Bonnie Dumanis Mayoral Candidacy Statement of Opposition from San Diego Americans for Safe Access

In response to District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis’ announcement to run for San Diego Mayor in 2012, the local chapter of the nation’s largest medical cannabis patient’s rights advocacy group (Americans for Safe Access), joined a growing list of organizations opposed to her candidacy and issued the following statement:

In her service as the District Attorney for San Diego County, Dumanis has undermined the most vulnerable members of our community through her continued and misguided ‘fierce fight’ against medical marijuana. 

Her fight has included raids on dispensaries as well as sick and dying patients’ homes, resulting in hundreds of thousands of tax payer’s dollars wasted on failed prosecutions. Dumanis has actively lobbied local governments for bans on dispensaries and has successfully influenced the County Board of Supervisors to adopt one of the most restrictive ordinances in the state.

Although Dumanis years ago ran on a platform for District Attorney in favor of medical marijuana her actions and track record since being elected almost a decade ago make clear that she continues to be an enemy to the medical marijuana community and those who use cannabis therapeutics for treatment.

We are strongly opposed to Dumanis for San Diego Mayor in 2012 and will work to oppose her continued oppression of the most vulnerable among us.

Visit NOT DUMANIS to voice your opposition to Bonnie Dumanis as Mayor of San Diego in 2012.

San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org

Harassment of Medical Marijuana Patients in San Diego Continues

Rogue Code Enforcement Officer Peter Bedrosian intimidates, harasses, and questions visibly ill patient in the streets of East San Diego County

By: Eugene Davidovich

SAN DIEGO – For years the county’s sick and dying have been at the brunt of District Attorney Bonnie (DA) Dumanis’ ‘fierce fight’ against medical marijuana patients. Dumanis’ fight has included raids on dispensaries, arrests of wheel-chair bound and terminally-ill patients, and has resulted in courtroom acquittals rather than convictions costing the county thousands and serious embarrassment to law enforcement.

In June of 2010, Dumanis managed to convince the County Board of Supervisors, a governing body historically opposed to medical marijuana, to adopt an ordinance which forced all dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the county to shut down.

Since then, a few brave safe access pioneers, determined to provide the sick and dying with quality care, remained open and began to challenge the “de-facto” ban in court. With court challenges ramping up, under the direction of Top Cop, Dumanis, the Sheriff and Code Enforcement have launched a harassment campaign against the remaining care facilities.

The latest and most egregious example surfaced last month when Code Enforcement Officer Peter Bedrosian busily harassed and interrogated patients outside a remaining facility in the East County of San Diego and came across Vey Linville, a very active advocate, terminally ill patient, and member of the San Diego Chapter of Americans for Safe Access.

Below is an account of Mr. Linville’s encounter with Bedrosian as well as my attempt to clarify the departmental policy with regards to code enforcement encounters with patients.

After Mr. Linville contacted San Diego ASA and reported the incident, I was assigned to investigation. The goal was to determine the Sheriff Department’s and Code Enforcement policies on their interactions with patients as well as voice San Diego ASA’s concern for the incident.

I first called Mr. Bedrosian. When he answered his phone, I introduced myself and began to express my concern regarding his interaction with Mr. Linville was going to asked him for clarification on the department’s policy. After hearing who I was and why I was calling, a very angry Bedrosian began shouting into the telephone then, finishing his rant, he hung up. Shortly after his episode, Bedrosian called back with another ranting voicemail, this time complete with threats and intimidating statements which appeared designed to scare me into silence.

Following this call I wrote an email and left a voicemail for Assistant Sheriff Prendergast, the official spokesperson for the Sheriff on medical marijuana issues in the hopes of a response. In the email, I inquired about the policy as well as whether a departmental training program was in place for field code enforcement officers in those sensitive interactions. In the email, which I carbon copied Bedrosian on, I included Mr. Linville’s letter.

Around that same time, Mr. Linville personally hand delivered the letter to Assistant Sheriff Prendergast’s office. Mr. Linville’s letter as well as my email and calls, remain unanswered.
Here is the full content of the letter sent by Mr. Linville to Assistant Sheriff Prendergast which Mr. Linville has agreed to share with us for this article:

Assistant Sheriff Prendergast,

My name is Vey Linville. We met recently at the County Board of Supervisors meeting. I am an emphysema patient with an oxygen tank. I legally drink cannabis medicines to keep from suffocating. I thought you might perhaps remember me. I have been in the press and on TV several times recently regarding this issue, and I am an active and vocal member of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the nation’s largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists, and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutics and research.
On Thursday February 17, 2011, I was delivering political event flyers to various facilities in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. It was approximately 1 p.m., I was dressed in a business suit and tie, and I was encumbered as usual with my oxygen tank.
On exiting XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on  xxxxx . in xxxxxxxxx, as I approached my vehicle, I was detained, interrogated, and harassed with no cause by a County Code Enforcement team, led by Peter Bedrosian, Code Enforcement Officer, Dept. of Planning and Land Use, (858-694-3047,peter.bedrosian@sdcounty.ca.gov).

Mr. Bedrosian identified himself and asked me in an aggressive and forceful manner who I was and what I was doing there. As a legal patient on life support with an illness considered terminal, I was quite intimidated by his aggressive demeanor, tone, and line of questioning; but I offered my hand and introduced myself and told him that I was there representing the San Diego Chapter of Americans For Safe Access and that I was dropping off brochures. This seemed to greatly agitate Mr. Bedrosian. He said: “Brochures, Eh?”, crossed his arms and proceeded to interrogate me in the parking lot.

He wanted to know if “The Facility” was still “Operating” inside. I explained to him that since I was just dropping off flyers, that I had not been past the front waiting area today; and that I could not say of my own knowledge what activities may or may not be occurring inside. I also explained to him that I had been to this facility before, and that I was not aware of any conduct by this facility not in fullest and strictest compliance with all state laws and local ordinances that I am aware of.

This seemed to cause Mr. Bedrosian great distress, and his level of agitation continued to increase. By this point, the other member of the Code Enforcement Team was trying to tell Mr. Bedrosian privately that he had seen me speak at the Planning Commission, and he seemed to be trying quite hard to get Mr. Bedrosian to calm down and disengage from this encounter.

