Pubdate: Thu, 10 Jan 2008
Source: Ukiah Daily Journal, The (CA)
Copyright: 2008 The Ukiah Daily Journal
Contact: http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/feedback
Website: http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/581
Author: Rob Burgess, The Daily Journal
Cited: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/bos/
Cited: Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board http://www.mmmab.net/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Measure+G
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Marijuana - California)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

25 PLANTS PER PARCEL STANDS

Neither the votes nor the opinions behind them wavered as the 
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors once again voted 3-2 Tuesday to 
affirm the restriction on the number of medical marijuana plants 
allowed on any one parcel of land to 25, regardless of the number of 
qualified patients residing there.

The original decision was made at the board's Dec. 11 meeting after 
being pushed back from its scheduled Nov. 6 date.

The item was first placed on the board's consent calendar for final 
approval, but was removed for further discussion by 3rd District 
Supervisor John Pinches.

"I want to record my vote opposing it," he said. "I feel that two 
25-plant limits per parcel would have been more appropriate."

When the board opened the floor for public comment on the matter, 
Pebbles Trippet, Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board adviser, 
said the measure would be exclusionary to a large population of patients.

"It would discriminate against the joint tenant owners of land," she 
said. "It would also discriminate against the majority of marijuana 
patients who rent. This is not a good situation to put patients 
in...I feel this is not speaking for the majority."

Tom Davenport said the board was opening up the county to legal 
action if it passed the ordinance.

"The cultivation ordinance will not pass legal muster," he said. "You 
don't need to take my word for it, but take a good long look at 
fiscal responsibility. It's going to cost the county a lot of money 
on a legal battle that they are going to lose."

Asked by 4th District Supervisor Kendall Smith about the legality of 
the measure, County Counsel Jeanine Nadel said she had not 
encountered any discrepancies.

A ballot initiative that, if passed by voters in the June 3 primary, 
would repeal Measure G and institute the state medical marijuana 
limits was also passed at Tuesday's meeting by a 4-1 vote.

On Nov. 8, 2000, Mendocino County voters approved Measure G, a 
resolution calling for the decriminalization of personal use and 
cultivation of up to 25 adult female marijuana plants or the 
equivalent in dried marijuana, by a vote of 58 percent.

The current state medical marijuana limits are defined under Senate 
Bill 420, under which qualified patients and/or their primary 
caregivers may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana 
and/or six mature, or 12 immature, marijuana plants. The bill also 
allows patients to possess larger amounts of marijuana when such 
quantities are recommended by a physician.

Nadel said that if the supervisors' measure was passed by voters it 
would not necessarily conflict with the 25-plant per parcel limit 
because it could refer to more than one grower equaling 25 plants 
total per parcel.

Fifth District Supervisor David Colfax, the board's only other 
dissenter besides Pinches, said the restriction would only serve to 
confuse the already fractured county law.

"I don't think we have a grasp of the implications of what this is 
about," he said. "This is just an action that only further 
complicates our involvement with some of these issues."

Before being passed, the motion was moved for approval by 1st 
District Supervisor Michael Delbar and was seconded by Smith. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake