Who is minding the children?

Another voice
BY JEANNE KING

Children merit every diligent consideration and care we can provide them. One of the most important concerns in the current debate about marijuana should be in regard to the health, safety and welfare of the children in this community. Despite the importance children should take in this controversy, I barely hear it discussed at all. There is a lot of talk about the rights of medical marijuana users, but what about the rights of the children we are raising here? Before we cast our votes on Measure B, each of us should answer this question in our hearts: What effect does the rampant growth of the marijuana industry have on children in our community?

I retired from teaching in 2005. My career in this county spanned more than 20 years, mainly at the middle and high school levels, both before and after passage of Measure G. A few of my experiences may interest you.

Example 1.

It is a graduation requirement at Willits High that the student put together a writing portfolio that includes an essay on a controversial issue. Many choose issues like gun control or racism.

But in 2002 (maybe it was 2003), all the boys but one in my English class chose “medical marijuana” as their topic. Each wanted to get his “card” as soon as he turned 18. These boys wrote glowingly

about their plans to grow marijuana so they could pay bills, purchase big trucks, and have money for trips. (There was no mention of paying taxes.) In the wake of Measure G’s passage, it was clear that commercial marijuana growing had become the dominant vocational goal of this group.

I recently looked through a supplement in the Willits News about businesses in town that gave the names of employees. Two or three years after their graduation, not a single one of these students was listed as an employee of a legitimate business in this community. What are these guys doing today? What message did we send them when we passed Measure G?

Example 2:

A former student of mine, who got most of her credits at another school, badly wanted to graduate from Willits High. She showed up toward the beginning of her senior year with a mixed-bag of credits and determination to graduate with her class. Her counselors, teachers and the administration bent over backwards to help her. But in October the student told us she had to leave town with her mother for a week, and asked us to make up an “independent study” packet so she would not lose ground. We told her it would be best not to take off the week, but she said she had to go.

Upon her return she had little to say about the trip. A few days later, she admitted to a staff member that she had not left town at all; her mom’s crop had come in and she was nee ded at home to trim the dope. Who came first, the crop or the student?

Example 3:

Another student, whose mother had an indoor grow, related the information on how her mother would line her and her siblings up in the morning before school and spray them with Febreze so they wouldn’t go to school smelling like ripe marijuana. Was the mother’s concern for her children or her crop?

Example 4:

My last story did not happen at school but at a local health food store. I was picking out produce near the register when an obviously pregnant woman came in. She approached a clerk wanting to know if the store had a product that would protect her fetus from the marijuana oils she was absorbing through her skin. “You see,” she said, “I am working as a trimmer and am worried about the effect the oils may have on my baby.”

Children do not get to pick their parents or their community. It is our responsibility as adults to secure the next generation with the best head start we have to offer. Mendocino County used to be an absolutely awesome place to grow up. Unfortunately, I have only to look around me to realize that is no longer the case. Houses surrounded by six foot fences. Guard dogs now the dogs of choice. The ability to walk in the woods no longer an option. Trucks loaded with various grow chemicals.

When casting your ballot I hope you think about the children who will be growing up here. I think that humankind owes the child the very best it has to give. What is our best in Mendocino County? If you know a teacher or someone who works with kids, ask that person about the societal effects that Measure G has had on our county.

Please think about the children when you cast your vote on Measure B on June 3rd.

Jeanne King is an inland
Mendocino County resident.

Ukiah Daily Journal
SUNDAY, MAY 11, 2008 – A- 7 & A - 13

Violent, polluting pot industry

The Willits News

Article Launched: 04/30/2008 12:13:58 PM PDT

As a physician practicing in Ukiah for the past 45 years, I have witnessed the transformation of our peaceful, beautiful county into a violent crime center of polluting pot production. Medical marijuana contributes to this by becoming a smoke-screen for commercial growing and selling of marijuana in Mendocino County.

The current 25 plant plus two pounds of medical marijuana allowance in Mendocino County is clearly excessive. It encourages, enables, and motivates false medical card abuse for the sake of big profits. It additionally puts more pot into our local area and into the lungs and developing brains of our children and adolescents.

Measure B will close this medical loop hole. Measure B will reduce medical marijuana amounts to the State of California recommended levels that is six adult plants or 12 immature plants plus eight ounces of marijuana for medical purposes. This is more than enough for compassionate use for serious medical illness. Over 40 compassionate Ukiah physicians have endorsed Measure B to restore honesty and integrity to this medical marijuana program and urge you to join them in voting Yes on Measure B. Overwhelming passage will not restore our county to the beautiful, peaceful county of years past. But it is a start.

Please contribute to this start voting Yes on Measure B.

Robert Werra M.D.
Ukiah

Yes on B combats false accusations

NEWS RELEASE - March 26, 2008

On March 26, 2008, Laura Hamburg of the No On Measure B Coalition issued a press release accusing the Yes On B Coalition of "mounting a challenge" demanding the removal of Marsha Wharff as a signer on their ballot pamphlet rebuttal argument.

