Fact Based Fisheries Management and MPAs (or not)

1. Vivian Helliwell Says:
November 25, 2009 at 5:20 pm | Reply edit

Fact-based Fisheries Management and MPAs (or not)
Vivian Helliwell shadoh@mcn.org
Oct. 24, 2009

Richard,
Thanks for asking for the facts on the status of fish and the need, or not, for MPAs.

First, I discuss the environmental rationale for resisting the MLPA (Marine Life Protection Act) as it is being implemented. Next, I post information on current fisheries management, fisheries management tools, the stock rebuilding program and status of stocks (see below).

Background—Science responds to new information
As you know by now, Dr. Boris Worm has joined Dr. Ray Hilborn and 19 other renowned international scientists in a July, 2009, article in Science, “Rebuilding World Fisheries,” refuting Worm’s earlier prediction of world ocean fishery collapse by 2048. Hilborn mentions that many earlier studies were based on fish landings, which are not a good assessment of stocks. The article is one of hope, and suggests that the best combination of fisheries management tools is the combination we are already using on the West Coast.

“Most often, it appears that a combination of traditional approaches (catch quotas, community management) coupled with strategically placed fishing closures, more selective fishing gear, ocean zoning, and economic incentives holds much promise for restoring marine fisheries and ecosystems” (Worm, 2009). We have these in place already, and they are working.

“The regions that have made the greatest advances toward recovery are California, New England and Iceland, but also we see signs of recovery in other regions around the world.” –Dr. Boris Worm. (Worm, August, 2009).

Environmental Reasons for Resisting the MLPA
Far from opposing government management of fisheries, most fishing folks support, participate in and certainly comply with current management through the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). The MLPA process, however, is taking the fishery/environmental community’s staff resources away from real ocean protection. The MPAs don’t ‘protect’ the ocean from land-based pollution, offshore oil and aquaculture development, or ocean acidification—they only stop fishing and gathering. They don’t protect migratory and pelagic species or help the spawning/rearing habitat for anadromous species like salmon. They do restrict local gathering of local seafood, thus undercutting the strongest supporters of ocean protection. There are additional environmental justice issues, such as Native American subsistence rights and conflict of interest allegations in the MPA decision-making process.

Legislators can apparently do little at this time to “stop or de-fund” the MLPA, a 1998 state law, implementation of which is funded by the Packard Foundation through its Resources Legacy Fund Foundation in partnership with the California Resources Agency. Fishery/environmental interests are forced to participate to 1) minimize the damage to local economies, and 2) retain legal standing for any future litigation. Participation is being done under protest.

A legislative effort to investigate the buying of government by private foundations was derailed by Senate pro tem Darrell Steinberg. The Governor replaced the swing vote on the Fish and Game Commission with his head of the BRTF, Don Benninghoven, two days before the 3-2 vote on the North Central Coast MPAs (Pt. Reyes to Alder Creek, north of Point Arena.) Commissioner Mike Sutton is being investigated for conflict of interest for his foundation-backed research organization paycheck. The BRTF changes the rules for the stakeholders at will. (“Reduce the number of proposals.” “Wait, don’t throw out that one!”) Stakeholders participate in months of meetings, only to have their work overturned by the BRTF “preferred alternative” before the Commission vote.

Current Fisheries Management
I assume you are concerned about groundfish (rockfish, flatfish, roundfish), as they are the most sedentary fish that are most likely to receive any help from closed areas. Area closures are not the best management tool for pelagic or migratory fish that move around. All rockfishing is constrained by the stock rebuilding programs for certain overfished species (see below).

There are huge areas already closed to rockfish fishing: The Rockfish Conservation Area (RCA) closes waters for all bottom fishing from 20 fathoms out to 100 fathoms (basically between 2 and 10 miles offshore). The RCA closes about a third or 200 square miles of state waters. Besides the RCA, there are large cowcod closure areas.

Trawl fishing (with drag nets) is outside 100 fathoms; none is inside state waters, the area of the state MPAs. A trawl buyback in 2002 reduced the trawl fleet to about 20 active boats in California, and that number is expected to be reduced more by the groundfish Individual Fishing Quotas that have gone into effect. Rockfish fishing in state waters is by hook and line for sport and commercial.

Fisheries Management Tools
By visiting the PFMC website, you can find out the many tools that are currently being used to manage rockfish and flatfish—or any other ocean fish. The Council considers outside proposals.

Management tools currently in use are: Landing limits, mesh size regulations (for net or trap fisheries), trawl modifications (area limits, footrope size limits to prevent operation in reef areas, no roller gear, selective flatfish gear that allows rockfish to escape), quotas (Optimum Yields), escape ports and biodegradable panels (to prevent ghost fishing), size limits, bag limits (per day for sport), time/area closures, Essential Fish Habitat closures (NOAA , 2009. ), effort control (limited entry and more), and gear restrictions (number, size, and shape of hooks, traps and pots.) In-season adjustments are made throughout the year as needed.

Stock Rebuilding Program and Status of Stocks
“Overfished” for rockfish is defined by NMFS as being below 25% of estimated (spawner) virgin biomass. Recovery to fishable status is placed at 40% of same.

There are 64 species of rockfish off California. Rockfish are long-lived, late maturing, and slow-growing species. These traits make them particularly vulnerable to overfishing. Seven species of West Coast groundfish are currently considered “overfished” by NMFS. They include widow rockfish, canary rockfish, yelloweye rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, bocaccio, Pacific ocean perch, and cowcod.
Pacific whiting was declared overfished in 2002 and subsequently removed from the overfished list in 2004. Lingcod were also declared overfished in 1999, but were rebuilt and taken off the overfished list in 2005 (Groundfish, 2007).
Widow rockfish is expected to recover by next year, according to John DeVore of the PFMC, staff officer for the Groundfish Management Team and the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (DeVore, 2009).

“Overfishing” is defined as an annual catch higher than the “acceptable biological catch” (ABC). “Very little overfishing [has recently occurred] on the west coast, with only sablefish [black cod] subject to overfishing last year. That problem was based on a data error in our catch tracking system that has since been fixed” (DeVore, 2009).

There is currently no overfishing occurring in West Coast fisheries that are within US waters, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (3rd quarter 2008 report to Congress), .
Two high seas Pacific species that are currently being overfished are yellowfin tuna and big–eye tuna.

MPAs—the wrong tool for the job
Marine Protected Areas have no apparent goal, other than to close the ocean to fishing.

References

DeVore, John. PFMC staff officer for the Groundfish Management Team and the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel. Personal email, 11-24-09.

Groundfish. 2007. PFMC fact sheet.

NOAA National Oceanic Atmostpheric Administration, Northwest Region. May, 2009. Essential Fish Habitat 2005 EIS. opens to

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service. 2008. (3rd quarter 2008 report to Congress), .

PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Costello C, Fogarty MJ, Fulton EA, Hutchings JA, Jennings S, Jensen OP, Lotze HK, Mace PM, McClanahan TR, Minto C, Palumbi SR, Parma AM, Ricard D, Rosenberg AA, Watson R, Zeller D.
“Rebuilding World Fisheries.” Science, July 31, 2009, vol. 327. DOI: 10.1126/science.1173146

Worm, Boris. August, 2009.
Biology Department, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS B3H 4J1, Canada. bworm@dal.ca

MJ CONSUMERS NEED COOP EXEMPTION

Richard Johnson’s remarks before the Health and Human Services Committee of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on September 14, 2009. The next meeting of the committee will be October 19 at 3pm, Conference Room C, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah

SUPERVISORS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
I am Richard Johnson principle author of Measure G passed by 58% of voters nine years ago to prevent enforcement and prosecution of up to 25 marijuana plants per criminal case.
Coincidentally, the current county marijuana nuisance limit for medical marijuana plants is 25 plants per legal parcel, so I am in agreement with that.
Twenty five plants is four times the 6 plant per patient limit imposed by Measure B and 11362.77, so if each member owns between 1 and six plants, between 4 and 25 members can belong to one cooperative or collective.
I believe I am qualified to speak for consumers having litigated and campaigned to stop Measure B in order to keep marijuana legal in Mendocino County.
Consumers whether medical or recreational need relaxed enforcement, diverse suppliers, stable availability and moderate prices.
These interests are distinct from established growers who benefit from continued illegality, unpredictable enforcement, high prices and a limited selection of suppliers.
I urge the committee to continue to include the current amendments to 9.31 that would have the sheriff permit exemptions to coops growing up to 99 plants in exchange for a high level of accountability is in the interest of both the public and cannabis consumers.
It is in the interest of the public because it would provide both incentives for current cultivators to comply with a strict set of standards while providing consequences for those who refuse.
Hopefully, it would convince the medical cannabis industry to clean up its act, becoming accountable for taxes, labor law, and environmental responsibility, as well as concealment of operations from neighbors and the public.
It is in the interest of consumers because it would encourage the growth of a new class of legal cultivators here, stabilize the supply, and dampen the price.
Those who object to the regulation of cooperative cultivation in a nuisance law are not acknowledging that the county can only exempt them from county civil ordinances and not state criminal statutes. It is ironic, but only by recognizing the nuisance potential of marijuana can production be permitted in exchange for adherence to standards which eliminate or mitigate the nuisance.
County counsel is to be congratulated in my view for finding a way for the county, if this ordinance is approved by the full board , to grant a defacto form of decriminalization on a case by case basis where an across the board dejure exemption from state criminal statutes is just not available in county law.
Finally I would remind you that the last time defense attorney Susan B. Jordan appeared before this committee, she urged you to go forward with this approach, recognizing it is imperfect, but no perfect solution to the conundrum of cannabis can be found short of repeal or modification of the prohibitions in state Health and Safety Codes 11357 et seq. •

A GREENER FUTURE FOR MENDOCINO COUNTY

September 15, 2009
A Greener Future for Mendocino County
by MATTHEW COHEN
Northstone Organics Cooperative, Redwood Valley, CA

On October 19th at 3pm the Health and Human Services Committee will be discussing Medical Marijuana Regulation Ordinance 9.31 that would allow collectives and cooperatives a county granted exemption to exceed the 25 plant per parcel limit and grow 99 plants. The new ordinance would impose strict conditions for medical marijuana production and could bring the underground and sometimes quasi-legal industry into a regulatory scheme that would benefit patients, growers and our community as a whole.

ìSection 9.31.110 (A) Medical marijuana producing collectives and dispensing collectives or individual members thereof may be granted an exemption from the limitations set forth in Section 9.31.070 provided they apply for and obtain a permit from the Mendocino County Sheriffís Office. Under no circumstances shall the permitted amount exceed ninety-nine (99) plants per legal parcel.î

The current draft of these regulations take into account many of the communityís concerns including: public safety, nuisances, environmental issues, patientís rights, water conservation, not-for-profit operation, safe access to quality medicine, taxes, workers rights, jobs, sustainability, and licensing fees.

Bringing medical marijuana out of the shadows would create jobs, raise much needed funds our county, bring hard-working citizens into the lawful tax paying world with worker rights, workmanís comp, benefits, and finally shed new light on the countyís largest grossing crop.

Mendocino County is already known for its sustainable image that we gain from the ìback-to-the-landî movement, bio-dynamics movement, our organic culture, our alternative energy industry, our cutting edge No-GMO laws, and our rich heritage in environmentalism. As the future of medical marijuana policy unfolds around our state and nation at an exponential rate, it is important for Mendocino County, with the largest part of its economy being marijuana, to lead the way, to stake a claim and to do it in a sustainable and ethical way.

Conscious community based growers need to realize that the state of cannabis is changing. Medical cannabis policy is starting to have a national platform as more and more states pass these laws. California has three different full legalization initiatives being discussed at a legislative level and the polls seem to be in favor of legalization. Schwarzenegger himself has put a task force to investigating the benefits of legalization and there are now estimates from the Board of Equalization stating the billions of dollars in tax revenue that legalization would create.
Patients need effective production standards that keep the medicine safe, consistent and effective, but not so unreasonably bureaucratic that it sizes the small farmer out of the industry, much like with our food… In the beef industry, small organic cattle farms may have to ship their cattle to USDA approved processing plants that can be many 100ís of miles away, which essentially makes it unprofitable for the small farmers. Current dairy regulations wonít even allow for small farmers to legally sell raw milk to interested consumers that would like to have it pure and unpasteurized. Big agricultural interests love regulations; especially the ones that only they can afford to endure with the long list of hoops to jump through. We need to take control of medical cannabis regulation, to protect the patients, to protect the small farmer, to keep the industry decentralized and to keep our money local.

I am the Executive Director of Northstone Organics, an exclusive medical cannabis patient cooperative, serving the needs of patients from here down and throughout the Greater Bay Area. We deliver fine medicinal grade organic medicinal cannabis, produce, pasture raised eggs and much more to our patientís door at an affordable cost. We are a not-for-profit cooperative corporation which is regulated by the Secretary of State which is in accordance with the Attorney Generalís Guidelines. The revenue generated pays for our operational costs which includes our employeeís salaries. The medicinal cannabis is cooperatively grown by our patient grower members and we all work together to get it to the patient members that have no time or ability to contribute to the organization.

We want to keep Mendocino ìgreenî, we want to keep the positive parts of this culture in tact, and we want to keep small farmers doing what they do best.

Show your support for a regulated sustainable medicinal cannabis industry and come to the Health and Human Services meeting on October 19th at 3pm in Conference Room C at the Mendocino County Administration Center, 501 Low Gap Road.

Sincerely,

Matthew Cohen
Executive Director
Northstone Organics Cooperative, Inc.
www.northstoneorganics.com

SWINE FLU NOT A PANDEMIC

SWINE FLU IS NOT A PANDEMIC
by Jim Houle July 23, 2009

You asked why I thought Swine Flu was not a Pandemic. A pandemic means nothing except that it describes a disease, or supposed disease that is WIDESPREAD. It is not a measure of its lethality, its treatability or even of its identifiability.
The “novel influenza A H1V1″ is not particularly lethal, it is not easily identifiable, and at present we do not know if it can actually be treated – since there is no Swine Flu Vaccine yet.Consequently, the word PANDEMIC, which suggests something really horrible, is a poor adjective to employ and sheds virtually no light on the subject.

