the candidate for whom he voted for president.
Up and down the campaign trail, from Los Angeles to Medford, Ore., then-Sen. Barack Obama and his spokespeople pledged that he would end the aggressive raids by the U.S. Department of Justice of medical-marijuana dispensaries operating legally under state law. The candidate said it was a waste of resources that would be better dedicated to fighting terrorism and prosecuting violent crime. Obama said he didn’t see any meaningful difference between marijuana and prescriptions such as morphine and that providers should be protected, excepting those who blatantly use medical-cannabis laws as a shield for otherwise dubious drug trafficking.
When he assumed office, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder echoed the sentiments during several meet-the-new-DOJ appearances in California and New Mexico—“You will be surprised to know that the Justice Department will be acting in a manner consistent with what [the president] said during the campaign”—and, in October, Holder formalized the policy in a set of guidelines distributed to U.S. Attorney offices.
By then, Stacy had been running a medical-marijuana collective, Movement in Action, for five months in the space adjacent to his martial-arts dojo in Vista.
“I’m the most follow-the-rules kind of guy around, so I thought I was the perfect guy to do it,” Stacy tells CityBeat. “When the collective was open, I’d have days where we’d turn away as many as 10 people who didn’t have the proper paperwork.”
In a Dec. 10 court motion, Stacy says he did the due diligence: He researched the prosecutorial policies articulated by Holder, hired a lawyer to walk him through the process and corresponded with the California Secretary of State’s (SOS) office on how to file for “public benefit” status, the technical term for a California nonprofit. The SOS even provided him with a copy of the state Attorney General’s guidelines for running a collective. Unlike many of the other collectives where the San Diego Regional Narcotics Task Force ran stings, Stacy opted for a low-profile model because, he says, “I didn’t want people who didn’t need to know to have it in their face.”
Stacy told undercover officers that they could provide labor to the collective in exchange for medicine and invited them to a “farmers market,” where patients could buy directly from growers—practices he felt were in keeping with the spirit of the California AG’s guidelines. Nevertheless, on Sept. 9, he was arrested after his collective and 13 others were raided.
Now, Stacy is one of only two collective operators who have been charged in federal court as a result of the raids. He faces one count of conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana, one count of manufacturing marijuana and one count of possession of a firearm while committing the other crimes—a handgun was found in the locker where he kept the collective’s supply.
The other federal defendant, Joseph Nunes of Green Kross Collective, pleaded guilty to his charges earlier this month. Stacy, however, says he’s not giving in to the prosecution.
“I quote my wife: ‘I’m not going to let you plead guilty to something you didn’t do,’” says Stacy, who uses marijuana to treat pain from martial-arts injuries and to relieve the nausea he’s suffered since losing his gall bladder. “They threatened life-imprisonment at both of my bail hearings.... This is nothing but a terrorist attack against the medical-marijuana community.”
Instead, Stacy is mounting a novel defense: The statements by Obama and Holder constitute entrapment by estoppel, defined as when an official tells someone that something is legal, then busts them for it. Put plainly, Stacy would not have formed the collective if the government hadn’t assured legal collectives that they wouldn’t be prosecuted.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office does not comment on pending cases, and Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman whose pro-medical-marijuana statements were directly cited in the court filing, did not respond to inquiries.
The entrapment defense draws from a “fundamental notion of fairness: The individual must have fair warning of what conduct the government intends to punish,” Stacy’s attorney, Kasha Castillo of Federal Defenders of San Diego, writes in the recent motion. Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz has agreed to hear the motion—which includes a request that the case be dismissed or, alternately, Stacy be allowed to present the entrapment defense in court—on Feb. 3.
When CityBeat first posted a summary of the motion on its blog, Lastblogonearth.com, and linked it from the Huffington Post, some commentators wrote it off as a gratuitous and foolish attempt to claim that a candidate’s campaign promises are as good as laws passed by Congress. However, defense attorneys say it isn’t just a novel approach; rather, it’s a potential groundbreaking solution to a longstanding paradox in federal medical-marijuana cases.