Hamburg also claimed that David Colfax's title as county supervisor was deleted from the ballot argument due to a challenge by the Yes On B Coalition.

Both accusations are false. The Yes On B Coalition had no role in the decisions by county officials to enforce state law on these matters.

For confirmation, contact County Counsel Jeanine Nadel.

Marijuana mythology?

Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Article Last Updated: 03/21/2008 08:47:52 AM PDT

To the Editor:

The marijuana advocates use prescriptions (Rx's) for pot, to legitimize their growing marijuana. They speak of the ill who suffer unless they can obtain marijuana. This Rx argument is seriously flawed.

An Rx has a dose, a frequency of use, an amount, and is filled by a reliable pharmacy. Information is given concerning and the possible long term consequences. There is a limit to the refills, and the quantity of use is monitored, as well as the benefits or problems associated with the use of the Rx drug.

Marijuana Rx's are predominately given out by physicians, who do this for financial gain. The patient arrives with cash, tells a story. The physician then gives them their Rx, usually with little or no exam, and sends them on their way. The patient is not required to follow up, or verify that the Rx is effective. There is no dose, and there are no instructions on when, or how much should be used. Some of these encounters occur after the patient waits in a long line, sometimes stretching out a doorway onto the street. I had the opportunity to hear a doctor from Berkeley who is an advocate for marijuana speak. He has testified in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of marijuana as a Rx drug. I asked him how many patients he saw in the past few years for pot Rxs. His answer, 3,000. I then asked of the 3,000 individuals who came in, how many left without an Rx for marijuana? His answer, none. His charge for this service? $150 per person. Do the math: $450,000, paid in cash. No wonder he advocates for this practice. His list of diagnosis for pot included a juvenile who was stressed with being in juvenile hall, and wanted to smoke pot to sleep at night, while incarcerated.

Please don't be confused by my point here, there are a few people out there who benefit from smoking pot. I worked at the local AIDS clinic in the early 1990s. I have been a physician for the past 29 years, there are cancer patients, and others who use pot and benefit. Most smoke very modest amounts, and prefer not to be intoxicated, or high. There are local physicians who are careful, and do give good advice on marijuana.

What we have in Mendocino County is a system that is built on lies, and deceit. The growers stand behind the medical Rx argument. The pot grown here is sold elsewhere; the money comes back, and is not taxed. The criminal element becomes involved because of the cash involved, and because the entire enterprise is done behind closed doors. The sheriff and the police look the other way. The DA does not prosecute, and if they do, they do not seem to be able to win. The board of supervisors has placed a measure to repeal Measure G on the June ballot. I would like to support them. Repealing Measure G is a good first step. Having our DA request that physicians who run marijuana clinics be shut down by the state medical board is also needed. If we work together, we an return Mendocino County to the safe and serene place I moved to 19 years ago.

James Pretorius.
Potter Valley

Allman not taking stand on Measure B

By BEN BROWN The Daily Journal
Article Last Updated: 03/19/2008 09:10:04 AM PDT

Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman has not taken a position on Measure B, regardless of quotes used by No on B in the Mendocino County Voters Guide.

"As Sheriff, I have not and will not take a position on Measure B," Allman said. "It is my job to enforce the law, not make it. I support legitimate medical marijuana. I oppose commercial cultivation and sales of marijuana."

In its ballot argument, No on B quoted Allman as having said that reducing medical marijuana plant limits to the state guidelines of six mature plants or 12 immature plants and eight ounces of dried marijuana would be a burden on law enforcement and leave police unable to focus on any other public safety issue.

Allman said No on B took that statement out of context from a newspaper interview from March of 2007 about staffing levels at the Sheriff's Office.

Yes on B spokesman Ross Liberty accused No on B of misleading voters by including the quotes in its ballot argument.

"We intend to wage a campaign based on the facts and we challenge the opposition to do the same," he said.

Laura Hamburg, spokeswoman for No on B, said No on B applauded the sheriff for not getting involved in the race.

"We completely commend the sheriff for remaining neutral on Measure B," she said.

Hamburg argued that Measure B, which would repeal Measure G, the voter approved measure that set prosecution of marijuana gardens under 25 plants as the lowest possible priority for law enforcement, would tax law enforcement's resources by forcing officers to investigate small personal use growers instead of focusing on large scale commercial growers.

"Measure B does not address the problem; it creates a new problem," she said.

Allman did say that returning to state minimums for medical marijuana cultivation would cause some problems as it would force an increase in the number of officers necessary for full time marijuana enforcement.

"I would have to have a six-person marijuana team, year round, for two years," he said.

The Sheriff's Office currently has two deputies working full time on marijuana cases.

Regardless of whether or not Measure B passes in June, Allman said priorities at the Sheriff's Office will remain the same.

"Investigating violent crime will remain our top priority," he said. "We do not, and will not, target small grows. We will continue to focus on large grows and complaints about growers who create a public nuisance, endanger public safety or trash the environment."