At this point, Mr. Bedrosian took a couple of deep breaths and tried to put a good face on the above by explaining to me in a calmer tone and a forced smile that they had no problem with this facility continuing to operate, but that the issue was one of location. He told me that there were parcels in Spring Valley that were zoned for this, and that it would be fine for the facility to move to one of them.

I told Mr. Bedrosian calmly that I was a resident of Spring Valley, and that I was quite aware of the two parcels that he was referring to. I explained that my mobility is limited, and that I have many patients as friends who are far more disabled than I, in wheelchairs and on dialysis. I explained to him that a rock quarry and a radiation disposal area, without buildings, utilities, or improvements were not my idea of Safe Access; and that I did not think that was what the voters of California had in mind, or the framers of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
That is when I realized that this was an issue that Mr. Bedrosian is clearly taking very personally. He became even more angry and frustrated, and the other team member was forced to pull him away by the arm; and they left. I was afraid that Mr. Bedrosian’s clear personal bias on this political issue would result in attempted law enforcement action against me, because of my legal patient status, my political activities, and by simply being near that facility at that time.

Apparently this facility has a number of recorded video cameras, including one covering the front outside area; and a member inside had watched this Code Enforcement “Terminal Patient Encounter” unfold. This member came outside to see if I had been harmed, and to assist me with my oxygen tank and offer me water or whatever aid I might need. Before leaving the parking lot, I contacted Eugene Davidovich the San Diego Area Liaison for Americans for Safe Access and notified him of the incident.

It is my understanding that you personally have always treated the medical marijuana community and members of Americans for Safe Access in a fair, balanced and honorable way; and my recent meeting with you bears this out. I know as well that you have served with the highest valor in the field. I must therefore share with you one more item of the gravest concern. Yesterday I was told by members of the community that Mr. Bedrosian has had a number of other highly negative “Patient Encounters” of the worst kind.
It is my understanding that the purview of a Code Enforcement Officer is rather narrow.

It is my sincere hope that in the future, legal patients going about their lawful occasions in San Diego County will not be harassed in the street by County Code Enforcement Officers who may be personally uncomfortable with existing California State Law and political activity by legal patients, and are unable to exercise reasonable discretion thereby.

I must also encourage public policy discussion on this issue. It directly affects patients Quality Of Life, and intimidation of this type can keep the sick and dying from obtaining their life-saving medicine in San Diego County. I encourage you to work with Eugene Davidovich and other members of Americans for Safe Access to implement a policy for the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department that would address these types of interactions with the sick and dying in the County of San Diego.

I understand that your people have a job to do. This just isn’t it.
Thank you Sir, Vey Linville

Why has the county taken such a harsh stance on this issue considering that the latest field polls show 80% of registered voters in the County of San Diego support medical marijuana?

The lack of response from the San Diego Sheriff’s Department and Code Enforcement suggests that there is a serious disconnect between the will and needs of the residents of the county and their elected representatives. This disconnect gravely concerns the community which overwhelmingly supports the Compassionate Use Act and the fair treatment of sick and dying patients.

In Bedrosian’s case, his personal views against medical marijuana patients have clearly influenced his work, he now as a part of his job feels he has a right to target sick people who are exercising their right to free speech, under the guise of code enforcement.

On-the-job Code Enforcement officers like Peter Bedrosian and other law enforcement officials should keep their personal and political beliefs from spilling these views into a vitriol of hatred of patients.

It is time the San Diego Community stood up against this unfair treatment of patients and demanded accountability. I encourage you to contact the San Diego County’s Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board and file a complaint urging them to investigate the treatment of patients by Code Enforcement as well as other law enforcement officials in San Diego County.

Our most vulnerable residents deserve respect and a policy that takes into account their needs.

Download Instructions and form to file a complaint with the County’s Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board:
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/clerb/docs/Comp-frm.pdf

For questions and tips contact: sandiegoasa@gmail.com

Why You Need a State Issued ID Card

By Melissa Bobrow, Esq., San Diego ASA

As an activist and educator within the San Diego medical marijuana community, I hear many rumors, myths, and just plain old crazy stories. There is so much information and misinformation about medical marijuana rights and laws. So many people try to educate themselves on the topic only to become more confused, or worse arrested.

Many people know that in order to legally obtain medical marijuana within the State of California you must obtain a valid recommendation from a doctor – either a Medical Doctor (M.D.) or Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.). What some people do not realize, is that this recommendation will ONLY provide you with a valid defense in court. What does that mean? It means you have been arrested and now you are in court with either a public defender or you had to hire an attorney. Sound fun?

The recommendation is the first vital step to protecting your rights, but that is all it is, the first step. The next and most crucial step is going to your local county Department of Health Services and applying and obtaining a valid State issued identification card. The State card is much like a driver’s license in that it is issued by the State of California through local county offices. You do not go to Sacramento to get your license, you go to your local county DMV – the same holds true for the State issued medical marijuana card. The website for all of the criteria as to how to obtain one is available below, this article is here to explain why you need it.

1. But, I Already Have A Card From My Doctor
There are many doctors that will gladly furnish you with a recommendation and a card of their own. The plastic cards issued by the doctor are NOT State issued identification cards. They are nice, some nicer than others, but they will not prevent you from getting arrested – they will provide you with a valid defense in court. With nothing more than a recommendation you leave whether or not you are arrested to the full discretion of the officer. Some officers are nice, some are mean, some are educated about medical marijuana law, and some do not distinguish between medical marijuana and illicit substances. There is no reason to leave this discretion to a police officer. Protect yourself.

All State issued cards look exactly alike, just like a California driver’s license. An officer is required by law to verify your State card, whereas he or she is not required to verify your recommendation, whether it is a card with a 24 hour hotline or not. The State identification card is easier for law enforcement to identify as a legitimate card, and mandates that if you have a reasonable amount of medicine in your possession you are allowed to go home.

2. Big Brother IS NOT WATCHING
The most frequent excuse as to why many do not obtain a State card is the feared “database”. Nobody wants their name in a database that anybody can subpoena or tap into at any time. While I can give no guarantees as to anything in life, I can realistically assure you that nobody is tapping into this database. Why? If any government agency tried to obtain what are truly medical records without the consent of the patients – especially several hundred thousand patients - a lot more than just the medical marijuana community would be upset, and more important would sue.

