No Medical Marijuana in Tehema County

Pot outlet near Tehama County Sheriff's office nixed

By GEOFF JOHNSON -DN Staff Writer
Updated: 09/26/2009 08:39:41 AM PDT

A proposed marijuana dispensary that would have opened within sight of
the Sheriff's Department headquarters on Antelope Boulevard has been
halted.

The facility would have opened just outside of city limits, putting it
under the jurisdiction of the sheriff and the county, which voted Sept.
16 to ban dispensaries for at least 45 days.

Tehama County Sheriff Clay Parker said Friday he had spoken to what
would have been the dispensary owner and the owner's landlord about the
legal ramifications of the dispensary. The warnings appear to be enough
to stop the project.

Just how the county would deal with such a facility is unclear, though
Undersheriff Dennis Garton has compared the situation to a vehicle
abatement ordinance the county passed. Under the ordinance, the County
Code Enforcement officer, a position the county no longer maintains,
would be tasked with identifying the owner of abandoned cars and serving
the owner a citation.

Garton said he did not know the name of the potential owner.

Both Parker and Tehama County officials have said the county's ban is
supposed to be limited to storefront-style dispensaries, rather than
small collectives that grow marijuana for an exclusive group.

Parker has previously indicated storefront-style dispensaries could face
additional prosecution on a state level.

According to Parker, small collectives that grow marijuana for an
exclusive group of patients are legal under Prop. 215, but not
storefront dispensaries retailing to anyone with a medical marijuana
recommendation, despite dispensaries operating in Corning and Anderson
and local opposition from medical marijuana advocates.

---

Staff Writer Geoff Johnson can be reached at 527-2153, extension 114, or
at gjohnson@redbluffda ilynews.com

http://www.redbluff dailynews. com/ci_13427468? source%253Dmost_ viewed.20F8\
8DA3D7D369F5BB70F37 2987EAE1F. html

Nevada County Medical Marijuana News

Medi-pot co-op in the works

By Zuri Berry
Staff Writer
Friday, September 25, 2009

A new medical marijuana co-op in Nevada County is now openly seeking
members as the discussion for safe access continues to sting area
residents amid pot busts and possible dispensaries.

Nevada County resident Charles Day has worked for months to formulate
the co-op, Harmony Holistic Health, and is now prepared to accept
members for the "grassroots, membership-based collective,"
according to an advertisement placed in The Union and on the co-op's Web
site, (www.harmonyholisti chealth.org/ ).

"We're good people, trying to do a good thing," Day said. "I
don't want this to be about me."

From an organizational standpoint, the co-op would only benefit members
as outlined by state law and the California attorney general, Day said.
It would not have a "storefront presence."

"No, we don't need a location at this time," Day said. "We
have the people.

"(The co-op) is a closed circuit and all functions in regard to the
medicine stay within the circuit," Day explained. "It is clearly
stated within the law that the diversion of that medicine is not OK. It
really is necessary to serve and protect our membership."

Harmony Holistic Health is an organization that not only would provide
medical marijuana, but would supply necessary information regarding
members' rights under state law.

"Most people, who are legally qualified patients, walk out of the
doctor's office with no information, " Day said. "They don't have
the information they need to be safe, or protected."

The co-op would also help with information for personal cultivation, Day
said.

Down the road, the organization would provide services for other
holistic health methods, said Day, who is a general contractor and uses
medical marijuana for chronic pain. He also has a medical marijuana
card; one of only four people in Nevada County who carry that
distinction.

Harmony Holistic Health comes to fruition less than a month after the
Nevada City Council voted to draft an ordinance banning medical
marijuana dispensaries. It also comes at a time when Grass Valley and
Nevada County have moratoriums for medical marijuana dispensaries.

"I'm a little disappointed to see that access to (medical marijuana)
is being slowed," Day said.

Day has sought legal counsel to help formulate the co-op, but has not
consulted District Attorney Cliff Newell, or spoken to Nevada City Vice
Mayor Robert Bergman who opined that a co-op was possible in Nevada
County without the need for a dispensary.

"When (Bergman) said that, I knew it was time," Day said.

To contact Staff Writer and Online Community Manager Zuri Berry, e-mail
zberry@theunion. com or call (530) 477-4244.

http://www.theunion .com/article/ 20090925/ NEWS/909249968/ 1053/rss01

PAL Doesn't Want Medical Marijuana Community Donations

Pot clinic owners' gift to PAL called a conflict

Published online on Saturday, Sep. 26, 2009
Bee staff

Brandon Morse and his father Rick, who run the Medmar medical marijuana
clinic at 210 E. Olive Ave. in the Tower District, said Friday that they
did not realize donating money to the Police Activities League could be
a conflict of interest.