Measure B, which was placed on the ballot by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, seeks to repeal Measure G, passed by Mendocino County voters in 2000. It would also set possession limits for medical marijuana at 12 immature or six mature plants and eight ounces of dried marijuana, the same as the limits set by the state.

The election is scheduled for June 3.

Ben Brown can be reached at udjbb@pacific.net.

Yes On B Coalition challenges the opposition: "Tell the Truth about Sheriff Allman's position"

"Tell the Truth about Sheriff Allman's position"

Sheriff Tom Allman is neither for nor against Measure B and does not say it would be a burden on law enforcement, contrary to the false impression being spread by the opponents to the Mendocino County ballot measure.

In fact, Sheriff Allman has made a statement that affirms: "Investigating violent crime will remain our top priority."

"The No On B Coalition took Sheriff Allman's words out of context and misled the voters," according to Yes On B Coalition spokesman Ross Liberty.

"We intend to wage a campaign based on the facts and we challenge the opposition to do the same," said Liberty.

In an article published by the Press Democrat
on March 11 [http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080311/NEWS/803110362], Allman stated that the remarks quoted by No On B were taken out of context and that he was not taking a position on Measure B. Nevertheless, the No On Measure B Coalition issued a press release March 12 that repeated the identical misleading characterization of Allman's position. Sheriff Allman signed a statement [photocopy of signed original attached via fax] on March 11 that clarifies his position.

Full text of statement:

"As Sheriff, I have not and will not take a position on Measure B. It is my job to enforce the law, not make it. I support legitimate medical marijuana. I oppose commercial cultivation and sales of marijuana. Measure B will not change our focus. Investigating violent crime will remain our top priority. We do not, and will not, target small grows. We will continue to focus on large grows and complaints about growers who create a public nuisance, endanger public safety or trash the environment. Although I will not take a position on Measure B, I will say that Mendocino County will be a better spot when marijuana is not on the front page every day."

The Yes On B Coalition has provided this statement to the No On Measure B Coalition and asked that they quit misleading the public into believing Sheriff Allman has taken a position against Measure B or that he believes it will "burden law enforcement."

"All Measure B does is repeal Measure G which conflicts with state law, and adopts the state medical marijuana standards. Measure B will help law enforcement and patients by providing one standard so that everyone knows what to expect," said Liberty.

Measure B has two provisions:

(1) that the limit for medical marijuana users and primary caregivers will be the same as that provided in state law--6 mature plants, 12 immature plants, and 8 ounces of dried marijuana or more if recommended by a physician, and

(2) that Measure G (November 2000) is repealed, thereby removing the direction to the sheriff and district attorney to make enforcement of all marijuana laws the lowest priority and to not take any action on cases of 25 plants or less.

"Measure B will help put a stop to the fraudulent use of medical marijuana caregiver cards as a cover for the massive production of commercial marijuana for profit," said Liberty.

"There is a crisis throughout Mendocino County caused by a huge increase in commercial marijuana growing, much of it in residential neighborhoods, that has caused severe impacts on public safety, the environment, and our children," said Liberty.

For more info:
yesonbcoalition.org

A doctor’s view of marijuana

To the Editor:

On Dec. 26, 2007, Linda Williams published a well-researched article in the UDJ that examined the use of marijuana as medicine. Most of this article was information dealing with the ill effects of marijuana usage. On Feb. 22, 2008, Mr. Tiny Harris followed with a letter to the editor, again pointing out the very serious medical conditions affecting the heart, liver and lungs. And in truth these are serious medical conditions, bringing on hard times and situations that are costly. Since Ms. Williams’ article back in December there has not been one pro marijuana spokesperson that has written letters to refute our contradict what she had to say. Mr. Harris can wait until hell freezes over, and not one pro marijuana spokesperson will be able to contradict what he has learned, the awful truth about marijuana. That should tell the critical thinker something.

The Ukiah City Council and the Board of Supervisors have listened and steps are now in place to repeal Measure G in an attempt to bring some sanity and control back into our county. I applaud and commend their efforts. Since they have initiated those first steps, several letters have appeared in the UDJ asking that Measure G not be repealed. Some of these letters are almost in-your-face confrontations. All have been ridiculous. Each of those writers have identified themselves to the public as pro-marijuana spokespersons, and in doing so have demonstrated to the public that somehow they have a stake in marijuana and its usage. Who are these stakeholders and why should they care so much about marijuana? First, there is the legitimate medical marijuana-using patient. We all know they exist, and we share with their concern and welfare. Then there are the users and abusers that can’t seem to get enough. They started out as innocent experimenters and have found that the price for enlightenment is pretty high. Next is the dealer, grower, or profiteer that reaps a huge reward from the first two categories. It is this group that keeps marijuana going. It is this group that will kill to keep their profits coming in. Without this group, and their ever-ready supply to keep the first two categories going, marijuana would not be a problem. Then there is another rare category that may be present. That is the very rare case of altruism, in which someone mistakenly promotes the use of marijuana, not to profit, but acts as an enabler for someone else because they feel it helps.

