Collateral Estoppel Motion Denied in Jovan Jackson Case

Today in San Diego Superior Court, the Honorable Judge Shore in front of at least a dozen of Mr. Jackson's supporters, considered a motion to dismiss the case against Jovan Jackson based on the doctrine of "Collateral Estoppel." Judge Shore denied the motion and based on the fact that the second trial stems from events on a different date.

According to Lance Rogers, Mr. Jackson's defense attorney, "the doctrine of collateral estoppel means that a prior judgment is a bar to a new case based on the same issues. This doctrine is embodied in the Fifth Amendment guaranty against double jeopardy".

Mr. Rogers originally filed this motion on February 11, 2010. At that time, Judge Shore determined that he could not rule on the motion until after a preliminary hearing because it was uncertain what the facts of Mr. Jackson's new case were. According to Mr. Rogers, the new case stems from the 9/9/9 raids and involves the exact same type of activity as Jackson's prior case from 2008. On December 1, 2009, Jackson was acquitted of all marijuana charges in that case.

In his opposition to the motion, District Attorney Chris Lindberg argues that the 9/9/9 case is different because (1) it was a year later, (2) involved a different officer, and (3) Answerdam was using a different form.

Mr. Rogers although having presented a superb defense this morning in court, was disappointed that the Court did not agree with him that these factors do not make the 2009 case any different than the 2008 case.

The trial in Mr. Jackson's case is set for August. Although the community is ready willing and able to stand by Mr. Jackson through a second trial, it is the hope of many in San Diego that the DA's office will realize the tremendous waste of resources and abuse of power trying Mr. Jackson again will cause, and drop the charges.

Get Involved, Get Active, Make a Difference! Visit www.safeaccesssd.org
Join ASA www.safeaccessnow.org

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPERVISORS ADOPT DE FACTO BAN ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

By: Eugene Davidovich, San Diego Americans for Safe Access

SAN DIEGO - Today June 23rd, 2010, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors adopted a de facto ban on medical marijuana collective facilities. Although this ordinance does not directly affect regulations in the City of San Diego or the work of the San Diego City Council on the issue, today’s vote does set a troubling precedent for other cities and counties to follow, and effectively eliminates all safe access to medical cannabis within the unincorporated areas of the county.

The language of the ordinance does not include an outright ban on dispensaries however the draconian zoning and licensing requirements proposed by the county completely eliminate the possibility for any facility to open.

This morning the meeting began at 9am sharp with the Deputy Director of Planning and Land Use Jeff Murphy presenting the staff's report and explaining how complex, dangerous, and expensive indoor cultivation was. Mr. Murphy explained that the proposed ordinance was designed to protect the community from the 'dangers' associated with cultivating marijuana indoors.

Following Mr. Murphy’s report, the Commissioner of Planning and Land Use presented the commission’s recommendations with regards to this ordinance. The recommendations included a suggestion to reduce the 1000 foot separation requirement from sensitive uses down to a less restrictive 600 feet, a decision made at the May 14th planning commission meeting where advocates and concerned citizens presented maps showing the commission that there were no areas where such a facility could locate at the 1000 foot separation requirement.

After the county staff’s report and presentations, Commander Predergust from the San Diego County Sheriff's department went over the sheriff's licensing requirements in detail and reiterated the dangers he believes are associated with dispensaries. Cdr Predergust did not cite a single specific incident or any evidence to support his suggestions that these facilities were criminal enterprises and should be treated as such.

Following the reports and presentations, at least two dozen speakers from the community spoke out against the ordinance. Not all members of the public were in agreement on the medical efficacy of cannabis, but all were opposed to the ordinance as written. Many concerned citizens and members of the community that spoke today, raised specific issues with the ordinance as well as made specific recommendations to the Supervisors with regards to what should be changed in the ordinance.

Kate Valentine, of San Diego Americans for Safe Access for example, presented a short video that showed how all the proposed zones where the county's staff report says medical marijuana facilities could locate, are either undeveloped land or cement factories.

GOOGLE EARTH VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e48YnzWxcY8



Ms. Valentine reiterated to the board that this ordinance would zone out all facilities and suggested that the Supervisors add the following zones as allowed uses into the ordinance: Medical Center Commercial-C46, General Commercial-C36, Office Professional- C30, Heavy Commercial- C37, Convenience Commercial-C32, Freeway Commercial- C44, Service Commercial-C38, and Rural Commercial- C40.

After the public comments on the issue, Supervisor Dianne Jacobs raised a motion to include the original 1000 foot separation requirement rather than follow their own commission’s recommendations and make the ordinance even more restrictive. Supervisor Horn quickly seconded the motion.

After Supervisor Jacob’s comments, the rest of the Supervisors weighed in on the issue, and all with the exception of Ron Roberts supported the restrictive ordinance. The supervisors in support of the ordinance maintained that they did not have clarity as far as the conflict with Federal and State law, that they were still not sure if marijuana really was medicine, and that they did not want it in their community.

The ordinance passed today with Supervisor Roberts being the only one to vote against it. The vote included Supervisor’s Jacobs motion to increase the 600 foot separation requirement back to 1000 feet and the supervisors adopted the restrictive licensing requirements and other portions of the ordinance with the exception of the Zoning Regulations, which will be voted on June 30th.

Today the Board of Supervisors did not even attempt to hide their bias and refer madness propaganda. They openly were looking for ways to restrict and eliminate access to medical marijuana and were clearly trying to overturn the will of California voters. The Supervisors seemed ready to spend more of our tax payer dollars on litigating this issue.

It is the hope of many concerned citizens, patients, and members of our community that the supervisors reconsider their vote next week and modify the restrictive ordinance to actually provide safe access for patients in San Diego, rather than effectively eliminate it.

Members of San Diego Americans for Safe Access have identified the following list of specific changes that should be made to the ordinance before it is voted on. These changes would help both address the la enforcements’ concerns, while keeping patients interest in mind:

1. Zoning Restrictions - Current proposed ordinance, effectively ZONES OUT collective facilities and creates a de facto ban in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. There are zero locations where collective facilities could locate according to proposed zoning requirements. The County’s Staff report and maps do not take into account the developed vs undeveloped land and are not a correct representation of reality. Our analysis and mapping show clearly that there are no locations where a collective facility could locate under this ordinance. At the least, the following categories should be added as allowed categories where a collective facility could locate.

• Medical Center Commercial-C46
• General Commercial-C36
• Office Professional- C30
• Heavy Commercial- C37
• Convenience Commercial-C32
• Freeway Commercial- C44
• Service Commercial-C38
• Rural Commercial- C40

2. Sheriff Licensing - The Sheriff’s Department should not be involved at this level in setting up a business/medical facility. The proposed ordinance puts the Sheriff in the role of enforcing civil infractions which makes opening and operating a collective facility untenable. The issue of regulating collective facilities should be in the hands of the Health Department-not law enforcement as collectives should NOT be treated as criminal enterprises, rather health facilities that provide a very much needed service to many thousands of patients in San Diego County.

3. Ban on Cannabis Infused Food and Drink - A vast majority of patients in the county rely on ingesting their medicine using cannabis induced foods rather than smoking it. Banning cannabis induced food and drink unfairly restricts the type of medication a patient can have access to, and should be removed from the proposed ordinance. Many doctors specifically recommend that patients ingest their medicine through food or tincture rather than smoking.

