Allman announces marijuana guidelines

With the traditional April 20 start of the outdoor marijuana growing season approaching, Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman has issued a series of guidelines for his officers and for potential growers based on guidance from the California Attorney General.

[Bosmer-Archer]

What is the legal limit for Assistant DA's? Somehow 160+ pounds would seem a bit generous. Also... if Law Enforcement, including of course the prosecuting DA are growing, transporting (ok ... wife of DA but really, how could he not know?) and hoping to sell 160+ pounds of bud in the midwest, should they be allowed to prosecute other "offenders"? Or is that their way of cutting out the competition?

[Regular Joe]

Hey Dummy- Leave the district attorney's office out of it. It was actually the wife of one of our useless, liberal public defender's that got caught in Utah. And yeah, your're right, How could he not know?

[Former Ukiahan]

The paper finally reported the full story. Most leave this part out.

"A qualified patient may possess more marijuana if needed for his/her medical treatment, based on a doctor's recommendation."

[Question]

What defines a commercial grow? And aren't parcel limits an ordinance? How come only 20% of Amsterdam's population uses marijuana but over 40% of American's use marijuana? Maybe the more illegal you make it the more problems there are. Take a look at Mexico.

[anb]

Former Ukiahan wrote:

The paper finally reported the full story. Most leave this part out.
"A qualified patient may possess more marijuana if needed for his/her medical treatment, based on a doctor's recommendation."

THIS IS STILL NOT CLEAR ENOUGH: Maybe it's just me, but when I read this statement I see how there could be some ambiguity in it. It could be taken one or two ways:

1).I think it plainly states a qualified patient may "possess" more marijuana and to me I think this mainly refers to "dried, processed pot." Now, if a qualified patient gets arrested for possessing 25 pounds for example, that patient is going to have trouble convincing the court a doctor recommended that much for any one person. And keep in mind the Mentch decision when it comes to being a caregiver.(you will find a select few claiming to be collectives, but most outdoor growers in Mendo are not set up this way). But back to the pot doc recommendations:

2). The other way the statement "a qualified patient may possess more marijuana" is in reference to plant numbers. Does the statement actually refer to plant numbers as well as dried, processed pot? If so, then again, if a grower is busted with say 100 ten foot tall plants outdoors in September for example, that patient is going to have trouble convincing the court a doctor recommended that amount for any one patient.

Now, I'm also a little skeptical about idea that these patients with exorbitant amounts of pot would be protected under the confidentiality laws for amounts recommended, yet if I were to be pulled over and searced for whatever reason and a deputy were to find a bottle of Vicodin in my purse that prescription label would clearly read "take 1 pill every 6 to 8 hours as needed for pain." Maybe I'm not clear on the laws, but do I have the option for privacy where those remommended amounts are concerned on pharmacy prescriptions? Is there a law regulating pharmacies to label bottles in this way? Can't they just put that info in my chart and leave it off my prescription bottle since it is no one else's business, including law enforcement, how many prescription pills I might need for an ailment or pain? Sure, my medical chart is secure at the doctor's office, but not the actual prescriptions from the pharmacy. So, what makes marijuana users so special? Why is their recommended amount only listed and protected in their medical charts? Just wondering.

Those who possess a couple pounds over, or a few plants over the limit with a doc's recommendation will be much better off using this defense than those with obvious commercial numbers and amounts, but you will find the commercial growers will try taking advantage of that loop hole. That is why those who honestly are legitimate are usually not believed when they claim their doctor recommended more. Again, the creep growers ruin it for the legitimate patients.

[Humboldt Thug]

Question wrote:

What defines a commercial grow? And aren't parcel limits an ordinance? How come only 20% of Amsterdam's population uses marijuana but over 40% of American's use marijuana? Maybe the more illegal you make it the more problems there are. Take a look at Mexico.