Some of the letters to the editor have been written by the above marijuana stakeholders. Some writers have expressed their feelings that it will hurt the “Mom and Pop” growers. Who are the “Mom and Pop” growers? Are they growing something legal or illegal? And why should this stakeholder care? One writer has a concern that our children’s future will be destroyed if we repeal Measure G. She somehow feels that if we repeal Measure G, the children will become dope dealers. Is this type of thinking a product of enlightenment? Another writer feels that “Pot growers are the future!” Wow! If this is the future, medical science must start finding a way to perform brain transplants, we are all lost. Marijuana has been compared with growing grapes for alcohol (wine) consumption. The Bible does say that a little wine is good for the stomach. But it also states that wine is a mocker and strong drink is raging and whomever is fooled thereby is not wise. Some have written that “prohibition never works.” That was true concerning alcohol because alcohol products became known as “bathtub gin” and could be made in secret. Marijuana grows can be easily identified by those that want to find them. Even when grown inside and away from prying eyes the electrical or fuel bills will give them away.

As a medical doctor, what is my stake in being against the widespread use of marijuana? I have been a doctor for nearly forty years. During that time, I dedicated my life to alleviate human suffering. Now a plague is upon us and duty calls to action. Those diseases that Mr. Harris mentioned are real, not imaginary. They are to be fought by all members of the health profession. There can be no advocacy for marijuana. Marijuana is now being touted as a medicine, but even prescription medications are dangerous in the wrong hands. Marijuana, as a medicine, is not being controlled as a medicine, and it is in the wrong hands. A proper medical prescription will include the name of the patient, in some cases the age of the patient, the medication being prescribed, the strength or dosage, and the frequency or how many times per day the medication is to be taken. With marijuana, it is left up to the patient to determine how much marijuana is going to be used an how many times per day it is used. This is bad medicine. And it will eventually bite you, the taxpayer.

In my earlier letter to the Editor, “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” I demonstrated that 25 marijuana plants had a potential to generate $100,000 profit; 25 plants could generate as much as 50 pounds of product, at $2,000 per pound. Now, the question must be asked: if marijuana is to be used as a medicine, how much marijuana is required by the legitimate medical patient? Is it the whole 50 pounds that can be generated by the 25 plants? If so, that is nearly one pound per week, and it must be having a disastrous effect on that person. How many times per day would that person be smoking to use one pound per week? Do you see the problem: As a doctor, I see problems with uncontrolled marijuana usage even in a person that is a “legitimate” medical patient using marijuana. I would be willing to bet that the legitimate patient is not using as much marijuana as we may feel they are using. And the fake patient is using as much as they can, but no one is using 50 pounds per year. So where is all of this marijuana going? It is being used somewhere and somehow for profit.

I mentioned that as a taxpayer, you will eventually feel the bite from marijuana usage, whether it be legal or illegal. So why legalize it? It will cause all kinds of medical conditions, with long term use, that will require medical intervention. The person that has been using it long term and acquired the medical condition will not be paying the bill. Most likely, the will be on welfare. That means MediCal. The tax payer will be paying those medical bills. If an insurance company has to pay, you can bet that the rates will increase, so it is only a losing proposition if marijuana is left out of control. I am sorry, Mom and pop growers growers, I have no sympathy for you.

What are the solutions?

First step: repeal Measure G by voting for Measure B.

Second step: have the doctors determine how much marijuana is required by their patients.

Third step: pressure must be placed on those who sit in high office to find better medical alternatives for those legitimate patients that use marijuana. We must find better ways to give them hop and alleviate their suffering.

Fourth step: There must be an all-out war on all illegal drug substances that are robbing this nation of such great promise. There are drugs much worse than marijuana, but marijuana is often the gateway to the enlightenment that these drugs promise.

James Cruise, M.D.
Redwood Valley

Letters to the Editor
Monday, March 10, 2008
Ukiah Daily Jounal

Measure B proponents, opponents organizing

By BEN BROWN The Daily Journal
Article Last Updated: 03/16/2008 12:33:22 PM PDT

Though the election is still three months away, both sides of the fight over the future of medical marijuana in Mendocino County have begun to organize.

Measure B, which was placed on the ballot by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 8, would repeal Measure G, passed by Mendocino County voters in 2000.

Measure G, the cannabis personal use ordinance, instructed law enforcement officers to make prosecution of anyone growing fewer than 25 marijuana plants their lowest priority. Late last year, the Board of Supervisors agreed to set medical marijuana limits at 25 plants in accordance with Measure G.

If passed, Measure B would set possession limits for medical marijuana at 12 immature or six mature plants and eight ounces of dried marijuana, the same as the limits set by the state.