San Diego County Deputy Public Defender Juliana Humphrey explains that, historically, medical-marijuana patients and caregivers have been barred from saying they were acting in good-faith under California law because it has not been considered a legitimate defense under federal law.
“Most of the time, the common thought is that trial defendants are getting some kind of advantage because everything is sterilized for the defendant’s benefit,” says Humphrey, who chaired the city of San Diego’s Medical Cannabis Task Force in 2002. “But in this case, it completely keeps from the jury the truth of the motivation of the person that possesses or provides the marijuana for the benefit of the government.”
Last month, a San Diego jury in state Superior Court acquitted Jovan Jackson, the coordinator of Answerdam Alternative Care, of all marijuana-related charges; the foreman told the press following the verdict that California’s laws are too vague to determine whether Jackson’s collective wasn’t in compliance.
Jackson’s trial lawyer, K. Lance Rogers of Turner Law Group, cautions that each case’s circumstance are different—not to mention each jury—and that Jackson’s verdict doesn’t indicate how the federal court will rule on Stacy’s motion. Plus, unlike in Jackson’s case, when the prosecution had to prove he committed the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden will be on the defense during the hearing to show that Stacy was within the law.
“The issues and the challenges that will ultimately come up with Mr. Stacy’s hearing are all of the same issues that came up in Jovan’s case,” Rogers says. “It’s not enough to say, ‘I knew about this information before I set up my collective.’ In my opinion, he needs to show some evidence that he knew the government’s public advisory.”
Stacy’s testimony may be enough, Rogers says, but his communication with the Secretary of State’s Corporations Division and the fact he hired a lawyer to advise him may prove the most compelling.
More than the entrapment defense, Rogers is interested in another argument Stacy’s attorney makes: The federal government violated the 10th Amendment protection of states’ rights by enlisting San Diego County Sheriff’s deputies to enforce a federal law that contradicts state law.
“The federal government can’t commandeer state law enforcement to implement federal policies, and the keyword is ‘commandeering,’” Rogers says. “This is a fundamental principle of federalism and American jurisprudence. That’s a fascinating argument that has not been decided to my knowledge.”
Until it is decided, Stacy is keeping his nose (and his pipe) clean. He believes he has the right to continue using marijuana for medical purposes but has switched to Marinol, a synthetic THC pill, until the court gives him explicit permission at his next bail hearing.
“I did not, I do not and I will not break the law,” Stacy says.
Write to davem@sdcitybeat.com and editor@sdcitybeat.com .
Read More at San Diego City Beat!
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/obama_entrapped_me/8819/
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Medical Marijuana Victory in San Diego - Stop Operation Green Rx
Another victory for patients in San Diego. The campaign to Stop Operation Green Rx, in collaboration with San Diego ASA was able to provide help for a patient being unjustly prosecuted by Bonnie Dumanis. Charges Dropped., Case Dismissed, Medical Marijuana is law.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
SUPPORT JAMES STACEY
By: Marcus Boyd, San Diego ASA
See the content rich version here: http://wp.me/pHeYc-of
If you listen to the misinformation by medical marijuana prohibitionists like San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis you would believe that the law surrounding medical marijuana is vague and confusing.
However, consider this going forward...
The California Constitution requires that any changes to a voter initiative must be submitted to the voters of the state and approved by them or by appellate and supreme court decisions.
Thus, no local City Council, nor Mayor, nor Board of Supervisors, nor Sheriff, nor Legislature, nor Attorney General, nor Governor, nor San Diego County District Attorney has the legal right to change the state’s medical marijuana law. Only the voters can change or modify this law, and... every public opinion poll ever taken agrees with Prop 215 and disagrees with the prohibitionists using the terms vague and confusing.
The law is not at all vague or confusing! The law is legal and binding.
The prohibitionists are unable to 'convict' a medical marijuana patient for possessing, transporting or consuming medical marijuana, or even for selling in California if done so within the framework of a medical marijuana collective or cooperative.
With that said, the law is only "confusing" to those who can't figure out why they don't have a 'vague' chance at convicting someone due to law they personally object to, didn't vote for, and will not support.