4. Using MMIC to track patient information rather than Sheriff - San Diego County runs the Medical Marijuana Identification Card program. That program specifically and explicitly protects patients’ rights, by using only an identification number and only allowing police to check the validity of the card, not the patient’s address and marijuana usage information. If a patient has a County card, then they should be exempt from the record keeping procedures. Having a county issued ID card should be all the information that the police or any other regulatory agency needs to verify the validity of patients or track patients. The names and addresses of patients should be protected

5. Protecting Patient’s Confidentiality and Privacy - The requirement, that all patient and transaction records be maintained on site, and made available to the Sheriff at any time for inspection, places the patients at risk of federal prosecution and should be removed Americans for Safe Access contends that using MMIC as a way to verify validity of a patient is enough and should be done through the Health Department—not through law enforcement

6. Sheriff’s Inspection of Cultivation - Requiring that the Sheriff inspect and approve all locations where members are cultivating marijuana for the collective places members and patients at direct risk of felony prosecution by cross sworn officers enforcing federal law. All previous raids have been conducted by the County’s Narcotics Task Force, composed of cross-sworn officers. Patients who are cultivating for themselves and have excess that they contribute to the collective should not be subject to the Sheriff’s inspection. ASA recommends that collectives’ cultivation sites be inspected by the Health / Code Enforcement departments

7. Patient Information on Medicine Containers - The requirement to have the patients’ and cultivators’ names on the medicine container predisposes them to prosecution by federal officers and robbery by criminals who may happen upon an empty bottle. This also sets up legitimate patients for federal prosecution and essentially documents the federal felony for the police. This requirement seriously violates patient confidentiality and privacy.

8. Uniform Guard - The requirement to have a licensed uniform guard present at all times creates an undue financial burden on collective facilities with a small membership base. The requirement should be changed to have non-uniformed guards, or the option to train employees, through a County program, to look for suspicious or criminal behavior. If a requirement then it should only apply to larger collectives that can afford it.

9. Felony Convictions - The requirement for any patients with felony convictions not to operate or be part of a collective should be modified to not include convictions related to possession and personal use of marijuana. Many people have been negatively affected by the war on drugs. Violent felonies should be included but simple possession of marijuana should not be a factor in allowing an individual to participate in a collective as a director.

10. Who else in the community wants to see this proposed ordinance changed?

• San Diego Community at Large
• San Diego County Grand Jury
• Americans for Safe Access
• Drug Policy Alliance
• American Civil Liberties Union
• Members of San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force
• Thousands of Patients and Concerned Citizens

San Diego Americans for Safe Access (ASA) - www.safeaccesssd.org
Join ASA – www.safeaccessnow.org

SD County attempts to pass De Facto Ban on Medical Marijuana Facilities

SAN DIEGO - Wednesday, June 23, 2010, at 9am the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will meet to discuss and vote on a proposed ordinance regulating medical marijuana facilities in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County.

The proposed ordinance severely limits patients’ access to medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Certain provisions in the proposed regulatory ordinance would not only seriously violate patient confidentiality in these facilities, but also would effectively ban all dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the county.

Patients, concerned citizens, and members of San Diego Americans for Safe Access have several specific concerns and suggested changes for the proposed ordinance. The two most restrictive and alarming requirements in the ordinance are first the Zoning restrictions, which effectively eliminate all areas in San Diego where a medical marijuana facility could be located, and second, the Sheriff licensing requirement, which places law enforcement and the Narcotics Task Force at the helm of licensing and enforcing these facilities.

• WHAT: San Diego County Board of Supervisors Meeting on Medical Marijuana Regulations
• WHEN: 6/23/2010 – 9am
• WHERE: 1600 Pacific Highway, San Diego CA 92101 Room 310

Read the Supporting Documentation for the proposed ordinance:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/bos/supporting_docs/062310ag01w.pdf

Members of San Diego Americans for Safe Access (San Diego ASA) have identified the following list of specific changes that should be made to the ordinance before it is voted on. These changes would help both address the la enforcements’ concerns, while keeping patients interest in mind:

1. Zoning Restrictions - Current proposed ordinance, effectively ZONES OUT collective facilities and creates a de facto ban in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. There are zero locations where collective facilities could locate according to proposed zoning requirements. The County’s Staff report and maps do not take into account the developed vs undeveloped land and are not a correct representation of reality. Our analysis and mapping show clearly that there are no locations where a collective facility could locate under this ordinance. At the least, the following categories should be added as allowed categories where a collective facility could locate.

• Medical Center Commercial-C46
• General Commercial-C36
• Office Professional- C30
• Heavy Commercial- C37
• Convenience Commercial-C32
• Freeway Commercial- C44
• Service Commercial-C38
• Rural Commercial- C40

2. Sheriff Licensing - The Sheriff’s Department should not be involved at this level in setting up a business/medical facility. The proposed ordinance puts the Sheriff in the role of enforcing civil infractions which makes opening and operating a collective facility untenable. The issue of regulating collective facilities should be in the hands of the Health Department-not law enforcement as collectives should NOT be treated as criminal enterprises, rather health facilities that provide a very much needed service to many thousands of patients in San Diego County.

3. Ban on Cannabis Infused Food and Drink - A vast majority of patients in the county rely on ingesting their medicine using cannabis induced foods rather than smoking it. Banning cannabis induced food and drink unfairly restricts the type of medication a patient can have access to, and should be removed from the proposed ordinance. Many doctors specifically recommend that patients ingest their medicine through food or tincture rather than smoking.

4. Using MMIC to track patient information rather than Sheriff - San Diego County runs the Medical Marijuana Identification Card program. That program specifically and explicitly protects patients’ rights, by using only an identification number and only allowing police to check the validity of the card, not the patient’s address and marijuana usage information. If a patient has a County card, then they should be exempt from the record keeping procedures. Having a county issued ID card should be all the information that the police or any other regulatory agency needs to verify the validity of patients or track patients. The names and addresses of patients should be protected

5. Protecting Patient’s Confidentiality and Privacy - The requirement, that all patient and transaction records be maintained on site, and made available to the Sheriff at any time for inspection, places the patients at risk of federal prosecution and should be removed Americans for Safe Access contends that using MMIC as a way to verify validity of a patient is enough and should be done through the Health Department—not through law enforcement

6. Sheriff’s Inspection of Cultivation - Requiring that the Sheriff inspect and approve all locations where members are cultivating marijuana for the collective places members and patients at direct risk of felony prosecution by cross sworn officers enforcing federal law. All previous raids have been conducted by the County’s Narcotics Task Force, composed of cross-sworn officers. Patients who are cultivating for themselves and have excess that they contribute to the collective should not be subject to the Sheriff’s inspection. ASA recommends that collectives’ cultivation sites be inspected by the Health / Code Enforcement departments

7. Patient Information on Medicine Containers - The requirement to have the patients’ and cultivators’ names on the medicine container predisposes them to prosecution by federal officers and robbery by criminals who may happen upon an empty bottle. This also sets up legitimate patients for federal prosecution and essentially documents the federal felony for the police. This requirement seriously violates patient confidentiality and privacy.

8. Uniform Guard - The requirement to have a licensed uniform guard present at all times creates an undue financial burden on collective facilities with a small membership base. The requirement should be changed to have non-uniformed guards, or the option to train employees, through a County program, to look for suspicious or criminal behavior. If a requirement then it should only apply to larger collectives that can afford it.

9. Felony Convictions - The requirement for any patients with felony convictions not to operate or be part of a collective should be modified to not include convictions related to possession and personal use of marijuana. Many people have been negatively affected by the war on drugs. Violent felonies should be included but simple possession of marijuana should not be a factor in allowing an individual to participate in a collective as a director.

