Activists Training by Peace & Justice in Santa Rosa

The Peace & Justice Center of Sonoma County 

& Alliance Community of Trainers

are facilitating Strategic Non-Violent Organizing 

and Consensus Training in November & December

Strategic Non-Violent Direct Action Organizing

- Affinity group organizing

- Street Safety

- Action planning

November 21 - 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm, December 6 - 10:00 am to 12:30 pm

Consensus Facilitation

- Facilitators toolbox

- How to make Agreements

- How to make decisions in groups

November 30 - 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm, December 9 - 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm

Peace & Justice Center

467 Sebastopol Avenue, Santa Rosa, 707-575-8902

www.peaceandjusticesonomacounty.org

www.traineralliance.org

Read article »

Funding for Integrated Water Management Approved

State Approves Funding for North Coast 

andBay Area Projects

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) this month announced final approval for integrated water management funding including $8.2 million for the North Coast region and $30.1 million for the Bay Area region. The North Coast plan designates $1 million for the Sonoma County Water Agency’s (Water Agency) Copeland Creek project. The Bay Area plan includes $765,000 for local water conservation programs and $2 million for the North Bay Water Reuse Authority.

“North Coast and Bay Area integrated regional water management efforts are pivotal to securing state funding for local water supply reliability, habitat restoration, and water conservation projects,” said Water Agency Chair Efren Carrillo. “These funding awards would not have been possible without the active collaboration between local governmental organizations and stakeholders representing the environment, local economy and cultural organizations. Thank you to everyone for their time and dedication to ensuring both the North Coast and Bay Area plans succeed and bring local projects to life.”

The funding is part of Proposition 84, Chapter 2 Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program, administered by DWR, which provides funding for projects that assist local public agencies meet long-term water needs of the state including the delivery of safe drinking water and the protection of water quality and the environment. The Water Agency is a member of both the North Coast and Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Programs.

The $1 million awarded for the Copeland Creek Project will fund Phase 1 projects of a multi-phase effort to improve flood protection and fish habitat, and reduce the sediment that is deposited in the Copeland Creek Watershed. This work will include the use of Conservation Corps Crews and a public outreach and education component.

Of the $2 million for the North Bay Water Reuse Authority, $500,000 will be used for funding the installation of an 18-inch, one-mile long recycled water pipeline from the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District’s treatment plant. The pipeline, which is currently under construction, will expand the District’s ability to serve recycled water to additional customers for irrigation purposes.

A total of $765,000 will help fund a variety of water conservation rebate programs in the cities of Sonoma, Petaluma, Valley of the Moon and North Marin water districts, and the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District and Penngrove Sanitation Zone. Rebate programs will help residential and business customers pay for and/or install high efficiency toilets and urinals, high efficiency clothes washers, irrigation upgrades (such as turf removal and drip irrigation conversion) and smart irrigation controllers. Customers are encouraged to contact their local water supplier for more rebate information.

“This funding reflects the success of the North Coast integrated regional water management process,” said North Coast IRWM Policy Review Panel Chair and City of Rohnert Park Vice Mayor Jake Mackenzie. “We've shown other parts of the state how to work cooperatively and be recognized for that.”

Learn more about the North Coast IRWM Plan: www.northcoastirwmp.net/

Learn more about the Bay Area IRWM Plan: www.bairwmp.org/

----------------------------------------------

Sonoma County Water Agency provides water supply, flood protection and sanitation services for portions of Sonoma and Marin counties. Visit us on the Web at www.sonomacountywater.org.

Read article »

Redistricting Sonoma County

Don’t Let Redistricting

Get Santa Rosa Stuck in Lodi!

The first cut of redistricting maps for a proposed state Senate District carves out Santa Rosa, Cotati, Rohnert Park, and Sebastopol from Sonoma County and joins them in a new district with Lodi, Galt, and Woodland.

The heart of Sonoma County belongs in a blue coastal district, not as an appendage to the Central Valley!

The California Citizens Redistricting Commission has a legal mission to keep intact “communities of interests.” Haven’t they heard we’re united by water, economy, transportation, energy, agriculture, education, local governance and left coast culture?

 PUBLIC HEARING 
at the:

Cowell Theatre

Fort Mason Center

Marina Blvd and Buchanan Street Entrance

San Francisco 

Monday, June 27th from 6 to 9 pm

For more information on speaking at the public hearing go to wedrawthelines@ca.gov. You can also view the draft maps at this site.

Speaking has the greatest impact, but if you can’t attend, please email your comments to voterfirstact@crc.ca.gov

New maps will be released July 12 

– a final decision in August. 

Now is the time to be heard!

Read article »

WARNING! Potassium Iodine Health Risks!

Japan Tragedy: 

Health Information for California

The recent tragedy in Japan has sparked concern among some that unsafe levels of radiation may affect Californians. I want to emphasize that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the California Department of Public Health and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have all stated that there is no risk expected to California or its residents as a result of the situation in Japan.

The California Department of Public Health and CalEMA are actively monitoring the situation in Japan and are ready to take all steps necessary to protect Californians should risks develop.

Please note: CalEMA is urging Californians not to take potassium iodide pills as a precautionary measure at this time. The pills can present a danger to people with allergies to iodine, shellfish, or who have thyroid problems. If taken inappropriately, potassium iodide can also have serious side effects including abnormal heart rhythms, nausea, vomiting, electrolyte abnormalities, and bleeding.