Police Chief Jerry Dyer said he told the men that having the PAL youth
program accept money from a facility that sells marijuana "sends a wrong
message."

Accepting the donation also conflicts because the city is seeking an
injunction to close Medmar and other Fresno medical marijuana
facilities, Dyer said.

Brandon Morse said PAL helped him as a boy growing up in a single-parent
family. When he heard news reports about PAL programs in other cities
closing, he wanted to help the Fresno PAL. He collected $300 from
friends and gave PAL the money Aug. 24.

Rick Morse said he and his son will contact PAL to ask whether the
donation would be accepted after the injunction is settled.

http://www.fresnobe e.com/local/ story/1652167. html

No Medical Marijuana in Claremont

No Marijuana Dispensary in Claremont, Court Rules

By Kenneth Ofgang, Staff Writer
Thursday, September 24, 2009

California's medical marijuana law does not require cities to
approve zoning for dispensaries, the Court of Appeal for this district
has ruled.

Div. Two, in an Aug. 27 decision certified Tuesday for publication,
affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dan T. Oki's injunction
barring Darrell Kruse and Claremont All Natural Nutrition Aids Buyers
Information Service, or CANNABIS, from operating a dispensary anywhere
in the city of Claremont.

Kruse approached the city in July 2006 and told planners he wanted to
open the dispensary. He was told there was no provision for any such
business in the city's land use rules, so he would have to apply for
a code amendment.

Two months later, he returned to City Hall and applied for a business
permit and business license for a "medical cannabis caregivers
collective." City officials concluded that the proposed business was
not allowed, and the city manager sent Kruse a letter saying his
application was denied and his fees would be refunded, although he had
the right to either appeal to the City Council or ask for a code
amendment.

On Sept. 15, 2006, Kruse opened his dispensary. Six days later, he filed
an administrative appeal from the denial of his application.

On Sept. 26, the council adopted a 45-day moratorium on the issuance of
any permit or variance for the operation of a medical marijuana
dispensary in Claremont. As grounds for its enactment, the ordinance
recited the lack of any local rules governing where such dispensaries
could locate, the likelihood that having such a dispensary would
increase crime, the uncertain legal status of such businesses given that
they appear to violate federal law, and the need for careful study as to
how such businesses should be regulated.

The city manager then notified Kruse that his appeal was moot in light
of the moratorium, which was subsequently twice extended, through
September 2008. When Kruse refused to close the business, he was cited
for violation of the city's permit ordinance, convicted, and fined.

When he continued to operate, the city issued several more citations,
and filed suit for an injunction to close CANNABIS as a public nuisance.
Following trial, Oki ruled that Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use
Act that allows individuals to possess marijuana for medical purposes on
a doctor's recommendation, does not "mandate that municipalities
allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within their city
limits, or to alter the fact that land use has historically been a
function of local government under their grant of police power."

Because the business was operating without a license or permit, and in
violation of federal law, it was a nuisance per se that could be abated
by injunction, Oki added.

Justice Victoria Chavez, writing for the Court of Appeal, agreed.

The justice rejected the defendants' claim that the city could have
granted them a permit under any of a number of categories, including
"cigar/cigarette/ smoke shops" or "health, herbal, botanical
stores." She noted that the case before the court was not a permit
appeal, because Kruse chose to operate without a permit.

Because the dispensary is a nuisance per se, she added, there was no
requirement that the city demonstrate any actual harm.

The justice also swept aside the argument that Proposition 215 and the
Medical Marijuana Program Act preempt the moratorium. Nothing in either
enactment expressly or impliedly preempts local land use regulations
with respect to medical marijuana dispensaries, Chavez concluded.

Nor did the trial judge exceed his authority by granting a citywide
injunction, rather than one limited to the specific location, Chavez
said.

"Given defendants' disregard of the City's licensing and
zoning laws, and Kruse's stated intent to operate and actual
operation of CANNABIS in violation of those laws, the injunction issued
was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion," she wrote.

Attorneys on appeal were Burton Mark Senkfor and Allison B. Margolin for
Kruse, and Jeffrey V. Dunn, Sonia R. Carvalho and Marc S. Erlich for the
city.

