Sheriff Offers To Collect Extra Pot Plants Under New Rules

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — The next battles are already starting over the new county rules on medical marijuana. Supporters said they have petitions ready to challenge the bans on storefront dispensaries and large outdoor grows.

Meanwhile, the Kern County Sheriff’s department said growers with more than the new 12-plant limit can turn that in, with no fear of prosecution.

Kern County Supervisors passed the new ordinances on Tuesday, and Thursday a spokesman said medical marijuana supporters hope to start gathering petition signatures on Friday.

“Right now we’ll have community effort doing it,” California Cannabis Coalition president Craig Beresh told Eyewitness News. ”Then we’re going to have paid signature-gatherers in town.”

Beresh said the fight may cost up to $60,000, but the funds are there. He said organizations like his are putting in money, as well as local dispensaries and patients. He said they also plan to file a lawsuit Friday against the ban on collectives, and on Friday they’ll file for a temporary restraining order trying to stop the new ban on outdoor grows of more than 12 plants.

That ban is already in effect, because it was passed as a “urgency ordinance.” Supervisors said they took that immediate action, convinced by law enforcement that most marijuana crops are nearly ready for harvest, and that the large pot gardens are a target for violence.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood showed the board photos of a very large grow raided this week, which included 17 booby traps, according to officers.

The sheriff’s department announcement on taking in plants said anyone can call 391-7580 for more information. ”Arrangements will be made to accept their excess plants for destruction and/or to answer any questions regarding compliance issues,” the statement read.

Eyewitness News had questions about how long that offer will be available, and what penalties growers would face later. But no one was available to answer questions on Thursday afternoon.

Meanwhile, Beresh said the groups supporting medical marijuana will circulate petitions asking voters to sign for a simple referendum on both new county rules, basically whether they don’t want the new ordinances.

The spokesman said if voters approve that, the groups then want to work with county leaders. They hope a task force of appointed community members could then come up with alternatives to the ban. Beresh said many medical marijuana collectives and patients think there should be changes to the current situation.

“We need to regulate it, we need to come down with some rules,” Beresh said.

When asked for examples of better rules, he said, ”We need to know where they’re going to be allowed. We don’t want to be on top of each other, we don’t want to be close to schools, we want to do it the right way.”

Beresh said they also want a task force to come up with different rules on medical marijuana grows.

But, getting the new county rules tossed out requires the groups to get enough signatures on the petitions. If that happens, the just-passed county ordinance to shut down the dispensaries would be automatically suspended, according to Kern County chief elections clerk Karen Rhea. She said the groups must get 17,350 signatures in 30 days.

“September 8 is the last day for the protest to be filed with the Board,” Rhea told Eyewitness News.  If the groups get enough signatures, Rhea said the ordinance is set back to the supervisors for consideration. The board can repeal the ordinance or put the question to the voters.

Beresh said if it goes to the voters, the board must set an election within 88 days. But Rhea said that’s not correct. An election has to be held “not less than 88 days” later.

“Should the protest be sufficient and the board decides to put it to a vote, the election may either be called as a special election to be consolidated with the next regularly scheduled county election,” Rhea said.

Can they get enough signatures in 30 days? Beresh is convinced the supporter groups can do it.

“This is not going to be a problem. In fact, I feel this is going to be about the easiest county,” he said. “I’ve talked to many people throughout town, and I don’t find many people that are against it.”

Latest DOJ Brief Provides Security For State Employees Enforcing Medical Marijuana Laws

by Noah Mamber

A funny thing happened on Monday. The Department of Justice filed a brief regarding state medical marijuana laws in Arizona . . . and it was a good thing, and was met with appreciation from the medical marijuana movement! Seriously. After the disappointments of the vague, not very helpful Cole memo, and the expected but still disappointing DEA denial of marijuana’s medical value, it was great to see the Department of Justice (DoJ) doing the right thing regarding medical marijuana, even if it was only in a limited way.

As you may know, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, last seen promoting states’ rights and vowing to fight on when it comes to illegal immigration, and her Attorney General, Tom Horne, had filed a suit as plaintiffs against the federal government, requesting permission to move ahead with Arizona’s medical marijuana program implementation. This was ridiculous, since no other governor has needed federal permission to move ahead with medical marijuana implementation, even though some others have also tried to use the red herring threat of federal action to slow implementation. Apparently, the DoJ also thinks Brewer’s claims are ridiculous, and it said as much in its withering Motion to Dismiss brief, in which it took apart each of the state of Arizona’s arguments, urging the court to dismiss the case. If the court dismisses the case, Brewer’s logical course of action would be to fully implement Arizona’s medical marijuana law, including licensing more than 100 dispensaries, though given her intransigence, that course of action is sadly not a given.