The US Supreme Court has had three opportunities to declare the Compassionate Use Act unconstitutional yet they have not only refused to do so their legal decisions have clearly upheld that the People of California had every right to pass and enforce the CUA as a state law.
As far as courts go, the California law is really only vague and confusing to the federal court.
Defendants like James Stacey really do need your help today.
Please support Truth In Trials by clicking here to quickly and easily contact the U.S. the Representative in your area.
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/182/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=28007
Dumanis interviewed after Jackson verdict, “For Profit” MMJ sales now legal
http://bonniedamantis.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/dumanis-interviewed-after-jackson-verdict-tells-truth/
CANDIDATE WANTED: District Attorney for the County of San Diego
http://bonniedamantis.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/commentary-california-medical-marijuana-laws-are-not-vague-or-confusing/
Pledge Your Support: Replace the San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis
http://bonniedamantis.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/financialpledge-for-district-attorney-of-san-diego/
Friday, December 18, 2009
Interview with James Stacy before and after today's Federal Court Hearing
James Stacy is a victim of Operation Green Rx who was charged federally for operating a medical marijuana collective in San Diego County.
Visit www.movementinaction.org for more information on James Stacy's case.
James Stacy Federal Court - 5th Floor Courtroom 15
James Stacy Federal Court - 940 Front Street San Diego, CA 92101-8900 - 5th Floor Courtroom 15
A hearing in James Stacy’s federal case is scheduled for today at 1:30 pm in the Federal Courthouse at 940 Front Street San Diego, CA 92101-8900 - 5th Floor Courtroom 15
Please come out and support James in court. He is a victim of Dumanis’ efforts to overturn state law and the will of the voters with regards to proposition 215. James was a founding member of a legal collective in San Diego which was raided on September 9th and now is facing Federal charges for legally cultivating and distributing medication in his closed circuit collective.
For more information on James Stacy’s federal case visit www.movementinaction.org
Eugene Davidovich
San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.safeaccesssd.org
Time to protect medical marijuana, San Diego!
Dear medical marijuana supporter,
Finally! The San Diego City Council is considering adopting medical marijuana dispensary regulations that were developed recently by the city’s Medical Marijuana Task Force, with substantial public input. The City Council is trying to do the right thing – finalize regulations in 2010. Let’s show them our thanks!
Will you join me in thanking the City Council for their leadership and urging them to support the Task Force’s recommendations? Our website makes it easy!
The San Diego City Council is doing a difficult and brave thing – it’s putting safe access for medical marijuana patients and the needs of San Diegans above the political opposition of the County Board of Supervisors and the District Attorney. Unlike the County, the City Council understands that regulation is key to both safe access and public order. It’s got an important meeting coming up on January 4, 2010.
Please let the City Council know you’re watching what they’re up to. Tell them to keep up the good work and finalize medical marijuana dispensary regulations in 2010.
The County finally exhausted its litigation against California’s medical marijuana laws in 2009 – and lost. Let’s support the City Council’s regulatory efforts in 2010 – and win!
Happy Holidays!
Sincerely,
Margaret Dooley-Sammuli
Deputy State Director, Southern California
Drug Policy Alliance Network
P.S. Don’t forget to write to the San Diego City Council to thank them and urge them to finalize medical marijuana dispensary regulations in San Diego in 2010.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Nonsense About Medical Marijuana and Teens
Baloney.
Medical marijuana burst onto the national scene in 1996, when California passed the first effective medical marijuana law, Arizona passed a flawed initiative with similar intent (whose value turned out to be only symbolic due to its wording), and the Clinton administration went ballistic. It stayed a major issue in 1998 and 1999 as a further wave of initiatives passed and the Institute of Medicine issued a report giving a qualified endorsement to medical marijuana, which has been in and out of the spotlight ever since.
In 1996, the last survey taken before any medical marijuana initiatives passed, 11.3 percent of eighth graders reported current (past 30 days) marijuana use. For 10th graders the figure was 20.4 percent, and for 12th graders it was 21.9 percent. In 2009, after 13 years of medical marijuana laws that now exist in 13 states, the figures for current use are 6.5 percent for eighth graders, 15.9 percent for 10th graders and 20.6 percent for 12th graders.