10. Who else in the community wants to see this proposed ordinance changed?

San Diego Community at Large
San Diego County Grand Jury
Americans for Safe Access
Drug Policy Alliance
American Civil Liberties Union
Members of San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force
Thousands of Patients and Concerned Citizens

Prior to the Wednesday meeting, write, call, and email your supervisors to urge them to modify the ordinance to reflect more patient oriented, sensible regulations.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISOR EMAIL CONTACTS:

Greg.cox@sdcounty.ca.gov
dianne.jacob@sdcounty.ca.gov
Pam.slater@sdcounty.ca.gov
ron-roberts@sdcounty.ca.gov
bill.horn@sdcounty.ca.gov

SAMPLE LETTER TO SEND TO YOUR SUPERVISOR:
------------------------

Dear Supervisor (Name of Supervisor)

The proposed San Diego County Medical Marijuana ordinance, severely limits patients’ access to medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Certain provisions in the proposed regulatory ordinance would not only seriously violate patient confidentiality but would effectively ban all dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the county. The San Diego Chapter of Americans for Safe Access has recommended specific changes to be made to the ordinance prior to its enactment. Please consider making these suggested changes to the ordinance, as it would help keep both your concerns and patients interests in mind.

1. Zoning Restrictions - Current proposed ordinance, effectively ZONES OUT collective facilities and creates a de facto ban in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. There are zero locations where collective facilities could locate according to proposed zoning requirements. The County’s Staff report and maps do not take into account the developed vs undeveloped land and are not a correct representation of reality. Our analysis and mapping show clearly that there are no locations where a collective facility could locate under this ordinance. At the least, the following categories should be added as allowed categories where a collective facility could locate.

• Medical Center Commercial-C46

• General Commercial-C36

• Office Professional- C30

• Heavy Commercial- C37

• Convenience Commercial-C32

• Freeway Commercial- C44

• Service Commercial-C38

• Rural Commercial- C40

2. Sheriff Licensing - The Sheriff’s Department should not be involved at this level in setting up a business/medical facility. The proposed ordinance puts the Sheriff in the role of enforcing civil infractions which makes opening and operating a collective facility untenable. The issue of regulating collective facilities should be in the hands of the Health Department-not law enforcement as collectives should NOT be treated as criminal enterprises, rather health facilities that provide a very much needed service to many thousands of patients in San Diego County.

3. Ban on Cannabis Infused Food and Drink - A vast majority of patients in the county rely on ingesting their medicine using cannabis induced foods rather than smoking it. Banning cannabis induced food and drink unfairly restricts the type of medication a patient can have access to, and should be removed from the proposed ordinance. Many doctors specifically recommend that patients ingest their medicine through food or tincture rather than smoking.

4. Using MMIC to track patient information rather than Sheriff - San Diego County runs the Medical Marijuana Identification Card program. That program specifically and explicitly protects patients’ rights, by using only an identification number and only allowing police to check the validity of the card, not the patient’s address and marijuana usage information. If a patient has a County card, then they should be exempt from the record keeping procedures. Having a county issued ID card should be all the information that the police or any other regulatory agency needs to verify the validity of patients or track patients. The names and addresses of patients should be protected

5. Protecting Patient’s Confidentiality and Privacy - The requirement, that all patient and transaction records be maintained on site, and made available to the Sheriff at any time for inspection, places the patients at risk of federal prosecution and should be removed Americans for Safe Access contends that using MMIC as a way to verify validity of a patient is enough and should be done through the Health Department—not through law enforcement

6. Sheriff’s Inspection of Cultivation - Requiring that the Sheriff inspect and approve all locations where members are cultivating marijuana for the collective places members and patients at direct risk of felony prosecution by cross sworn officers enforcing federal law. All previous raids have been conducted by the County’s Narcotics Task Force, composed of cross-sworn officers. Patients who are cultivating for themselves and have excess that they contribute to the collective should not be subject to the Sheriff’s inspection. ASA recommends that collectives’ cultivation sites be inspected by the Health / Code Enforcement departments

7. Patient Information on Medicine Containers - The requirement to have the patients’ and cultivators’ names on the medicine container predisposes them to prosecution by federal officers and robbery by criminals who may happen upon an empty bottle. This also sets up legitimate patients for federal prosecution and essentially documents the federal felony for the police. This requirement seriously violates patient confidentiality and privacy.

8. Uniform Guard - The requirement to have a licensed uniform guard present at all times creates an undue financial burden on collective facilities with a small membership base. The requirement should be changed to have non-uniformed guards, or the option to train employees, through a County program, to look for suspicious or criminal behavior. If a requirement then it should only apply to larger collectives that can afford it.

9. Felony Convictions - The requirement for any patients with felony convictions not to operate or be part of a collective should be modified to not include convictions related to possession and personal use of marijuana. Many people have been negatively affected by the war on drugs. Violent felonies should be included but simple possession of marijuana should not be a factor in allowing an individual to participate in a collective as a director.

10. Who else in the community wants to see this proposed ordinance changed?

San Diego Community at Large

San Diego County Grand Jury

Americans for Safe Access

Drug Policy Alliance

American Civil Liberties Union

Members of San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force

Thousands of Patients and Concerned Citizens

Please consider making the above described changes to the proposed ordinance as they take into account patients rights, as well as the community’s welfare. Many thousands of patients in the County are counting on your leadership and a NO vote on Wednesday’s proposed de-facto ban on safe access for patients.

------------------------

Come out and let the supervisors know that we appreciate their work on this issue however, hope they reconsider the severely restrictive regulations and adopt an ordinance that takes patients into consideration, rather than focus on eliminating safe access in our community.

San Diego Americans for Safe Access - www.SafeAccessSD.org
Get Involved, get active, make a difference! - Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

Cultivation Charges Dismissed in Gasper Medical Marijuana Case

By: Eugene Davidovich, San Diego ASA

SAN DIEGO - In another resounding defeat for San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and her fierce fight against medical marijuana in San Diego, the Honorable Judge Frederick Maguire today in Superior Court dismissed charges of cultivation of marijuana in the case of People v. Benjamin Gasper.

Mr. Gasper was charged with felony cultivation and possession of marijuana in November of 2009 after the San Diego Police found a warehouse where he and two other medical cannabis patients were collectively cultivating marijuana for their own medical purposes.

Bahar Ansari took on Mr. Gasper’s case months ago, at practically no cost and has worked tirelessly to provide him with superb representation and has been a true advocate against a DA’s office that for years now has been at the forefront of trying to overturn Proposition 215 and the will of California voters.

Read the details of Mr. Gasper’s arrest here: http://nugmag.com/2010/05/benjamin-gasper/

In March of 2010, at the preliminary hearing in Mr. Gasper’s case, Bahar Ansari called to the stand both collective members who testified that they all got together in October of 2009 and signed a Collective Agreement, which stated; “As qualified medical marijuana patients under California law, we choose to associate collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes. All members of our medical marijuana collective will contribute labor, funds, or materials, and all will receive medicine.”

During a court recess at that day in March, in a surprising move, the prosecution offered Mr. Gasper a plea deal. Mr. Gasper however, refused the offer, and Ms. Ansari proceeded to present the case.

Judge W. Krauel that day decided that day to bind the case over for trial, even though the testimony of both patients proved that this was a legal collective of patients cultivating their own medication. At the hearing we heard Narcotics Detectives saying that they believed he was a “caregiver” therefore they decided to arrest and charge him.