Who cares if 40% of people have smoked or 20% have smoked? Have you? 4/10 or 2/10 yes, right? Do you have a serious problem with it? I would bet anything that the percentage of people with a weed smoking problem is the same in the U.S., Amsterdam, Canada, Belgium, Spain, France, Australia, Switzerland, the U.K. or any other place in the world where people can even get weed. This percentage of problem users is a joke, yet all of this talk is because of these people. This tiny fraction of special people who make weed, coffee, cigarettes, beer. cocaine, meth, crack, or heroin into an excuse for not participating in society should not be given all this special consideration.

[Humboldt Thug]

anb wrote:

<quoted text>if I were to be pulled over and searced for whatever reason and a deputy were to find a bottle of Vicodin in my purse that prescription label would clearly read "take 1 pill every 6 to 8 hours as needed for pain."

There are people who are prescribed ridiculous quantities of Vicodin. My good friend suffered a severe back injury thanks to the ongoing war and has a Vicodin prescription that looks like one of those bulk vitamin bottles. He literally has enough Vicodin on hand to knock out several elephants and the VA pays for it.

The reason why he has this much is a simple one. Is he going to get up and go to the pharmacy anytime soon considering he has trouble getting up and going to the bathroom? Mind you that the bottle still states the recommended daily dose despite its size.

[going for the truth]

Bert grows pot in his back yard every summer-at least 40 plants last year. MCSO was called and nothing happened. Go figure-up in smoke.

[Former Ukiahan]

wipe em out wrote:

<quoted text> Jeez...you justifying buttheads amaze me...what was her 'medical condition,' an empty bank account? Habitual greed? Disregard for the law? Certainly there is no medical condition that would warrant that much pot. And if you, or a Dr sez so, you are full of pshhitt!

Jeeze you dip shlts without brains don't know how to read a response to the article?That is what this comment section is about right? Who the heck is "HER" and what does "she" or any other person have to do with the Sheriffs guidelines? That is what the original article is about right? That's where my comments are directed. I even quoted the part I commented about. Jeeze! Seems so easy to follow to me. Do I need to type slower for some of you or what?

[Former Ukiahan]

anb wrote:

<quoted text>THIS IS STILL NOT CLEAR ENOUGH: Maybe it's just me, but when I read this statement I see how there could be some ambiguity in it. It could be taken one or two ways:
1).I think it plainly states a qualified patient may "possess" more marijuana and to me I think this mainly refers to "dried, processed pot." Now, if a qualified patient gets arrested for possessing 25 pounds for example, that patient is going to have trouble convincing the court a doctor recommended that much for any one person. And keep in mind the Mentch decision when it comes to being a caregiver.(you will find a select few claiming to be collectives, but most outdoor growers in Mendo are not set up this way). But back to the pot doc recommendations:
2). The other way the statement "a qualified patient may possess more marijuana" is in reference to plant numbers. Does the statement actually refer to plant numbers as well as dried, processed pot? If so, then again, if a grower is busted with say 100 ten foot tall plants outdoors in September for example, that patient is going to have trouble convincing the court a doctor recommended that amount for any one patient.
Now, I'm also a little skeptical about idea that these patients with exorbitant amounts of pot would be protected under the confidentiality laws for amounts recommended, yet if I were to be pulled over and searced for whatever reason and a deputy were to find a bottle of Vicodin in my purse that prescription label would clearly read "take 1 pill every 6 to 8 hours as needed for pain." Maybe I'm not clear on the laws, but do I have the option for privacy where those remommended amounts are concerned on pharmacy prescriptions? Is there a law regulating pharmacies to label bottles in this way? Can't they just put that info in my chart and leave it off my prescription bottle since it is no one else's business, including law enforcement, how many prescription pills I might need for an ailment or pain? Sure, my medical chart is secure at the doctor's office, but not the actual prescriptions from the pharmacy. So, what makes marijuana users so special? Why is their recommended amount only listed and protected in their medical charts? Just wondering.
Those who possess a couple pounds over, or a few plants over the limit with a doc's recommendation will be much better off using this defense than those with obvious commercial numbers and amounts, but you will find the commercial growers will try taking advantage of that loop hole. That is why those who honestly are legitimate are usually not believed when they claim their doctor recommended more. Again, the creep growers ruin it for the legitimate patients.