The pattern is the same for lifetime use: In every age group, marijuana use is down, not up, since the medical marijuana debate hit the national stage. That’s even true in California, where the lack of tight regulation has led to the most allegations of abuse, according to the official California Student Survey. Alas, the state no longer seems to have the data posted online, but we compiled it (and other state surveys) here.
It’s a shame that researchers who’ve been enlisted in the war on marijuana choose to repeat unfounded propaganda rather then address the reality that their federal bosses prefer to avoid: Teen access to marijuana isn’t caused by laws that let sick patients use it, it’s caused by a failed policy of prohibition that prevents the sort of sensible regulation we apply to tobacco.
http://blog.mpp.org/medical-marijuana/nonsense-about-medical-marijuana-and-teens/12152009/
L. A. City Council ducks medical pot vote at wild meeting; harsh land-use limits anger crowd
By Christine Pelisek in City NewsWed., Dec. 16 2009 @ 3:49PM
No surprise: At a raucous meeting today, the Los Angeles City Council decided to hold off on voting on a controversial medical marijuana ordinance that would severely reduce the 545 pot shops in Los Angeles.
marijuana-leaf.jpg
The postponement came after the city's Planning Department presented hurriedly created maps showing that only five of 137 pot shops envisioned under a City Council cap could remain at their current locations if the city adopts a buffer zone to keep them at least 500 feet from schools, youth centers, libraries, religious institutions and residential properties. The remaining 118 would most likely have to relocate, many to industrial zones.
The findings caused a stir among council members and pro-medical marijuana advocates who booed many of the details presented by city planner Alan Bell. Here's the amazing part:
This was the first time, five years after the council decided it needed to adopt local regulations for selling medical weed, that the City Council has ever seen a zoning map showing where pot shops would be located or be banned under a typical "buffer zone" approach used in many California cities.
Unlike San Diego, where a respected polling group conducted a detailed survey of city residents to learn what residents wanted to do about medical pot (San Diego residents strongly back medical weed, but only 23 percent want a pot dispensary within a mile of their homes), Los Angeles just recently began debating land-use and neighborhood impact.
San Francisco acted about one year ago, adopting a 1,000-foot buffer around its schools and has shut down roughly half of its 50 pot shops.
The hot-button issue, which has been bogged down in a gridlocked Los Angeles City Council committee for many years, gained steam in the last few weeks after the council voted on December 8 to limit the number of pot shops to 137 -- those shops that opened up before the council rushed to adopt a 2007 pot outlet moratorium.
The council asked the Planning Department to draw up detailed maps that would show how close the pot shops would be to schools, youth centers, libraries, religious institutions and residential properties if buffer zones are adopted.
The Planning Department found that if pot shops were limited to a 500-foot buffer zone around sensitive uses, they could open in 31 percent of the city's commercial and industrial areas -- but only five percent of those areas would be commercial spots such as business districts. The rest would be industrially zoned.
If the city decides on a 1,000-foot buffer from sensitive uses, no pot shops would be able to open, said Bell.
If nothing else, the meeting showed which council members were in favor of pot shops and which members were not. Rosendahl, whose lover died of AIDS, said that if it wasn't for medical marijuana his lover would not have been able to eat. "We are treating this like a pariah. There are liquor stores all over the place. It should be legal...Putting it in back alleys and industrial areas is wrong."
Garcetti argued that he wanted to give "special consideration" for those pot shops who opened before the moratorium. "I don't want to have secondary effects where there are no clinics," he said.
But referring to the pro-marijuana advocates dominating the audience, Alarcon said the city had already "gone a long way to give [the medical marijuana advocates] what they want."
Alarcon was resoundingly booed by the crowd, but continued: "We don't have to do this...I don't want it 1,000 feet from my kid. Period."
Councilman Smith noted that pot shops have become crime magnets yet the City Council is being shown zoning maps instead of maps from the Los Angeles Police Department showing the crime hot spots. "My district won't stand for it," Smith said.
His comments caused a furor again among the rowdy pro-marijuana crowd, and security guards threatened to throw people out. "All your boos prove to me that you aren't good citizens," lamented Smith.