Mr. Gasper and his attorney Ms. Ansari did not give up, they quickly filed a request for a hearing to review the decision Judge Krauel made in March, and today, after having reviewed all the evidence, and having heard all the arguments from both the defense and the District Attorney’s office, Judge McGuire dismissed the cultivation charge against Mr. Gasper.

Ms. Ansari, following the ruling said “Judge Maguire in Department 53 granted our motion based on my argument that the preliminary hearing Judge failed to weigh the evidence, make any credibility findings, or assess any of the evidence that was presented at the conclusion of the hearing. He stated that he felt the credibility findings and weighing of evidence was an issue for the Jury. Today, Judge Maguire read transcript, heard my arguments, and agreed that Jugde Krauel did not carry out his duty of weighing the evidence; therefore Judge Maguire dismissed the cultivation charge”.

When asked how she felt about the judge’s decision, Ms. Ansari said “I feel elated. I’ve been told that this Judge hardly ever grants these types of motions. I went in there today thinking that he absolutely should grant it and if he wasn’t going to do it, I was already planning on appealing it. When he did grant it, I was absolutely and delightfully shocked”.

In explaining what kind of message today’s decision would send to the San Diego DA’s office. She explained, “I hope that the message it sends to them is that they should not be wasting resources on persecuting medical marijuana patients. That is my hope. But given their conduct in the last few months, after the Jovan Jackson trial for example, they filed a new case against him, and based on statements from representatives of the DA’s office since then, it would appear that they haven’t stopped. The ruling in this case however, was based more on the preliminary hearing Judge’s error in failing to weigh the evidence. The judge entirely failed to carry out his duty, to do exactly what he is supposed to do during a preliminary hearing.

I would advise patients to follow the law and the Attorney General’s guidelines to the best of their ability. At the same time, that is exactly what many people have done who have nonetheless been prosecuted by the San Diego District Attorney. So, I say that with a caveat, that this won’t necessarily protect them from prosecution. If they are prosecuted however, they should fight it if they were following the law and should not take a plea bargain. It seems that the DA’s office refuses to follow the law and makes every effort to subvert the law. I think patients should continue to follow the law, and if forced to go to court, fight it, then there will be more cases like this where in the end they prevail”.

After court today, Mr. Gasper said “I feel fantastic and relieved that the charge was dismissed, but still am concerned about the system. I am hoping that no one else has to go through this in the future. Patients should not have to lose everything to prove their innocence”.

Child Welfare Services Update from Larry Sweet

By Larry Sweet, SDASA

I have been somewhat reluctant to respond to the many negative references to Child Welfare Services (CWS) in San Diego, since I fully understand that there are few events in the history of a family that can be as devastating as having a child removed from the parents’ custody. I worked for CWS in San Diego for 14 years, the majority of which I investigated child abuse complaints.

Lets start there, at the complaint. Child abuse complaints are received at the Child Abuse Hotline. Anyone can call this number and report child abuse, including SDPD and other professionals. A hotline call is handled by a Protective Services Worker that is trained to differentiate between the call from an angry spouse during a divorce and a real situation where a child may be in danger. The assessment is made by that PSW and perhaps their Supervisor as to the level of risk. The highest level are responded to immediately while the others may require contact within 24 hours, 3 days, etc.

That complaint creates a file that is transmitted to a Supervisor in one of the investigation units in the regional area where the child lives.

Once filed, all complaints must be investigated and either determined founded or unfounded by the investigating PSW.

The determination to remove a child from the custody of their parents is made by the PSW at the scene, with approval from the Supervisor who assigned the case for investigation. The criteria are clear and defined based generally on age and the type of abuse suspected. Obviously, children under 5 with head injuries are a far more critical issue than a 16 year old complaining of a spanking.

If the circumstances in the home require removal of the child from custody of the parent the child is taken to Polinsky as a rule. A new Court PSW is assigned to re-check the findings by the investigating PSW and either release the child back to the parents or set a Court date for formal CWS action. Many of these children are returned if the Court PSW in conjunction with their Supervisor determines it in the best interest of the child to return home while the Court case continues or is dropped altogether.

The other way children come into custody is through police action. If the police are involved in an action where the adults are going to be arrested they typically call CWS to send a PSW to take the child into custody as there will be no supervision for the child with the parents in custody. When called in this manner CWS does essentially the same thing as a hotline call, except the child is already in custody when the PSW gets there. The PSW is simply taking the custody of the child from the SDPD and taking the child to Polinsky where the Court PSW can make the determination regarding the child’s safety. The majority of these children are released as soon as a suitable relative can be found.

The police may choose to file a charge of "Child Endangerment" or some such criminal charge against the parents. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CWS! The CWS codes for custody do not include "Child Endangerment".

There are many members of our community that do not understand this.

One individual that I spoke to was complaining of CWS taking their child. Well, CWS did not take the child, the child was taken by SDPD and custody transferred to CWS who sent the child home because they found no problem. SDPD did continue to charge this individual with "Child Endangerment" and the individual continued to blame CWS, even though they agreed with him and helped him in every way they could. In this case and others CWS makes a convenient target for the outrage and shame felt by parents in this situation. Impotence in this situation makes people feel really crazy, and it is the hardest part of the job.

In summary, there are several things to remember when dealing with CWS.

1. CWS is a reflection of the population at large, only far more liberal. Your PSW may have far more liberal views than you do, but they are there to protect a child, not discuss politics.
2. Because SDPD believes you are a bad parent, does not make it so.
3. Chlidren do need protection, who do you want doing the job, SDPD?
4. CWS workers, from the Director to the clerks, love children. There is no other reason to put up with the low pay, impossible work load, and unrelenting bad press, and emotional turmoil.
5. I am the kind of guy I want walking through the door to do a CWS investigation if it is my family involved. CWS is full of people like me.

San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org

Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

Medical Marijuana and Child Custody

In the last few weeks we have received a number of inquiries pertaining to child custody, Child Welfare Services, and medical marijuana. Americans for Safe Access has gathered and compiled information for patients affected by child custody issues as well as information on how to demonstrate that you are a good patient-parent.

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5636

The rights of medical marijuana patients in the removal, dependency, and child custody contexts are still unresolved, but Americans for Safe Access (ASA) firmly believes in the right of patients to use their medicine in a responsible fashion and still be good parents. While the California Supreme Court's January 2008 Ross v. Raging Wire decision clearly ruled that medical marijuana patients do not have rights in a civil employment context and it was not a helpful decision for patients' rights in Family Court, Ross's reasoning does not necessarily extend to child custody cases, which are very different and much more fact specific. Whether Child Protective Services (CPS) has removed your child, or your child's parent is attempting to use your patient status against you, defending your rights in court (usually County Family Court, Dependency Court, or Superior Court-Family Law Division) can be very difficult, especially because many people in the system, including CPS workers and their attorneys, Family Court judges, and even public defenders can sometimes be biased against medical marijuana patient-parents. If you can, do what you need to do to not lose custody of your children.

The rights of medical marijuana patients in the removal, dependency, and child custody contexts are still unresolved, but Americans for Safe Access (ASA) firmly believes in the right of patients to use their medicine in a responsible fashion and still be good parents. While the California Supreme Court's January 2008 Ross v. Raging Wire decision clearly ruled that medical marijuana patients do not have rights in a civil employment context and it was not a helpful decision for patients' rights in Family Court, Ross's reasoning does not necessarily extend to child custody cases, which are very different and much more fact specific. Whether Child Protective Services (CPS) has removed your child, or your child's parent is attempting to use your patient status against you, defending your rights in court (usually County Family Court, Dependency Court, or Superior Court-Family Law Division) can be very difficult, especially because many people in the system, including CPS workers and their attorneys, Family Court judges, and even public defenders can sometimes be biased against medical marijuana patient-parents. If you can, do what you need to do to not lose custody of your children.