Case Definitions for Infection with Novel Influenza A (H1N1) Virus:

A *confirmed case* of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection is defined as a person with an influenza-like illness with laboratory confirmed novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection by one or more of the following tests:

1. real-time RT-PCR
2. viral culture.
3. A *probable case* of novel influenza A (H1N1) virus infection is
defined as a person with an influenza-like-illness who is positive for influenza A, but negative for human H1 and H3 by influenza RT_PCR

Until the last few weeks the only means of confirmation were for a sample to be checked at the CDC in Virginia which takes weeks to watch the culture in the lab. Therefore there are very few confirmed cases, and many identified cases like the one case so far in Mencdocino County.

Read the article below.
Jim Houle

Now Legal Immunity for Swine flu Vaccine Makers

By F. William Engdahl

URL of this article:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14453

Global Research
, July 20, 2009

//

/The US Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, has just signed a decree granting vaccine makers total legal immunity from any lawsuits that result from any new “Swine Flu” vaccine. Moreover, the $7 billion US Government fast-track program to rush vaccines onto the market in time for the Autumn flu season is being done without even normal safety testing. Is there another agenda at work in the official WHO hysteria campaign to declare so-called H1N1 virus—which has yet to be rigorously scientifically isolated, characterized and photographed with an electron microscope—the scientifically accepted procedure—a global “pandemic” threat?/

The current official panic campaign over alleged Swine Flu danger is rapidly taking on the dimensions of a George Orwell science fiction novel. The document signed by Sebelius grants immunity to those making a swine flu vaccine, under the provisions of a 2006 law for public health emergencies.

*Not so sage SAGE*

That is once the WHO in Geneva, on recommendation of the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group on Immunizations, declared H1N1 to be Phase 6 or Pandemic, automatic emergency health response programs could be activated even in countries such as Germany where reported outbreaks of even “suspected” H1N1 can be counted to date on the fingers of slightly more than one hand.

The WHO’s SAGE is also worth scrutiny. Its Chairman since 2005 has been the UK Director of Immunization at the British Department of Health, Dr David Salisbury. In the 1980’s Salisbury reportedly drew major fire for backing a massive vaccination of children with a multiple MMR vaccine manufactured by the predecessor company of GlaxoSmithKline. That vaccine was pulled off the market in Japan after significant numbers of children developed adverse reactions to the vaccine and the Japanese government was forced to pay significant compensation to the victims. In Sweden the MMR vaccine of GlaxoSmithKline was removed after scientists linked it to outbreaks of Crohn’s disease. Apparently that had little impact on WHO SAGE chairman Salisbury.

According to one independent UK investigator, Alan Golding, who obtained Freedom of Information documents on the case, in “1986 Trivirix, an MMR compound containing the Mumps Urabe strain AM-9, was introduced in Canada to replace MMR I. Concerns regarding the introduction of MMR in the UK are recorded in the minutes of the Joint Working Party of the British Paediatric Association and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) Liaison Group on June 26th of that year. Such concerns were soon to prove well grounded, as reports began to come in of an increased incidence of aseptic meningitis in vaccinated individuals. Ultimately, all MMR vaccines containing the Urabe strain of mumps were withdrawn in Canada in early 1988. This was before Urabe containing vaccines were licenced by the Department of Health for use in the UK…”

The report adds, “Smith-Kline—French, the pharmaceutical company who became Smith-Kline-Beecham and were involved in UK manufacture at that time, were concerned about these safety issues and were reluctant to obtain a UK license for their Urabe-containing vaccines. As a result of their ‘concern’ that children might be seriously damaged by one of their products, they requested that the UK government indemnify them against possible legal action that might be taken as a result of ‘losses’ associated with the vaccine, which by then was known to carry significant risk to health. The UK government, advised by Professor Salisbury and representatives from the Department of Health, in it’s enthusiasm to get a cheap MMR onto the market, agreed to this request.”

Today the same Dr Salisbury is advocating global proliferation of untested H1N1 vaccines, also manufactured by the same firm, now called GlaxoSmithKline.

*The last phoney Swine Flu Disaster *

The last time the US Government faced a new swine flu virus was in 1976. Thousands filed claims contending they suffered side effects from the shots. This time, the government has taken steps to prevent any possible legal remedy should thousands of US citizens suffer severe complications as a result of being given untested vaccines.

In 1976 President Gerald Ford, facing a difficult re-election campaign, was advised by the head of the CDC, David Sencer, to launch a mass national vaccination. As today with H1N1 Swine Flu, Sencer also used the scare of the alleged 1918 flu pandemic. Notably, some scientific researchers maintain that the deaths during the flu wave of 1918-1919, in the aftermath of the ghastly First World War, came not from any virus but from the governmental campaigns of mass vaccination against “Spanish Flu.” Interestingly, the Rockefeller University and Foundation was in the middle of that event as well.

Cases of what was then called swine flu were found in soldiers at Fort Dix, N.J. in 1976, including one death. That death, whose true cause is in dispute as the soldier, sick with influenza was put on a forced march despite and fell dead, was used by Sencer to convince Ford to launch one of the most infamous public health fiascos in US history, forcing Sencer’s resignation as CDC head. Federal officials vaccinated 40 million Americans during a national campaign. A pandemic never materialized, but thousands who got the shots filed injury claims, as they contracted a paralyzing condition called Guillain-Barre Syndrome or other side effects. At least 25 people died after receiving the vaccine died and 500 developed Guillain-Barre syndrome, an inflammation of the nervous system which can cause paralysis and be fatal. The US Government was forced to pay damages after vaccination victims made it a national scandal. In the end the 1976 Swine Flu vaccine proved far worse than the disease.

Sencer was fired in 1977 for the fiasco but by then the damage had already been done.

*No Safety Test? Don’t worry, be happy…*

The story gets worse. Now that the Obama Administration has signed a document of immunity from legal prosecution, the FDA in the United States and UK health authorities have decided to let Big Pharma put vaccine products onto the market before any tests of the possible harmful side effects of the vaccines are even known.

The first doses of swine flu vaccine will be given to the public before full data on its safety and effectiveness become available. The untested “pandemic” vaccines will be spread over two doses in a higher quantity, and one brand reportedly will contain a chemical additive, an adjuvant, to make it “go further,” dramatically potentially increasing the risk of side-effects.

Children will be among those first in line for the shots and may get the vaccine more than a month before trial results are received.

In the UK the government’s National Health Service, NHS, has been ordered to plan for a worst-case scenario in which swine flu might cause 65,000 deaths over the coming winter, including several thousand deaths among children.

The British Government has placed advance orders for 132 million doses of vaccine with two manufacturers, GlaxoSmithKline and Baxter, who have licensed “in advance” three “core” vaccines in preparation for a pandemic, conveniently enough even though we are told by WHO and epidemiologists that we cannot prepare in advance for what could be a more ominous mutation of the currently very mild H1N1 problem.

