NEWS RELEASE - Yes on B Coalition
May 28, 2008
The detractors of Measure B are making one last ditch effort to spread false information about the ballot initiative on marijuana.
"The last-minute claims by the No on Measure B campaign that Measure B is unconstitutional are absurd," said Yes on B Coalition spokesman Ross Liberty.
"The No on B group knows that the voters of Mendocino County are prepared to take a huge step to limit the negative effects of marijuana production," said Liberty. "The No on B campaign is desperate and they are grasping at straws to try to confuse the voters."
"The recent appellate court decision, People v. Kelly, that is cited by the No on B group is being appealed by the Attorney General to the State Supreme Court where it will likely be reversed or modified because it conflicts with previous Supreme Court decisions," said Liberty.
In particular, he cited the Supreme Court's finding in People v. Wright (2006) that upheld SB 420's approach to defining how much marijuana a medical patient can possess. Liberty pointed out that a major medical marijuana advocate, Joseph Elford, chief counsel of Oakland-based Americans for Safe Access, has said that the appeals court decision is inconsistent with People v. Wright. (see http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1202421668633)
"Regardless of how the courts and legislature set medical marijuana limits, Measure B simply says that Mendocino County's limits will be the same as the rest of the state instead of being vastly higher, as they are now. Measure B also repeals Measure G which told our law enforcement to make all marijuana laws the lowest priority," said Liberty.
"Regardless of how the courts and legislature set medical marijuana limits, Measure B simply says that Mendocino County's limits will be the same as the rest of the state instead of being vastly higher, as they are now. Measure B also repeals Measure G which told our law enforcement to make all marijuana laws the lowest priority," said Liberty.
"Repeal of Measure G, which made us a magnet for commercial growers, is the most important part of Measure B," according to Liberty.
The two parts of Measure B--repealing Measure G, and setting medical marijuana limits the same as the state--are "severable" under law, meaning that if either one was found illegal, the other part remains valid.
Liberty added, "For the No on B campaign to say that the appeals court decision makes Measure B unconstitutional is just silly. Since when is it unconstitutional for the voters to fix a mistake they made with Measure G by repealing it?"
"This is just a continuation of the campaign of intentional deception that we have seen from the beginning from the No on B campaign," asserted Liberty.
"They have lied about Measure B by saying it targets medical patients and won't do anything about the large growers.
They misrepresented Sheriff Allman's position in a failed attempt to claim it would be a burden on law enforcement. Their supporters have filed bogus lawsuits and stolen our signs in an effort to prevent the voice of the people from being heard and they have bought space on every phony slate mailer out there.
This has all been an effort to deceive and confuse the voters. But we believe the voters won't be fooled. They are fed up with the damage commercial marijuana growing is doing to our County and they know Measure B is the best solution available," said Liberty.
"We ask the voters to reject the desperate attempts of the No on B campaign and to pass Measure B by a large margin," urged Liberty.
No on B says court ruling invalidates Measure B
ReplyDeleteBy ROB BURGESS The Daily Journal
Article Last Updated: 05/29/2008 08:15:58 AM PDT
A recent decision by an appellate court found the state medical marijuana limits set forth in Senate Bill 420 unconstitutional, which some argue could pull the rug out from under Measure B.
The case in question, People v. Kelly, involves a patient who was convicted of possessing seven plants and 12 ounces of processed marijuana. In its May 22 decision, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District reversed that ruling 3-0 and ordered a retrial for Patrick Kelly, who had a doctor's recommendation for his ailments including Hepatitis C.
Originally passed in 2003, SB 420 was an amendment of Proposition 215 which set state guidelines regarding how much marijuana patients may grow and possess without being subject to arrest. Under the law, medical marijuana patients were allowed six mature or 12 immature plants and up to one-half pound of dried, processed marijuana.
Also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Proposition 215 was passed on the Nov. 5, 1996 ballot with 55 percent in favor and 44 percent against.
The No on Measure B Campaign issued a statement on the ruling Monday, stating that the ruling effectively strikes down the basis for Measure B.
"Measure B has the same problem (as SB 420) since it is based on the same six plant, and eight ounce limits, which were struck down by the appeals court," the campaign stated. "In effect, therefore, Mendocino County citizens are being asked to vote on a proposal that, if approved, would be illegal."
In turn, the Yes on B Coalition issued its own statement, which called the claims of the opposing camp "absurd."
"The recent appellate court decision, People v. Kelly, that is cited by the No on B group is being appealed by the Attorney General to the State Supreme Court where it will likely be reversed or modified because it conflicts with previous Supreme Court decisions," said Ross Liberty, who went on to cite People v. Wright. "Regardless of how the courts and Legislature set medical marijuana limits, Measure B simply says that Mendocino County's limits will be the same as the rest of the state instead of being vastly higher, as they are now."
Rob Burgess can be reached at udjrb@pacific.net.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ci_9414842