The case is City of Claremont v. Kruse, 09 S.O.S. 5759.

http://www.metnews. com/articles/ 2009/clar092409. htm

New Hampshire Medical Marijuana News

Override Lynch's med marijuana veto

By Burt Cohen

Friday, September 25, 2009

Unless you hid under a rock all summer, you know most Americans don't
want government interference in their health care.

Democrats and Republicans may have their differences, but there is
universal agreement that decisions regarding medical treatments must be
exclusively between the doctor and patient. If a doctor and patient
agree on a particular course of treatment, then the patient should be
permitted to access that treatment, and neither the government nor
insurance companies should have any business blocking this process. All
agree?

Well, then, it's easy to understand why the vast majority of Granite
Staters disagree with Governor Lynch's veto of the medical marijuana
bill. The House and Senate agreed that government should not stand
between doctors and seriously ill patients who could benefit from
medical marijuana, and both chambers voted to pass House Bill 648 with
solid margins of support, but that may not be enough to get these
patients the protection and access they deserve.

A final vote to override the veto comes up Oct. 28, and with two-thirds
majorities required in both chambers, it is expected to be very close.

It should be a slam dunk.

A 2008 Mason-Dixon poll showed that 71 percent of New Hampshire voters
support allowing seriously and terminally ill patients to access medical
marijuana for personal use if their doctors recommend it. Only 21
percent were opposed. Legislators have no need to look for political
cover.

Fortunately, the committee members who actually heard the testimony from
those afflicted with serious illnesses have become strong supporters of
the bill. They actually listened to patients, gave the issue fair study,
and worked hard to pass a tightly-crafted, exceptionally responsible
bill.

By contrast, Governor Lynch chose not to meet with any of the seriously
ill patients who had been so instrumental in convincing the House and
Senate.

In light of this, his veto was unfortunate, but not a great surprise.
The only good news for patients is that this veto can and should be
overridden.

Legislators who are still on the fence, those not on the committees who
heard from afflicted citizens, now owe it to their constituents to make
an effort to listen to patients. If they hear the perspective of their
constituents in need of this now-denied medicine, it will change their
minds, I guarantee.

There is no question that medical marijuana is effective at alleviating
the pain associated with various debilitating conditions. These include
cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, muscle spasms,
Hepatitis C and others.

There is no question marijuana clearly does have therapeutic value. The
American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, the
American Academy of HIV Medicine, the Lymphoma Society, as well as
several state medical societies, support allowing the medical use of
marijuana.

Some readers may not know that very recently I had Hepatitis C. For more
than half of patients with Hep C, the biggest problem is keeping them on
the interferon and ribavirin. I surely know why — the side effects
are truly awful.

Most Hepatitis C patients must endure at least one grueling 48-week
course, often two. If I'd had to do another six months of that brutal
treatment, I probably would have given up and just taken my chances.
There is ample evidence that Hep C patients who use marijuana are more
able to stay on their treatment and clear the virus.

As of now, many seriously ill Granite Staters are forced to make a
terrible decision: continue to suffer, miss days at work, risk losing
their job, or obtain marijuana illegally and risk arrest and prison.
That's nuts.

We should stop wasting time and resources on going after sick people and
focus on real crime. What do we have to gain by denying those who could
benefit from the use of medical marijuana the opportunity to do so?

Regardless of party affiliation, the overwhelming majority of New
Hampshire voters agree that doctors, not police officers and
bureaucrats, should be the ones deciding what constitutes effective
medicine.

---

State senator from 1990 to 2004, Burt Cohen now hosts a radio talk show.
His Web site is www.burtcohen. com.

http://nhbr. com/apps/ pbcs.dll/ article?AID= /20090925/ NEWS01/909239973

Barstow Extends Medical Marijuana Moratorium

Council extends marijuana moratorium

September 22, 2009 3:11 PM
By JESSICA CEJNAR, staff writer

BARSTOW - Medical marijuana dispensaries will not be allowed within
Barstow city limits for another 10 months and 15 days, due to an
ordinance passed by the City Council on Monday.

Councilmembers voted unanimously to extend a moratorium on medical
marijuana dispensaries after Associate City Planner Michael Massimini
told members that city staff needed more time to wade through the
documentation on the issue. The city is also seeking comments from
doctors and dispensary operators and is waiting on the outcome of a
court case that would determine whether or not a ban on dispensaries is
legal, he said.