Ross Liberty, speaking for the Yes on B coalition, said no person growing 25 plants is doing so for personal use because even the sickest person does not need that much marijuana.

Yes on B believes that Measure G has created a permissive attitude in the county that encourages large scale growers to come here to grow marijuana commercially with little fear of prosecution.

"Currently, local elected officials and commercial growers view Measure G as the mandate of the Mendocino County voters," Liberty said. "The Yes on B Coalition seeks to change that view by passing Measure B to show local elected officials and commercial marijuana growers around the world that we
Advertisement
no longer want to be the world epicenter for commercial marijuana cultivation."

Laura Hamburg said Measure B is a step backward that would take law enforcement resources away from more serious crimes.

"It would make anyone with more than six plants a felon," she said.

Liberty said Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman has made it clear that serious crimes will always take top priority.

Charges of cultivation and possession of marijuana for sale against Hamburg, the spokeswoman for the No on B organization, recently were dismissed after a judge threw out evidence gained from a search warrant.

Hamburg said the garden was medical marijuana she was growing for herself, her sister and a neighbor. All three of them have medical marijuana recommendations.

Hamburg said No on B rejects arguments that repealing Measure G would reduce the number of large scale commercial growers in the county. Commercial growers do not know about or care about local marijuana laws, she said.

"If Measure B would stop large commercial growers and abuses it would be an outstanding measure, but it will not do that," Hamburg said.

She said most large scale growers don't live in Mendocino County and that the repeal of Measure G would not hinder them.

"Rolling back Measure G will do nothing but criminalize our residents, our friends and our neighbors," she said.

Hamburg said a better way to deal with commercial growers would be to work with law enforcement and educate legitimate medicinal growers to what the law is in Mendocino County.

Other organizations are also taking sides in the debate. The Mendocino County Farm Bureau endorsed Measure B last month.

"The board felt it would be better if the state and county guidelines were consistent," said Farm Bureau President Peter Johnson.

Though the board has taken an official stance on the ballot measure, Johnson said the board is not telling Farm Bureau members to vote for Measure B.

"It's up to our members to make their own decisions," he said.

The election is scheduled for June 3. For more information on No on B, go to www.nomeasureb.org; for information on Yes on B, go to http://yesonbcoalition.com.

Ben Brown can be reached at udjbb@pacific.net.

Register to VOTE YES on Measure B

Elections II
Primary ballot to include plenty at the local level

Click here to Register to VOTE

...Mendocino County voters will be deciding the North Coast's most interesting ballot measure. The county's Measure B calls for repealing a 2000 initiative that legalized personal use of marijuana and made the enforcement of pot-related laws the "lowest priority" for law enforcement.

A ballot statement supporting Measure B states that the existing rules "has made us a magnet for get-rich-quick growers who hide behind medical marijuana as a cover for commercial marijuana production." Opponents of Measure B say its a step backwards in the effort for more sensible marijuana laws.

The first day to apply for a vote-by-mail ballot is May 5. The last day to register to vote is May 19. Even without the attraction of a presidential contest, there are plenty of reasons to vote in the June 3 election -- and no good reason to stay away.

Charges dismissed against Mendocino activist - County judge throws out case against Laura Hamburg

By GLENDA ANDERSON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

A Mendocino County judge has dismissed marijuana charges against Laura Hamburg, a community activist and daughter of a former congressman.

The Thursday ruling follows a judge’s decision two weeks ago that quashed evidence found in October during a search of the Hamburg family compound near Ukiah.

The property is owned by former Congressman Dan Hamburg and his wife, Carrie.

The evidence was quashed because officers’ sworn statements in support of the search warrant failed to mention that Hamburg had provided them with county-issued medical marijuana documentation.

At the time of the raid, law enforcement said there were at least 50 mature pot plants, about 50 pounds of processed marijuana and $10,000 cash.

Laura Hamburg’s attorney, former prosecutor Keith Faulder, said Hamburg had medical marijuana documentation for two other people and was within the growing limits for that number of medical marijuana patients.

Mendocino sheriff: No stance on pot vote

By MIKE GENIELLA
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

UKIAH -- An escalating war of words is being waged over Mendocino County's Measure B, which if passed in the June primary will repeal the nation's first initiative to legalize personal marijuana use.

By refusing to take an official position on Measure B, Sheriff Tom Allman had hoped to stay out of a divisive debate. Emotions are running high over an underground marijuana economy that now dwarfs legitimate agriculture production including timber harvesting.

But because a pro-medical marijuana group decided to include past Allman comments in its ballot argument against Measure B, the sheriff has reiterated his stance:

"I am not taking any position. That's not my job," Allman said.

At issue are Allman quotes in a ballot argument submitted by opponents of Measure B.

Allman is quoted as saying that if county voters were to adopt more restrictive state standards, it "would be a burden on law enforcement."

Allman is also quoted as saying his deputies "will not be able to focus on any other public safety issue."

The sheriff doesn't deny making the statements reported in The Press Democrat a year ago. But he said they've since been taken out of context.