Curiously enough, a full year before any reported case of the current alleged H1N1, the major pharmaceutical company, Baxter, filed for a patent for H1N1 vaccine: Baxter Vaccine Patent Application US 2009/0060950 A1. Their application states, “the composition or vaccine comprises more than one antigen…..such as influenza A and influenza B in particular selected from of one or more of the human H1N1, H2N2, H3N2, H5N1, H7N7, H1N2, H9N2, H7N2, H7N3, H10N7 subtypes, of the pig flu H1N1, H1N2, H3N1 and H3N2 subtypes, of the dog or horse flu H7N7, H3N8 subtypes or of the avian H5N1, H7N2, H1N7, H7N3, H13N6, H5N9, H11N6, H3N8, H9N2, H5N2, H4N8, H10N7, H2N2, H8N4, H14N5, H6N5, H12N5 subtypes.”

The application further states, “Suitable adjuvants can be selected from mineral gels, aluminium hydroxide, surface active substances, lysolecithin, pluronic polyols, polyanions or oil emulsions such as water in oil or oil in water, or a combination thereof. Of course the selection of the adjuvant depends on the intended use. E.g. toxicity may depend on the destined subject organism and can vary from no toxicity to high toxicity.”

With no legal liability, could it be that Baxter is preparing to sell hundreds of millions of doses containing highly toxic aluminium hydroxide as adjuvant? Perhaps it is time to demand that all leading officials of WHO, SAGE and CDC, the US Obama Administration, Cabinet officials and members of Congress who voted the $7 billion H1N1 emergency funds and who have gone along with the declaration of pharmaceutical company immunity from subsequent prosecution for damage from their products. The same should apply as well for other national health bodies demanding its citizens take the H1N1 vaccine from GlaxoSmithKline or Baxter to see if it is really safe.

*And WHO stopped even tracking H1N1*

Another indication that the world is being taken for colossal suckers in the entire WHO Swine Flu scare scenario, the WHO itself, the world body entrusted to monitor outbreaks of so-called pandemics or even epidemics worldwide, has just decided to stop tracking Swine Flu or H1N1 Influenza A as they prefer to name it now, so as not to offend Smithfield Foods and other industrialized pig CAFO producers.

The World Health Organization in a “briefing note” posted on their Web site posted the baffling notice that they would no longer track outbreaks of H1N1. The last WHO update, issued July 6, showed 94,512 confirmed cases in 122 countries, with 429 deaths. The WHO apparently claims that the numbers of laboratory-confirmed cases were actually meaningless.

The briefing note said countries would still be asked to report their first few confirmed cases. It also said countries should watch for clusters of fatalities, which could indicate the virus had mutated to a more lethal form. Other “signals to be vigilant for,” it said, were spikes in school absenteeism and surges in hospital visits. The Atlanta CDC has also agreed to the WHO count drop. Dr. Michael T. Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, admits that the existing tests to confirm H1N1 Influenza A are not even certain, but rather hit-or-miss. “Bad measures can be worse than no measures at all,” he stated. So the WHO has decided to drop tests that anyway did not give a scientific picture of who had H1N1 or not, and as well they have decided to drop counting any test results or cases of H1n1 around the world with the comment that “we can assume almost all cases are H1N1 Swine Flu. This is science on which basis we are told to vaccinate our young? Whoah there…Not with our children.

Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.

Your endorsement is greatly appreciated

Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter

———————————————————————— Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright F. William Engdahl, Global Research, 2009

The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14453

APPEAL OF SOUTH UKIAH BOOZE PERMIT

Press release from Safe Clean Playgrounds, South Ukiah
Ruth VanAntwerp roody@saber.net

August 11, 2009

The State of California Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board met on July 2, 2009, in San Francisco and heard oral arguments regarding the appeal of Ruth Van Antwerp, a Grace Hudson Elementary School teacher. She appealed the California Alcoholic Beverage Control’s (CABC) decision to grant an off-sale beer and wine permit (Type 20) to Ghulam Ansari for his store at 1550 S. State St., the former Flour Mill in south Ukiah. The store is 335 feet from the school/cultural center complex.

Both Van Antwerp and Ansari attended the hearing 15-minute hearing, as well as their attorneys. Jeffrey Chen, Van Antwerp’s attorney, reiterated the two briefs he had submitted. He stated that the permit is illegal because the State Legislature placed a moratorium on Mendocino County due to an excess of Type 20 permits, more than 1 per 2,500 inhabitants. Although Sheriff Broin issued a “memo of public necessity and convenience” which creates an exception to the law, Mendocino County crime statistics are not available and they must be part of the exemption.

Thomas Johnson, Ansari’s attorney, argued that all one needs to circumvent the State moratorium is the note from the sheriff. He also argued that a protestant has no legal right to appeal a CABC decision.

The Department’s attorney said that the CABC is “on the fence” about the permit, and she asked that the Appeals Board make a decision about the legality of a protestant appealing a CABC decision.

The California Alcoholic Beverage Control denied the alcohol permit in June 2007. The decision cited Article XX, Section of the Constitution of the State of California, Section 23789 of the Business and Professions Code, and the protest by Grace Hudson Elementary School and 112 individuals. The store owner, Ghulam Ansari, appealed the decision. In April, 2008, an administrative judge from the CABC issued a certificate of Decision granting the off sale beer and wine permit with some limitations.

Besides the State moratorium on Type 20 licenses, CABC regulations allow denial of a retail license if the location is within 600 feet of schools, public playgrounds and nonprofit youth facilities. In this case, Grace Hudson Elementary School, Alex Rorabaugh Community and Recreation Center, and the public playgrounds at the school are located 335 feet from the store. Thirteen residences are within 100 feet of the store, and the alcohol sales cannot interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the residents’ homes.

The Appeals Board has one month to issue their decision, but the time limit is not legally binding. A decision has not yet been published.

MEDICAL CANNABIS COLLECTIVES WIN

Medical Cannabis Collectives Win
BY PEBBLES TRIPPET reprinted from Sunday Forum, August 9, 2009, Ukiah Daily Journal

With the grow season upon us, what can patient-growers expect from law enforcement this season, after 710 marijuana arrests and 520 prosecutions (hundreds being medical) in 2008, the worst year in memory?

What are current numerical limits on growing “for medical purposes” what is “reasonably related to one’s medical needs”?

Since the voter’s passage of Measure B, is the state minimum limit of six mature plants/eight ounces per patient in place?

Or is it 25 plants per parcel, regardless of the number of patients, as claimed in civil nuisance ordinance 9.31, currently being enforced by the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office, initiated as “courtesy calls” and “compliance checks”?

• The quantity or amount of medicine a patient needs is exclusively up to the doctor to determine.

• Each patient’s plant or quantity limit can go up if the doctor approves a higher annual supply of medicine if six plants/eight oz. is inadequate for the patient’s medical needs.

How can we protect ourselves more fully under state law via knowledge of rights, responsibilities and good neighbor policies?