Click Here for more Emergency Information and Resources

Read article »

Proposition 19: 10 Points to Consider - OPINION

Personal Perspective on Prop 19 

from Miles Mendenhall

This may not be of interest to everyone, but a lot of last minute confusion has started over Prop. 19 because the long simmering differences (starting way before Prop. 215 was ever on the ballot) are starting to surface right before this election. In case you haven’t followed the many twists and turns there have always been turf battles within the movement, just like every other movement for change and many folks didn’t want Richard Lee to put this on the ballot this year, wanting to wait until 2012 when they reasoned there would be more interest. 

There is also the issue of new people jumping on board the profit making ship once Prop 215 passed back in 1996 and the folks making money now are threatened that the price will fall. These opportunists were never involved back in the day pre—Prop 215, when most of were working to get pot decriminalized for the issue of civil liberties. I could go on and on, but needless to say all this has been emerging locally on WACCO and people are very confused. The short ten points below were written by our own Miles Mendenhall. Please read if you haven’t made up your mind. Yes on 19!! Mary Moore


From Miles Mendenhall on October 24, 2010   

OK, since no one else has bitten the bullet, here goes:

1. Proposition 19 isn't really legalization. It only allows possession of up to one ounce of cannabis. Under current California law, an ounce or less of pot is a simple civil infraction you CANT be arrested, you DON'T go to court, and you WONT get a criminal record. Prop 19 doesn't make any improvements to decriminalization or prop 215. True 19 isn't total repeal of prohibition. But it's a big step in that direction. As for the new civil infraction, you can be fined, it will go on your record. As things are possession of less than an ounce is still against the law. If 19 passes, it will be legal. That's a significant difference, no matter how much anyone tries to downplay it. And by not even ticketing people for possession of less than an ounce, big bucks in taxpayer funds will be saved.

2. Prop 19 creates several new cannabis related crimes with extremely severe penalties. Don't pass a joint to a 17 year old, you will be looking at a max of 7 years in state prison, seriously. It's already illegal to give drugs or alcohol to minors. This is nothing new. How many people have you read about in the paper who have been sent to prison for doing so? This charge is bogus. I didn't participate in the crafting of Prop. 19, but my best guess is that the sanctions against providing pot to minors, was included to make the initiative salable to the tough on crime, drugs are bad, they're poisoning our youth crowd. A necessary compromise to give it a shot at passing. Keep in mind that the proposition was written by activists and lawyers who have been fighting this fight for a very long time. They've done the polling to determine what has a chance of passing, and what doesn't. I'm not a criminal lawyer, or a cop, so if anyone wants to compare current laws and penalties for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" with the specific sanctions in Prop. 19 against providing weed to kids, I'd be very interested.

3. Prop 19 is solely designed to allow large scale cannabis production by politically connected corporations. Oakland has already started the process to license a Prop 19 Cartel mega-grow. Yes a big Medical Marijuana grower has donated major funds to the Yes on Prop. 19 campaign, and is one of the architects of the effort. So what? My reading of the proposition says that every adult can grow a 5'x5' plot. How does that help an industrial grower of "medicine"? Sounds like baseless slander to me. "... solely designed ..." Yeah, right. Prove it! More scary language, without substantiation.

4. Most legal experts agree that Prop 19 is poorly written and will leave police and judges to enforce it at their discretion. For example, consuming cannabis would be illegal in the same "space" as a minor. Police and judges are free to interpret the word "space" to mean the same room, house, or entire apartment complex. Who are these "most legal experts"? On the website for this list, there are opinions from two lawyers. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not qualified to evaluate their arguments. Prop. 19 was written with the help of lawyers. Lawyers support it. Who did the poll of every legal expert in the state, the nation, to determine what percentage oppose it, what percentage support it and how many don't give a toss? This is more propaganda language unsupported by facts.

5. There is no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012. How long do we have to wait? Prop. 19 is before the voters. If there's a need for additional propositions, or changes in the law, great, we'll deal with them when they're before us to decide. This argument is completely specious. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

6. Prop 19 will lead to the walmartization of the cannabis industry. And unfortunately, this will result in lower quality and fixed prices. Limited competition and government control will allow large scale growers to determine prices and dictate quality standards (or lack thereof).  Nobody can predict what will happen in a legal pot market. Or the underground one that is likely to continue. If trends in boutique consumer markets are any evidence, it's likely that quality will be emphasized, over quantity. Look at wine, coffee, chocolate, pastries. Does anyone see the big producers forcing the small ones out of the market?

7. Local governments will control the taxation, production, and distribution of cannabis. This is a touchy political issue; most local politicians wont risk a backlash by allowing dispensaries in their city. This means many people will have to travel long distances or break the law to purchase cannabis. Local control!!! Isn't that what all the Tea Partiers, States Righters, Shop Local, etc., etc. call for all the time? Is anyone having to drive long distances now to get their weed? Do you think the people who make a little, or a lot, of scratch off of weed sales, whether regulated and legal, or not, are going to let some market demand go unexploited? This is total "baffle them with bullshit." No basis in fact, of any predictable kind, whatsoever.

8. Prop 19 will likely supersede prop 215, adversely affecting medical cannabis users by dictating grow size, possession amount, patient to patient sales, and location of use. That's not what the language of the proposition says. It says that 215 takes precedence and should not be changed in any way. In spite of the abstruse argument by one lawyer on the No on 19 website, claiming this (again, I'm not in a position to analyze her assertions) the clear clause in Prop. 19 says 215 stays without revision. Separate issue. Apples and Oranges. This slam is a lie. Find a "majority of legal experts" to back her up, I might consider rescinding that claim. Without such proof, I'll stick with my refutation.