The next City Council hearing on the issue is set for January 13.
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/medical-marijuana-los-angeles/
Nathan Archer Walks Away From Court Again
By: Nathan Archer
I am not a drug offender or Narcotics offender. I have no drug related History. I am allowed by San Diego Court to be able to continue with medical marijuana but must register as a narcotics offender. Which I am not!!!
1 2/15 /2009
Today was a difficult day as at the last minute the judge was replaced by Judge Gale E. Kaneshiro and though my case was number 4 on the docket I was almost the last person in the court room before they called my case.
The Judge would not let allow me to request new council; as she stated that I was not represented as pro per but, I had been appointed a Public Defender through the whole proceedings. She stated that, "Though Mr. Archers Public Defender retired," (after my second trial case), " the Public Defenders Office has not".
San Diego NORML Vice President: Mara Felsen, Esq. requested that the judge allow a continuance as they were willing to take the case. The Judge informed me that I was still considered by the court as being represented by the Public Defenders Office.blic Defenders Office and file to be represented Pro Per and we would have to have a ruling on that.
The Bailiff offered that if I use the Public Defender to state that I want to seek new council it would expedite things and we would end up with the same resolve.S.D. NORML V.P. Mara Felsen, Esq. and I concurred it seemed less court time so I consented.
An available Public Defender was spoken to by Ms. Felsen, Esq. and he agreed. I was called before the Court and the Public Defender did as I asked, He requested that I be allowed a continuance as I wish to appoint new council.
The Judge Agreed, then stated that my probation was revoked and that I was to return to court in 14 days with proof of my "Registration as a Narcotics Offender".
I spoke up, " Your Honor, did you receive My Statement?".
The Judge replied, "Yes."
I then stated, " The whole context of my statement is that I have no Narcotics or Drug abuse History. I am allowed by the court to continue with my Medical Marijuana and am appealing my case at the Supreme Court Level......"
The Judge commented "yes.."
I continued, " The Kentucky and Indiana courts recognize that it Registering is only punitive in Nature and Unconstitutional.
I am appealing my case at the Supreme Court Level."
" I see," said the Judge thoughtfully.
"Okay, Mr Archer is to remain at liberty on probation. The Public Defender is relieved, Retained counsel Marar Felsen, Esq. is appearing in behalf of defendant. Court stays condition to register HS11590 pending appeal."
I walked out of the Court room feeling much better, joined by my new found friends; Euguene, Mara, Craig, Bill, others including Waldon. A great friend who has seen my case through the end and harder times. Thank you all for supporting me and everyone else who cared.
After my case it was Eugene Davidovich's turn. He was attempting to have his case dismissed. His is another battle in San Diego. He was stung by an undercover who lied extensively and; was a validated Medical Marijuana Patient, confirmed by a Doctors office. All that so he could become a patient of Euguenes collective service.
Things did not go so well for him, but it is still the early stages and things are getting better.
In my trip to San Diego I was most upset to learn that Bonnie Dumanis is attempting to have California Prop 215 re- evaluated and rewritten "Because it is too vague".
I Stood with Eugene, Bill and many others outside while Bonnie Dumanis had a meeting inside. I spoke to several T.V. Stations, KUSI 6, 7, 8, 9, 10..
San Diego is going too far!!!
We need to come down on them for attacking people who don't even live there, especially after they have refused to obey the law. They have opposed the State in court now 6 times and each time were shut down and ordered to follow the law. Yet San Diego responds with "Operation Endless Summer" they continue to refuse to allow patient rights and are seriously hurting people and their lives regardlessly, systematically and mercilessly.
Please support the efforts of the various Chapters in San Diego ( NORML, ASA...) see how you can help.
I will be back in court for my continuance on January 26, 2010 at 9:00 am Dept. 12. You are welcome to join me; but please be respectful of the Law as we are trying to help make it.
Peace,
N8
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/16/18632759.php
Bonnie Dumanis Protest - Success!
Thank you to ALL who came out for the Bonnie Dumanis protest yesterday!
The message was sent clearly to our DA that the San Diego Community will not tolerate the continued subversion of state law.
Thanks as always to our dedicated photographer William West.