"We've already stepped up our enforcement against major marijuana growing. It's already a burden," Allman said.

Measure B proponents argue that marijuana cultivation in the county is "clearly out of control." They want Measure B passed in hopes of keeping crime-related problems in check, while erasing the county's national reputation as a haven for marijuana growers.

Measure B would repeal a 2000 initiative that legalizes personal use of marijuana, and makes enforcement of pot-related laws the "lowest priority" for local law enforcement.

The 2000 pot initiative was passed by a large margin, which led medical marijuana advocates to lobby former Sheriff Tony Craver and the late District Attorney Norman Vroman. Craver and Vroman eventually agreed to adopt a local standard allowing up to 25 plants per individual for medical use. In comparison, state standards called for no more than six plants per person.

Since 2000, marijuana production has soared in Mendocino County, as it has statewide despite continuing state and federal efforts to crack down.

The ballot argument in support of Measure B contends that the relaxed county standard "has made us a magnet for get-rich-quick growers who hide behind medical marijuana as a cover for commercial marijuana production."

Opponents in their ballot argument said they fear Measure B "is a backward step towards marijuana re-criminalization that targets small-scale, personal use growers."

You can reach Staff Writer Mike Geniella at 462-6470 or mgeniella@pressdemocrat.com.

Measure B: Voters to set marijuana policy

By BEN BROWN The Daily Journal
Article Last Updated: 03/09/2008 11:19:25 AM PDT

After years of resolutions and city and county government proposals, Mendocino County voters have been called upon to once again define medical marijuana policy in the county.

Measure B, which was placed on the ballot by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 8, would repeal Measure G and set possession limits for medical marijuana at 12 immature or six mature plants and eight ounces of dried marijuana, the same as the limits set by the state.

Measure G, which was passed by Mendocino County voters in 2000, set medical marijuana limits at 25 plants and the equivalent in dried product, and dictated that prosecution of small-scale marijuana possession be the lowest possible priority for law enforcement.

Yes on B spokesman Ross Liberty said the measure is necessary to correct a perception that Mendocino County is a good place to grow marijuana commercially.

Liberty, who said he voted for Measure G in 2000, said the 25-plant limit has made it possible for a grower with the medical marijuana recommendations of several people to grow large amounts of marijuana to sell commercially with little fear of prosecution.

"It's reflective of the permissive attitude we have here," he said.

In its ballot argument, the No on B coalition said Measure B would target small-scale medical marijuana growers instead of focusing on the more serious threat of large-scale commercial growers.

"Mendocino County will not be made safer by cracking down on small personal use growers," No on B said in its ballot argument. "It will be made less safe by diverting police resources."

Liberty argued that 25 plants would provide far more marijuana than even the sickest patient could require for personal use.

"You can't smoke that much," he said.

Measure B will also clear up some of the confusion that law enforcement faces in Mendocino County by setting plant limits at the state standard, Liberty said.

"It doesn't add new layers," he said. "It repeals a bad law."

When Measure G was put to a vote in 2000, it passed with 58 percent of the vote. Liberty said those numbers do not intimidate Yes on B proponents.

He said a poll he had taken indicates Measure B should pass with 65 percent of the vote in June.

"One thing is certain," Liberty said. "If we lose, we're going to look back with misty eyes on 2008 and the minimal marijuana problem that we had."

For more information on Measure B and the Yes on B coalition, go to http://yesonbcoalition.org/.

The vote is scheduled for June 3.

Attempts to contact a spokesperson for No on B were unsuccessful at press time.

Ben Brown can be reached at udjbb@pacific.net.

95490: Self and otherwise

By Ron Orenstein
Article Launched: 02/29/2008 12:04:49 PM PST

As the June ballot for Measure B approaches, we will see a lot of words written about marijuana, both pro and con.

Marijuana supporters will present arguments trying to show that legalizing the crop and taxing it will put much-needed revenue into the pockets of local merchants and local governments. It's well known pot money already plays a role in the local economy to a point. As George Atwood pointed out in his commentary last week, most of the money spent by the growers goes toward buying big boy toys, most of which by the way they don't buy locally. The most significant contribution the growers make to the local economy is eating at local restaurants, or buying clothes or gifts at local stores. While this is a good thing for a few merchants, it hardly rises to the level of actually supporting the local economy.

In a county that is so environmentally conscious, it seems strange there is little mention of the impact of marijuana growing on our precious water supply. Water, as we all know, is a very serious topic in these parts, with local and county governments, as well as private citizen groups, investing a lot of time trying to figure out how to stretch our water resources to supply our needs.

Being the curious type, I did some research on the internet and found 526,000 sites about marijuana water requirements. No specific figures are given, it depends on the soil, temperature, etc, but it seems to be important the plant roots are kept moist. A member of the sheriff's marijuana eradication team had mentioned in a presentation that a pot plant requires about 15 gallons of water per day. When I used this figure at a board of supervisors meeting, I heard some snickering in the background, so maybe without having empirical knowledge, I think it's reasonable to lower the estimate to between one and five gallons per day per plant as a working number.