ANB...all I stated was that the paper finally posted that part of the law. It's been ignored and left out 95% of the time. Of course every time it's mentioned I have to read about how the doctor will have to prove this or that...lol So what? The law is the law and if you don't like it, change it. the law says 6 plants and 8 ounces are a guideline and a doctor has the final say. PERIOD! My recommendation says 25 plants and/or 5lbs of processed cannabis and I would be 100% legal according to state law in mendocino county growing and having that much. Why is this so hard for people to accept or understand? Why does it raise the hackles of the non cannabis crowds? What the heck is it their business to begin with? Why do they feel the need to be in my or any other persons medical business? It just doesn't make sense. they all complain about how the pot growers are in their face yet they pry, poke and try control how much meds these people are allowed. That should be and remain between the doctor and the patient and if your not one of those people you should be butting out.

[Susan Brackett]

Former Ukiahan wrote:

<quoted text>
Jeeze you dip shlts without brains don't know how to read a response to the article?That is what this comment section is about right? Who the heck is "HER" and what does "she" or any other person have to do with the Sheriffs guidelines? That is what the original article is about right? That's where my comments are directed. I even quoted the part I commented about. Jeeze! Seems so easy to follow to me. Do I need to type slower for some of you or what?

For some unknown reason the commenter is talking about schlosser's wife that got busted for 162 pounds in Utah.Bert is a public defender.

[A Patriot]

All local ordinances that are more restrictive than prop 215 are on face value illegal.

[Humboldt Thug]

Former Ukiahan wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is this so hard for people to accept or understand? Why does it raise the hackles of the non cannabis crowds? What the heck is it their business to begin with? Why do they feel the need to be in my or any other persons medical business?

I've found that the anti crowd falls into the categories illustrated on this terrible-looking website

http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/propaganda/t...

The first one is usually what happens to most people. "The drug is associated with a hated subgroup of the society or a foreign enemy."

In the case of medical cannabis patients with recommendations for more than 6 plants, the hated subgroup is the so-called "in-your-face greedy growers." Everyone who grows 7 mature plants seems to instantly fall into this category. This is mostly due to envy of the money and lifestyle, but the sheer fact that these people are being arrested ensures the ability to obtain this money and lifestyle.

A commonly hated subgroup in America is the greedy. Contempt for greed is the normal reason Democrat-leaning prohibitionists have for their views on drugs.

#5 on that list is very prevalent as well. Many people have no problem with cannabis per se, but still have a lingering feeling that it is sexually provocative to the youth. This is long passed down propaganda

http://www.marijuanalibrary.org/images/roots....

People who have a problem with sex will in general have a problem with cannabis. This is because the prohibitionists who claim cannabis has no medicinal value will admit cannabis is a sexual tonic. These people have such a problem with sex that they don't consider sexual tonics to be medicinal.

Many people were squares as youth and did not really get laid even after they got married to another dork and/or square. This is a large segment of the population and are the same type of people who are against things like gay marriage. The overlap of the sexually frustrated and people with these types of beliefs is something that deserves further study.

If you start talking about not following some asinine limit on medicinal plants, you become a greedy sexual deviant that shouldn't be around children in some people's subconscious.

[Bosmer-Archer]

The case of Schlosser's wife is very important. How can the LEO's and the DA of this county prosecute others for what they are doing themselves? The lines Allman is drawing in the sand only apply to the people outside the circle of power. By example we see they are the ones who will happily see you go to jail for what they are doing in their backyards. 40+ plants for ADA's and 25 or less for the rest of us. Sounds fair, right? The enforcement comes in when they take all your property and send you to jail. Mendocino is #2 in the state for asset forfeiture. Think about it. You really like the idea that the people who can toss your life away are able (and DO!!) grow and obviously sell twice as much as you?

Maybe we do need to type slower or clearer, there seems to be a lot of people who can't see what is going on.

