Pubdate: Tue, 15 Jan 2013
Source: Record Searchlight ( Redding, CA )
Copyright: 2013 Record Searchlight
Contact:  http://www.redding.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/360

LAWYERS CHALLENGE COUNTY'S PROPOSED POT LAW

As some Shasta County officials are poised to move forward today with 
banning outdoor pot grows to curb crime and complaints from 
neighbors, some attorneys doubt their solution would stand up to 
legal scrutiny in the unstable world of medical cannabis law.

The Board of Supervisors today will discuss whether to look into 
scratching outdoor medical marijuana grows from the county's pot 
ordinance, as well as making violations of the ordinance a $1,000 
misdemeanor fine instead of a $100 infraction.

But two northern California attorneys said they don't see how the 
county will get away with a ban that could prevent some legitimate 
patients from getting medicine they're allowed under California's 
Proposition 215.

"There may be someone who can't afford the electricity ( to grow 
indoors )...so what are you going to say, 'You can't do it'?" said 
Jeffrey Schwartz, an Arcata-based attorney.  "Certainly just a 
blanket 'We're not going to allow outdoor grows' I don't think would 
fly constitutionally...there's sort of a jaundiced view of, medical 
marijuana is a cover to grow commercially, and do people do it? 
Absolutely.  But that doesn't mean it's a cover for all or most people."

But many California cities - and even some counties, including Kings 
and San Bernardino - have already banned outdoor pot grows.

Supervisors made their stance on the medical pot issue clear in 
November, when they unanimously voted for County Executive Officer 
Larry Lees and some department heads to look into the suggestions 
being brought up today after complaining about the "insidious wave of 
lawlessness" associated with many pot grows in the unincorporated area.

Supervisor Bill Schappell - who was not on the board when for that 
meeting - seemed to agree with his new colleagues, saying he 
understands some benefit from medical pot, but there's inherent 
danger and abuse in the industry.

"If people say it helps them medically, then that's good.  I can't 
say it doesn't...the problem is that it's escalated," he said Monday.

Indeed, Schappell said he's in favor of banning outdoor gardens 
becasue they attract thieves.

"How about if you had a bank that was outside? How long do you think 
( the teller ) would last?...it's money, you know, and it's big money 
now," he said.  "The people that show up have guns; you're going to 
have shootouts."

Supervisor Les Baugh, on the other hand, would not say what his 
stance is on the issue, but he voted for the ban on pot shops and has 
complained about noncompliant grows in the past.

"Basically, the more you get into it, the more questions you have, 
but that's what tomorrow is all about," Baugh said Monday.

Like Schappell, Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko said banning 
outdoor grows would be helpful for law enforcement, but only if the 
county has enough staff members in the first place.

"That does have some advantage to it, because then any outdoor 
growing...could be considered a nuisance...and then it may cut down 
on the odors," he said.  "Most often the biggest complaint that we 
receive is the oderous plants."

Bosenko said in November his office received 320 tips from January to 
the end of October and seized 27,033 plants on private property, 
while another nearly 13,000 were taken off public lands.

And the county's Assistant Resource Management Director, Rick Simon, 
said the county is still without a code enforcement officer, so three 
building inspectors have been handling all code enforcement issues 
for the past few months, making for sub-par enforcement.

"It hasn't been all that effective," he said.  "The number of grows 
is astronomical, so our ability to have a significant impact on that 
has not been very effective."

But Michael Scheibli, a Redding civil rights attorney, also doubted 
the likelihood that a ban on outdoor growth will last.

"I don't think they're going to end up getting away with it, because 
the California Supreme Court has been pretty clear," he said.  "The 
statutes say they have a right to regulate, and they're taking that 
and using that to do a de facto ban, and that's not the same as regulating."

And the county's ban on pot shops - which first took effect in 2010 
before being finalized the next year - is already facing legal 
challenges under a lawsuit Scheibli is handling on behalf of Medicine 
Man Collective Spiritual Center Corp., the unincorporated area's only 
dispensary before it was shut down.  In a suit filed Jan.  7, 
Scheibli alleges that the county's ban on medical marijuana 
collectives violated the constitutional rights of his client, 
Christopher Staffin, while a similar lawsuit also was launched 
against Anderson after it banned pot shops.

Still, the county's push for tighter pot laws came at the pleading of 
some residents who have frequently complained at Board of Supervisors 
meetings that grows are out of control and make it too easy for 
children to get drugs.

"It's health, it's safety, it's getting into the hands of our youth," 
said Cathy Grindstaff, project director for Shasta County anti-drug 
group A Sobering Choice.  "We're just seeing more and more youth 
telling us it's easier to get than alcohol and tobacco.  These are 
young brains and our future.  It saddens me that we are becoming a 
society that thinks this is OK."

But Scheibli said he thinks there is an inevitable trend toward less 
restrictive pot laws in the country.

"I think the big question in the minds of people is, why are we 
really wasting our resources doing this? I mean, what is the point? 
Because it is clear that there's going to be no stopping this," he 
said.  "This is history.  We're watching it occur...what we're 
watching here is clearly an end to the prohibition of drugs."

County attorneys reommended the growth ordinance and the one barring 
pot shops becasue of recent federal crackdowns on marijuana, but the 
bans have generated controversy because some medical cannabis 
proponents argue that's just an excuse to enforce an anti-drug agenda.

If the county agrees to the suggestions, they'll be researched by 
planners and then brought before the Planning Commission before 
eventually being adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D