Special interest groups that have nothing to do with medical marijuana, such as privacy groups, would be more than happy to sue the City, State, or whichever agency attempted to obtain these records. Throw on the patients whose rights are directly affected that would also sue, and you have a fiscal and political nightmare that neither the State of California nor the Federal government can presently afford.

3. Okay, But What Does the ID Card Do?
The identification card will PREVENT arrest. Say it with me now: PREVENT arrest. You are not in court, you do not have to hire an attorney, and you do not have to worry about anything (provided the amount of medical cannabis you have on your person is within the legal limits).

The most frequent place people run into trouble is in their vehicle, where your right to privacy is substantially diminished. If you are pulled over, have legal amounts of medicine in your possession, and your valid State ID card the officer must call the number, verify your card, and if you are verified send you home.

4. How do I get one in San Diego County?
Visit the County of San Diego Medical Marijuana Identification Card Program Website:
http://www.co.san-diego.ca.us/hhsa/programs/phs/mmic/
Call to make an appointment: 619-692-5723

Remember:
• Just a recommendation - even a nice one on an official card from your doctor – it’s all up to the officer.
• Valid State issued identification card – the officer must verify you and send you on your way home.
• Be smart, be safe, be well.

[1] Recommendations are imperative and I strongly advise acquiring a recommendation that offers a 24 hour hotline for verification purposes. When the police use their discretion to call your doctor to verify only your recommendation, you want to make sure your recommendation can be verified at all times.

Advocates Keep Jackson out of Jail

By: Eugene Davidovich

ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford and defense attorney Lance Rogers successfully argued motion to keep Jackson out of jail pending appeal.

SAN DIEGO – On Thursday San Diego District Attorney (DA) Dumanis and her fierce fight against medical marijuana saw a significant setback. San Diego Superior Court Judge Howard H. Shore granted Jackson’s motion to stay out of jail pending appeal.

Jovan Jackson a medical marijuana patient, Navy Veteran, and former operator of Answerdam a medical marijuana collective in San Diego, was convicted on September 28th, 2010 after he was tried for the second time in less than a year on the same charges of marijuana possession and sale.

He was convicted in his second trial as a result of being denied the medical marijuana defense by Judge Shore, who claimed that although all were legal patients, since all 1600 members of the collective did not express that their “purpose” was to cultivate, that Jackson did not qualify for the medical marijuana collective defense.

On Wednesday, December 15th 2010 Jackson was sentenced to 180 days in jail and a fine. He was scheduled to report to jail on February 1, 2011. Also that day, Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the country’s largest medical marijuana advocacy group joined the case. Joe Elford ASA’s Chief Legal Counsel was in court officially joining, filing motions, as well as helping Lance Rogers, Jovan’s defense attorney from both trials.

On Thursday, January 27 2011 ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford was back in San Diego in front of Superior Court Judge Howard H. Shore along with Lance Rogers arguing to keep Jovan out of Jail while ASA appeals his case.

Judge Shore heard arguments from Deputy DA Chris Linbergh who claimed that Jovan was a flight risk and should be remanded into custody. Joe Elford fired back with proof that Jackson had made every court date, that the community was behind him, as well as presented compelling case law to support keeping Jackson out on bail while his appeal was being heard.

Judge Shore agreed with the defense and explained that it would not be fair if Jackson was remanded into custody, forced to serve his time, and then later find out that he was victorious on appeal. Judge Shore further explained that this was not a typical drug case, that Jackson was not a threat, that there was no violence or weapons involved, and that this was a case where the defendant appeared to have made every attempt to follow state law.

When the DA realized that there was a chance that Jackson would not see any jail time and that Dumanis’ plan was failing, he begged the court for a bail to be set at 180 thousand dollars. Judge Shore found that to be overly excessive and reduced the bail to 50 thousand.

Judge Shore also agreed with the defense that Jackson was clearly not a flight risk and even took the time to point out that advocates for medical marijuana and other members of the community have been there for Jackson throughout the entire trial, which showed strong community ties and support.

Judge Shore moved the official date Jackson has to report to jail from February 1 to the 15, giving Jackson an extra two weeks to come up with funds necessary to stay out on bail. After the hearing advocates present in the courtroom vowed to raise the $4,500 necessary to keep Jackson out of Jail.

Within the next few months the appellate courts will decide whether to hear Jackson’s case and if the decision comes out that Jackson should have been allowed a defense during trial, his case would likely return to the superior court to be retried in front of a Jury with a medical marijuana defense as it should have been in the first place.

After this hearing the community is certain that court support works, and that the efforts of just a few can significantly impact the decisions Judges make in court and actually keep patients out of jail.

If you would like to help with the fundraising efforts to keep Jackson out of Jail contact sandiegoasa@gmail.com

San Diego City Planning Commission to Vote on Dispensary Ordinance

By: Eugene Davidovich, San Diego Americans for Safe Access

Patients and Advocates concerned ordinance headed towards ban rather than reasonable regulation.

On January 20th the City of San Diego’s Planning Commission will be discussing and voting on a recommendation to the City Council to approve an ordinance limiting medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of San Diego to certain industrial and limited commercial zones.

Out of almost one hundred possible zoning categories in the city’s municipal code if the ordinance passes unchanged, the current limitations would allow dispensaries only in five specific zones within the city’s limits; IL-1-3, IS-1-1, CC-2-1, CC-2-2, and CC-2-3.

Facilities lucky enough to find friendly landlords in those five zones, would be faced with another challenge; finding friendly landlords whose properties are located at least 1,000 feet away from schools, playgrounds, libraries, child care facilities, youth facilities, churches, parks, as well as other dispensaries.

According to the proposed ordinance all dispensaries currently open in the city would be required to shut down, as the ordinance considers everyone open prior to its passage, out of compliance by default. Those who want to continue to provide safe access to patients in their current locations would have to apply for a process 4 conditional use permit (CUP). Process 4 is one of the most restrictive and expensive licensing processes the city can force an organization to go through. Under a process four, each application would have to be heard by the planning commission as well as the city council on appeal.

Under Process 4, not only would safe access be unduly restricted for patients in the city, but every dispensary application would turn into a political battle that would require city council’s vote on each application. While the political wrangling goes on in City Hall, those patients who need this medicine most would have to go without.