Sadly, being a parent who is a law-abiding medical marijuana patient can be a scary thing. Across the state, parents have used another parent's medical marijuana patient status to gain an advantage in a custody battle. Unfortunately, some judges in the Family Court system are biased against parents who use medical marijuana, and they sometimes impose unreasonable conditions upon patients in order to regain custody of their children.

Try to get representation from your local Legal Aid or find a family law attorney who will represent you cheaply or for free. Because the possibility of losing custody of your child to the other parent is very serious, do the best that you can to find yourself representation that you can trust to advocate your case. Once you have a lawyer, if you are concerned about his/her knowledge of medical marijuana law and its relationship with family law, contact ASA's Legal Services Coordinator regarding a possible strategy consultation between your attorney and ASA's Chief Counsel. You can also use LawHelp.org or CourtInfo.CA.gov to help you locate a lawyer.

Keep us informed, by contacting ASA's Legal Services Coordinator and explain the situation.

Make sure you include the following information:

• Your full name and phone number and email address and the full names of your child/ren and the child/ren's other parent
• The County and State of your custody case
• The condition for which you use medical marijuana.
• Current status of the child/ren (where are they staying, who has custody, what visitation rights are there?)
• If appropriate, were there any criminal charges related to marijuana? What is the status of your criminal case?
• What has happened so far at Family/Dependency Court?
• What is the child's other parent specifically alleging is your failure in good parenting and how is it related to medical marijuana?

Make sure that you get your lawyer on your side, and get her or him to understand the difference between someone who is addicted to a wholly illegal dangerous drug like heroin, and someone who legally (under California law) uses medicine to treat a serious condition when the child is not around. Additionally, make sure that you frame your condition for your lawyer, and explain how and when it started, how it feels to you (with specific language identifying parts of your body), and how it positively affects your quality of life. Also explain your experiences with other types of medication (e.g. over the counter pain relievers, opiates, SSRI's) and any issues you had with them. Then, explain more explicitly to your attorney how not being able to use your medical marijuana will negatively affect your quality of life. You can use ASA's educational booklets on medical marijuana and various conditions to assist in your education. You can also discuss with your attorney various compromise proposals that demonstrate your fitness as a parent while still allowing you to use your medicine, such as pledging to the court to refrain from medicating for 6 hours before seeing the child or children, or offering to try to test under a certain nanogram level that is set high enough to allow the use of some marijuana, but low enough to discourage lesser usage. You should also consider trying to solicit letters from people who would have personal knowledge (friends, neighbors, colleagues, teachers, etc.) attesting to your caring nature, thoughtful parenting, and strong bond with your children.

You also may want to consider the history of marijuana and other drug use of the child's other parent. If the child's other parent is attempting to use your medical marijuana usage against you, but, during the time when you were partners, the other parent used to use marijuana recreationally, this is a relevant fact to raise in court, if appropriate. Any evidence of the child's other parent's current or former use of marijuana, either recreationally or medicinally, or use of other illegal drugs or prescription drugs, may be relevant, and you should bring it to the attention of your attorney, and discuss its appropriateness.

Additionally, you should definitely ask your attorney to do a thorough search of Westlaw/Lexis-Nexus for cases regarding child custody and medical marijuana. There are several Court of Appeal cases that are unpublished, the most helpful of which is In re: Michelle M. et al2007 WL 1041372 (Cal. App. 2 Dist.). On April 9, 2007, the Court of Appeal (2nd Dist) held that the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court improperly assumed jurisdiction over two children and deemed them dependents of the court because the allegations of the petition did not successfully allege a "current substantial risk the children will suffer serious physical harm as a result of their parents' inability to supervise, protect or care for them." See California Welfare & Institutions Code § 300(b). Unfortunately, it is important to note that this decision is unpublished (like that of a Superior Court) and therefore cannot be cited as precedential authority by your attorney in California courts. The California Courts of Appeal will sometimes issue unpublished decisions when they want to decide a certain way in a specific case, but do not wish to make published, precedential caselaw. However, your attorney can definitely attempt to learn from the successful legal strategy of the attorneys in this case, and try to achieve a similar result in yours.

Specifically, the court held that even if a father has a history of drug use, and uses marijuana recreationally (without a recommendation), unless CPS can demonstrate that, at the time of the jurisdictional hearing (and not before), "the father's continued drug use created a 'substantial risk' his children would suffer 'serious physical harm or illness," the juvenile court should not assume jurisdiction over a child and that child should not be removed. Since there was no actual evidence of neglect (i.e., that the child was left unsupervised or unprotected), no evidence that either child ever saw the father use marijuana, and neither child had any access to any drug paraphernalia or usable marijuana, the court found that there was no evidence that the father's drug use subjected the children to any physical harm, injury or illness, and it overturned the Superior Court order sustaining the dependency petition. The court says further, that "the purpose of dependency proceedings is to protect children, not to prosecute parents." citing In re Alysha A. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 393, 397.

The court also held that a mother who possessed 3.25 oz. of marijuana and was cultivating several live marijuana plants with a current medical marijuana recommendation at the time of removal and who has ceased using medical marijuana also should not be considered to be creating a "substantial risk" that the children would suffer "serious physical harm or illness." The court found that there was no evidence supporting a finding of the mother's past or current conduct physically endangering the children. Specifically: That the mother possessed and cultivated a legal amount of medical marijuana, less than what is allowed by Health and Safety Code § 11352.77 "limits." Both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal recognized that the mother was acting legally in her use of medical marijuana under California law, and stated that the "mother's marijuana was not 'illicit drugs' at all."

While the marijuana plants were accessible to the children, plants do not contain usable marijuana, and the children did not have access to any usable marijuana.

When the jurisdictional hearing was conducted, no more marijuana plants remained at the house and no evidence indicated any plans to replant any marijuana or for mother to resume using medicinal marijuana.


While it is unfortunate and unfair that one of the factors that seems to contribute to a positive result in a CPS or custody case is a patient agreeing to cease using his or her medicine before a jurisdictional hearing, it does seem to help, both in this case, and in other anecdotal reports to ASA's Legal Department. If you are able to cease using medical marijuana and can make it using alternative therapies, you may want to consider it as an option in a difficult case, although clearly this is not for all patients. You may also want to consider switching from medical marijuana to Marinol, and for more information on that, you can see I.E. of this FAQ.

Your attorney may also want to read these unpublished cases to review other results:

• In re K. P. et al. 2008 WL 5063857 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.);
• G.R. v. Superior Court 2008 WL 2445215 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.);
• In re D.L. 2008 WL 762011 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.);
• In re Turina J. 2006 WL 1545534 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.); &
• In re Sean B. 2006 WL 1101626 (Cal.App. 3 Dist.).

Helpful steps to demonstrate to the court that you are a good patient-parent

Here are some precautions that patients might take to demonstrate to the court that their use of medical marijuana has not affected their ability to be good parents and that the child has not been exposed to or had access to medical marijuana. Unfortunately, none of them will guarantee success in a custody battle.

When residing in a house with a child, possess or cultivate less than your local guidelines suggest, if your condition allows.

Keep all medical marijuana out of plain sight, ideally in clearly labeled medicinal jars and with other prescription medications, in a place that children cannot access. Do not cultivate any more than is minimally necessary for your medical condition (1-2 plants is preferred, as your condition allows). If you cultivate outdoors, surround your garden surrounded with an impermeable fence that will deny access to children. If you cultivate indoors, do not include lamps or other fire hazards, and secure the garden in a locked room or devise another way to deny access to children.

If you cook with medical marijuana, clearly label any resultant food products as medicinal, and keep them far away from any children's food.

Use discretion when medicating, and do not do so when your child is present. Specifically, think about medicating when you have several hours open before any interaction with the child or after he/she is already in bed.

If your child can understand, specifically explain to her/him that the marijuana is your medicine and that it is not for her/him (much like any other prescription medication). Furthermore, let him/her know that your patient status and medicine is a private matter, just like any other medical condition, and that he/she should not volunteer information about it to anyone.

In a dual-patient-parent household, work out a routine with your partner where one parent is always unmedicated in case any unexpected issues arise.

Never drive with your children in the car after medicating.

Consider keeping notes for yourself regarding the precautions you have taken, so that you are prepared to inform Family Court judge about them if asked.

You have no reason to inform a Family Court judge that you are a medical marijuana patient, unless directly asked about marijuana. Do not volunteer such information without cause to do so.

San Diego Americans for Safe Access - www.SafeAccessSD.org - Get Involved, get active, make a difference! - Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

Medical Marijuana Regulations - County Board to Vote on Ordinance

On June 23, 2010 at 9am at 1600 Pacific Highway (Room 310) in San Diego, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will be voting on a proposed ordinance that would regulate medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County.

READ THE ENTIRE AGENDA ITEM AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE DETAILS HERE:

http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/bos/supporting_docs/062310ag01w.pdf

Items 1 and 2 will be voted on by the Board of Supervisors on June 23 and Items 3 will be voted on June 30th.

(1) “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE TO ADD TITLE 2, DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 25 ADOPTING REGULATIONS RELATING TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVE FACILITIES”


(2) “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVE FACILITIES”, AND


(3) “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO”

Please come out to the meeting and to support the adoption of an ordinance that includes sensible patient regulations. The Planning Commission after input from patients at it's last meeting recommended that instead of the 1000 feet distance originally proposed by the county staff, that medical marijuana collectives with a be 500 feet from residential zoned properties, 600 feet from specified sensitive land uses and 1000 feet from other established medical marijuana collectives.


The commission's recommendations also recommended that all medical marijuana collectives fully comply with American With Disability Act.

These Land Use regulations allow for a limited number of facilities to open in the unincorporated areas and will require the Sheriff to be in charge of issuing permits to the collectives. The permits are estimated by the County Staff to cost anywhere between $15,000 - $20,000 per collective on administrative fees alone.

Please come out on June 23 to urge the Board of Supervisors to reduce all the distance requirements to no more then 500 feet from "sensitive" uses and to not force a medical issue to be regulated by the police. The Health Department should be involved in oversight rather then the Sheriff which would not only place the issue where it belongs, but also significantly reduce the administrative overhead the county will encounter with regulating these facilities.

Please contact the board of Supervisors today and voice your concerns: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/general/bos.html

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCES AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE RELATING TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA, POD 09-007 (DISTRICTS: ALL)

OVERVIEW:
On August 5, 2009 (6) the County Board of Supervisors adopted an interim urgency ordinance enacting a moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana facilities. The interim urgency ordinance was adopted to allow County staff the time needed to study how medical marijuana facilities should be permitted and determine the appropriate regulations for such uses.

As a result, amendments to the San Diego County Code of Regulatory Ordinances are proposed to add a new chapter to provide licensing and operational requirements relating to the establishment of medical marijuana collective facilities. This action will also add new language to the County Zoning Ordinance regarding the siting of medical marijuana collective facilities.

The ordinances are intended to implement the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the State Medical Marijuana Program Act by establishing reasonable and uniform regulation and licensing requirements that will allow qualified patients and primary caregivers to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, and at the same time protect the public health, safety and welfare of communities, within the unincorporated county.

Additionally, on June 23, 2009 (20), the Board of Supervisors directed the Chief Administrative Officer to amend the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit illegal, non-medical marijuana dispensaries from operating within the unincorporated area of the county. This action includes Zoning Ordinance amendments responding to this direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:
The adoption of the regulatory ordinance will result and create an additional workload for the Sheriff’s Department. The staffing implications and increased workload are due to the inspection and verification requirements of the new proposed regulation. Depending on the size of the collectives in the unincorporated areas of the county, staff anticipates a minimum of 60 additional staffing hours per week to handle the number of verifications and inspections at cultivation sites. This will necessitate the need for one additional Deputy Sheriff and one Licensing Specialist. Funds for this request are not budgeted, but as part of a funding source, it is the intent of the Sheriff’s Department to develop a processing fee which includes a full cost recovery. Fees for the implementation and process of this regulation could range between $15,000-$20,000 per collective.

Department of Planning and Land Use costs associated with increases in building permit submittal would be covered by existing building permit fees. Therefore, Department of Planning and Land Use staffing needs are not expected to increase.

BUSINESS IMPACT STATEMENT:
The ordinances propose amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and County Code of Regulatory Ordinances which would include regulations pertaining to the siting of Medical Marijuana Collective Facilities. Pursuant to State Attorney General Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use (Attorney General Guidelines), these facilities are required to operate in a non-profit capacity. Therefore the adoption of this ordinance would not have a fiscal impact to County businesses.


RECOMMENDATION:
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
On June 23, 2010:
1. Find that the project as proposed complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and County CEQA Guidelines because the amendments can be found exempt from CEQA per Section 15308 and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (Attachment D) and;

2. Approve the introduction of the proposed San Diego County Code amendment (first reading), read title and waive further reading of the following ordinance (Attachment A):

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE TO ADD TITLE 2, DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 25 ADOPTING REGULATIONS RELATING TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVE FACILITIES
If, on June 23, 2010, the Board takes actions recommended in Items 1 and 2, then, on June 30, 2010:
1. Adopt the attached Form of Ordinance (Attachment B);

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVE FACILITIES

2. Adopt the attached Form of Ordinance (Attachment C);

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

3. Submit the Ordinance (Attachment A) for further Board of Supervisors consideration and adoption (second reading).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CODE TO ADD TITLE 2, DIVISION 1, CHAPTER 25 ADOPTING REGULATIONS RELATING TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA COLLECTIVE FACILITIES
PLANNING COMMISSION

On May 14, 2010, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 absent, recommended the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance amendments regulating medical marijuana collectives with a recommendation that the buffer requirements be amended to be 500 feet from residential zoned properties, 600 feet from specified sensitive land uses and 1000 feet from other established medical marijuana collectives. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been revised to reflect the Commission’s recommendation. A second motion recommending that staff consider requiring all medical marijuana collectives fully comply with American With Disability Act requirements passed by a vote of 4 in favor, 1 opposed, 2 absent.

Federal Medical Marijuana Trial - James Stacy - Court Support TODAY

Join Steph Sherer, Executive Director and Don Duncan the California Director of Americans for Safe Access in Federal Court today to support James Stacy in his federal Medical Marijuana Trial.

What: Federal hearing on whether dispensary operator James Stacy can use medical marijuana and state law as a defense at trial
When: MONDAY, June 14, 2010 at 2:00pm
Where: Courtroom 15, U.S. District Court, 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA

James Stacy will be in court today for a final hearing to determine what type of defense he will be allowed to present in Federal Court. Stacy’s dispensary was raided on September 9, 2009, by a multi-agency narcotics task force, and will be the first such case to go to trial after the Justice Department issued its enforcement policy in October 2009, a month after the raid. Stacy's trial date will be scheduled Monday June 14th during a hearing at which Stacy will argue he's entitled to admit evidence of state law compliance, something routinely denied federal defendants.