There is a snowballing trend toward court victories for medical cannabis collectives in Mendocino County. From Sutherlin (2007), a 4-person col- lective acquitted at trial, to Sutherland (2009), a 4-person collective with charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing, Senate Bill 420’s protective clause is actually protecting patients, as intended, for those who do it right and follow the law.

The dual purpose of SB 420/Medical Marijuana Program Act is to 1) set up a voluntary medical marijuana ID card program; 2) “enhance access for patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective cooperative cultivation projects.”

Since the Attorney General released Guidelines in 2008 on how to be legal under the collective/cooperative clause, there is increasing preference among patients to follow reasonable guidelines and join with others in private membership associations organized for the common good as an alternative to individual profit.

What does the purely self-motivated profit engine have to offer these days? It is fading as a respected mode of operation for survival in times of scarcity, like the internal combustible engine. We’re at the historic juncture of the marijuana wars in relation to society’s economic collapse. The remedy is regulation.

This points to a paradigm shift from motivation for individual profit to the common good as the goal, with additional legal protections to sell and distribute medical cannabis within a “closed-circuit membership association” under First Amendment Freedom of Association protections.

By forgoing the profit mode, medical cannabis collectives gain extra legal protections to sell and distribute medicine to the membership within a closed-loop cycle. The cycle should be a closed-circuit of marijuana cultivation and consumption with no purchases or sales to or from non-members.

There are no limits on the number of patients allowed to join a collective association, causing urban areas to harbor hundreds of collectives and cooperatives, legally protected to provide their patients with “farm direct” medicine grown in the country – from the ground to the patient’s hands.

The collective approach has fast become the norm for how to organize cultivation of medical cannabis. Sheriff’s local guidelines on Prop. 215 are invalid and illegal without recognition of SB420’s “collective cooperative cultivation,” as codified under H&SC11362.775.

Here are some examples of local cases where courts found collectives were doing it right:

• Matthew Sutherlin (2007) 4-person medical cannabis collective. Jury trial acquittal. Defense attorney: Ed Denson

• Laura Hamburg (2008) 4-person family collective. Dismissal of all charges due to illegal search and seizure based on ‘intentional omission of material fact. Defense attorney: Keith Faulder.

• Luke Strauss and Joe Maligno (April 3, 2009). Collective membership association with two Redwood Valley patients growing 400 pounds for West Hollywood Center for Compassionate Healing, a storefront dispensary providing medicine to 1,000 plus patients. Hung jury 7-5 in favor of acquittal, based on the conclusion of the majority of jurors that defendants were following the Attorney General Guidelines on Collectives under state law. Charges were not refiled. This watershed case shows a Mendo jury will not convict based on quantity alone, without also knowing how many patients are being provided with medicine. Defense attorneys: E.D. Lerman and David Nick.

• David and Cara Lampach (April 30, 2009) Collective membership organization growing 50 pounds in Willits for storefront dispensary, Harborside Collective, in Oakland. After two plea bargain offers were rejected by defendants, all charges were dismissed by the DA the same day. Defense attorney: Jan Cole- Wilson.

• Shelton Sutherland (July 24, 2009) 4-person patient collective. The defendant and collective were recognized as in compliance with state and local law by the court. Dismissed at prelim based on illegal search and seizure due to medical purposes being withheld from the judge in requesting a criminal warrant. Compliance checks which law enforcement turn into criminal cases, without warrants or with invalid warrants which omit the claim of medical purposes from the judge in order to get a warrant, will not hold up in court. Defense attorneys: Tony Serra and Omar Figueroa.

Pebbles Trippet is a member of the Steering Committee of the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board.

REVOLUTION IN THE MODERN DAY

REVOLUTION IN THE MODERN DAY
by Richard Johnson
My post of last week about the state budget ending with a recommendation of a revolution prompted one and only one objection to armed action. It was predictable. Every time I say “revolution” someone jumps up to deny the efficacy or wisdom of military methods. It’s bogus and shows the kind of timidity and ignorance prevalent in our so called “movement” that is responsible for our complete irrelevance.
So I resolved to begin my long delayed remake of Marxism in the modern era, theoretical treatise that I hope will point the way out of here for you and the rest of us.
Revolution is the act of overthrow and replacement of a ruling class by those it rules.
It may be accomplished with or without armed struggle, and armed struggle is not synonymous with revolution. Confusing armed struggle with revolution, and believing that armed struggle is necessary in any revolution, is one of the principle traps that prevents clearly understanding the nature and mechanisms of revolution.
Our view of society is conditioned by our upbringing and education which are culturally determined in every way to enforce the status quo. This cultural conditioning is imposed at the deepest level of ordinary consciousness, and is the lens through which we perceive our lives, and is thus itself, invisible to us in most cases.
The totality of the belief structure in a given society is called the dominant ideology, or in modern parlance, the dominant paradigm.
All revolutions proceed from a root-level (“radical”) challenge to the dominant ideology. Such a revolution in thinking (The Enlightenment in Europe) preceded the American Revolution in the 18th Century and those in Europe which followed it. In that example, humans for the first time came to understand their sovereign existence as distinct from subjects of a realm or ruler. The concept of individual rights followed, as did the ideas of governments founded on an agreement of individuals to be governed on the basis of a written constitution.
Prior to this, the society was feudal and everyone’s rights and duties were circumscribed by their relations to land and lord as determined by birth.
The transition from one paradigm to another was protracted, painful, uneven and unpredictable. But it fundamentally transformed every aspect of life social and personal. And as it turns out so far, irreversibly.

Step back from Oblivion:
Today, as in those days, we the citizens find ourselves in an intolerable situation where all our efforts at reform through the existing process have proven either fruitless or counterproductive, whether we consider environmental protection or social welfare or ethical improvement.
We are at a brick wall when contemplate how to redress our grievances within the options we are given. As pressure from below becomes intolerable, and the acute suffering of the masses grows to a vast and expanding scale, we will come to the same conclusion of the Zapatistas of Mexico: “Revolution is the only step back from the abyss.”

Ideology Serves Economics
There is no escape provided in the dominant ideology. We vote for Democrats, elect them and they betray us. What now? Tiny groups bravely wave antiwar signs on a few streetcorners, but they are outnumbered by veterans groups, bikers, policemen and families of servicemembers who celebrate each coffin returning from the war (as they did one night recently in Ukiah) with a parade.
Where do we go from here when demonstrations and elections are predictably ineffective?
The depth and scope of cultural conditioning is so profound and vast that it does not see a way out of itself. The specific trusses and beams of the dominant ideology were carefully prepared in history before we were born and survived precisely due to their proven effectiveness. The whole of the ideological structure or paradigm serves its foundation. And the foundation is the actual set of social relations in a given society, its economic system.
It is the economic foundation which creates and sustains the ideological superstructure which protects and justifies it.
Acting and perceiving within the ideology into which we were born, we are prevented from viewing the actual conditions of our lives and what can be done to change them for the better.