9. Unbiased cannabis activists do NOT support Prop 19. This includes the late Jack Herer and the co-author of prop 215, Dennis Peron. Some leaders in the Medical Marijuana movement/industry oppose Prop. 19. I am not privy to all of the inside politics. I do know that getting a bunch of activists to agree on anything as a seamless whole is not just herding cats. It's herding psychotic schizophrenic cats on Meth! I surmise that the resistance in the Medical Pot scene has a lot to do with the fear that prices will plummet, and a legal market for pot will undercut their profits. Follow the money. The truth will out. Also I imagine that anyone who has spent decades distinguishing between medical and recreational uses for pot, and has been dedicated to arguing for the medical need, might be invested in keeping a clear division between the two. And oh, I guess any cannabis activist who supports Prop. 19 has to be biased! Right? That's the logical conclusion from the first sentence quoted above. Q.E.D.

10. The federal government has decided to not prosecute medical cannabis users. This will not be the case if Prop 19 passes. Many people believe that the passage of Prop 19 will bring an aggressive response from the feds, perhaps putting medical users at risk of losing access to medicine. Repetition with more baseless assertion. A lie repeated often enough, becomes the truth. Unless people pay close attention and keep refuting the lie. Holder said he'd come after a legal pot market in California if 19 passes. We'll see. The Feds did bust clinics early on. People went down for that. Then other states passed Medical Marijuana laws. We had a global financial crisis in which governments funds are mighty scarce nowadays. We'll see.

"This will not be the case..." And you know this because? Bold assertion is not proof of anything. Even though it's good rhetoric. Holder was blowing smoke. Time will tell. Otherwise there's nothing to back this claim up.

"...perhaps putting medical users at risk of losing access..." Lot's of wiggle room in that "perhaps". But it's pure unfounded speculation.Divide and conquer. If recreational users get a break, the sick will suffer!!!! Uh huh. We know this because? .... The fact is nobody knows this. It's just alarmist rhetoric to undercut support for this incremental step towards legalization. Straight up fearmongering.

The Drug Policy Alliance supports Prop. 19. If you don't know who they are, you should. They're the lead national organization opposing the Drug War with facts, reason and political organizing. They are the main architects of a reformed national drug policy based on harm reduction and decriminalization. (Note I didn't write legalization. It's an interesting debate, read up on it.) If Ethan Nadelmann supports Prop. 19, that means the, "majority of drug law reform experts" support it. If you're on Facebook, I recommend the thread Lazara Allen's thread with Laura Hamburg for additional discussion and factual recitation. Prop. 19 won't completely rescind all drug laws regarding marijuana. Everybody who thinks that possibility is on the agenda of political possibility in the near future, raise their hand.  Hey, we have a majority of experts who agree!!!

On the other hand everybody can look at polls, lists of supporters, lists of donors and statements of support, and make up their own mind. Just don't let anybody use scare quotes and empty speculation to influence your thinking. Unless you like being a dupe.

Read article »

Sonoma County Democrats Endorse Candidates & Propositions

As we start filling out our absentee ballots and forms so we can prepare to vote, we study issues and candidates. Many of us like to see how the people who live and breathe politics think - it helps us make decisions, especially in areas where we feel that we don't have enough information to make an educated vote. The following endorsements are from the Sonoma County Democrats. I'm passing them on to readers because this organization passed them on to me. I am open to Republicans, Green Party, Libertarians, Tea Party, Progressives and anyone else who puts serious thought into how the want to influence voters. No ranting, however. Just well thought our essays with rationals - thank you. Please e-mail me at vesta@sonic.net. The Post Comments option below send an e-mail directly to me so I can monitor posts as well.

The Sonoma County Democratic Party made endorsements on state and local ballot measures, City Council Candidates, School Boards & Propositions. For all the REASONS behind these decision...visit www.sonomademocrats.org

Full list of endorsements follows:

City Councils Endorsements:

Santa Rosa City Council
Susan Gorin
Larry Haenel
Veronica Jacobi

Petaluma City Council
Teresa Barrett
Jason Davies
Gabe Kearney

Petaluma Mayor
David Glass

Cloverdale City Council
Mayor Carol Russell
Councilmember Joe Palla

Healdsburg City Council
Mayor Jim Wood
Stephen R. Babb
Susan Jones

Rohnert Park City Council
John Borba

Sonoma City Council
Mayor Steve Barbose
Councilmember Ken Brown


Sonoma County school boards:

Bennett Valley Union School District
Steven Sharpe

Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School District
George Steffensen

Petaluma City Schools
Jaimey Walking Bear

Santa Rosa City Schools
Bill Carle
Ron Kristof
Frank Pugh

Windsor Unified School District
Marta Dee
William "Billy" Forrest

Wright Elementary School District
Stan Greenberg


Statewide Ballot Measures

YES  Prop 19 – Legalize and tax marijuana

NO   Prop 20 – Redistricting of congressional districts

YES Prop 21 – $18 Vehicle license fee to help fund State Parks

NO – Prop 22 – Prohibits state from taking local funds

NO – Prop 23 – Suspends AB32, greenhouse gas reduction law

YES – Prop 24 – Repeals law allowing business to carry back losses

YES – Prop 25 – Changes vote from 2/3 to simple majority for budget

NO – Prop 26 – Changes vote from simple majority to 2/3 for state levies and charges