Stacy's dispensary, Movement in Action, was raided along with more than a dozen other San Diego County dispensaries as part of local-federal enforcement actions called, "Operation Green Rx," which resulted in more than 30 arrests. Only Stacy, and one other medical marijuana dispensary operator Joseph Nunes, were charged federally as a result of the raids. Nunes has since pleaded guilty and was recently sentenced to a year in prison.

Because of the government's continued efforts to prosecute medical marijuana patients despite a new Justice department enforcement policy, advocates are urging Members of Congress to pass HR 3939, the Truth in Trials Act, which would allow defendants to use a medical or state law defense in federal court. The Truth in Trials Act currently has more than 30 Congressional cosponsors.

Further Information:
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's recent statements before Congress: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMCHmU-nFAM
Truth in Trials Act: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/TruthinTrials.pdf

Join ASA – www.safeaccessnow.org
Visit San Diego Chapter of ASA – www.safeaccesssd.org

ASA STRATEGY & NETWORKING WORKSHOP

AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS - JOIN STEPH SHERER FOR A STRATEGY & NETWORKING WORKSHOP

Sunday, June 13, 1-4pm -Please RSVP at: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/SanDiegoWorkshop

ASA is hosting a training and networking gathering on Sunday, June 13, 2010 from 1 to 4pm in San Diego.
The purpose of this meeting is to bring medical cannabis leaders, and activists together to discuss:

1. Challenges facing patients in San Diego
2. What you can do to bring permanent safe access to San Diego
3. Determine how we can work better together to pass an ordinance that works for patients
4. Get an update about what is happening nationally and how San Diego can help.

This is going to be a great opportunity to come together and work together to guarantee greater safe access in San Diego. Steph Sherer is the foremost medical cannabis patient leader in the United States.

Please RSVP at: http://www.safeaccessnow.org/SanDiegoWorkshop

Location: La Jolla Brew House Restaurant located at 7536 Fay Avenue, La Jolla, California??
Date: Sunday, June 13th, 2010 from 1-4pm

San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org

Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

San Diego ASA Meeting NORTH COUNTY TONIGHT

Tonight from 7pm-9pm come out to Vista and join patients and concerned citizens for the North County San Diego ASA Meeting.

We have a great meeting planned for tonight with lots of new information about the San Diego County and City medical marijuana regulations as well as the newly release Grand Jury Report!

If you missed the last two ASA meeting this week, come out meet others concerned about the same issues, help make a difference, and stay in tune with the latest news from around the country and the state.

The meeting will be held from 7-9pm at 950 East Vista Way, Vista, CA 92084-5252

WHAT: Monthly North County San Diego ASA Meeting
WHEN: TONIGHT - 6/11/2010 - 7pm to 9pm
WHERE: 950 East Vista Way, Vista, CA 92084
CONTACT: 619-303-1918

San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org

Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

South Bay ASA Meeting - 6/10/2010

SAN DIEGO SOUTH BAY AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS MEETING TONIGHT

This will be the first South Bay San Diego ASA meeting. The meeting will be held from 6pm-7pm at 1233 Palm Avenue
in Imperial Beach hosted by SDASA Advisory Board Member Marcus Boyd.

We have a great meeting lined up with information and updates regarding the San Diego Grand Jury report and well as the San Diego City, County and other jurisdictions' efforts in regulating medical marijuana dispensing collectives and cooperatives.

Please mark your calendars, come out and Join the effort. This event is FREE and everyone is welcome to join!

WHAT: 1st Monthly South Bay ASA Meeting
WHEN: TONIGHT - 6/10/2010 - 6pm to 7pm
WHERE: 1233 Palm Avneue, Imperial Beach
CONTACT: 619-303-1918 ext. 13

San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org

Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

Medical Marijuana Patient Cole Shielly - Emergency Court Support Request

URGENT COURT SUPPOR REQUESTED – 6/9/2010

Tomorrow, June 10th at 1:30pm in Department 11  - 220 W Broadway, San Diego CA - Cole Shielly, a medical marijuana card carrying patient, will be arraigned for Possession and Possession with Intent to Sell.

It appears that late Monday night early Tuesday morning Cole, with a friend, ran into car trouble in National City and was walking to get help when a police officer pulled up, searched Cole and found some medical marijuana.  Then the officer took Cole back to his car and searched it and found a total of 6 one gram bags of legally purchased and possessed mmj.

We will be contacting Cole directly in the morning for more exact details, however for now please come out and support this patient in crisis.

For inquiries regarding this case please call 619-540-7172.

San Diego Americans for Safe Access

www.SafeAccessSD.org

Get Involved, get active, make a difference!

Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

GRAND JURY NEWS RELEASE

Grand Jury Medical Marijuana Report - 2010 - San Diego

After months of investigation and inquiry, the San Diego Grand Jury has finally issues their report on the Medical Marijuana Issue in San Diego. The Grand Jury has made a number of recommendations to the San Diego District Attorney, The Sheriff, and the County Board of Supervisors.

The Grand Jury’s recommendations:

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego District Attorney:
• 10-107: In consultation with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and officials of the Police Departments of the Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside and San Diego, publish a position paper which contains guidelines for the operation of legal medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in San Diego County.
• 10-108: In cooperation with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, establish a Medical Marijuana Advisory Council as a forum through which the operators of legitimate medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, as well as patients and members of the public, could engage in dialogue with representatives of County law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Sheriff:
• 10-109: In cooperation with the County of San Diego District Attorney and in consultation with officials of the nine municipal police departments in the County, publish a position paper which contains guidelines for the operation of legal medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in San Diego County.
• 10-110: Adopt clear guidelines for law enforcement personnel so that the rights of legitimate medical marijuana patients will be respected.
• 10-111: In cooperation with the County of San Diego District Attorney, establish a Medical Marijuana Advisory Council as a forum through which the operators of legitimate medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, as well as patients and members of the public, could engage in dialogue with representatives of County law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors:
• 10-112: Adopt a cost neutral County program for the licensing, regulation and periodic inspection of authorized collectives and cooperatives distributing medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-113: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries” in the unincorporated areas.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the Mayor of the City of San Diego and the City Council of the City of San Diego:
• 10-114: Enact an ordinance creating an immediate moratorium on the opening of additional medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of San Diego, pending the adoption by the Council of guidelines regulating such establishments, as recommended by the Medical Marijuana Task Force with appropriate public input.
• 10-115: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-116: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-117: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-118: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-119: Upon the enactment of such an ordinance, rescind the current ban on the opening of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside and Santee:
• 10-120: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-121: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-122: Upon the enactment of such an ordinance, rescind the current moratorium on the opening of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Carlsbad, Coronado, Del Mar, Encinitas, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway and Solana Beach:
• 10-123: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-124: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”


T: 619-621-8446San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org

Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

San Diego Workshop & Gathering with Steph Sherer

Meet the spike; Pacific Beach mother of two worries that medi-pot shops harm kids

By John R. Lamb, San Diego CITYBEAT
“We can throw stones, complain about them, stumble on them, climb over them, or build with them.”
—William Arthur Ward

Less than a mile from at least eight medical-marijuana collectives, Marcie Beckett lives in the same modest Pacific Beach home she grew up in with six brothers and sisters.