Regards,
Eugene Davidovich
www.safeaccesssd.org
Monday, December 14, 2009
Protest / Rally against Bonnie Dumanis 12/15 - 5-7pm
The Shapery Emerald Plaza Building,
400 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
When:
December 15, 2009
5:00pm - 7:30pm (please come a little early)
Please join us for a peaceful and legal protest against the San Diego District Attorney Bonie Dumanis on Tuesday December 15th from 5pm to 7pm. Dumanis is holding a fundraiser for her reelection campaign at the Shapery Building next to the Hall of Justice in Downtown San Diego.
Americans for Safe Access - Return of Property
Thank you for your interest in the Return of Property campaign and in joining in solidarity with other patients and caregivers throughout California to demand that your illegally confiscated medicine be returned by the court. Filing a Motion for Return of Property will not only help you get your property back, but will also send a clear message to law enforcement that their policy of violating medical marijuana law is unacceptable.
After our resounding victory in City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court, (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th, which followed from our People v. Kha case, Americans for Safe Access encourages you to take advantage of your legal rights and to try to get your medicine and other confiscated property back. Before this decision, your rights remained unclear, but no longer. You now have a definitive statement from the Court of Appeal that supports you and affirms your rights, and if you possessed less than your local guidelines allow, you have an excellent chance of success.
Keep in mind that you are not alone. Hundreds (if not thousands) of law–abiding medical marijuana patients throughout California are still wrongfully harassed and prosecuted, and have their medicine confiscated. However, if we stand up together and demand our rights, with the Court of Appeal decision in Garden Grove at our backs, we can transform ASA’s legal victory into a change of policy in every courtroom in California. Each time a patient engages in the Return of Property process, with or without success, we send a symbolic message to the judge that it is a waste of the court’s time when local law enforcement ignores California medical marijuana law. Eventually, judges will pass this message to District Attorneys, and District Attorneys back to law enforcement to Stop the Confiscations!
It is advisable that you wait to start the Return of Property process until any pending criminal case is dropped, dismissed or acquitted at trial (although, if possible, you should present the completed Motion to the judge on the day of dismissal). If no criminal charges were ever filed against you, we suggest you wait some time to start the Return of Property process. This is to be reasonably sure no charges will be filed, especially as a result of you filing the motion (charges can be filed up to three years after an incident in California). For more on the risks of possible retaliatory charges, see III. on this FAQ.
We are available to answer any of your questions and intend to support you every step of the way. Call us at 510-251-1856 (Tu. & Th., 11am-7pm) or email the Legal Services Coordinator at legalsupport@safeaccessnow.org.
| Here is the information you will need to complete the motion: | |
|
|
Create a Motion for Return of Property
The first step in the process is to fill out the Motion for Return of Property. Download the motion below and fill it out using a computer (handwritten motions are generally looked upon unfavorably by the courts). Fill in the sections highlighted in yellow and replace all text with the appropriate information. When you have completed the motion, remember to un-highlight the parts of the motion that you have filled in. You can do this by locating the "highlighter icon" in your Word toolbar (if it is not currently visible, chck the extra hidden tools at the end of the bar section with your font and letter size). Select Control+A to select all text, and then select the highlighter icon and then "None", and all yellow highlighting should disappear. For more information, see Word Help for "highlighting". - Motion for Return of Property in .DOC format, or
- Motion for Return of Property in .WPD format
File your Motion
The second step is filing the motion. Read the instructions below for how to file the motion in the criminal division of your county courthouse. It is important that these instructions are read entirely and followed closely, as any deviation may cause delays or a denial of the motion.Present a Letter to the Court Clerk
If the criminal court clerk either: a) does not know what to do with the motion, b) tells you to go to another court or another division, or c) says that you are not entitled to file the motion, you should present the clerk with the following letter. The letter addressed to the court clerk was written by ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford and should be used if the clerk refuses to file the motion for any of the reasons above- Letter to the Clerk of the Court in .PDF format
Argue Your Motion Before a Judge
Once you have filed the motion, you will be given a date for the hearing on your motion, usually one month away. The hearing is the most complicated and intimidating part of the process, because you have to argue your case in front of a judge. ASA has prepared some instructions for the hearing, and will certainly answer any questions you might have about your hearing before you go into court.If your motion for return of property is granted
