Pubdate: Tue, 29 May 2007
Source: Ukiah Daily Journal, The (CA)
Copyright: 2007 The Ukiah Daily Journal
Author: Dane Wilkins
Bookmark: (Cannabis - California)
Bookmark: (Decrim/Legalization)


To the Editor:

After reading your editorial on Sunday I realized there was a gap in
the perception of reality and the law. In the year 2000, Measure G was
passed by a landslide of 58.4 percent. This set the county limit at 25
plants (among other things). Here is the voters guide statement
written by the county counsel. In the election of 2000, the County of
Mendocino officially told voters what to expect if Measure G passed in
the coming election:

"This ordnance prevents the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff, the
District Attorney, the Auditor-Controller and the Treasurer-Tax
Collector from spending or authorizing the expenditure of public funds
or authorizing or approving any form-of payment should such
expenditures be made for the investigation, arrest or prosecution of
any person, or the seizure of any property in any single case
involving twenty-five (25) or fewer adult flowering female marijuana
plants or the equivalent in dried marijuana."

This was the initiative as offered through the legal interpretation of
county counsel in 2000, before the voters decided. This was the
official county opinion that was on file in the clerks office. It's
titled Measure G Impartial Analysis; it states nothing to the effect
that the supervisors will ignore it if passed.

I would like to applaud Sheriff Allman on his zip-tie idea. It's a
good idea that could really work and there is a huge buy in from the
medical marijuana community.

It is so easy to focus on the bad apples, but what did you expect this
is what prohibition creates. Lets work together so that all of our
needs are met. Lets end the fear mongering.

You see we really are on the same page. The solution: "Legalize, Tax
and Regulate Cannabis".


- ---
MAP posted-by: Steve Heath