President of her early-’70s graduating class at Mission Bay High School, Beckett went on to a career as a research physiologist at San Diego’s prestigious Naval Health Research Center, focusing her studies on the physical rigors of life in the Navy.

Now a self-proclaimed stay-at-home mom of two high-school teenagers, Beckett uses her scientific background in tackling a controversial local issue that pits a small but vociferous cluster of local residents against the rising tide of public support for a well-regulated medical-marijuana industry in San Diego.

“I think my real main motivating thing here is, I just believe it’s very dangerous for young people, and I just hate to see them get the message that it’s OK and can find it even more readily accessible,” Beckett told Spin Cycle in a phone interview on Memorial Day. “And that’s what I resent.”

She knows she’s garnered the scorn of most in the medical-marijuana-advocacy corner who argue the “child argument” is a smokescreen for an opponent’s true ambition: total abolition. “But I don’t go looking—I’m sure I’m on various websites,” Beckett said.

Throughout the half-hour conversation, Beckett selected her words carefully and shared little about herself—even declining to be photographed for this column. She also seemed surprised that someone from an alternative newsweekly that frequently runs medi-pot advertising would be calling.

At the outset, she couldn’t hide her suspicion. “OK, I know CityBeat’s got a pretty obvious stance on this,” she said. “I don’t want to get sucked in and then skewered.”

Not at all, I assured her. Spin Cycle frequently delves into opinions that it wants to understand more clearly. And the paper, it should be noted, has never endorsed a Wild West mentality when it comes to collectives and cooperatives. Regulations are necessary, no doubt.

No, what intrigued Spin Cycle was the link the Union-Tribune reported last week between a recent spike in community complaints to the city’s Code Compliance office and a subsequent crackdown on numerous medi-pot dispensaries for zoning violations.

One U-T article noted in its later passages that Beckett in April had filed a complaint against 94 individual collectives and cooperatives, alleging that current city zoning law does not permit such uses.

Spin Cycle asked Beckett if she considered herself the “spike,” since the number of complaints to date against such establishments totals more than 100.

“I don’t have any idea,” she responded. “In March, Bob Vacchi of Code Compliance said the city had 26 open cases and that no store was legally operating because they couldn’t within local zoning. But I knew there was a list out there of 94 dispensaries, so I just e-mailed my complaint and attached the list of all my stores.”

She insisted that she’d only filed one complaint, but the city considers one complaint against multiple establishments as multiple complaints. So, hers is counted as 94 complaints, a large portion of the total complaints received by the city on the medi-pot front.

“Her complaint listed 94 businesses on it, but we already had a bunch of those,” explained Robert Vacchi, the city’s code-compliance director. “So that wasn’t adding 94 cases. That was adding, I don’t know, 50-odd cases to our already existing 50-odd cases.

“So, you’re correct that [Beckett’s complaints] caused a big spike,” Vacchi conceded. Prior to April, he explained, complaints were coming in “more and more, but in ones and twos, and primarily from people in the communities, neighbors and whatnot.”

Vacchi said many of the complaints come from the beach areas and college areas, “but others are scattered around.” Last week, Spin Cycle asked to review the complaints, but Vacchi said it would take until later this week to compile the information.

“Primarily, our deal with it is, we look at it and say: Is it a permitted use or not? And, no, it’s not a permitted use, so, unfortunately at this point, it’s not permitted in any zone,” the director said.

He said not all complaints are zoning-related. “Somebody’s smoking in the parking lot, smoke wafting in the common area of the businesses or somebody selling drugs in the parking lot.”

On one level, both advocates and opponents seem to agree on one thing. As Beckett put it, medical-marijuana dispensaries are “in a no zone because our city chose not to do anything about it, chose just to look the other way.”

Beckett, also a member of the Pacific Beach Planning Group, said, “I believe in looking at things in a scientific way, to understand the risks, and I don’t think we have that now. There are a lot of risks associated with marijuana that people are not aware of.”

To back that up, Beckett shares an April mental-health newsletter from Harvard University that suggests that marijuana use “increases the risk of psychosis” and that “early or heavy marijuana use might not only trigger psychosis in people who are already vulnerable, but might also cause psychosis in some people who might not otherwise have developed it.”

Still, she said she believes marijuana should be studied and that she’s not compassionless when it comes to patients who believe in marijuana’s medicinal value. “I feel for patients,” she said. “But, personally, I think that if you’re going to take a drug, it needs to be FDA-approved.”

Eugene Davidovich, local spokesperson for Americans for Safe Access, a national medical-marijuana advocacy group, said he’s been researching the connection of some local medi-pot opponents with the Marijuana Initiative, an effort pushed by county government since 2003 with a goal of reducing “marijuana use by youth to improve community wellness” by, among other things, “eliminating messages that encourage, normalize or trivialize marijuana use.”

“That’s a big issue for us, in that their county-funded prevention plan says that you’re going to be keeping youth off of marijuana, but then they go to City Council meetings and lobby against regulations. We’ve asked that these types of initiatives not be funded because it’s outside of their county-funded program.”

Beckett said she receives nothing in return for her anti-storefront crusade. “That’s why I’m sitting here at my computer on a holiday working on stuff,” she laughed. “It’s all volunteer stuff, and I try to balance it with my personal life. I simply do it because I care.”

Got a tip? Send it to johnl@sdcitybeat.com

ORIGINAL ARTICLE AVAILABLE HERE:
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/meet_the_spike/9331/

Another way to help the cause. Hire an activist. Community outreach

I frequently hear the complaint from the prohibitionist that "MMJ patients appear to be healthy, therefore they are exploiting a law intended to provide solace to the terminally ill."

Well, forget the argument that this is a testament to the effectiveness of our medication as it will be ignored. Don’t even try to remind them that not all ailments have physical manifestations as they will scoff a "likely story". But what I have noticed will at least get them to blink is by pointing out those disabled, bedridden or house bound patients whose quality of life and severity of pain change drastically when allowed safe access to MMJ.

These are the voices that need to be heard. Everyone can make a difference. Even if you cannot make it to the events, you can write about you experiences. If your disabilities limit your ability to sit or work on your computer then I can help design a workspace to accommodate your challenges.

I have mounted monitors on ceilings and 5 foot boom arms so you can work while reclined. Alternative pointing devices and touch screens. Today’s computers are powerful enough to support voice recognition and speech to text/text to speech capabilities.

That’s right Scotty "Computer, open web browser. Open website San Diego ASA" and poof the site is displayed on the LCD mounted to accommodate your posture (not the other way around) and you are learning your rights, keeping informed and getting involved. Despite your disabilities.

So if you are in San Diego and anything I have said could help you or a loved one then consider me, Dan Murphy aka Dannabis Ruderalis of Computer Connections to assist you.

If you are outside of San Diego then print this note and take it to your local chapter and ask for assistance finding a compassionate geek.

Dan Murphy
Dannabis Ruderalis
Computer-Connections
760-331-7914
Dannabis@roadrunner.com

Calif. bill bans medical pot stores near schools

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Medical marijuana storefronts would be banned within 600 feet of a school in legislation intended to shield children from drugs.

The bill, AB 2650, was approved Thursday by the state Assembly. Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan says the bill seeks to protect children while allowing the legal operation of medical dispensaries.

Many cities already have enacted their own ordinances regulating where dispensaries can locate. They would be exempt from the proposed law. The Democrat from Alamo says her bill would not apply to individual caregivers. Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco argues that the bill could force dispensaries to close in urban areas.

The bill was passed by a 45-12 vote. It now goes to the Senate.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15220747?nclick_check=1