[Susan Brackett]

Bosmer-Archer wrote:

The case of Schlosser's wife is very important. How can the LEO's and the DA of this county prosecute others for what they are doing themselves? The lines Allman is drawing in the sand only apply to the people outside the circle of power. By example we see they are the ones who will happily see you go to jail for what they are doing in their backyards. 40+ plants for ADA's and 25 or less for the rest of us. Sounds fair, right? The enforcement comes in when they take all your property and send you to jail. Mendocino is #2 in the state for asset forfeiture. Think about it. You really like the idea that the people who can toss your life away are able (and DO!!) grow and obviously sell twice as much as you?
Maybe we do need to type slower or clearer, there seems to be a lot of people who can't see what is going on.

wWait a minute.tThey said that Bert has been known in the past years to grow 40 in his backyard.Thats not to say hes going to do this year.For a long time people thought you could grow 25 per card and have 25 times however many cards.Way more then they are saying Bert has had.We all put our pants on one leg at a time .Bert has a life .Bert has a job.Where does it say the you can't have a life if you have a job.Thats why we have laws ,so people can aide by them and live the American dream.Don't single this man out just because hes a public figure .If you knew the identity of every grower ,you would be surprized.ts none of anybodies business.Its tragic when a family member has to go to jail.let them be.

[Jury Immunity]

Did you guys see that movie Milk? and how he won prop 6?
It kinda like that if they know just one of us they are more likely to side with us on a jury.
People are already there in mendo so tell your friends in other counties states. They need your help!
As for the Sheriff's guidelines it all and well but if you need more grow it! The people stand behind you in Mendocino county! Regardless of sheriffs or DA's the people will protect you on the jury. You have to get one of 12 to side with you and in mendo that is a given.

Jury Immunity
What is Jury Immunity?

Do not give up your jury rights. Cannabis prosecutions often end with judges giving the following jury instructions: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that is, for your duty to follow the law. You must follow the law as I give it to you."

Or what? What would happen to the jurors if they did what they thought was just? Would the jury go to prison? Be fined? How would the judge know if the jury thought the law was unjust? Must juries explain their verdicts?

What would happen to the jurors? The answer is nothing. Nothing will happen to the jurors. Juries are not forced to explain their verdicts and they are immune from punishment. So while the Supreme Court allows judges to give jury instructions that seem to threaten the jury, the same Justices protect juries from punishment, as seen in the Ed Rosenthal case (see WCC #3).

What about jury selection and jury oaths? Judges and prosecutors are allowed to question potential jurors about their political beliefs and force them to take an oath before serving on a jury.

I see this as an ethical dilemma for citizens. Would you give up your right to vote in an election if you had to take an oath first? Or, would you take the oath and then vote as you thought best?

Each citizen must decide for themselves how valuable their rights are, and how easily they give them away. Will you disclose your political beliefs and be screened off a jury? Or, will you quietly protect your own right to a jury trial by not letting the court stack the jury when you are in the jury pool?

If more citizens saw being a juror as a valuable right, instead of a duty, the unjust and counterproductive policy of cannabis prohibition would end quickly. Prosecutors, after losing many cases, would stop prosecuting. Then police would stop arresting, then the legislature would be forced to change the laws.

Thomas Jefferson said, "Freedom is the only thing you cannot have without giving to everyone else."

[Susan Brackett]

parcel and prohibits all marijuana cultivation within 1,000 feet of any school, church or youth facility.

WHERES THE SENTENCE ",EXCEPT WITHIN A RESIDENCE"
WHERES THE F.U.C.K.I.N.G.SENTENCE

[Susan Brackett]

why are they leaving that sentence out ...THEY CANT DO THAT ...THATS CHANGING THE WHOLE FREAKIN ORIGINAL SENTENCE

[another willite]

actually I think it means, period. No growing within 1,000 feet--in a residence or in a green house. Of course in Willits our scofflaws let it grow over the fence into Brookside School yard.

[shwillits]

This is bull, it is a federal crime to possess marijuana Do your %$#@ing job and get rid of it. when the govt. starts making money from it, they become as bad as the dealer down the street. SELLING DEATH TO KIDS.