Even on the surface this proposal does not appear to be a compromise, nor is it a regulation addressing patients’ needs. The proposed ordinance is nothing but a ban attempting to be passed off as a regulation.

There is still a chance to turn this around. The roadmap to a reasonable compromise is already spelled out in the report presented by city staff to the planning commission. Aside from the overly restrictive ordinance, the report includes numerous alternatives and recommendations from The Medical Marijuana Task Force, the Code Monitoring Team, as well as the Community Planners Committee all of whom prior to making their recommendations heard testimony from hundreds of patients and community members on the issue.

The San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force (MMTF) recommended a process 2 CUP for dispensaries with less than 100 members and a process 3 CUP for those with more than 100. The sensitivity buffer of 1,000 feet in the MMTF’s recommendations only applied to schools, playgrounds, libraries, child care facilities and youth facilities, not churches and parks. Also, the separation requirement from other dispensaries recommended by the MMTF was only 500 feet.

The Code Monitoring Team (CMT) also recommended a much more reasonable approach. They suggested that distances from sensitive uses be down to 300 feet, making the restrictions the same as those currently in place for off-site sales of alcohol.

The CMT also recommended that dispensaries be allowed in all commercial zones including those with residential uses, as well as industrial zones that allow retail uses such as pharmacies. With regards to the permitting process, the CMT recommended a process 3.

The Community Planners Committee (CPC) recommendations also included a less restrictive approach. Majority of members of the CPC were extremely concerned that the proposed ordinance bans access in their communities. They actually demanded that every Community Planning Group (CPG) be allowed to grant variances allowing locations in their communities if the overly restrictive ordinance ends up banning or making their neighborhoods “too sensitive” for medical marijuana.

The CPC also recommended that collectives currently open be allowed to continue operating for at least one year following the passage of the ordinance while they are coming into compliance with the new requirements.

The consensus of the San Diego Community is clear. Citizens want safe access to medical marijuana for patients in their communities. They do not want a ban nor do they want to see only a handful of facilities allowed to be open through an overly restrictive and expensive process.

The regulation adopted should allow patients to sort out the number of locations allowed to exist in the city through their patronage or lack thereof, rather than through a zoning cap or de facto ban.

San Diegans see that an ordinance so restrictive that it eradicates reasonable access in our communities would not only create many lawsuits and legal costs for the already cash strapped city, but it would also go directly against the will of California voters and the needs of the many sick and dying patients who rely on this medicine every day.

At the January 20th planning commission meeting, patients, advocates, and concerned citizens will speak out in hopes of convincing the commissioners to listen to the recommendations of the community, the MMTF, the CMT, and the CPC, to help regulate rather than ban safe access in the City of San Diego.

Further Information:
Planning commission’s Agenda for the January 20th Meeting:
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning-commission/agenda/110120.pdf

Staff Report for the January 20th meeting:
http://www.sandiego.gov/planning-commission/pcreports/2011/pdf/11011.pdf

San Diego ASA News Brief about the Planning Commission Meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJID6QaJNjc

Planning Commission Meeting Information:
MMJ Ordinance is Agenda Item 10 - January 20th 9am
12th Floor of City Hall – 202 C St. San Diego CA

Judge Grants Emergency Injunction against St. Bernard’s Provisions San Marcos Medical Marijuana Collective

By: Eugene Davidovich

SAN MARCOS – On Friday of this week, San Diego Superior Court Judge Robert Dahlquist granted an emergency injunction against St. Bernard’s Provisions medical marijuana collective located in the City of San Marcos in San Diego County forcing the collective to close its doors.

Despite numerous demands by patients, advocates, and concerned citizens, the City of San Marcos has refused to accept Proposition 215 as law and is engaged in a medical marijuana eradication campaign.

In 2006 the San Marcos City Council adopted an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones within the city’s jurisdictional limits and specifically instructed the city’s business tax office not issue permits conditional or otherwise for such use.

Advocates, patients, and concerned citizens alike have called the San Marcos Ban unconstitutional and a slap in the face of California voters who overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215 in 1996. Since 1996 support for medical marijuana across California has continued to grow with the most recent polls showing over 70% of Californian’s in support of medical use.

To date this patient eradication campaign has cost the city millions of dollars and has included criminal and civil action against legitimate patients. The latest example in the city’s spending furry is the filing of this restraining order and demand for an “Emergency Injunction” against St. Bernard’s Provisions.

Just in the last couple months the City of San Marcos has spent several hundred thousand dollars on this effort with the cases against MMSC, Inc., and now St. Bernard’s Provisions.

On Friday December 3, members of St. Bernard’s collective were in court for a hearing on the City’s emergency injunction. The courtroom was full with over a dozen supporters, patients, and members of Americans for Safe Access, who took time on a weekday afternoon to show up in support of St. Bernards and against the injunction and illegal ban.

The hearing was scheduled to begin at 2:30 but got underway an hour late. Jeffery Lake of Lake APC, a local medical marijuana law firm which specializes in assisting patients in navigating the state’s medical marijuana laws represented St. Bernard’s Provisions that day.

The hearing began with the Judge going over the city’s complaint. The city was claiming that because St. Bernard’s business license application stated the collective provided “medical provision” rather than “medical marijuana” it was violation of the city’s code. The Judge failed to recognize or even discuss the fact that the city specifically instructed its business license office to deny all applications for medical marijuana dispensaries.

Mr. Lake explained to the Judge that the collective was truthful in their application and in fact was providing medical provisions including medical cannabis to patients and that there was already a hearing set for December 9 with the city to determine if medical provisions could include medical marijuana according to the city’s definition.

Lake also argued that the city had failed to prove that this was an emergency. There had not been a single complaint about the facility, there was no detriment or harm caused to anyone from the collective’s existence, and in fact the city’s action in itself was a detriment. Lake argued the injunction would cause harm to patients, the landlord, and others in the community who directly benefit from safe and reliable access that St. Bernard’s Provisions brought to San Marcos.

The City Attorney hardly spoke at all as she could tell that Judge Dahlquist had made up his mind about the hearing long before it began.
Judge Dahlquist concluded that the collective should have applied for the license as a medical marijuana dispensary and after being denied, should have sued the city for denying it the license intern challenging the city’s ban, rather than “not being truthful in the application”.