Throughout its brief, the DoJ basically said that the state of Arizona has no case and that plaintiffs Gov. Brewer and AG Horne have invented a controversy where none exists. Further, the brief notes that a state is not allowed to bring a case asking two sides to fight it out, without taking a position on the law in question, belying Gov. Brewer’s claims upon the suit’s filing of being a neutral party seeking “clarity.” The American judicial process simply does not work that way. In its brief, the DoJ’s criticism of the plaintiffs’ complaint was often direct and sometimes even slightly mocking, which was definitely appreciated by this reader.

The brief attacks the premise of Arizona’s suit in several ways. It says that the suit does not raise a substantial federal question (which it must in order to be heard first in federal court) because it asks for a declaratory judgment on the validity of a state law. It is amusing to watch the federal government explain Constitutional Law 101 to Gov. Brewer, noting that, “there is no federal jurisdiction of a suit by a state to declare the validity of its regulations despite possibly conflicting federal law” (p. 6). The brief also states directly that Arizona has not asserted any “actual, concrete controversy” in its complaint. The brief criticizes the plaintiffs for not identifying a controversy between the parties in the suit and notes the plaintiffs’ failure to take a side as a fatal flaw in the lawsuit, accusing the state of Arizona of “attempt[ing] to manufacture disputes among other parties” (p. 9). The brief criticizes Arizona’s decision to create twenty fictitious defendants, ten on one side of the law and ten on the other, states its doubts about the existence of the hypothetical defendants, and notes definitively that “parties cannot have ‘adverse legal interests’ necessary to establish a live controversy, when one party (particularly the plaintiff) professes to take neither side of the dispute” (p. 10). Finally, the brief denies that Arizona even has standing to raise such a claim, as it has not suffered any “injury in fact.” Basing standing on the idea that some Arizonans disagree about federal law’s effect on Arizona’s medical marijuana law will not work, nor will an unspecific suggestion about a “supposed risk that Arizona citizens will lose revenue or property” (pp. 11-12).

More importantly on a national level, this DoJ brief appears to affirm the following interpretation of the Ogden and Cole Memorandums, along with other relevant case law and actual enforcement: that there has been no demonstration that the federal government is interested in prosecuting state employees for implementing state medical marijuana programs and issuing dispensary licenses. The DoJ cites the lack of any “genuine threat that any state employee will face imminent prosecution under federal law” (p. 2) and notes that “plaintiffs can point to no threat of enforcement against the State’s employees” (p. 10). The brief notes that Arizona has no “concrete plan to act in violation of the Controlled Substances Act,” as it has refused to accept dispensary applications and issue licenses (an act that MPP believes, based on relevant court precedent, would clearly not be such a violation). The brief notes that Arizona was not able to produce any threat, generalized or specific, directed towards its state employees, and it points to the omission of any state employee threats in Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke’s letter on the issue (p. 14). The brief dismisses Arizona’s suggestion that Arizona state employees are subject to federal prosecution as “mere speculation” (p. 15). It sums up this argument when it says:

Plaintiffs identify no prior instances in which the federal government has sought to prosecute state employees for the conduct vaguely described in Plaintiffs’ complaint. Without evidence of such prior prosecutions, Plaintiffs cannot credibly show a genuine threat of imminent prosecution in this case. (p. 15)

This message from the DoJ is heartening, along with U.S. Attorney Burke’s clear statement that going after state employees “is not a priority for us, and will not be.” This brief also comes on the heels of the statement of former U.S. Attorney and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who said definitively about his decision to implement the state’s medical marijuana program:

I don’t believe the United States Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, given the narrow and medically based nature of our program, will expend what are significantly lessening federal law enforcement resources in the context of the federal budget, on going after dispensaries in New Jersey, our Department of Health or other state workers who are helping to implement this program.

These recent events all suggest that the Department of Justice is interpreting its guidance to mean that state employees can fully implement medical marijuana programs, like those in Arizona and Rhode Island, with no fear of prosecution. So let’s get it done, Governors Brewer and Chaffee! Time is wasting, and people are hurting and need their medicine now.

From Marijuana Policy Project