There is a marijuana backlash. It is a reaction to the growing strength of the medical marijuana community, being newly empowered with legal rights. Until this year the county had not even tried to regulate marijuana for medical purposes—the Supervisors left that job to law enforcement—former Sheriff Tony Craver and former DA Norm Vroman—for a decade (1996-2006).

The Ukiah and Willits City Councils have led the recriminalization backlash with backyard bans and stringent indoor restrictions. Ukiah's City Council added criminal penalties to their Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance on December 5, 2007. Violation of Ukiah'sPublic Nuisance Ordinance carries penalties of $500 per day (until nuisance is abated), a $1000 fine and 6 months jail. The criminal penalties were courtesy of Councilman John McCowen, who also spearheaded the backyard ban.

The issue of Measure G has also emerged. After passing in 2000 by a hefty 58.5%, and then laying dormant for seven years, a coalition of medical marijuana forces, sparked by MMMAB, finally (April 17, 2007) got the Supervisors to codify Measure G as Mendocino County Code 9.36. This County law allows 25 plants per qualified patient. This is authorized under State law. Senate Bill 420 (CA H&SC 11362.77c) gives Counties and Cities the option of making their own plant count and medically allowed quantity regulations if they are greater, but not lesser, than the state’s 6 plant, 1/2 pound minimum.

On Dec 11, 2007, Mendocino County Supervisors passed a new, Ordinance (MCC 9.31) to undercut Measure G, allowing only 25 plants per Legal Parcel instead of 25 plants per patient. Supervisor Pinches opposed that as discriminatory and proposed his alternative Ordinance allowing 50 plants per parcel with “not more than two people growing marijuana per legal parcel separated by a barrier”, on grounds that “most land is owned by joint tenancy” and it would be unfair to allow one owner to grow and not the other. Never mind that the majority of patients are without land or any means to grow for themselves; this law is about protecting property owners.

Pinches’ proposal was unacceptable to the Board, as was his previous proposal requiring a use permit for anything over 25 plants per parcel. But he’s getting warmer. His attempt at compromise was appreciated by patients and praised by Sheriff Tom Allman as “wisdom”.

The Supervisors spent much discussion time on December 11, 2007 mixing up the Supervisors’ proposed Ordinance with Pinches’ alternative as well as confusing the issues of authorized medical grows with big illegal commercial grows. Both their discussion as well as public comment was peppered with propaganda sound bytes such as "thousands of plants", "viscious dogs", "teams of vigilantes", "stealing water from streams" and “scraping off mountaintops”. John McCowen’s list includes: “environmental degradation", "violence", "AK47's", "taking over our neighborhoods with fear and intimidation, making us hostages in our own homes”.

The Mendocino County Supervisors' ordinance, titled “Marijuana Cultivation”, makes no distinction between medical (protected under CA State law) and non-medical (illegal). The purpose of this legally incorrect confusion appears to be to whip up prejudice against the new pariahs—cannabis patients—by mixing us in with the bad guys, so as to facilitate moves toward prohibition and recriminalization. All this “reefer madness” is part of priming the pump and setting the proper tone for further attempts to take people’s legally protected medical rights away from them.

Their stated goal is to "rein in" large-scale commercial grows of thousands of plants but, of course, those will largely go on unabated. The primary effect would be suppresion of the legally protected rights of cannabis patients who are not property owners (the overwhelming majority), who would experience extreme difficulty finding a caregiver to grow for them under this ordinance, which mandates that a patient with property may only grow for her/himself. Any patient who grows more than their allotted amount will be deemed a nuisance, allowing abatement proceedings to begin.

Prediction: Next will come criminal penalties for non-compliance with the civil ordinance (illegal recriminalization), following in the footsteps of the Ukiah City Council’s December 5, 2007 Nuisance Ordinance amendment.

Contrary to all this, a patient has the statutory “right” to grow for others as well as one’s self, either as the “primary caregiver” of a qualified patient or as a member of a collective or cooperative, motivated by the common good rather than profit.

In interpreting Senate Bill 420, People v Urziceanu (2005) lists five additional statutory protections for “collective cooperative cultivation projects”. The Supervisors' proposed law—MCC 9.31—is so illegal it would wipe out the primary caregiver option imbedded in State Law (established by Prop 215 and reinforced by SB420) as well as preclude the formation of patient collectives. Example: If I am growing 25 plants for myself, according to MCC 9.31, I can’t grow anything for anyone else without subjecting myself to legal proceedings and potential “teeth” (jail and fine) as provided in the City of Ukiah’s recent addition of criminal penalties to their civil nuisance abatement ordinance. This attempt to illegally limit patients’ access to medicine with nuisance ordinances and abatement penalties will amount to zero in court.

Does this sound like your Supervisors are on the right track? Please respond with your comments and criticisms. The MMMAB steering committee is seeking public input. The purpose of the Medical Marijuana Memorandum of Understanding, MMMAB’s draft proposal, is to have an overall understanding between law enforcement and patients regarding implementation of state and county law on medical marijuana. It was not meant to be the last word, only the first word.
It is possible that some Supervisors are unaware out of ignorance of these unintended prohibition and criminalization consequences, whereas others may intend it. Either way it is illegal and cannot prevail in court.

A Citizens Task Force representing all points of view would sift through and evaluate legal implications, putting supervisors, law enforcement and the patient/caregiver community in touch on a regular basis, with new developments and prevailing opinions. There is something to be said for putting everyone on the same page, equally informed.

MCC9.31 violates the will of California voters as well as violating patients’ rights under state & county law. If it passes Jan 8, followed by 30 days to go into effect, MMMAB has enlisted Keith Faulder to file for injunctive and declaratory relief.

If the Supervisors had gone back to the voters to change 25 plants per person to 25 plants per parcel, we wouldn’t be complaining. Only a new set of voters can override a previous vote of the people.

Jimmy Rickel’s new ballot measure— the so-called "Sensible Medical Marijuana" iniative —is now in the signatures gathering stage. If passed, Mendocino County would revert to the State minimum limit of 6 plants per patient and make marijuana the highest law enforcement priority. Richard Johnson of the Green Party is challenging Rickel’s Title and Summary in a hearing set for Jan 4 in Mendocino Superior Court (Judge to be announced).

Supervisor Mike Delbar and Ukiah City Councilman John McCowen have teamed up hoping to put a "Repeal Measure G" initiative on the ballot. If Delbar can’t persuade the Board of Supervisors to put it directly on the ballot, proponents will still have time to gather signatures and file no later than 88 days before the June election.

Finally, the policy group I’m with, Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board, is weighing our options between the June & November ballot to put our own comprehensive policy measure before the voters.

We are asking the public the question, should we go back to the Mendocino County voters with a comprehensive medical marijuana policy measure, clarifying and defining the basics-- differences between indoor/outdoor; caregiver/collective; “mature flowering female”/seedling/clone –and let the voters once again be our guide?