The Concept of Class:
In Marxism, the impacts and stresses of the economic system on human beings is called the material conditions.
A social class is defined in relation to the “means of production,” a term which in the 19th century referred to land, factories and machines, but today can also include education, capital, access to information and dissemination of information, political power as well as government licenses and subsidies, even international trade advantages.
The social classes are distinguished as to which are forced to sell their value (labor, product) at a discount and purchase it back at a markup in contrast those who buy it at a discount and sell it to the others at a profit.
In Marx’s day he distinguished the Bougeoisie and the Proletariat, or owners and workers as the main classes. Today, we may designate different classes but the rule is a select few gain by making the rest of us lose. And the process we have observed in this country is an obscenely increasing concentration of wealth and power beyond what our forefathers would consider healthy for a republic, let alone a democracy.
Marxists would call those on top “the ruling class,” those whose job is organizing society and defending the rulers’ interest the “managing class,” and for convenience let’s call those beneath “the oppressed,” although there are vast differences in degree of oppression, by income, race and again, access to the means of production.
In a pre-revolutionary state, the dominant paradigm is the only point of view in society and it is shared unanimously by all members of every class. It includes religion, social sciences, government, the media education and the views of ordinary citizens who believe they are forming opinions for themselves.
But it is not hard wired, nor a gift of some divinity. It was put in place, piece by piece by humans who came and went before us.

Uprooting the Dominant Paradigm:
In revolution, the first thing that happens is another paradigm which radically challenges the ruling view and aims to replace it as the governing ideology of society is discovered and begins to take root, just as revolution is an act of the oppressed to overthrow the rule of their oppressors and govern themselves. The first step is in the mind.
In the 18th century, the concept that had to be changed was the nature of the individual. Before the revolution, the individual was bound by status of birth to a community, a piece of land, and a feudal lord. He or she was property whose job it was to produce for the community and the lord and who could be ordered to go to war for the lord. Life was a cycle of work, reproduction and death with no hope for self improvement.
The Enlightenment not only established the concept of individual worth, but those of rights and equality (among men). The concept of the social contract (around since the Magna Carta) was strengthened with the concepts of the rule of written laws and limited government drawing its sole authority from the consent of the governed which contained within itself the Right of Revolution.
A social contract is between the poor and the rich whereby the poor agree to obey the rich as long as their rights are respected and certain basic needs are met.
In feudal days, the poor shared equally among members of the community so no individual’s needs went unmet, all things being equal. Their ties to the land and their investment of communal work entitled them to survival, such as it was.
When the nobles drove the peasants off the land during the industrial revolution in Europe they ended those rights and thus “tore up” the social contract.
The end of welfare, the rending of the social safety net in the Sacramento budget of 2009 is just such an enclosure. It places the poor and vulnerable on the other side of the moat where they can be attacked by wolves and weakened by storms. It throws them out of society. It is a hideous and unforgivable act that is not amenable to redress within the present structure.
Like the Stamp Act, the Massachusetts Laws, the Boston Massacre, it is a milepost on the road to revolution in our lifetime.

My Expert Witness Testimony and Self Training

MY EXPERT WITNESS EXPERIENCE AND SELF TRAINING
Pebbles Trippet 7/23/09
To qualify as an expert witness, I have relevant experience and training with respect to medical cannabis.
I am a patient who uses and grows medical cannabis under a doctor’s authorization for lifelong migraine headaches since the age of 5.
Prior to the 1996 Compassionate Use Act, I was arrested, prosecuted and convicted of felony transportation and/or possession of marijuana in Sonoma County in 1991, Marin County in 1993 and Contra Costa County in 1995. In each case I challenged the marijuana laws for lack of medical access on constitutional and medical necessity grounds with a physician’s testimony. Finally in 1997 after the Compassionate Use Act passed, I was able to reverse on appeal representing myself on Prop 215 grounds in the First District. I won retroactivity and transportation applicability (the ‘implicit right’ to transport marijuana for medical purposes, in the words of the Court).
I reached the US Supreme Court on a cert petition in my Sonoma appeal, arguing in pro per with testimony from Dr Tod Mikuriya and backing from national NORML, had my petition been granted.
In the course of my appeals, I became a student of the stacks, researching the applicable laws, attending legal seminars and lectures, speaking with experts such as Chris Conrad, seeking advice from defense lawyers such as Tony Serra and Susan Jordan, consulting with patients, caregivers and members of collectives and cooperatives.
My final case in Santa Clara County–possession of 3 ounces of leaf–was dismissed in 2001. In December 2000, I co-founded the Medical Marijuana Patients Union on the Coast, and in 2001, we began the process of collaborating with Mendocino County law enforcement — Sheriff Tony Craver and DA Norm Vroman — concerning patients’ rights and the proper implementation of Prop 215 under fair and reasonable policies. This collaborative consistent relationship between the cannabis patient community and local law enforcement grew over six years from 2001-2006, creating guidelines that resulted in “law and medicine working together”, the theme of the 2004 Patients’ Union Conference.
Subsequent law enforcement administrations from 2006-2009 have used a bewildering patchwork quilt of unclear and inconsistent guidelines, ranging from 25 plants per parcel to 25 plants per person and from 6 plants/8 ounces per patient to 100 sq ft grow space, indoor and outdoor, per patient.
The result is widespread confusion and fear on the part of patients from lack of clear guidelines. For instance, a patient who planted their garden in April-May-June 2008, before the election was subject to 25 plants/2 pounds per person for medical use, and after the election, 6 mature plants/8 ounces per person. In that case, the quantity allowed should stem from the understanding the person had when they planted the garden in the spring.
My knowledge includes such things as patients’ needs and average quantities; cultivation yields; distinguishing between patterns of possession for lawful medical use vs patterns of possession for illegal sale; the history of Mendocino medical marijuana policy.

OLIGARCHS’ AGENDA THRIVING UNDER OBAMA

Obama: Complicit in Torture, Complicit in Fraud
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
– Thomas Jefferson