At its Aug. 17 meeting, the Council voted to establish a 45-day
moratorium, which was supposed to be used as a fact-finding mission,
analyzing the effects medical marijuana dispensaries would have on the
community. The information would be used to help the Council decide
whether or not it would allow dispensaries within city limits and how to
regulate them.

According to information included with the City Council agenda,
dispensaries are currently prohibited in Hesperia and Apple Valley.
Victorville adopted a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries while
it drafts an ordinance banning them. Dispensaries are also banned in
Anaheim, Claremont, Palmdale, Palm Desert and Sausalito. At Monday's
meeting, City Attorney Yvette Abich-Garcia said a group of medical
marijuana patients and caregivers is challenging Anaheim's ban of
dispensaries in appellate court.

"It makes sense to see how the legal challenge plays out," she
said.

Four people spoke against the 45-day moratorium at the Council's
Aug. 17 meeting, including Newberry Springs resident Buckley Acosta.
Acosta, who uses medical marijuana to treat anxiety and insomnia, said
he didn't speak at the Council meeting Monday because he felt that
the Councilmembers' minds were already made up.

"I understand it's a touchy situation, but it's not like
it's a new issue," he said, referring to Proposition 215, the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996. "I knew what (the Council's)
answer was going to be already."

At the Aug. 17 meeting, Barstow Mayor Joe Gomez said he agreed to meet
with the people who spoke against the moratorium on medical marijuana
dispensaries. But when asked on Monday, Gomez said he hadn't
received any calls requesting a meeting from anyone who spoke.

According to legalmarijuanadispe nsary.com, the closest walk-in
dispensary to Barstow is in Beaumont, in Riverside County.

Contact the writer:
(760) 256-4123 or jcejnar@desertdispa tch.com

http://www.desertdi spatch.com/ news/barstow- 6945-council- extends.html

Colorado Medical Marijuana News

Who really wrote Colorado's medical-marijuana law?

By Joel Warner in Follow That Story, Marijuana
Tuesday, Sep. 22 2009 @ 1:10PM

Colorado's flourishing medical marijuana industry, with nearly a hundred
pot dispensaries statewide servicing thousands and thousands of
marijuana patients, got its start in 2000, when state voters legalized
medical marijuana by passing Amendment 20. But who was the ganja genius
who came up with the amendment? Most people in the scene point to Warren
Edson, one of three main lawyers who consult with Colorado dispensaries.
Based on Edson's portrayal of his role during a January 2009 interview,
Westword's called Edson Amendment 20's co-author, as have several other
newspapers. What's more, Edson refers to himself as one of the
amendment's organizers on websites for his law practice and "Medical
Marijuana 101," an education program he helps teach.

Martin Chilcutt begs to differ, however. Chilcutt, now executive
director of the Michigan-based Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access,
was formerly a Colorado-based psychotherapist who helped launch the
medical-marijuana campaign in the 1990s and is listed as one of
Amendment 20's two proponents. "I'm the guy that started it," says
Chilcutt. "This guy Warren Edson, I've known him for fifteen years. I
consider him a friend, but every time I read in the newspapers about it,
they always refer to him as the author of the amendment. He had nothing
to do with it." The only legal work Chilcutt says he ever paid Edson for
involved an unrelated real-estate issue.

The lawyer Chilcutt says he did pay to work on Amendment 20 was
Denver-based Mark Grueskin, who also says he has no memory of Edson
working on the issue. "I don't know if I've ever met Warren or had any
conversations with Warren," Grueskin says. "I can tell you that the
drafting process included conference calls in which quite a number of
people were participating. I don't recall Mr. Edson was one of those
people, but I suppose it's possible."

It's more than possible -- it happened, says Edson. He insists the first
meeting held to consider the medical-marijuana initiative was held in
his Lakewood office in 1997 or 1998. In the lengthy back-room dealings
that followed, Edson says there were lots of major players involved,
including representatives of national organizations like the Americans
for Medical Rights. If some people don't recall Edson being a part of
it, he says they're likely to "know me as the long-haired attorney with
a ponytail."

"None of us authored it," concludes Edson, who adds that Chilcutt only
had a partial role in the finished project and that Edson himself, as a
legal volunteer, "injected maybe five words into the sucker."

So what will history say regarding Colorado's founding fathers of pot?
Maybe it won't. With the way things are going, students will be too
medicated to read their textbooks.

http://blogs. westword. com/latestword/ 2009/09/whos_ to_praise_ or_blame_ for\
_co.php