According to the sheriff's department, 334,000 pot plants were eradicated last year, and this is generally estimated to be anywhere from 10 and 25 percent of the total crop grown in the county each year. Using the conservative figure of 25 percent, that works out to more than 1.3 million pot plants each year.

Requiring five gallons of water per day during a growing season of four months means the marijuana crop uses 780 million gallons of water per year, or 2,394 acre feet compared to 886 acre feet used by Willits water customers each year. If someone wanted to argue that point, we could lower the daily usage figure to one-gallon of water per plant, and still come up with almost 479 acre feet used to grow pot.

Many people have been advocating growing more of our food locally, but one of the constraints has always been the amount and availability of water needed to irrigate the crops. But at least that water would be used to grow food, not some cash crop that is used to "improve" someone's day. Remember, if it was really about medical use, there wouldn't be anywhere near this amount of pot needed.

But if the amount of money that pot growing brings to the local economy is the most important argument in favor of legalizing pot, maybe we need to get ambitious and grow even more valuable crops such as cocaine. Some Third World countries seem to have a monopoly on this, and maybe it's time that we got our share, don'cha think?

Of course, that raises other issues of self-image, which is still kind of important to some folks. Just how far down the road do we want to go to be known as the marijuana/or other drug capitol of the world?

The image issue brings me to another commentary that was printed in last week's The Willits News.

Don Forest, who moved to Willits from a large metropolitan area several months ago wrote a piece entitled "You know you're in Willits when " I don't know about you, but after living here for only a few months, I was feeling like I learned something about Willits if I was able to drive from one end of town to the other without going on Main Street and without getting lost. But I guess coming from the Big City enables Don to get into the soul of Willits fairly quickly, although he claims "you can't find the police station and the Chamber of Commerce is usually closed." (Don, the police station is next to city hall right behind the big sign that says "police," and the chamber of commerce is not usually closed!)

There's an old saying: "I can say anything I want about my wife/husband, but you can't!" meaning you need to get to know the subject, have a relationship and get invested before criticizing. And one of the best ways to be accepted in a new town, especially a small one, is definitely not to make fun of it.

We are all aware of the "warts" in our community, and we joke about them because there's only so much that can be done, and sometimes it's best to grin and bear it. But they don't define us. Don can't be aware of the many efforts underway to improve our town's image because he hasn't been here long enough, or apparently, gotten involved.

Am I being overly sensitive? Probably, but I just get so tired of hearing people bad-mouthing our community, especially when they don't have a clue what they're talking about. Contribute something to our community, then you might have earned the right to be critical.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Ron Orenstein is a Willits resident and a former city councilman.

Mendocino County News - NEW June 2008 Ballot Measure - Measure B

Restore Mendocino/Repeal G Coalition is now Yes on B Coalition

On January 22 the group concerned about the impact of commercial marijuana cultivation on Mendocino County changed its name to "Yes on B Coalition."
This conforms to state requirements for the name of a committee that seeks to pass a ballot measure.

The measure that has been placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors is called "Measure B."

A Yes On B vote in June, will make Mendocino County's medical marijuana limit the same as the general California statewide limit - (6 mature plants)

Measure B will also repeal Measure G that was passed in 2000 which attempted to prevent any law enforcement action against less than 25 plants.

Duane Wells, former county assessor, was elected as chairman of the Yes on B Coalition. A co-chair from the coast may be added soon. James Sligh, a certified public accountant from Ukiah, was elected treasurer. A 12-person steering committee was installed that will be augmented by new members from outlying areas of the county.

MENDOCINO RETHINKING POT POLICY

Published on January 8, 2008

© 2008- The Press Democrat

BYLINE: MIKE GENIELLA

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT PAGE: B3

UKIAH -- Unhappy Mendocino County residents today will push the Board of Supervisors to voluntarily allow voters in June a chance to repeal the county's marijuana policy.

A citizens group calling itself ``Restore Mendocino'' said it will ask supervisors to place on the June 5 ballot an ordinance to repeal landmark Measure G. When passed in 2000, Measure G was the first in the United States to decriminalize marijuana for personal use, earning the county a national reputation as a haven for marijuana growers.

But seven years later, Measure G is being blamed for a surge in Mendocino marijuana production, and a host of crime-related problems. Critics contend the county's pro-medical marijuana policy has become a ``farce.''

``Measure G is not about medical marijuana but about the freedom to grow marijuana for income,'' said Granville Pool of Redwood Valley.

If the board declines today to voluntarily put the issue up for a June vote, backers will have to go through a lengthy and potentially costly signature gathering process. It could delay a vote until the November general election.

When Mendocino voters in 2000 passed Measure G by an overwhelming 58-42 percent margin, it paved the way for locally liberal law enforcement policies surrounding medical marijuana use.