By Dan Hamburg and Lewis Seiler
Little has changed since Barack Obama assumed the presidency. The imperial agenda of the United States proceeds unabated with record military spending, expanded wars and prolonged occupations. Backtracking on wiretapping, rendition, and rights to due process, the new administration mirrors the old in its assertion of “state secrets.” Enabled by Obama’s picks of lifetime financial deregulators Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, the banks continue to dominate Washington.
As Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin described recently on a Chicago radio station, “Frankly, the banks run this place.”
Then there is the Bush administration’s legacy of torture, a problem that won’t go away quietly despite Obama’s determination to “look ahead.” Unfortunately for him, the president doesn’t have the right to choose which laws he will enforce, which international treaties he will honor. (Remember how we balked at George W. Bush’s imperious signing statements?) According to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, Obama is placing himself in legal jeopardy by refusing to meet the solemn obligations of the United States of America with respect to the crime of torture. This would be on top of the extreme political jeopardy Obama may encounter now that he has reversed virtually every position with regard the war on terror (other than his pledge to intensify the Afghan war) he advanced during his campaign.
Most recently, the president has broken his promise of transparency by refusing to honor a court-ordered release of photographs that could put the lie to the assertion that the torturers were “a few bad apples.î
According to Major General Antonio Taguba, “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency.” They are proof of a systematic policy of torture that, according to no less an authority than Dick Cheney, were approved in the Oval Office.
Barack Obama took millions in campaign contribution from Wall Street and the big banks, more than any candidate for office in the history of American politics. He bought the pre-meltdown line that the raft of exotic financial instruments spawned by the Street were evidence of the energy and creativity of the US economy, rather than signs of its corruption. When the crash came, Obama smartly saluted the Bush/Paulson plan to advance an initial $700 billion advance to the scofflaws, a bailout without requirements or controls. The president hasn’t wavered since in his belief that Humpty Dumpty can and must be put back together again.
Under Bush and Obama, 13 trillion dollars have been spent, lent or guaranteed to save the country’s largest (albeit insolvent) banks. But when it came to mustering 51 Senate Democrats to help homeowners avoid foreclosure by the very banks that have been devouring his government’s bailout feast, Obama was mute. Senator Durbin again captured the moment: “The banks that are too big to fail are saying that 8 million Americans facing foreclosure are too little to count.”
At his 100 Days press conference, the president called the ethical meltdown that led Americans to torture a “mistake.” Hauled before Congress to explain the financial meltdown that gathered steam on his watch, Alan Greenspan explained his “mistake”of “presuming that the self-interests of banks were such that they were best capable of protecting their shareholders.” In a similar vein, we’ve heard repeatedly that the Iraq war — with no WMD’s found and no post-shock and awe plan — was another “mistake.”
How come these brilliant, highly educated and compensated people keep making supersized “mistakes?” Perhaps because they aren’t mistakes at all.
What the United States needs more than anything is some full-bore truth-telling before we slip into a fascistic, Orwellian dystopia. We could start by admitting that we preyed upon Iraq not because that country was perceived as a threat but because, after 10 years of sanctions, Iraq was no threat at all. In fact, it was ripe for the picking. Once consumer protection was removed, the banks could freely practice their own brand of predation. Millions of Americans, hoodwinked into signing up for “no-doc”loans with teaser rates, were also ripe for the picking.
Was the financial meltdown a mistake? According to University of Texas Professor James K. Galbraith, “You had fraud in the origination of the mortgages, fraud in the underwriting, fraud in the ratings agencies.” Committing fraud is not the same as making a mistake.
Fraud, according to our dictionary (American Heritage, 2nd ed.), is “deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.” Fraud is not a mistake.
In 2004, the FBI warned that “rampant fraud in the mortgage industry could become an ëepidemic.’” The Bureau was ignored. (Interestingly, the Bureau was also ignored when it tried to sound the alarm that young Saudis with dubious visas had enrolled in US flight training schools.)
Top economists including Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman were also ignored because in fact, there was no mistake being made in this, the largest transfer of wealth from the lowly taxpayers to the lofty oligarchs in the history of the world. As in their preemptory attack on oil-rich and strategically-located Iraq, the elites were simply pursuing their private, or corporate, interests, indistinguishable in their minds from the public interest.
The American people are now suffering from all these “mistakes”and there are plenty of signs that things will not improve soon. In May of this year, we learned that just over half a million people lost their jobs. That was considered good news. Experts predict at least eight million foreclosures in 2009. That translates into about 30 million people without homes. Already tent cities have sprung up in cities and towns around the country. Democrats in Congress are now proposing to construct “emergency centers”on abandoned military installations across the country under the supervision of FEMA.
That’s FEMA as in “Heckuva job, Brownie!” While trillions go to the banks, the only housing to be afforded foreclosed-upon Americans will be the barracks of a detention camp.
We are still waiting to find out what “change”this new president plans to bring. So far, it looks like we the people have done little more than substitute a tarnished Bush brand for a shiny Obama brand. The military-industrial death machine rolls on, the taxpayers keep taking a beating, and our constitutional rights still hang in the balance. The powerful few are stealing our wealth, stealing our future, and stealing our birthright of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”in a democratic society.
Make no mistake, we the people are being taken for a very expensive ride, an unpleasant ride that our children and grandchildren will be forced to take as well. The elites that own the wealth, fund the politicians and control the message are on the verge of stealing our birthright of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”in a democratic society.

HUNG JURY IN 400-LB CASE DEFENDED ON COOP MODEL

JURY HUNG IN 400-LB CASE DEFENDED ON COOPERATIVE MODEL

“to enhance access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective cooperative cultivation projects”. — Purpose of Senate Bill 420 (H&S11362.77)

by Pebbles Trippet
April 3 2009 was a bad day for the Mendocino D.A., the worst day since April 28 2007 when Atty Ed Denson won a medical marijuana jury acquittal of a 4-person collective in the Matt Sutherlin trial.
On April 3, the medical marijuana jury trial of Luke Strauss & Joe Maligno ended in a hung jury 7-5 in favor of defendants, two Mendocino County members of a larger patient collective, who were growing legally for a storefront dispensary in Southern California.

The case began Oct ‘07 when Strauss was profiled by a Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputy while driving south on 101 near Cloverdale, according to defense attorneys. He was stopped on a ruse with five pounds of doctor-approved cannabis in the vehicle. During the traffic stop, Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputy Andy Cash and a DEA agent searched the truck and found evidence which led to the search of their home in Redwood Valley. Their home was raided approximately six hours later by a small battalion of sheriff’s deputies and two DEA agents with guns drawn. During the raid the agents discovered 300-400 pounds of bud, an indoor garden in the early flowering stage and a recently harvested greenhouse. The cannabis was destined for their patients at the West Hollywood Center for Compassionate Healing, the collective that they were growing for.

During the trial, Attorneys J. David Nick & Edie Lerman proved to the jury that Strauss and Maligno were in compliance with state law on collectives. The evidence presented showed that the president of their West Hollywood collective had won the support of local government officials. It also revealed that approximately $1.4 million passed through the West Hollywood collective’s bank accounts in order to cover overhead expenses and the cost of cultivating the cannabis. The prosecution, on the other hand, had no evidence that they were operating illegally. They simply relied on their accusation that it was just “too much marijuana”, apparently hoping that bias against marijuana would enable them to prevail.

According to Edie Lerman, “The law is clear. It allows for medical marijuana patients to associate and collectively cultivate, to get paid for their labor and services and reimbursed for expenses. But the Mendocino County prosecutor refuses to recognize the law on collectives and cooperatives. We think the jury will.”

Since there are no limits on the number of members allowed within each collective or cooperative, there is likewise no limit on the number of pounds of medicine legally allowed, as long as the patients are legitimately protected by a doctor’s approval.

In the course of cross-examination by the defense of Mendocino County Sheriff’s Deputy Bruce Smith, head of COMMET, and Sonoma County Sheriff’s Deputy Andy Cash, Smith stated that his deputies “would walk away from 300 plant gardens” if they found them to be in compliance. The defense grilled him on parameters of a garden that he would consider in compliance. During cross-examination, both Smith and Cash admitted that there are no limits on the number of members that are allowed to associate collectively or cooperatively under the law. Ultimately the government witnesses provided the necessary evidence which allowed the jury to see that Strauss and Maligno were making every attempt to follow the law. In this way, the prosecution actually made the case for the defense.