YES – Prop 27 – Eliminates state commission on redistricting


Local Ballot Measures

YES Measure A – Calistoga Joint Unified School District Bond

YES Measure G – Cloverdale Unified School District Bond

YES Measure H – Sonoma Valley Unified School District Bond

YES Measure I – West Sonoma County Union High School District Bond

YES Measure J – Bennett Valley Union School District Bond

YES Measure K – Forestville Union School District Bond

YES Measure L – Piner-Olivet Union School District Bond

YES Measure M – Twin Hills Union School District Bond

YES Measure N – Sonoma County Amend Civil Service Ord. 305A

YES Measure O – City of Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary Extension

YES Measure P – City of Santa Rosa One-Quarter Cent Sales Tax

YES Measure Q – City of Cloverdale Urban Growth Boundary

YES Measure R – City of Cloverdale Office of City Clerk be Appointive

YES Measure S – City of Cloverdale Office of City Treasurer be Appointive

YES Measure T – City of Petaluma Urban Growth Boundary Extension

NO   Measure U – City of Petaluma Reduce Wastewater Service Rates

YES Measure V – Forestville Fire Protection District Special Tax

YES Measure W – Sonoma County Transportation Authority $10 Vehicle Fee

The Sonoma County Democratic Party is an independent local party organized under the bylaws of the California Democratic Party. For more information on the Sonoma County Democratic Party visit www.sonomademocrats.org.

Read article »

Proposition 19 FAQ by Omar Figueroa, Attorney

Below are some Frequently Asked Questions 

about California State Marijuana Initiative

Proposition 19 

on the November 2010 ballot, written by Omar Figueroa, 

a defense attorney for marijuana growers and patients. 

For a copy of the full text of the initiative, please go to the end of this article.

Frequently Asked Questions about Proposition 19
by Omar Figueroa

Would Proposition 19 legalize marijuana across California?

No, because Proposition 19 would only change California law, not federal law, which classifies cannabis as an illegal Schedule I controlled substance. With respect to state versus federal jurisdiction, there is concurrent criminal territorial jurisdiction across most of California, meaning any violation, however petty, can theoretically be prosecuted in both state and federal courts. If Prop. 19 passes, possession of marijuana will remain a violation of federal law; however, under state law, “any person 21 years of age or older” will be allowed to personally “possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.” Seminally, anyone 21 and over would be allowed under California law to cultivate “cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence, or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.”

What if someone possesses or cultivates more than an ounce, or cultivates in an area of more than twenty-five square feet?

If the cannabis is possessed or cultivated for medical use, no problem. According to the California Supreme Court in the 2010 landmark case of People v. Kelly, “a qualified patient may possess and cultivate any amount of marijuana reasonably necessary for his or her current medical condition.” If someone cultivates an area of more than twenty-five square feet for personal non-medical use, that remains a felony under California law, but if it the cultivation is solely for personal use, and not for sale, the person may qualify for what is referred to as “felony diversion.” Since Prop 19 defines “one ounce” as “28.5 grams”, someone who unlawfully possess more than 28.5 grams for personal use would be guilty of a misdemeanor. If Prop. 19 passes, people could still go to jail for unlawful possession of marijuana. The maximum punishment for misdemeanor possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana would remain up to 6 months in the county jail and up to a $500 fine, although with Prop. 36 many defendants would still be sentenced to treatment instead of jail.

Assuming Proposition 19 passes, will it be legal for people to be lighting up joints in public?

No. Prop. 19 makes it clear that “nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis consumption in public or in a public place” or “smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.” Thus, while the possession of 28.5 grams or less by those 21 and over would be legal, the consumption in public would not. On the other hand, Prop. 19 expressly allows the “possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government.” This contemplates Amsterdam-style coffee shops or “smoke-easies” licensed by local governments for the purpose of raising tax revenues.

--------------
“Like an increasing number of law enforcers, I have learned that most bad things about marijuana - especially the violence made inevitable by an obscenely profitable black market - are caused by the prohibition, not by the plant.” Joseph McNamara - Former San Jose Police Chief
--------------


FULL TEXT of the Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”

Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:
1. Findings
1. California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2. According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3. Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4. According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5. Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6. There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7. California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8. The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.

2. Purposes
1. Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2. Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3. Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4. Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5. Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10. Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11. Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12. Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13. Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.

3. Intent
1. This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].
2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
1. Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
2. Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
3. Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
4. Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
2. “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
3. “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
1. possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
2. consumption in public or in a public place;
3. consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
4. smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
1. cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
2. retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
3. appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
4. age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
5. consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
6. safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
7. prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
8. appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
9. appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
10. appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;
11. appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
12. such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
3. any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
1. Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
2. Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.

Section 11303: Seizure
1. Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
1. This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
2. Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis. This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.
3. No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
4. Definitions

For purposes of this Act:
1. “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.
2. “One ounce” means 28.5 grams.
3. For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
4. In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
1. only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;
2. living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);
3. in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.
5. “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.
6. “local government” means a city, county, or city and county.
7. “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.

Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
1. Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
2. Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
3. Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
4. In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act. Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:
1. Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
2. Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
3. Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

Read article »

New Green Deal - Vital Change

Report from “Green New Deal” Commission

Urging Major Policy Changes in North Bay

After a year and a half of public hearings, research and deliberations, a report from the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay is calling for major changes in policies on the environment, healthcare and commerce.