The measure allowed the growing and possession of up to 25 pot plants per person without fear of prosecution, compared to the state medical marijuana standard of six plants per individual.

Since Measure G, Mendocino's marijuana production has soared to new records, creating what's estimated to be a $1 billion-a-year underground economy, according to Supervisor Jim Wattenburger, referring to a report by an outside consultant hired to assess the economic impact of marijuana on the county.

Outsiders from across the country and from Mexico and Canada have flocked to the county seeking to profit from Mendocino's permissive pot-growing attitude, law enforcement officials said.

But during the past year a public backlash began to emerge, fueled by repeated discovery of large-scale commercial marijuana growing operations, and reports of armed guards, threats of violence to rural neighbors, and significant environmental damage.

Medical marijuana advocates say they're alarmed by the public outcry, fearing possible recriminations and ``suppression of the legally protected rights of cannabis patients.''

Pebbles Trippet, a member of the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board, couldn't be reached for comment Monday. But Trippet recently noted in a Web posting for medical marijuana advocates that ``until this year the county had not even tried to regulate marijuana for medical purposes.''

``The supervisors left that job to law enforcement -- former Sheriff Tony Craver and former District Attorney Norm Vroman -- for a decade,'' Trippet said.

Trippet said the advisory board, whose honorary chairman is Craver, is considering whether to place its own ``comprehensive (medical marijuana) policy measure'' on the local ballot this year.

Supporters of the repeal Measure G drive say they believe public support of medical marijuana has evaporated.

``Yes, Measure G passed fairly handily, but now that its effects are better known, perhaps its support is not so widespread,'' said Pool.

Local wine industry leader Martha Barra agreed. ``This issue has gone beyond the medical benefits of marijuana,'' she said.

``What we are sanctioning now is the lucrative but illegal business of producing and selling marijuana,'' Barra said.

The pros and cons of Measure G and the county's medical marijuana practices will be aired at today's board hearing, which is scheduled to begin at 1:45 p.m. in the county administration center on Low Gap Road.

LANDMARK MARIJUANA MEASURE UNDER FIRE

Published on December 24, 2007

© 2007- The Press Democrat

BYLINE: MIKE GENIELLA

THE PRESS DEMOCRAT PAGE: B1

UKIAH -- A campaign is under way to repeal a landmark Mendocino County measure that decriminalized the personal use of marijuana, a first in the United States when the local initiative was passed by voters in 2000.

Measure G won by a 58-42 percent margin and was seen then as a way for local people to use up to 25 marijuana plants per individual for medical reasons without fear of prosecution.

Former District Attorney Norman Vroman and former Sheriff Tony Craver embraced the measure, easing local enforcement efforts against dope growers claiming to be medical marijuana providers. In doing so, Vroman and Craver ignored sharply lower state limits imposed by voter-approved Proposition 215, a statewide medical marijuana initiative.

But since then, the county's pot-growing notoriety has fueled a backlash against surging production under the guise of medical marijuana.

Now, a coalition of county lawmakers, business leaders and community activists are pressing for Measure G's repeal. They say it's time to ``take back our county'' from an influx of outside marijuana growers and field workers. An estimated 2,000 marijuana ``trimmers'' are believed to have shown up for this fall's pot harvest.

The anti-Measure G group is petitioning the county Board of Supervisors to voluntarily put the issue back on the ballot, and let local voters take a second look at a proposition that critics believe helped foster the county's national reputation as a haven for marijuana growers.

Organizer Dennis Smart said county supervisors will be asked at the board's Jan. 8 meeting to allow Measure G repeal advocates to avoid a lengthy and potentially costly signature gathering drive by agreeing to place the repeal on the June 3 primary ballot.

Two weeks ago, the county board split 3-2 to limit medical pot cultivation to 25 plants per parcel of land.

In recent years, illicit marijuana production has created a flourishing underground economy in the county that now dwarfs in dollar value longtime agriculture-related operations such as timber production, wine grapes and pear orchards.

County Supervisor Jim Wattenburger, a supporter of the anti-Measure G drive, said an outside consultant hired a year ago to assess the county's economy found that marijuana-related revenue accounts for as much as 75 percent of income generated locally.

Ukiah City Councilman John McCowen, an opposition candidate to Wattenburger, said he's in agreement that voters take a second look at Measure G and its role in fueling a pot-based economy.

``It's clear there's a great deal of public frustration with current levels of abuses associated with the widespread commercial cultivation and sale of marijuana in the county,'' McCowen said.

He said the issue transcends politics. ``As far as I know, all of the announced candidates are in favor of putting the Measure G issue back in front of voters,'' he said.

Ron Orenstein, a former Willits councilman, wrote in public commentary published last week that it's time for a second look.

The ``benign intent'' of Measure G has ``turned into a nightmare,'' Orenstein said.

Orenstein said ``growers abused the good intentions of voters by growing as much marijuana as they wanted, wherever they wanted.''