Defense witnesses included Andrew Kramer, President of the West Hollywood Center for Compassionate Healing, as well as Jeff Jones, founder of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Co-op, who administers the Alameda County patient verification database for the Department of Health. They were asked to explain the necessary procedures to set up a lawful storefront collective and to describe why one is needed in an urban area like Los Angeles.

Court certified cannabis expert Chris Conrad testified about issues connected to how much marijuana is reasonably related to a large collective such as West Hollywood and the difference between a person’s behavior who is lawfully cultivating versus a person unlawfully cultivating.

Dr William Courtney was asked to clarify the baseline or average dosage schedule for cannabis patients. He testified that a reasonable dosage schedule can range from between 4 and 20 grams per day based on published government studies. He also testified that 7 joints per day as an average dosage schedule @1-2 grams per joint amounts to 1/4 to 1/2 ounce per day.

Another tactic of the defense was to call Attorney Keith Faulder to testify to refute the claim that law enforcement routinely walks away from “medical grows” based on his own experience, since most of his 66 cases are small medical cannabis growers trying to comply, as the application of the law changes from month to month and regime to regime. The prosecution asked the court to exclude Faulder’s testimony. The controversial motion was heard Thursday March 26 at the end of the day outside the presence of the jury. Before the motion was argued, jurors were dismissed and the public audience had left under the misimpression that court proceedings were over. Dep DA Rayburn Killion, who prosecuted the case, argued to exclude Faulder as a witness and instead allow the testimony of a DEA agent who raided the West Hollywood dispensary in early 2007. Judge Ron Brown granted the prosecution motion and excluded Faulder’s testimony as ‘collateral’. Killion then withdrew his motion to allow the DEA agent to testify.

Defense attorney Edie Lerman was visibly upset with the trend to exclude defense witnesses. “First they exclude patient advocate Bill Britt as ‘redundant’ and now Keith Faulder as ‘collateral’. Does that mean we can no longer impeach the statements of witnesses against the defendants? Does that mean we can no longer challenge law enforcement’s false claims? This has constitutional implications.”

Despite the setback, the defense was affirmed by a jury who, in their majority, believed the defendants were innocent. The law reads: “The Medical Marijuana Program Act allows qualified patients…and designated primary caregivers of qualified patients…to associate within the state of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana.” The jury followed the law on cannabis patient collectives and did not convict.

The Strauss-Maligno case relied on the new marijuana laws enacted under the Medical Marijuana Program Act (Senate Bill 420) in 2003. In August 2008 the California Attorney General published his Medical Marijuana Guidelines. They are currently considered the best authority for the legal elements of the “closed circuit membership” model, that explains how to lawfully cultivate collectively or cooperatively under H&S 11362.775 (SB420). The most comprehensive legal analysis of the new medical marijuana laws under SB420 is the 3d District Court of Appeals precedent, People v Urziceanu (2005), that interprets the meaning of “collective cooperative cultivation projects” as adding extra protections for ’sales’ and ‘distribution’, if evidence shows a situation of collective good rather than individual profit. In Urziceanu, the court held that:

“This new law represents a dramatic change in the prohibitions on the use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana for persons who are qualified patients or primary caregivers… It’s specific itemization of the marijuana sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana.”

Defense attorney Edie Lerman remarked about the case after the verdict, “This shows that juries will be fair if they hear all the evidence and understand the law, regardless of the quantity involved. The Strauss-Maligno case proves that no credible medical marijuana case should be dealt away with a plea agreement, unless perhaps it is for deferred judgment, where the record is erased in six months. We’re getting calls from other lawyers saying they are now emboldened to take their cases to trial.”

The message is clear: Meredith Lintott’s constituency does not support wasting enormous amounts of money and court time on medical marijuana prosecutions where a jury will not convict.

The Allman-Lintott era (2007-2008) has marked an astronomical increase in marijuana law enforcement activity compared to the Craver-Vroman era (1997-2005), culminating in 2008 Mendocino County totals: 710 arrests and 520 prosecutions (at the rate of two cases filed per day, according to Dep DA Jill Ravitch).

When Tony Craver was sheriff, felony marijuana arrests stayed generally under or around 100: 1997–89; 1998–95; 1999–98; 2000–111; 2001–91; 2002–85; 2003–83; 2004–73; 2005–112. Craver retired early on medical leave in the winter of ‘05. Interim Sheriff Broin’s 2006 felony arrests of 173 started the process of scrapping Craver’s gardensite guidelines and written instructions to deputies (General Order 202). This trend increased after Sheriff Allman’s election throughout 2007-08, during which time Allman withdrew written instructions to deputies, stopped all training of deputies in medical marijuana guidelines, granted extraordinary discretion to deputies in a policy void and arrests spiked dramatically, ending in 710 in 2008.

Many dozens of those hundreds of cases are vulnerable patients with medical cannabis claims and small-scale gardens for personal use, victimized by overzealous law enforcement. Patients and caregivers are increasingly learning the value of organizing collectively or cooperatively, so as to be in compliance with current law. However, law enforcement has routinely abused its discretion, claiming “too much” (as in the Strauss-Maligno case), while ignoring evidence of a valid collective situation, taking and destroying property and leaving the court to sort it out. The Medical Marijuana Patients Union has received numerous reports from Mendocino County residents that sheriff’s deputies often ignore posted doctors’ approvals and state ID cards, arrest patients like common criminals, and seize the children to coerce the parents to confess to crimes they did not commit.

Leaderless law enforcement has become adversarial and is routinely using patients’ borderline legal status to get warrants, gain entry, raid, arrest, seize medicine, money, bank accounts, vehicles, property and prosecute, rather than find ways to protect the rights of people who aren’t necessarily doing anything wrong and who deserve the benefit of a doubt. One of Sheriff Craver’s instructions to deputies in MCSO GO202 concerned gardens in borderline compliance: the instruction was to take samples and photos, not whole plants and not whole gardens, then further investigate. The standard should be investigate first before arresting and seizing medicine.

The medical marijuana guidelines just released by the Sheriff’s office disappointingly contain nothing new and are inadequate to provide guidance, in that they fail to even mention medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives — the legal pathway to the future due to “enhanced” statutory protections to sell and distribute to association members if organized for collective good rather than individual profit (H&S 11362.775). Consensus is that SB420 collectives and cooperatives will, in the immediate future, comprise the de facto patient majority, based on the August 2008 AG Guidelines that explain the legal parameters of a “closed circuit membership” model–allowing two or more people to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes with reasonable salaries, remuneration for provision of medicine and compensation for expenses.

If a Mendo jury won’t convict on 300-400 pounds of medical cannabis under the auspices of a collective or cooperative, after a few more jury trials with competent attorneys, soon the prosecutions will plummet and qualified patients will not have to fear but rather will welcome a jury of their peers finding them innocent.

Either the number of prosecutions will plummet or the waste of tax dollars will increase–either way the number of convictions will ultimately drop as the fear of medical cannabis growers becomes a thing of the past and regulation of medical cannabis production a plan for the future. •