Pubdate: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 Source: Fort Bragg Advocate-News (CA) Copyright: 2008 by MediaNews Group, Inc. Contact: http://www.advocate-news.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3281 Author: Connie Korbel, Of The Fort Bragg Advocate-News COUNTY'S MEASURE G: UPHOLD OR REPEAL? (PART 1 OF 3) Last May, when two Santa Rosa men were arrested and accused of pistol whipping a Ukiah-area woman in her home and then robbed her of marijuana, Mendocino County experienced its third pot-related home invasion in just 37 days. In 2007, frightened and frustrated citizens throughout the county appeared repeatedly before the Board of Supervisors with disturbing stories and scary examples of what is happening in residential neighborhoods taken over by illegal large scale marijuana growers. "We are on the verge of an 1851 San Francisco post-gold rush," said Dennis Smart, a 30-plus-year resident of a rural area south of Ukiah, at the Dec. 11 Board of Supervisors' meeting. "Vigilante committees are forming. You folks sit on a powder keg. You have unleashed an ugly parasite on this county that we can't quite get a handle on anymore. "These [marijuana] ordinances are needed, but they are only a beginning." Ukiah City Council member John McCowen said, "I welcome any effort to restore sanity and some balance to this clearly out of control situation. Environmental degradation and violence are taking over neighborhoods with fear and intimidation. People feel they're being held hostage in their own homes." Measure G, the "Personal Use of Marijuana Initiative," was approved by Mendocino County voters in November 2000. Some believe - and some don't - its repeal would begin a reversal of a disturbing trend of large production gardens on private lands adjacent to residences and the plethora of problems related activity brings to neighborhoods. Measure G was the first voter-approved effort to decriminalize marijuana for medical and personal recreational use and cultivation anywhere in the U.S. It passed easily with a 58-42 percent margin. Voter patterns were strong in every area of the county, particularly on the Mendocino Coast where the final count widened the winning margin significantly. The passage of Measure G set the course for a county ordinance that ordered the sheriff and district attorney departments to give marijuana laws the lowest priority for enforcement and prosecution, to make no arrests or issue citations for violations of the State Health and Safety Code for cases involving 25 or fewer adult flowering female marijuana plants or the equivalent in dried marijuana, and to not spend any public funds for the investigation, arrest or prosecution of any individual within these limits. Marijuana concerns gained momentum as 2007 drew to a close. After many months of public input and board discussions, the county has decided to place a Repeal Measure G initiative on the June ballot. Mendocino County, the perennial pot production leader in California, will likely be closely observed once again by other counties, state and federal government officials and law enforcement agencies, as well as the media when this repeal initiative is voted on in June. The Board of Supervisors' decision (Fifth District Supervisor David Colfax dissented) to place a Repeal Measure G option on the ballot will allow citizens a second look - and vote - at how their 2000 support for compassionate medical marijuana decision has held up. Restore Mendocino The vote to approve the repeal initiative for the summer election came during the same meeting as a citizen group calling itself Restore Mendocino made a presentation to announce it would place the "Sensible Medical Marijuana" initiative on the ballot. This repeal plan, which is in the signature gathering stage, was brought forward by Jimmy Rickel of Redwood Valley. Restore Mendocino's initiative sets new limits. It asks for six plants per patient per year, no residential grows, four cards per caregivers, check for doctor's recommendations and reports of abuses and maximum enforcement. According to a memo Rickel sent to the board on Dec. 23, their initiative "will get rid of Measure G and have some teeth in enforcing current illegal marijuana cultivation and protect the medical marijuana laws. It is a win-win for the security of both the community and the patients who use medical marijuana." In a Dec. 28 letter from the City of Willits, Mayor Holly Madrigal wrote, "The Willits City Council supports placing this repeal measure before the voters on the June ballot," to limit marijuana cultivation. Council member Benj Thomas read a letter of support for the repeal initiative from Mayor Douglas Crane for the Ukiah City Council. The letter states, "The concentration of commercial growers in Mendocino