$68.00 donated in past month
|
Terrie Best of San Diego Americans for Safe Access writes: On March 1, the prosecution began its case against John Mazula, who was being charged with manufacturing medical cannabis concentrates. The case came down to whether the process John used to extract cannabis concentrate made use of butane gas or not.
The prosecution rested their case after not having proven anything but that law enforcement are experts at reciting how to make butane honey oil. They were to have proven John was making BHO (butane hash oil), they didn’t do it. And, there’s no honey oil, no blasted plant material, no used filters, piles of empty butane tanks or lengths of glass tubing to help them either.
I pulled into the El Cajon courthouse parking lot just in time to see one of John’s jurors. He turned out to be the jury foreman. He gave me a glimpse of what happened in that jury room. In the first few minutes the 12 introduced themselves, then at exactly 4:20, a fact that made some of them chuckle, they took their first and only poll. Without hesitation each juror at the table one-by-one pronounced John not guilty. Then they discussed why. The jurors blamed the police. They knew the case was poorly put together with no evidence to convict John. It was a manufactured case. The case against John was vapor, a waste of time and resources and the jurors took ten minutes to destroy it. The prosecution never lost the case because they never had one. John was not guilty, the DA only tried to make 12 people believe he was.
Day One of John Mazula's Medical Marijuana Trial - Presecution's Case Built on Dishonesty || Perjury Entangles Sheriff Deputy in Embarrassing Web As Activists Look On || Ten Minutes to a Not Guilty Verdict in San Diego Medical Marijuana Concentrate Case || San Diego Americans for Safe Access
Norman “Wounded Knee” DeOcampo (Miwok), a long-time resident of Vallejo, will be taking part in the Longest Walk 5 beginning February 13 at La Jolla Shores in San Diego, California. Wounded Knee is the Founding Executive Director of the Vallejo based organization Sacred Sites Protection and Rights of Indigenous Tribes. (SSPRIT). He is the only person who will have participated in all five Longest Walks.
Federal prison sentences were handed down October 2 for the three remaining defendants in the Kettle Falls Five case in Washington State. The case has received national attention as an example of federal interference with state-qualified medical cannabis patients. Lobbying by Larry Harvey, a defendant in the case who died last month from cancer, was instrumental in getting Congress to restrict Department of Justice enforcement in states with medical cannabis laws.
Larry Harvey’s widow, Rhonda Firestack-Harvey, and her daughter-in-law Michelle Gregg were each sentenced to one year and a day. Rhonda’s son, Rolland Gregg, received a sentence of 33 months. All three were released pending appeal.
They were each charged with multiple federal felonies that carried stiff mandatory minimum sentences after a 2012 raid on the family’s personal cannabis garden in rural Washington State, even though there was no evidence of distribution and the garden was clearly marked as medical. The defendants were barred from raising a medical necessity defense, despite being qualified patients in Washington State. The jury acquitted them of all the government’s primary charges but found them guilty of “manufacturing” fewer than 100 plants.
Read More
Receiving scant attention from marijuana legalization advocates and just about zero attention in the national media, voters in Ohio will be deciding on a controversial marijuana legalization initiative this November. It is a cautionary tale to which the backers of California’s multiple marijuana legalization initiatives might want to pay close attention.
Issue 3 submitted by ResponsibleOhio would amend the constitution legalizing both the medical and personal use of marijuana for persons 21 years and older. Personal users may possess up to one ounce and may cultivate up to four plants. Local bans are not permitted.
For marijuana advocates, the main cause of consternation over the initiative is that it endows “exclusive rights for commercial marijuana growth, cultivation, and extraction to self-designated landowners who own 10 predetermined parcels of land.” To the disappointment of it's backers, the official title for Issue 3 states, “Grants a monopoly for the commercial production and sale of marijuana for recreational and medical use.”
Read More
Dan Rush, a former union organizer for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 5, was recently named in a federal arrest warrant that alleges he engaged in bad-faith negotiations with cannabis dispensary owners while acting in his capacity as a union official. Rush is also accused of holding a private financial interest in a medical cannabis company seeking a dispensary permit in Oakland in 2010.
Rush is a prominent figure in the California medical cannabis community, and he has traveled throughout the state to conduct union organizing activities. A review of campaign finance records shows UFCW Locals 5 and 770, and a regional UFCW political action committee, made targeted contributions to state and local candidates in an apparent bid to open up new dispensary regulations and permits.
Political contributions from cannabis supporters and businesses represent a small but growing fraction of the campaign money raised by state and local officials. UFCW Local 5 has condemned Rush's alleged activities, and the federal warrant makes no allegations regarding campaign contributions. Even so, contributions provide a useful frame of reference to examine the union's activities during Rush's tenure as a UFCW organizer.
Read More | Coverage by SF Weekly | Statement from Dan Rush and his Lawyer
On the morning of Friday, August 14, dozens of residents of Boulder Creek gathered in a downtown coffeeshop in response to police raids of medical cannabis gardens the day before. People took turns explaining what they experienced when members of the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office’s newly formed Marijuana Compliance Team visited their homes and gardens.
Two of the medical cannabis patients whose garden was raided questioned why their 40 plants shared among three housemates was cut down to only seven plants. Many people were very angry and stated that they had been growing in compliance with the county's current medical cannabis cultivation laws: "Ordinance No. 5176. Ordinance Adding New Chapter 7.126 Relating To The Cultivation Of Medical Cannabis."
