Pubdate: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 Source: Press Democrat, The (Santa Rosa, CA) Copyright: 2005 The Press Democrat Contact: http://www.pressdemo.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/348 Pubdate: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 Author: Glenda Anderson Cited: National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (www.norml.org ) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California) STATE: POT CAN'T BE CERTIFIED ORGANIC Mendocino County Can Advise On Pesticide Use Mendocino County may be pot friendly, but it cannot provide its seal of approval to organic marijuana grown for medicinal use. In a curt letter sent this week, the state Department of Food and Agriculture forbade the county from certifying organic pot or regulating the crop in any way. However, another state agency said it's probably safe for county agriculture officials to advise individual pot growers on pesticide use. The mixed messages demonstrate the erratic application of the 1996 California law legalizing medicinal marijuana. But the answers satisfied Mendocino County ag regulators, who sought guidance from the state last month after receiving several requests from local medical-marijuana growers for organic certification, a service the county can provide to growers of other legal crops. Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner Dave Bengston asked state regulators if his office should certify organic medical marijuana and regulate the crop to protect consumers from dangerous pesticides. In addition, the county asked whether it should regulate medical-marijuana growers and inspect their crops, as it does for vineyards, pear orchards and other legal farm products. It raised the question after a dozen people brought their medical pot-growing problems and pesticide concerns to the department in the past year, according to Assistant Agricultural Commissioner Tony Linegar. But the state Agriculture Department ruled the county has no business regulating medical pot growers. "This department and you as our agent do not certify, register, etc., illegal activities. Either growing or sale of marijuana violates federal law (even the growth of one marijuana plant) and that is a federal issue not one within the purview of this department or you," John Dyer, chief counsel to the state Agriculture Department, wrote in a Feb. 28 letter to the county. Medical marijuana activists, who supported pot certification, on Wednesday criticized the department's missive. It's a case of "cowardly bureaucrats hiding behind federal law," said Dale Gieringer, Bay Area coordinator for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. It also shows that inconsistencies continue to plague efforts to implement Proposition 215 more than eight years after it was approved by voters, he said. The 1996 initiative legalized the growth and use of marijuana for treatment of health problems, with a doctor's approval. An official at the state Agriculture Department declined to explain the decision. "The letter is our statement," said Steve Lyle, the department's public affairs director. In contrast to the Agriculture Department, the state Department of Health Services this year will begin an identification card program intended to protect medical pot patients from being arrested or their plants confiscated by authorities. And, in response to a similar letter from Bengston, the state Department of Pesticide Regulation said it was probably legal for the office to advise individual medical pot growers on pesticide use. However, the state urged Bengston to steer clear of advising cannabis clubs, which sell medical marijuana. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a portion of California's law that allows individuals to grow and possess medical marijuana, wrote Mary-Ann Warmerdam, director of pesticide regulation. But she cautioned that it is illegal to commercially sell and distribute medicinal pot. Any pesticide advice given to medical pot growers will be limited to telling them not to use any, Linegar said. He noted Warmerdam confirmed his belief there are no pesticides that can be legally used on marijuana. Regardless of the state Agriculture Department's edict, Linegar said his department is mandated by law to investigate all potential pesticide poisonings. "If we can collect evidence and prove there is an illegal use of pesticides resulting in illness, that certainly would be subject to enforcement action, including a fine," he said. Though he was expecting a longer response, Linegar said the Agriculture Department's three-sentence letter adequately answered his and Bengston's questions. "We asked for a clear and concise response in writing. We believe the response we received is very clear and very concise and leaves no doubt in our minds how to proceed," he said.