In the end after Lake presented countless arguments, facts, and evidence clearly proving there was no justification for the emergency injunction, and that the collective was in fact truthful, Judge Dahlquist still sided with the bias and granted the city’s request forcing the collective to close.

Patients, concerned citizens, and members of the collective alike were disappointed at the decision and vowed to continue the fight for safe access and a reasonable ordinance regulating dispensaries in San Marcos rather than a ban.

James Stacy Prosecution Continues; Federal Trial to start in November

By: Eugene Davidovich

SAN DIEGO – In March of 2009, the current administration announced “they would not prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.” At least that’s what the California Legislative Analyst told Californians in the voters guide for the November 2010 elections. (1)

Approximately six month after the Presidential announcement in October of 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a memo urging all federal prosecutors and other agencies to “not focus federal resources in States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana”. (2)

A month prior to the October 2009 DOJ memo and only ten weeks after opening, James Stacy was charged in federal court following a raid on the Movement in Action dispensing collective in Vista, CA, making him the first medical marijuana provider to be tried under the new federal policy.

The dispensary was raided on 9/9/9 the same day over a dozen other medical marijuana dispensaries were raided in San Diego County as part of District Attorney (DA) Bonnie Dumanis’ fierce fight against medical marijuana patients, dubbed by her office as “Operation Green Rx”.

A few weeks prior to the raid, an undercover detective armed with a legitimate medical marijuana recommendation and a valid California ID came into the collective, presented all the appropriate paperwork, completed the membership agreements, and was allowed to join.

The detective posing as a legitimate patient was distributed a small amount of medicine and prior to leaving asked Stacy if he could contribute to the effort with labor and not just financially. According to police reports, Stacy welcomed the offer and told the undercover specifically what he could do around the facility that did not involve a financial contribution.

Stacy is the only defendant from the September raids who was charged in federal court, has refused all deals, and has taken his case to trial. The reason for his case going to federal court where he has no defense versus state where he would have been found in clear and unambiguous compliance with state law, still remains a mystery, and is a question the U.S. Attorney prosecuting Stacy has refused to answer.

In a recent article on change.org, Kris Hermes of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the nation’s largest medical marijuana advocacy group wrote, “In many ways, James Stacy is no different than hundreds of other dispensary operators in California. In fact, most federal defendants take plea bargains and never go to trial, mainly because they know they will have no defense against their charges. Truth has been taken out of federal trials to appease government prosecutors and the DEA in their effort to undermine state medical marijuana laws.” (3)

Much like other federal cases, in Stacy’s case, U.S. District Court Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz precluded him from presenting any evidence of medical marijuana in the trial (5), including barring the defense from talking about the Presidential announcement of March 2009, the DOJ memo issued in October of 2009 as well as the fact that Movement in Action was a medical marijuana dispensary operating in full compliance with state law.

Judge Moskowitz ruled that any reasonable man or woman having read or heard the memo and announcement would NOT have interpreted them to mean that the Federal government was changing their policy with regards to medical marijuana prosecutions. It would appear that under this ruling, the California Legislative Analyst as well as the hundreds of thousands of citizens who understood the announcements to mean "they would not prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws", are not reasonable.

Since the ordeal began in September of 2009 Stacy’s case has garnered national attention and outrage from thousands of patients across the state who believed the administration’s announcements and thought the Federal intervention in State’s medical marijuana laws was over.

Stacy himself has become an outspoken advocate of patient’s rights and HR 3939 the “Truth in Trials Act”, which if passed by Congress would allow federal defendants to present “evidence during trial that the activities they were engaged in were performed in compliance with their state’s duly-enacted medical marijuana laws.” (6)

In response to Stacy’s activism, and refusal to accept a deal, the U.S. Attorney’s throughout the last year filed three indictments against Mr. Stacy turning the original counts into eight trumped up charges.

The latest charges include ‘distribution of a controlled substance to someone under twenty one’. The prosecution claims they found two patients in the dispensary records that were ‘underage’. One of the patients was nineteen and the other twenty years old at the time of their membership.

The other charge in the most recent indictment was one not heard of before in these types of cases, a charge for being an ‘Illegal drug user’. The prosecution claims that since Stacy admitted to being a medical marijuana patient and because there is no allowed medical use of marijuana under federal law, that he was an ‘Illegal’ drug user.

After the most recent superseding indictment, the defense filed several motions asking the court to dismiss the trumped up charges as well as to address the vindictiveness of the prosecution against Stacy.

On Wednesday of last week, Stacy was back in court, where Judge Moskowitz heard oral arguments regarding the motions filed by the defense. Kasha Castillo, Stacy’s Federal Public Defender argued that there was no clear definition in the law about what constitutes a ‘legal’ versus an ‘Illegal’ user, making this statute unconstitutionally vague.

The U.S. Attorney fired back stating that marijuana was not a medicine and had no accepted medical use, making Stacy an illegal drug user.

There were no oral arguments heard about the underage or vindictive prosecution charges as both attorneys agreed to submit those arguments in writing. Judge Moskowitz declined to rule on the motions that day and said he would issue a written decision within the week.

The next court date in Stacy’s case is set for October 20th at 10:30am in Courtroom 15, where motions in limine will be heard. The trial set to start on November 1, 2010

Aside from not taking a deal and advocating for HR 3939, Stacy has successfully organized and put on a medical marijuana convention in San Diego, with the second one dubbed Rx Fest II (7), planned for October 24 from 4:20pm – 9:30pm at the Maritime Museum on board the Berkeley Ferry Boat. That day hundreds of medical marijuana patients and concerned citizens will come together to help raise money for James Stacy as he goes through the Federal trial.

References:

1. http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/19-title-summ-analysis.pdf
2. http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192
3. http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/without_truth_in_trials_medical_marijuana_defendants_have_no_hope_of_justice
4. http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/U.S._v_OCBC.pdf
5. http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/Stacy_Ruling.pdf
6. http://www.safeaccessnow.org/section.php?id=354
7. Rx Fest II - For more information or to reserve an exhibitor space please call 760-758-8500 or email movementinaction@gmail.com

Opening Statements Begin, Security Measures Upgraded at Jackson Medical Marijuana Trial

By: Eugene Davidovich
SAN DIEGO - If you thought intimidation couldn’t get any worse in the San Diego State Courts, think again. This morning Department 15 as per the new demands of the San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, was outfitted with additional security measures. While walking up to the courtroom this morning a congregation of bailiffs could be seen outside and a giant walk through metal detector erected along with a 3’x4’ sign displaying the warning “ALL PERSONS SUBJECT TO SEARCH”.

