From: alanb@sonic.net   
      
   The Press Democrat article below indicates improper rule making by   
   administrative (excutive) agencies in Sonoma County.   
      
      
      
   The DA and Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs Association have never had   
   the authority to make guidelines restricting the Voter Proposition 215, The   
   Compassionate Use Act of 1996.  There are no limits in Prop. 215 - the only   
   requirement is an approval or recommendation of a physician.   After the   
   Sonoma Alliance for Medical Marijuana (SAMM) presented its guidelines to the   
   DA in 2001, and after 2 acquittals in the County, the DA and Sonoma County   
   Law Enforcement Chiefs Association issued the guidelines, as if they were a   
   legislative body that could make laws.   
      
      
      
   When Keith Alden tried to tell the SAMM meeting that he was just turned over   
   by the Sheriff to the DEA for Federal prosecution, he was silenced by the   
   SAMM leadership and then ignored, because his plant count was outside the   
   unlawful guidelines.  When Keith wrote and asked the DA and Sheriff for the   
   authority, they were not able to produce it.  Though we presented SAMM with   
   ample legal arguments and case law, SAMM did not want to jeopardize its   
   Guideline scheme and friendly relations with law enforcement - at the   
   expense of patients who knew the guidelines were unlawful. SAMM did not   
   support the legal efforts of Keith Alden, because he did not play by their   
   unconstitutional rules.   
      
      
      
   I hope SAMM learns to respect the differences of the 3 branches of   
   government.  A law initiated by the People cannot be altered or declared   
   unenforceable or declared unconstitutional or declared in violation of   
   Federal Law except by a state Appellate Court ruling, pursuant to our   
   California Constitution, Article 3.5.   
      
      
      
   The article below addresses the rulemaking under SB420 (the legislated 2003   
   law), that it must be done by the County Board of Supervisors. SB420 cannot   
   alter Prop. 215, pursuant to CA Constitution, Art. 3.5.   
      
      
      
   Ken Norton   
      
      
      
      
      
   COUNTY POT RULES MAY GO UP IN SMOKE: OFFICIALS SAY CURRENT MEDICAL MARIJUANA   
   GUIDELINES VIOLATE LAW, MAY HAVE TO BE REWRITTEN   
   Published on April 8, 2006   
      
   © 2006- The Press Democrat   
      
      
   BYLINE:    DEREK J. MOORE   
      
   THE PRESS DEMOCRAT   
      
   PAGE: A1   
      
      
   Sonoma County's medical marijuana guidelines, which were years in the   
   making   
   and involved intense debate, may have to be scrapped and the process   
   started   
   again because the rules apparently violate state and federal laws,   
   authorities said.   
      
   At issue is how much marijuana a person can legally possess and use in   
   Sonoma County, and who has the authority to make that determination.   
      
      
   ``This is a huge concern to us,'' said Doc Knapp, a spokesman for the   
   Sonoma   
   Alliance for Medical Marijuana. ``We've been working on these   
   guidelines   
   since 1997. We have a lot invested in this.''   
      
   The issue seemed to be settled in 2001, when the Sonoma County Law   
   Enforcement Chiefs Association formally adopted guidelines regulating   
   medicinal use of marijuana.   
      
   Those guidelines allow three pounds of marijuana per user per year and,   
   as   
   of May 15, up to 25 plants.   
      
   However, the chiefs association, whose members include District   
   Attorney   
   Stephen Passalacqua and Sheriff Bill Cogbill, apparently was unaware   
   that   
   they did not have the authority to enact such guidelines under a state   
   law   
   passed in 2003.   
      
   The guidelines also conflict with federal law that makes marijuana use   
   a   
   crime, according to Martin Mayer, a Fullerton attorney who briefed the   
   chiefs association and made them aware of the problem in March.   
      
   ``This has nothing to do with whether you and I agree that someone   
   should be   
   using marijuana to make them feel better. It has to do with the law,''   
   said   
   Mayer, who advises 71 law enforcement agencies in California.   
      
   It's not clear who has the authority to adjust state standards -- which   
   at 8   
   ounces per user and 18 plants are much less generous than Sonoma County   
   allowances.   
      
   Mayer and Attorney General Bill Lockyer said state law gives that   
   discretion   
   only to counties.   
      
   The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is poised to take up the issue.   
   Supervisors could decide to adopt the guidelines as they are, make   
   changes   
   or do nothing and let state law stand.   
      
   Supervisor Mike Reilly said he's hoping to schedule a public hearing as   
   early as the end of this month.   
      
   He said the board generally supports Proposition 215, the medical   
   marijuana   
   initiative passed by California voters in 1996.   
      
   ``The initiative passed by over 70 percent in Sonoma County,'' Reilly   
   said.   
   ``Our board has been pretty consistently in favor of marijuana use by   
   people   
   who need to get marijuana for medical reasons. I don't expect there   
   will be   
   huge controversy about it.''   
      
   That would run counter to recent history.   
      
   The current guidelines were hammered out following lengthy discussion   
   between medical marijuana advocates, public health officials and county   
   law   
   enforcement, including former District Attorney Mike Mullins.   
      
   Cogbill's call for tougher and more clearly written rules after   
   prosecutors   
   dismissed several medical marijuana cases in 2004 was met with strong   
   opposition from pot advocates, who ultimately succeeded in keeping the   
   amount of pot a person can have unchanged. They did, however, have to   
   settle   
   for a reduction in the number of plants.   
      
   ``You can imagine the kind of debate this is going to create for the   
   board,'' Cogbill said.   
      
   He and other law enforcement officials view themselves as victims of   
   poorly   
   written medical marijuana laws and say they were only attempting to   
   clarify   
   matters for pot users and police when they crafted the guidelines.   
      
   ``That morphed into a kind of policy where we were setting the   
   limits,''   
   Sebastopol Police Chief Jeff Weaver said. ``That shouldn't have   
   happened in   
   lieu of this legal information we have.''   
      
   Confusing the issue is whether cities also have the power to adjust   
   marijuana limits under state law.   
      
   SB420, which was enacted in 2003 as an attempt to clarify medical   
   marijuana   
   laws, states that cities, in addition to counties, ``may retain or   
   enact   
   medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary   
   caregivers to exceed the state limits.''   
      
   A call to the Attorney General's Office on Friday seeking clarification   
   was   
   not returned.   
      
   Larry Robinson, a city councilman in Sebastopol, where officials are in   
   the   
   process of drafting an ordinance regulating medical marijuana   
   dispensaries,   
   said enforcing rules for individual patients is a ``gray area.''   
      
   ``I don't think any city wants to be the one that either prohibits or   
   allows   
   a lot more than anyone else and attracts a lot more patients,'' he   
   said.   
   ``That's a challenge.''   
      
   The chiefs association, in the meantime, decided Friday to form a   
   subcommittee to study changes in how they approach medical marijuana   
   cases.   
      
   While police do not have the authority to set the amounts for legal   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)