County has resulted in well-documented and wide-spread abuses. These abuses constitute an ongoing and increasing threat to the environment and to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens." In January 2005, Ukiah adopted an ordinance prohibiting backyard marijuana gardens and requiring a permit to grow indoors. After issuing a two-year moratorium, Ukiah now has an ordinance that prohibits marijuana dispensaries. The Economic Development & Finance Corporation also wrote a letter supporting a repeal measure. It states, "We would also encourage you to direct county law enforcement to take vigorous action to protect county residents, particularly those affected by the increase in commercial marijuana cultivation in residential areas and to support law enforcement with the resources necessary to make a difference." On Jan. 8, Jeanne King read a letter from Rep. Mike Thompson in which he wrote, "I believe major action is needed to fight this growing problem." Dennis Smart, in front of the board again on Jan. 8, said, "None of this is intended to deny people their medicine, but clearly intended to take the commercial grower and the criminal element out of this county." Mike Sweeney, manager of Mendocino Solid Waste Management Authority, who supports legitimate use, said, "Measure G has been misused to open the door to widespread commercial cultivation." Estelle Clifton was one of the citizens who disagrees with blaming Measure G for the rise in pot-related crimes. "A repeal will not stop illegal growing," said Clifton. "Cultivation should be controlled by local zoning and nuisance ordinances. Measure G is not the problem." Easily, an equal number of individuals spoke to the board expressing their continued support for Measure G and expressed either their fears for potential lost protection for patients or disappointment in the board for taking a step backward after the voters had sent a clear message in 2000. Colfax get huge applause "We have a major drug problem in Mendocino County. It is not marijuana. It's meth," said Fifth District Supervisor David Colfax. "I got up this morning and told my wife I'm embarrassed to go to work today because we're going to be doing group therapy again." Supervisor Colfax received huge applause for these and other remarks that he delivered passionately. "We're trying to pitch hay with a shovel. I don't think we have a grasp on the implications. [This is] an action that only complicates the situation." Public crime concerns Citizens from a range of locations throughout the county stood before the board over the past few months to share their concerns based on personal experiences since Measure G passed. Here is a small verbatim sampling of them: - Daily water trucks are pounding our road into dust so growers can water a thousand plants on a dry hillside. - A huge generator rumbles night and day to power the four indoor grows located on one parcel. - We wonder how long it will be before there's a home invasion incident in our neighborhood like so many others in the county. - We're horrified to see Mendocino County degenerating into a kind of deformed narco-state. - There are near misses with pedestrians on mountain roads. - I feel betrayed. I voted for compassionate use. What has happened is disastrous. - This is not about medicine. It's not being smoked here. It's being sold. - We need to stop the blatant culture, the insane profits coming from this and the further degradation of our community. - Measure G is not the cruise I signed up for. Seems a long time ago Measure G was placed on the ballot in 2000 through the efforts of the Green Party and CaNORML (California Chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) with over twice the number of signatures required. It also advanced with the public support of the former Sheriff Tony Craver and the late District Attorney Norm Vroman. In a 2000 press release, Dale Gieringer, CaNORML coordinator, wrote, "California NORML has endorsed Measure G as a welcome step towards protecting personal freedom and reducing the costs of marijuana enforcement. By decriminalizing personal use cultivation, we can undercut the criminal market." Once passed, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance that captured the intent of the initiative. Specifically, Measure G: - instructs county government to support all efforts toward the decriminalization of marijuana; - directs law enforcement not to arrest or prosecute individuals for personal use marijuana violations involving possession, transportation or cultivation of 25 plants or fewer; and - provides for the continued enforcement of marijuana laws against those who cultivate, transport and possess marijuana for sale. Text of Mendocino County Marijuana Ordinance In November 2000, citizens of Mendocino