“This monstrosity is clearly over the top”, Terrie Best member of San Diego Americans for Safe Access stated this morning while outside of court. “It is nothing more than then prosecutor’s Jury Intimidation Machine”.

The proceedings began this morning with Judge Shore instructing the jurors on rules of the court. The Judge focused special attention on admonishing the Jurors to immediately report to the court all attempts made by anyone to influence or talk to them. The Judge even focused his attention on the public and stated that it was a crime to tamper with the Jury and that anyone caught attempting to do so, would be severely punished.

While this order was being read, Paul Levikow, Dumanis’ head of Public Relations who was sitting in the front row behind the prosecution, turned around in his chair, and also focused his attention on the supporters. He began to nod his head as the Judge was speaking and continued to give the supporters a long and intimidating stare, clearly trying to instill fear and discourage the public from attending the trial.

Following this clear show of force and intimidation, Chris Lindbergh began his opening statements, in which he claimed that Mr. Jackson was operating a store that would sell marijuana to anyone that came in. A claim completely false and against the evidence that shows that all 1600 members of the Answerdam collective were legitimate patients.

After the DA’s opening statements, the Jury was asked to step into the courtroom next door (a second courtroom commissioned specifically for this trial) while a 402 hearing could be held to determine if Detective Carlson, the investigating officer in the case, was qualified to testify during the trial.

After the Jurors left the courtroom, Detective Mark Andrew Carlson got on the stand, and claimed to be an expert in the medical use of cannabis. He testified that an eight hour narcotics class administered by the California Narcotic Officers Association about how marijuana was not a medicine, made him a medical expert in the field.

The Judge agreed and to the objections of the defense, Carlson was qualified as an expert and allowed to testify in front of the Jury.

The Jurors were let back into the courtroom, and Carlson took the stand as a medical expert. Among many misleading and false statements that Carlson made on the stand, Carlson claimed that the marijuana found at Answerdam was definitely not in compliance with state law and was clearly not for medical use.

At noon, the court took its lunch recess with the proceedings resuming at 1:30 in the afternoon when Carlson is expected to be back on the stand for defense cross examination.

“They will not scare the public away. We will continue to support Mr. Jackson and his fight for our rights” stated Terrie Best while leaving the courthouse for the lunch recess.

San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.safeaccesssd.org

Get Involved, Get Active, Make a difference!

Joine ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

Unfair Trial of Jovan Jackson

WHAT: Protest against the Unfair Trial of Jovan Jackson
WHEN: 8:30 - 9:30am Friday, September 17th 2010
WHERE: 220 W Broadway, San Diego CA 92101

SAN DIEGO - Mr. Jackson is facing a second trial, less than a year after being acquitted by a jury of all medical marijuana related charges just a few months ago. In State court where medical marijuana is legal, Jackson has been denied the right to a fair trial by being denied the opportunity to present the medical marijuana defense to the jury even though Jackson is a legitimate patient.

Today the prosecutor Chris Linbergh spent the morning arguing with the Judge as to why ALL of Mr. Jackson’s supporters should be excluded from the courtroom. Linbergh requested that specifically the ASA shirts not be allowed in the courtroom or the courthouse, that Eugene Davidovich, San Diego ASA Coordinator be banned from being present inside the courtroom, as well as that the retired / disabled Navy veteran, a friend of Jovan's who has come to Jovan’s hearings in the past and wore his NAVY dress blues, not be allowed to wear the uniform.

The Judge dismissed these requests as being ridiculous and some in violation of the first amendment. Judge Shore did however allow Linbergh to keep the ASA shirts out of the courtroom.

Today following the arguments to limit Mr. Jackson’s support, Jury Selection began. It is expected that Jury Selection will be finished today, with the opening statements in the trial to start on Friday morning at 9:00am in Department 15.

Please come out tomorrow to the courthouse at 8:30am and help us send a strong message that we will not tolerate this unfair persecution of legitimate patients and are outraged at the attempt to keep the community out of the courtroom.

Dumanis’ office is not just waging a fierce fight against patients, they are also actively breaking the law and attempting to keep this case as quiet as possible. Please help spread the word about the case, the protest and this injustice.

Bring a friend and come to the protest tomorrow. Everyone who attends the protest will receive a free ASA shirt, sponsored by Marcus Boyd. Although the shirts cannot be worn in the actual courtroom, outside in the hallways, the are allowed.

Your support is critical for this trial!

San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org

Get involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

SD County attempts to pass De Facto Ban on Medical Marijuana Facilities

SAN DIEGO - Wednesday, June 23, 2010, at 9am the San Diego County Board of Supervisors will meet to discuss and vote on a proposed ordinance regulating medical marijuana facilities in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County.

The proposed ordinance severely limits patients’ access to medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Certain provisions in the proposed regulatory ordinance would not only seriously violate patient confidentiality in these facilities, but also would effectively ban all dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the county.

Grand Jury Medical Marijuana Report - 2010 - San Diego

After months of investigation and inquiry, the San Diego Grand Jury has finally issues their report on the Medical Marijuana Issue in San Diego. The Grand Jury has made a number of recommendations to the San Diego District Attorney, The Sheriff, and the County Board of Supervisors.