The report from the independent commission -- “Vital Change: Reconsidering Water, Food, Conservation, Healthcare and Commerce” -- focuses on potential for transforming Marin and Sonoma counties “into a more resilient region guided by principles of environmental sustainability, economic equity and social justice.”

As part of groundwork for the report, set for release on October 14, the Green New Deal commission held more than a dozen public forums and hearings in urban, suburban and rural areas across the North Bay. The commission includes five members from Marin County and five from Sonoma County.

Among the report’s findings:
• “Fresh water needs to be preserved, conserved, reused, recycled, stored in aquifers, and allowed to flow in creeks, rivers and estuaries at seasonal natural levels.”

• “We now use about three to four times more water per capita than other residents of temperate climate zones. We need to plan our lives so we use less water to assure it will be available for all generations of animal and plant life.”

• With the help of monetary incentives, counties should be encouraged to “adopt building codes to allow for gray water residential plumbing and the use of composting toilets.”

• Rather than going ahead with a proposed water desalination plant, Marin County should devote the next several years to “implementing a wide range of water conservation measures, which can be both sustainable and fiscally sound. We recommend a moratorium on expenditures for a desalination plant during the next five years, in tandem with implementation of far-reaching long-term programs for water conservation.”

• “Green waste that is collected needs to be free of pesticides to facilitate composting and the creation of a marketable secondary product. . . . At the state government level, laws need to be enacted to prohibit the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes, on both public and private property. These prohibitions are necessary to maintain compostable greens that are not contaminated for creation into a marketable secondary product.”

• Communities should establish a goal of “each county taking care of its own waste stream within its boundaries as much as possible.”

• “Permitting landfills must stop.”

• “Managements of medical facilities need to support the workforce, valuing all medical employees while providing them with the staffing ratios and break times that respect the arduous work of providing healthcare. Nurse staffing ratios must be low enough to assure quality care and respect the labors of employees.”

• “Broad coalitions of public and private organizations should work together to reverse budget cuts and sharply increase funding for an array of healthcare services and public health programs, including mental health.”

• “True living wage ordinances effective everywhere throughout the North Bay region would serve to eliminate most working poverty in our area, and we could use the savings in local welfare programs to ease the transition for burdened small businesses.”

• “We advise governmental support of local, private efforts to create local credit, debit, loyalty, or gift cards, perhaps by providing them to public employees.”

• Local agencies should “refrain from subsidizing firms unless they create local jobs and other benefits. . . . We recommend limiting public support to only those incubators which serve local businesses or which give special attention to green jobs and businesses.”

The full report will be posted on the Green New Deal for the North Bay website, www.GreenNewDeal.info.
_________________________________

For further information:
Marin County co-chairs
• Norman Solomon, (415) 663-9674, (415) 309-4359, mediabeat@igc.org
• Ginger Souders-Mason, (415) 456-2849, (415) 459-1391, ginger@seajay.org
Sonoma County co-chairs
• Lisa Maldonado, (707) 548-6033, (707) 545-6970, lisaclc@sonic.net
• Will Pier, (707) 227-0047, willspier@gmail.com

Members of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay
Caroline Bañuelos is an administrator for The Living Room, a daytime drop-in center for homeless women and children in Sonoma County. For 12 years, Caroline served as president of the Sonoma County Latino Democratic Club. She is a fellow of the Leadership Institute for the Ecology & the Economy and vice-chair of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission.

Stephen Burdo is advocacy and campaigns director for Kathleen Russell Consulting, a Marin County-based consulting firm serving nonprofit organizations, Native Tribes and progressive candidates and causes. He was previously director of Connecticut ACORN, organizing in low-income communities for living wages, adequate healthcare, affordable housing and community empowerment.

Jonathan Frieman is a social entrepreneur who co-founded several nonprofits and has served on several grant-making boards. He helped initiate Transition Towns in Marin County and is a board member of Marin City’s health clinic. He has a law degree and an MPA and is an autodidact in human prehistory.

Rue Furch is former executive director of the Sonoma County Business Education Roundtable and co-founder of Citizens for Responsible Water Use. She served as a county planning commissioner for 18 years. Furch was named “California Woman of the Year” by the State Assembly and “Environmentalist of the Year” by the Sonoma County Conservation Council.

Lisa Maldonado is executive director of the North Bay Labor Council, AFL-CIO where she directs the coordinated efforts of local unions in Marin, Sonoma, Mendocino and Lake counties to work collectively on issues that affect working families. She is an attorney and previously worked as field director of the ACLU of Northern California.

Judith Newton started Transition Cotati, the first initiative in the global Transition Movement to be officially recognized in California. She is also a founding member of the FrogSong cohousing community and a fellow of the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy.

Will Pier is a board member of the Salmonid Restoration Federation. A resident of Sonoma Valley for 21 years, he has served on the AB 939 Local Task Force to increase recycling for 11 years. He worked for the Sonoma Ecology Center for seven years doing salmonid research and habitat enhancement.

Peter Richardson is editorial director of PoliPointPress in Sausalito, a lecturer in humanities at San Francisco State University, and chair of the California Studies Association. His books include A Bomb in Every Issue: How the Short, Unruly Life of Ramparts Magazine Changed America and American Prophet: The Life and Work of Carey McWilliams.