On August 13, sheriff's officers targeted properties on Moonrise Road in Boulder Creek. There were also unconfirmed reports of raids on Amber Ridge Loop. Using a bullhorn, officers entered some of the properties, breaking through gates, with their guns drawn and announced, "We're here to cut you down."
 Read More with Photos
Previous Coverage:
Referendum Suspends Ban on Medical Cannabis Cultivation in Santa Cruz County ||
Board of Supervisors Approves New Cannabis Prohibitions in Santa Cruz County ||
Cannabis Patients and Cultivators are Under Attack in Santa Cruz County
The first successful Santa Cruz County referendum in 13 years has suspended an ordinance adopted by the County Board of Supervisors to ban all commercial cannabis cultivation. The ban was adopted on April 14, and was to go into effect on May 15. Responsible Cultivation Santa Cruz (RCSC) circulated the referendum and after only 21 days filed 11,210 signatures with the county. 7,248 valid signatures are required to qualify the referendum for the ballot.
The ordinance was suspended when the Santa Cruz County Clerk Elections Department confirmed on May 11 that the referendum petitions contained more than the minimum number of signatures. The county has 30 calendar days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, from the date the petition was filed, May 7, to verify the validity of the signatures.
The ordinance would have allowed a patient/caregiver to cultivate only on a space 10 feet by 10 feet, which must be on the property where the patient/caregiver resides.
RCSC board member, D’Angelo "Cricket" Roberto, cites the analysis of CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta: "To make many of the the most effective cannabis-based medicines, large quantities of cannabis plants are required. For example, plant strains rich with CBD (cannabidiol – one of at least 85 active cannabinoids found in cannabis) have low yields. To obtain sufficient cannibidiol for concentrated medical uses, such as balms, tinctures and ingestible oils, requires significantly more space than a 10 by 10 foot plot. This makes collective cultivation necessary, on larger plots, something the Supervisors' ordinance would not allow."
Read More | Responsible Cultivation Santa Cruz
Previous Coverage: Board of Supervisors Approves New Cannabis Prohibitions in Santa Cruz County || Cannabis Patients and Cultivators are Under Attack in Santa Cruz County
On April 13, a group gathered at the Santa Cruz County Courthouse in support of Alix Tichelman, the woman charged with killing a Google executive named Forrest Hayes in 2013. Dozens of pamphlets were handed out in front of the courthouse detailing the case against Alix. Her parents personally thanked the group for their presence. Free Alix! writes: She is being unfairly railroaded into jail for an accident that was not her fault.
On March 24, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 before an overflowing room to ban the cultivation of cannabis in all unincorporated territories of the county, with limited exceptions. Personal grows of 10×10 square feet are still permitted, with restrictions. Outdoor cultivation is entirely banned in the 2nd District, represented by Zach Friend, and includes the communities of Aptos, Corralitos, Freedom, and portions of Watsonville.
The vote amended the Santa Cruz County Code by deleting the existing Chapter 7.126, passed on February 11, 2014, in its entirety, and adding a new Chapter 7.126. The new version of the code drastically reduces the legal rights of patients to cultivate and access the wide-range of medicines they depend upon from the cannabis plant.
The February 2014 version of Chapter 7.126 includes "Section 7.126.040 Limited immunity for medical cannabis cultivation business." This section allowed for collective cultivation and distribution for use among its members, which is the model used by the Santa Cruz Veterans Alliance. Collective cultivation allows patients to work together to produce their medicine, just like community vegetable gardens where resources, labor, and harvests are shared.
Read More
Previous Coverage: Cannabis Patients and Cultivators are Under Attack in Santa Cruz County
Santa Cruz County is drafting new regulations for medicinal cannabis patients and providers. These new rules have the potential to turn large numbers of patients and providers into criminals and drastically roll back decades of progress won by cannabis activists. In letters to the Board of Supervisors, medicinal cannabis patients and cultivators are expressing their desire for "more effective, more sensible, and more just solutions" regarding a policy on medicinal cannabis cultivation and distribution.
Cannabis Advocates Alliance (CAA) is a newly formed network concerned about the environmental and community impacts of unregulated cannabis production, but who also know that regulations must not diminish the availability of quality, safe and effective medicinal cannabis.
Santa Cruz County is proposing to ban all commercial cannabis cultivation located in Residential Agriculture (RA) and Special Use (SU) zoned parcels, and only allow commercial cultivation in Commercial Agriculture (CA) and Agriculture (A) zoned parcels. In effect, this would make the vast majority of cannabis gardens in Santa Cruz County a "criminal matter". This rule, in particular, is problematic as it does not provide cannabis cultivators a clear, accessible path towards compliance.
CAA is requesting that local patients be given a greater voice in re-drafting the County cannabis ordinances, that the County draft clearer and more environmentally-friendly paths to compliance for patient-cultivators, and that in re-drafting the existing ordinances the County preserve the minimal diversity of choice required for patients to have proper access to quality cannabis medicine.
 Read More | Cannabis Advocates Alliance |  Jan 21: CAA meeting | Jan 27: Board of Supervisors meeting
|
|