The Grand Jury’s recommendations:

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego District Attorney:

• 10-107: In consultation with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department and officials of the Police Departments of the Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, El Cajon, Escondido, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside and San Diego, publish a position paper which contains guidelines for the operation of legal medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in San Diego County.
• 10-108: In cooperation with the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, establish a Medical Marijuana Advisory Council as a forum through which the operators of legitimate medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, as well as patients and members of the public, could engage in dialogue with representatives of County law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Sheriff:

• 10-109: In cooperation with the County of San Diego District Attorney and in consultation with officials of the nine municipal police departments in the County, publish a position paper which contains guidelines for the operation of legal medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives in San Diego County.
• 10-110: Adopt clear guidelines for law enforcement personnel so that the rights of legitimate medical marijuana patients will be respected.
• 10-111: In cooperation with the County of San Diego District Attorney, establish a Medical Marijuana Advisory Council as a forum through which the operators of legitimate medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, as well as patients and members of the public, could engage in dialogue with representatives of County law enforcement agencies on a regular basis.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the County of San Diego Board of Supervisors:

• 10-112: Adopt a cost neutral County program for the licensing, regulation and periodic inspection of authorized collectives and cooperatives distributing medical marijuana in the unincorporated areas of San Diego County, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-113: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries” in the unincorporated areas.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the Mayor of the City of San Diego and the City Council of the City of San Diego:

• 10-114: Enact an ordinance creating an immediate moratorium on the opening of additional medical marijuana dispensaries in the City of San Diego, pending the adoption by the Council of guidelines regulating such establishments, as recommended by the Medical Marijuana Task Force with appropriate public input.
• 10-115: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-116: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-117: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-118: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-119: Upon the enactment of such an ordinance, rescind the current ban on the opening of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside and Santee:

• 10-120: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-121: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”
• 10-122: Upon the enactment of such an ordinance, rescind the current moratorium on the opening of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives.

The 2009/2010 San Diego County Grand Jury recommends that the City Councils of Carlsbad, Coronado, Del Mar, Encinitas, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, Poway and Solana Beach:

• 10-123: Enact an ordinance to establish a cost neutral program for the licensing, regulation and monitoring of medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives, and establish a limit on the number of such facilities.
• 10-124: Adopt regulations which would allow for the closure of all unlicensed “dispensaries.”

San Diego Americans for Safe Access
www.SafeAccessSD.org

Get Involved, get active, make a difference!
Join ASA - www.safeaccessnow.org

Davidovich: My Medical Marijuana Case Continues Post-Trial

Davidovich: My Medical Marijuana Case Continues Post-Trial
SDNN - 4/9/2010

In a resounding defeat of San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, a jury of 12 on March 25 found me not guilty on all counts, after less than four hours of deliberation. The jurors unanimously determined that I acted lawfully and in accordance with state law when it came to all the charges against me; sales, possession, transportation and possession of concentrated cannabis.

They also had a thing or two to say about the D.A.’s investigation and prosecution in this case.

After the verdict was read, two jurors met me outside the courtroom and said, “Eugene, we all believed in you, you are a good man.” Days after the trial, I received an e-mail from another juror in my case, a part of which reads, “This was the most ridiculous thing that I have ever seen! Shame on the SDPD! The reason that we decided in your favor was because the prosecutor just didn’t prove her case (she was so annoying), and the police work on your case was nothing but shoddy. I just want to let you know that I am so sorry that you had to go through this nightmare.”

Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-04-09/blog/a-more-perfect-union/davidovich-my-medical-marijuana-case-continues-post-trial#ixzz0ke50VHi1

Court Support Requested – THURSDAY 3/11/2010 - 10am

Court Support Requested – THURSDAY 3/11/2010 - 10am
Department 55 - 220 W Broadway San Diego CA 92101

Today, Wednesday March 10, 2010 all in limine motions were completed and a jury was selected in the medical marijuana trial of People v Davidovich.

On Thursday opening statement will begin from both the prosecution and the defense. This will be the first day in front of the jury and a critical day for supporters to be in court. If you are able to make it to court tomorrow (Thursday 10am), your presence would be both helpful and very much appreciated. The jury should see that this issue affects all of us.

On Tuesday as well as today Bahar Ansari my attorney argued and defended all the motions in limine filed by the prosecution as well as presented the motions in limine from the defense. If it weren’t for her efforts, superb knowledge of the law, and well formulated arguments, I would have been in a very bad position.

The prosecution came in with 9 (nine) motions in limine all with a clear intent to undermine my defense and chance for a fair trial:
Below is a brief description of the motions the DA filed, as well as a summary of how that motion was ruled on by the Judge.

1. Jury Instructions – (an interpretation of the medical marijuana law presented to the jury)
The instructions that the prosecutor filed were a very narrow interpretation of the law, and essentially professed that unless all members are cultivating together, that no other means of association to cultivate was legal. We were able to finally clarify, correct, and agree on a jury instructions this morning shortly prior to starting jury selection. The final instruction is a more accurate depiction of the law which includes a description of what a collective is. The most disturbing part of this was that even though the San Diego DA has posted on their website the AG Guidelines and is urging people to follow them, they proclaimed to the surprise of everyone including the judge in court today during these arguments that “AG Guidelines are not law, and we can never see a case when we would want them to apply”.

2. Medical Defense
The prosecution fought vehemently for hours to have my medical defense excluded and to not allow us to mention anything with regards to medical marijuana laws to the jury. Exactly at 4:20pm it was decided by the Judge that there is evidence of an affirmative defense and that we would be allowed to discuss medical marijuana in front of the jury during jury selection as well as at all other times.

3. Recommendations of Potential Witnesses
Although the prosecution claimed recommendations written on paper and signed by the doctor were hearsay, they filed a motion to require all potential witnesses claiming to be medical marijuana patients to subpoena the written recommendations from their doctors. We had no objection to this.

4. Exclude testimony of Chris Conrad Expert Witness
The prosecution filed to excluded the testimony of Chris Conrad a well known medical cannabis dosages and yields expert who has testified in hundreds of cases. The after hearing relentless arguments from the DA, the judge denied their motion and will allow Mr. Conrad’s testimony.

5. Members List should be excluded
The DA moved to exclude the mention of the list of members of the collective to the jury. This request was also denied by the judge.

6. Character Witnesses
Again the DA argued to exclude the two character witnesses from testifying at my trial. These two individuals have known me for over fifteen years and are prepared and willing to testify about their opinions of my character. The DA argued that their testimony would create an unnecessary burden on the courts time. The judge denied this request and will allow both my character witnesses to testify.

7. Surveillance Video
A request was made by the DA to show the jury the undercover video of the delivery of medicine to Jamie Conlan (Detective Scott Henderson) who was posing as a legitimate patient. We did not object and were ourselves requesting the video be shown, as it clearly shows me verifying his doctor’s recommendation and drivers license.

8. Exclusion of Navy Background
Without hesitation the judge denied this request. I will be allowed to discuss my navy background.