Norman Solomon is the founder and president of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a consortium of policy researchers and analysts. He is national co-chair of the Healthcare Not Warfare campaign and the author of a dozen books on media, political discourse and public policy.

Ginger Souders-Mason, a retired medical technologist, has participated in community-based health research and is a founder and director of Pesticide Free Zone, Inc.

Read article »

Clear Cutting of Trees along Bay Area Streams

Bay Area Streams to be Clear Cut 

under New Federal Policy

Community and Local Officials join together to send a message to the Feds, Save Our Trees

On Monday, October 11, 2010, at 11:00 a.m. at Wildcat Creek, Bay Area community leaders and elected officials including Congressman George Miller and Congressman John Garamendi will join together at a press conference to protest the largest federally mandated clear cutting of trees and vegetation in the Bay Area and California’s history. Recently released Army Corps of Engineer guidelines require that federally constructed levees along streams and rivers be free of all trees and shrubs based on a new National Levee Safety Program. Of the 3,000 miles of streams and rivers affected in California, more than 100 miles are pegged to be clear cut in the Bay Area. Local officials will refute the new policy and echo the community’s request to save the trees and shrubs, protect recreation and preserve habitat for endangered species.

The site of the press conference is a graphic example of the clear cutting policy which has already stripped a portion of Wildcat Creek marsh in western Contra Costa County from its wildlife habitat. A tour of the barren levee and nearby riparian forest slated for clear cutting will be provided immediately following the press conference.


Who: Congressman George Miller; Congressman John Garamendi; John Gioia, Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors; Bruce Wolfe, Executive Officer, Regional Water Quality Control Board; Chuck Armor, Regional Manager, Department of Fish and Game; Witney Dotson, North Richmond Shoreline Open Space Alliance; Mitch Avalon, Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies; Mark Cowin from the State Department of Water Resources, East Bay Regional Park District and Bay Area Watershed Network

What: Press conference to speak out against federal clear cutting policy to remove more than 100 miles of trees and shrubs along Bay Area streams

When: Monday, October 11, 2011
Press conference starts at 11:00 a.m.
Tour of Wildcat Creek immediately following press conference

Where: Wildcat Creek, 2135 Richmond Parkway, Richmond, CA 94801 (map below)

Contact: Mitch Avalon, 925-260-5329, Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies

Driving Directions:

From North
-On I-80 Westbound, exit Richmond Parkway
-Travel 4.5 miles on Richmond Parkway (west and south)
-One block past Pittsburg Ave, turn right into the driveway before the bridge

From South
-Take I-80 Eastbound, exit 580 West
-On 580 westbound, exit Richmond Parkway
-Travel 3 miles on Richmond Parkway (north)
-Make a U-turn at Pittsburg Ave. signal
-One block past Pittsburg Ave, turn right into the driveway before the bridge

Press Conference
Wildcat Creek Trail Staging Area
2135 Richmond Parkway, Richmond
Parking reserved for media in lot

Read article »

Why Vote for Jerry Brown for Governor of California

Why Jerry Brown Matters Now

By Connie Madden

Jerry Brown was a California governor with vision, integrity and high ability twice in my book. Created 1.9 million new jobs, founded California Conservation Corps with Paul Hawken, kept something like a balanced budget – and put California in history books as perhaps THE leader of a movement toward sustainable living. Healing of the planet. This and he is dedicated to social and economic justice, concepts many don’t know - but they are real living principles to him available in his speeches, but also in his work. I heartily agree with Jerry when he says California is a state of imagination.

If elected to a third term in November, he’ll inherit a humongous deficit, a public hurting badly from job loss and home foreclosures, a struggling education system and a “crime-prison” industry that functions like “the best run hotel in the world with 10,000 people coming in every year and 10,000 people going out,” he said in an interview with Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, available at TalksatGoogle online http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-ndAoifYyE&feature=related. Fine, even memorable interview.

“I run a very frugal operation, I think,” said Jerry to Eric in April. Eric had phoned Jerry – and he answered his own phone. “I like to know who is calling,” he explained. He gave a detailed picture of the challenges facing the next Governor of California in a calm clear manner. Unlike his opponent, corporate CEO, Meg Whitman, Jerry explained that California government is a place where you can’t fire people, you have to learn to work with them, with their unions. You have to learn to represent the people, not the stock holders.

As a Jesuit initiate, he learned not only personal discipline but also the principles of social and economic justice which he later translated into real concrete change for the city of Oakland as its Mayor. 10,000 new residents downtown; murders and violent crime declined significantly in this high crime city, and the new charter schools he created are very successful.

He’s been there as Governor two terms – and his current job as Attorney General gives him an overview of what happens to legislation after it is made into law, very often into contentious arbitration. “I’ve learned to have a healthy distaste for legislation,” he says of the process. Yet he’s a public servant willing to put himself in the lion’s den yet again.

Jerry says Meg Whitman is waffling on AB32, “the state global warming law that technology leaders believe can propel California into the forefront of the world's green economy,” according to an editorial in the San Jose Mercury News. Those who oppose AB32, created Prop 23, on November’s ballot, which would overturn the law, saying it cannot be applied until the state has an unemployment rate not likely to be reached for years. It will take strong support for this urgently needed legislation to be implemented.

When Governor Arnold Schwarznegger signed AB32 in 2006, he claimed
"Using market-based incentives, we will reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. That's a 25 percent reduction. And by 2050, we will reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it's too late."