County passed Measure G, the "Personal Use of Marijuana Initiative," by a vote of 58 to 42 percent. The resolution called for decriminalization of personal use and cultivation of marijuana. Specifically, Measure G instructs county government to support all efforts toward decriminalization of marijuana; directs law enforcement not to arrest or prosecute individuals for personal use marijuana violations involving possession, transportation or cultivation of 25 plants or fewer; and provides for the continued enforcement of marijuana laws against those who cultivate, transport and possess marijuana for sale. The Board of Supervisors adopted this ordinance to capture the intent of the initiative. Title 9 Health and sanitation Chapter 9.36 Cannabis personal use ordinance for Mendocino County Sec. 9.36.010 Findings The people of Mendocino County find (A) Cannabis sativa (marijuana) is a beneficial plant with a respectable heritage and hundreds of well-known industrial, medicinal and recreational uses. (B) Two decades of marijuana law enforcement in Mendocino County has not stopped cultivation here but has unnecessarily marginalized a large number of otherwise law-abiding citizens who grow and use marijuana. (C) Those who grow for personal use are not responsible for violent incidents sometimes associated with marijuana cultivation, but are vulnerable to theft. (D) The Institute of Mendocino has found that marijuana has bona fide medical uses and is not a gateway to hard drug addiction. (E) Law enforcement has carried out investigations, confiscations, and arrests against persons cultivating and using medical marijuana under Propositions 215 in Mendocino County. (F) The cities of Berkeley and San Francisco have long-standing ordinances which instruct police to minimize the priority of marijuana enforcement. Sec. 9.36.020 Purpose The ordinance will (A) Instruct county government to support all efforts toward the decriminalization of marijuana. (B) Instruct the sheriff and district attorney to make marijuana enforcement their lowest priority with respect to other crimes. (C) Establish a maximum limit of plants and weight for cultivation and possession of marijuana for personal use in Mendocino County, and prohibit the expenditure of public funds for enforcement of marijuana laws against cultivators and users in possession of quantities below that limit. (D) Remove the fear of prosecution and the stigma of criminality from people who harmlessly cultivate and/or use marijuana for personal medical or recreational purposes. (E) Extend police protection to those growing or possessing marijuana for personal use. (F) Provide for the continued enforcement of marijuana laws against those who cultivate, transport and possess marijuana for sale. The purpose of this chapter is to establish cannabis enforcement policy for Mendocino County. Sec. 9.36.030 Decriminalization of cannabis in California It is the desire of the people of Mendocino County that cultivation for personal use of cannabis be decriminalized in California. In this context, the Board of Supervisors is directed to lobby state and federal governments for the immediate decriminalization of the persons use of cannabis, specifically by repealing sections 11357 (possession), 11358 (transportation), and 11359 (cultivation), of the California Health and Safety Code. The people also urge the sheriff and district attorney to publicly support such decriminalization. Sec. 9.36.040 Law enforcement priority of cannabis Through its budgetary authority, the Board of Supervisors shall seek to ensure that the sheriff's office and the district attorney give lowest priority to the enforcement and prosecution of marijuana laws Sec. 9.36.050 Sheriff's Office arrests and citations and Sec. 9.36.060 district attorney prosecutions The Board of Supervisors shall use its budgetary authority to ensure that the sheriff's office and district attorney makes no arrests and issues no citations for violations of the above State Health and Safety Code Sections in any single case involving 25 or fewer adult flowering female marijuana plant or the equivalent in dried marijuana. Sec. 9.36.070 Expenditure of funds for cannabis enforcement Neither the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, nor the sheriff, nor the district attorney shall spend or authorize the expenditure of any public funds for the investigation, arrest, or prosecution of any person, or the seizure of any property in any single case involving 25 or fewer adult flowering female marijuana plants or the equivalent in dried marijuana, nor shall the auditor-controller or the treasurer-tax collector approve any such requests for such expenditures of public funds, or authorize or approve the issuance of any form of payment should such expenditures be made.