If your motion for return of property is granted, you will need to take the resulting court order (signed by the judge) to the law enforcement agency or court that is in possession of your medicine and/or property to request it back. If law enforcement refuses to return your property, you probably have grounds to move for contempt of court. Please contact ASA's Legal Services Coodinator as ASA is likely to send out a letter that is similar to the following letter threatening contempt.If your motion for return of property is denied
In many cases, filing and arguing this motion will merely be the first step in the process of getting your medicine back because of resistance by the courts. If your motion for return of property is denied, you have the option of appealing the decision. Although ASA does not have the resources to take on numerous civil cases, we can at least assess whether or not you have a reasonable claim for monetary damages. Please let us know about any denials of a motion for return of property, and we can discuss whether it is appropriate to appeal.If your property has been destroyed
If you wish to file a civil suit for the monetary value of the property destroyed, you will first need to file a Tort claim with the city or county that oversees the law enforcement agency that confiscated your property. This claim must be filed within 6 months of the original confiscation of property. Please feel free to use one of the templates below for your claim:- If the Sheriffs confiscated your property: Use this template
- If the Police confiscated your property: Use this template
- If the California Highway Patrol confiscated your property: Use this template and then fill out and attach this Government Claim Form to your Tort claim
Once the claim is denied (which they typically are), you have 6 months from that point to file a civil lawsuit. You will want to take this time to research your case and/or retain an attorney to help you file the complaint. If you learn at your hearing that your property has been destroyed, you may have a legitimate civil claim for a violation of your due process rights, and you should let ASA know. However, please note that California law does not provide for judgments of monetary damages in cases involving due process violations.
Please call or email the Legal Services Coordinator at 510-251-1856 (Tu. & Th., 10am-5pm) or legalsupport@safeaccessnow.org if you have any more questions or problems with filling out and filing the motion or any other part of the process.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Update on Tuesday's City Council Meeting
The San Diego City Council met on Tuesday and in attendance to speak in opposition of regulations, there were over 50 people organized by Judy Strang and Kathy Lippet from a local county funded organization called HARM.
These misinformed members of a small hate driven group were comparing MMJ patients to sex offenders and spreading lies and propaganda.
Thank you to all who came and spoke in favor of regulations!
I think this was the first time that the HARM people saw that we will NOT be silent in the face of hate, discrimination, and lies! Thank you for your courage in standing up to the bullies.
The Item was moved to January 4th as there wasn't enough time with all the speakers to get to it. Please come back and bring 2 friends with you! Sign up to speak and urge the City Council to proceed with the regulations recommended by the San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force.
We need regulations not a ban and the San Diego City Council should not be distracted by the County Funded Lobbying groups part of our local prison industrial complex whos intent is to overturn Proposition 215.
more to come....
Monday, December 7, 2009
San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force Recommends Regulations - December 8
December 8, 2009 at the San Diego City Council meeting scheduled to be heard after 2pm, the San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force will be presenting its recommendations to the San Diego City Council.
Please come out and support the San Diego City Council as they take a very important step in providing Safe Access for patients to their physician recommended medicine.
San Diego City Council
12th Floor
202 “C” STREET SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
The agenda is available at:
http://dockets.sandiego.gov/sirepub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=464&doctype=Agenda
ITEM-337: Report from the Medical Marijuana Task Force. (Citywide.)
(See Report to the City Council No. 09-165.)
COUNCILMEMBER EMERALD'S RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the following resolution as recommended by the Medical Marijuana Task Force:
(R-2010-393)
Accepting the Medical Marijuana Task Force Report to Council No. 09-165 and referring the matter to the Land Use and Housing Committee.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
The Medical Marijuana Task Force makes the following recommendations for Dispensing Collectives and Cooperatives (DCCs):
• Permitting through Processes 2 and 3: That DCCs with less than 100 members be required to obtain a use permit through a Process 2 as described in the San Diego Municipal Code and DCCs with 100 or more members obtain a use permit through a Process 3. The Task Force further recommends that permit renewals follow the current San Diego Municipal Code guidelines found in Chapter 12, Article 6, Division 3.