Chip Atkin, at Rebuild California, a campaign to restore California’s economy and more, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-ndAoifYyE&feature=related said that “The future with Meg Whitman as governor will perpetuate … decline of our state. Wall Street Whitman mistakes the needs of big business with the needs of all the people of California. She will cut services designed to benefit the general public or the poor, in order to enrich corporations.

Jerry Brown, who trained as a Jesuit priest, came to politics with an ethic of community service. As Governor, he lived frugally, rejecting use of government limos and mansions. He presided over a vibrant economy that included regulations to promote energy conservation. He created 1.9 million jobs and returned $4 billion in tax cuts. He respected workers by giving government and school workers collective bargaining.”

This is the Jerry Brown I have personally discussed/argued with about what makes a good education; this is the Jerry Brown who says education should be our first priority. I concur with former president Bill Clinton, when he said recently “I strongly support Jerry Brown for Governor because I believe he was a fine Mayor of Oakland, he’s been a very good Attorney General, and he would be an excellent Governor at a time when California needs his creativity and fiscal prudence.”

Read article »

YES on Proposition 19 - California Marijuana Inititaive

Two opinions on legalizing marijuana

- one from a personal perspective and

another from a legal perspective regarding landlords and the law.

My Prejudiced Opinion

By Vesta Copestakes
 
I stopped smoking pot a number of years ago when work became too intense and required too much concentration to have the drug running through my system. But that doesn’t mean I’m against it being legal. Quite the contrary.

I smoked for years and was a “high-functioning” pot smoker. I’d work intensely for long hours then smoke to make my brain stop at the end of the day, or to lighten my mind so I could play well with friends. It was wonderful! Some people drink alcohol for the same reasons.

Alcohol &  Marijuana
Personally, a puff or two on a pipe accomplishes about the same level of mind alteration as a glass of wine or a bottle of beer. People use pot in the very same way and for the very same reasons that they use alcohol. I consider them synonymous. The only difference is that alcohol leaves the body within hours and marijuana takes a good 30 days or more even if the person doesn’t feel it any more. And that’s also an advantage for marijuana because it relieves pain and nausea. It’s good to have the effect last.

On the same note – I’d put hard alcohol, vodka, whisky, etc. up there with harder drugs. They pack a wallop on both mind and body and it comes on very fast. I consider alcohol a drug. If it alters your mind, it’s a drug. Coffee is a drug as far as I’m concerned, and in my current life, it’s my drug of choice.

Humans Get High
From the time a child learns that spinning in tight circles makes them dizzy, human beings seek mind-alteration. Very few humans ever escape the desire to slip out of their normal heads into something different.

And that’s the main reason I believe Prop 19 should be passed. People get high in one form or another. Marijuana is the drug of choice for so many people, and it’s been illegal in our country for such a short period of time, I think we need to stop this prohibition now and get on to more important things.

Friendly High
What I like most about pot smokers is that they laugh but never get belligerent. A pot smoker who doesn’t stop at the laughter phase gets tired and starts moving and thinking in slow motion. An alcohol drinker often moves from fun to angry. How many domestic fights do you learn about from pot smokers? It’s an old joke that a pot smoker will raid the refrigerator while a drunk will pick a fight. Ask law enforcement who they would rather deal with under the influence!

Gateway Drug
This reason for keeping pot illegal comes up often, especially among people in the profession of helping addicts clean up their lives from drug addiction. As long as marijuana is illegal, people need to buy it from someone, and many times that person also sells other drugs. “Hey, try this!”They sell whatever their clientele wants and makes them money.

If someone could go to the local liquor store to get a pack of joints, they wouldn’t have contact with dealers. They’d choose beer, wine, something stronger or marijuana. Much simpler and the only exposure is to what is already a legal high.

Driving Under the Influence
I don’t care what mind-altering substance someone chooses, drinking and driving, smoking and driving, snorting and driving…it’s all going to impact a person’s ability to drive well. No one’s going to convince me that a drunk driver is better than a driver high on marijuana.

Against the Law
It was against the law to drink, buy or sell alcohol during the famous Prohibition that started organized crime. I have an impressive essay by George F. Will on my website that’s all about the unintended consequences of Prohibition. And one of the unintended consequences of making marijuana illegal are drug cartels growing thousands of plants on public and private land. You make something illegal that people want and someone with a criminal mind is going to see that as an opportunity to make money.
If marijuana is legal, not just in California, but across the nation, it becomes an opportunity for legal entrepreneurs and large corporations like cigarette companies to make money. That becomes a win/win rather then the lose/lose we currently have.

And on a personal level, gardeners can grow their own without fear of getting ripped off or arrested. A few plants in the vegetable patch is all a normal person ever needs. Prop 19 has a very reasonable quantity allowed and it’s certainly enough for anyone.

Tax Benefits
This is a common topic and many of us have been preaching for years that we can balance the budget on the taxes placed on marijuana. Addictive substances like alcohol and cigarettes are taxed and some of that money goes toward paying for the negative impacts of these addictive substances. The health consequences of both of those cost our country billions of dollars in lost days at work as well as medical expenses. We need money to pay for the expense of these other health and society hazards! We need money to bring our economy back to strong.

I don’t know what the taxes are on a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of wine, but I bet the taxes on a pack of joints would be about the same. And then there’s income taxes. Marijuana is a huge industry and much of the income generated never gets taxed. If the people working in the industry were paid legally they would be taxed legally. We need that money!