9. Photos of Cultivation Excluded
The Prosecution attempted to exclude pictures of the collective cultivation effort from being shown to the jury. Again the judge quickly denied this request and the jury will be allowed to see ALL the evidence.

At 10:30 this morning forty eight people were brought into Department 55. Michael McCabe my defense attorney invited his friend Charles Roger Khoury Jr. a very experienced and respected attorney to assist with the jury selection process. I must say, it was a very good feeling to have three attorneys representing me in court today all out of the goodness of their heart and for their passionate belief in justice.

Jury selection began with a huge surprise for all of us. We saw the direct result from the efforts of all the medical marijuana advocacy and activism in San Diego pay off, when at least a dozen potential jurors openly voiced their concerns about the current marijuana laws in court for the entire jury pool to hear. One potential juror went as far as to talk about the current situation in San Diego with the lack of clarity in the law and the zoning issues collectives are having. She as well as most of the others who raised concerns were unfortunately dismissed by the prosecution but not before the rest of the jurors were educated. At the end of the day, the forty eight jurors were narrowed down a panel of twelve jurors and two alternates.

On Thursday opening statements begin, as well as the testimony of the Narcotics Task Force detective Scott Henderson who stars in the surveillance video provided by the DA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzYMHgGO_84

Come see Mr. Henderson talk about why how he lied to the doctor to obtain his recommendation and then used it to infiltrate local collectives.
For more information about my case visit www.eugenedavidovich.com

Get Active, Get Involved, Make a difference!

January 4th City Council Meeting / MMTF Update

Dear San Diego Medical Marijuana Community and Concerned Citizens,

At the last San Diego City Council meeting public comment on the item of Medical Marijuana Recommendations was heard and the Council voted to continue the item until Monday, January 4 at 2:00pm.

It is critical that we turn out and send a quiet message that we want fair regulations and support the San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force recommendations.
In support of our message we will be handing out “Target” stickers for supporters of the task force recommendations to wear in response to the “no pot shop” stickers handed out by the county funded organizations who spoke out against regulations at the last meeting. We do not support “pot shops” we support regulations and fair treatment of this issue.

Come to the city council meeting on January 4th at 202 C St San Diego, CA 92101 at 2 pm to get your “Target” sticker and help us send a message to the city council.

The next San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force Meetings:

• Thursday, January 21 – 9am – 11am
• Friday, February 5 – 9am – 11am
• Friday, February 19 – 9am – 11am
The meetings will be every other week until the end of October 2010.

www.SafeAccessSD.org

L. A. City Council ducks medical pot vote at wild meeting; harsh land-use limits anger crowd

By Christine Pelisek in City News
Wed., Dec. 16 2009 @ 3:49PM

No surprise: At a raucous meeting today, the Los Angeles City Council decided to hold off on voting on a controversial medical marijuana ordinance that would severely reduce the 545 pot shops in Los Angeles.
marijuana-leaf.jpg

The postponement came after the city's Planning Department presented hurriedly created maps showing that only five of 137 pot shops envisioned under a City Council cap could remain at their current locations if the city adopts a buffer zone to keep them at least 500 feet from schools, youth centers, libraries, religious institutions and residential properties. The remaining 118 would most likely have to relocate, many to industrial zones.

The findings caused a stir among council members and pro-medical marijuana advocates who booed many of the details presented by city planner Alan Bell. Here's the amazing part:

This was the first time, five years after the council decided it needed to adopt local regulations for selling medical weed, that the City Council has ever seen a zoning map showing where pot shops would be located or be banned under a typical "buffer zone" approach used in many California cities.

Unlike San Diego, where a respected polling group conducted a detailed survey of city residents to learn what residents wanted to do about medical pot (San Diego residents strongly back medical weed, but only 23 percent want a pot dispensary within a mile of their homes), Los Angeles just recently began debating land-use and neighborhood impact.

San Francisco acted about one year ago, adopting a 1,000-foot buffer around its schools and has shut down roughly half of its 50 pot shops.

The hot-button issue, which has been bogged down in a gridlocked Los Angeles City Council committee for many years, gained steam in the last few weeks after the council voted on December 8 to limit the number of pot shops to 137 -- those shops that opened up before the council rushed to adopt a 2007 pot outlet moratorium.

The council asked the Planning Department to draw up detailed maps that would show how close the pot shops would be to schools, youth centers, libraries, religious institutions and residential properties if buffer zones are adopted.

The Planning Department found that if pot shops were limited to a 500-foot buffer zone around sensitive uses, they could open in 31 percent of the city's commercial and industrial areas -- but only five percent of those areas would be commercial spots such as business districts. The rest would be industrially zoned.

If the city decides on a 1,000-foot buffer from sensitive uses, no pot shops would be able to open, said Bell.

If nothing else, the meeting showed which council members were in favor of pot shops and which members were not. Rosendahl, whose lover died of AIDS, said that if it wasn't for medical marijuana his lover would not have been able to eat. "We are treating this like a pariah. There are liquor stores all over the place. It should be legal...Putting it in back alleys and industrial areas is wrong."

Garcetti argued that he wanted to give "special consideration" for those pot shops who opened before the moratorium. "I don't want to have secondary effects where there are no clinics," he said.

But referring to the pro-marijuana advocates dominating the audience, Alarcon said the city had already "gone a long way to give [the medical marijuana advocates] what they want."

Alarcon was resoundingly booed by the crowd, but continued: "We don't have to do this...I don't want it 1,000 feet from my kid. Period."

Councilman Smith noted that pot shops have become crime magnets yet the City Council is being shown zoning maps instead of maps from the Los Angeles Police Department showing the crime hot spots. "My district won't stand for it," Smith said.

His comments caused a furor again among the rowdy pro-marijuana crowd, and security guards threatened to throw people out. "All your boos prove to me that you aren't good citizens," lamented Smith.

The next City Council hearing on the issue is set for January 13.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/medical-marijuana-los-angeles/

Update on Eugene Davidovich 995 Hearing

Yesterday at 1:30 PM at my 995 Hearing, the courtroom was packed and I want to sincerely thank EVERYONE who came out and helped spread the word about my case and the hearing. We had a small victory yesterday in one of the charges being dismissed. Still 3 to go and trial coming up on January 21.

More info about yesterday to come.

I am thankful and proud to be part of this amazing community!

www.eugenedavidovich.com