• Zoning: That DCCs be allowed by permit in the following zones: CR, CO, CC, CN, CV, IP, IL, and IH. The Task Force recommends including uses similar to the recommended base zones in Planned District Ordinances (PDOs).
• Distance Limitations: That DCCs shall not be located: (a) within a 1,000-foot radius of schools, playgrounds, libraries, child care facilities, and youth facilities, including but not limited to youth hostels, youth camps, youth clubs, etc., and other similar uses; and shall not be located (b) within a 500-foot radius of other DCCs.
• Not-for-Profit Operation: That DCCs be required to submit, in applying for a conditional use permit, evidence that they are incorporated as statutory cooperatives or bona fide nonprofit corporations, or documentation outlining their plans for operating in a not-for-profit manner, as contemplated by the Attorney General's guidelines.
• Security: That DCCs be required to have an adequate and operable security system that includes security cameras and alarms and for a licensed security guard to be present at the cooperative or collective at all times during business hours.
• Lighting: That DCCs be required to provide for adequate lighting as detailed below.
• Hours of Operation: That the hours of operation for DCCs be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. seven days a week.
• Signage: That certain signage restrictions and requirements be adopted for DCCs as detailed below.
FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS: N/A
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CONTRACTING INFORMATION (IF APPLICABLE): N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND/OR COMMITTEE ACTION:
On October 6, 2009, the San Diego City Council voted to establish a Medical Marijuana Task Force (hereinafter “Task Force”) to advise the City Council on: (1) guidelines for medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers; (2) guidelines for the structure and operation of medical marijuana cooperatives and/or collectives; and (3) guidelines for police department enforcement regarding medical marijuana. The resolution establishing the Task Force further provided that the Task Force was to report back to the City Council by the end of 2009 with recommendations regarding land use and zoning issues.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS:
The Task Force met five times over the course of five weeks to discuss recommendations for the land use and zoning of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives within the City of San Diego. The meetings were conducted pursuant to the Brown Act and open to the public.
KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND PROJECTED IMPACTS: N/A
www.safeaccesssd.org
Thursday, December 3, 2009
KUSI News Coverage
Many beleive that the DA is not supporting state law and patient's rights to safe access. In fact a majority of San Diegan's believe that even though Ms. Dumanis has made statements in support of Medical Marijuana, her intention is still to rid the county of it..
KUSI reported the Jovan Jackson story correctly on 12/2/09 in all of their evening broadcasts with no errors. We sincerely appreciate the KUSI's continued coverage of the issue.
We hope that in the future Ms. Dumanis when discussing ongoing cases on the news will not make errors of this magnitude.
Eugene Davidovich
DEMAND FOR RETRACTION/CORRECTION
Previously KUSI News Channel 9 San Diego has provided fair and balanced reporting on the issue of Medical Cannabis. On December second after Mr. Jackson's trial KUSI correctly stated the charges against Mr. Jackson. This morning however, in an error that has stirred up more controversy over the issue, in error Ms. Dumanis was asked by a reporter whether Mr. Jackson was convicted of sales of narcotics, Ms. Dumanis responded "yes".
Jovan Jackson's attorneys issue DEMAND FOR RETRACTION/CORRECTION after Dumanis asserted on KUSI Channel 9 News San Diego that Jackson was convicted of selling narcotics.
Jackson Attorneys: "We are very disappointed that Ms. Dumanis and KUSI allowed this information to be disseminated to the public".
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Medical Marijuana Task Force Recommendations - Explained
In order for a conditional use permit to be approved, the decision maker, in both cases the San Diego City Planning Commission will have to find that:
- The proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plan;
- The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare;
- The proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the Land Development Code; and
- The proposed use is appropriate at the proposed location.
- The diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes is a violation of state law.
- The use of medical marijuana may impair a person’s ability to drive a motor vehicle or operate machinery.
- Loitering on and around the collective / cooperative site is prohibited by California Penal Code section 647(e).
Posts