Vote YES on Proposition 19
It’s time to end this stupid prohibition that doesn’t stop people from using the drug. Millions of people across the planet choose marijuana over alcohol as a way to alter their minds. So what! Let them.
California is not the only state that is going this way, so it’s just a matter of time before the entire country looks at the benefits of legalizing marijuana, especially in the face of the monetary gain we can achieve that could get us out of our massive deficit.

Remember, marijuana smokers invented the Make Love Not War slogan. Maybe we could achieve world peace through mellowing out. It’s a thought…



---------------------------------------------------

Landlords Liability for Prop. 19 Gardens

By Richard C. Koman, Esq.
Proposition 19 “legalizes” marijuana for personal use, right? So tenants should be free to grow their personal pot gardens and their landlords should have no problems with that.

Well, not exactly. First, let’s take a look at what Prop 19 legalizes and what it doesn’t. On the question of personal use, if the voters pass the initiative, it will be legal for individuals to possess up to one ounce for personal consumption, smoke in private spaces and grow a pot garden for personal consumption up to 25 square feet.

So does that mean that tenants can start clearing weeds for their “25 for 420” as soon as they move in to a rental? Definitely not. The proposition clearly states: “Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property.” (Proposed Health & Safety Code section 11300 (a)(ii).)

In other words, tenants need their landlords’ approval to do what they would be able to do freely if they owned the property themselves. This raises some interesting issues. Indeed it puts landlords in an absurd Catch-22.

Marijuana is still a controlled substance under federal law. Regardless of what the state law says, growing ganja is a crime. And homeowners who know their property is being used for illegal drug cultivation are subject to having their property seized by the federal government under civil forfeitures statutes. The government doesn’t even have to file a charge or obtain a criminal conviction. They just have to show probable cause of the property’s (home’s) involvement in the “crime.”

The only defense to property seizure is that the homeowner had no knowledge of the use.

So, as a landlord, are you going to put in writing – say, a legally binding lease agreement – that your tenant can grow marijuana on your property??? Even an oral agreement would defeat the ignorance defense. Given the risks, any landlord would be certifiable to put consent in writing and well-advised not to give oral consent, either.

Now, you say, those federal seizure laws are aimed at large-scale grow houses, not 5x5 plots of pot. And, you might add, the Obama Administration has vowed to respect California’s medical marijuana laws, so isn’t there little risk that the feds are going to come after individual homeowners for a tenants personal use garden, legal under state law?

Actually the Dept. of Justice directive under Attorney General Eric Holder says that prosecuting medical marijuana is not a priority but that prosecuting non-medical use remains a priority. And, anyway, that policy might change when President Sarah Palin appoints Christine O’Donnell as the next attorney general.

Large corporate landlords could be looking at thousands of plants being grown on their complexes. Suddenly, the benign-sounding phrase “consent of the property owner” becomes untenable.

Tenants, I don’t think you’re going to get your landlords to consent to your personal pot gardens under the new state law. That means tenants will grow gardens without consent, just as they do now. I doubt that police forces will be interested in prosecuting growers within the 5x5 limit regardless of whether it’s legal or not, but the issue for tenants will become this: When the landlord finds out, can she evict you for illegal use of the premises? Can a lease forbid you from growing your personal stash?

Under current law, it’s pretty clear that growing marijuana on the landlord’s property would subject a tenant to eviction on the grounds that they are creating a nuisance. Would the fact that the growth is approved by state law forbid eviction in a state court? Nope. I think you’d have to have a clause in a lease – or a least a signed letter from the landlord -- that permitted the personal-use garden in order to combat the nuisance eviction.

Under the terms of Prop. 19, consent of the landlord can be required. Thus, it seems clear that leases can specifically refuse to allow pot gardens.

Finally, it is OK that the law treats tenants and homeowners differently? Since a “leasehold” gives the tenant exclusive control of the premises and since the personal use garden is a legal activity under state law, why should landlords be given the right to infringe on that right? Since a lease is a contract the parties can waive many legal rights – the right to smoke, for instance. Only a few rights – the right to habitable conditions, say – cannot be contracted away.

The right to pot is not a particularly compelling one, indeed under federal law, it’s not right at all, so tenants will find themselves signing away that right, unless they can find a landlord who agrees to let them keep their pot rights. Good luck with that.

Richard Koman is an attorney who lives in Forestville. His practice includes landlord-tenant law, personal bankruptcy and civil litigation. Contact him at (707) 544-5354 or www.richardkoman.com

Read article »

OUR County: 2010/11 County Budget

The most important action the Board of Supervisors takes each year is the County Budget. It is the blueprint or road map of the County’s work to maintain and enhance our quality of life in Sonoma County.

On June 1st the recommended Budget will be released. Beginning the week of June 14th the Board will be holding budget hearings. All hearings will be held at the Board Chambers at 575 Administration Drive; Santa Rosa starting on Monday at 8:30 am and concluding each afternoon. Should additional time be required, these hearings will continue into the following week.

The County Administrator (CAO) and departments have been collaboratively working on the budget since January. When the County began this process the projected deficit was $36 million. Today, the projected shortfall due to revenue declines and state and federal program cuts stands at just short of $62 million. Our new CAO, Veronica Ferguson has been diligently working with her team to help close this gap. The shortfall we face this year is also compounded by cuts the Board made last year to close a $25 million gap.

To put this in perspective, the entire County budget for 2010/11 will be $1.18 billion. Our general fund is $395 million, and $200 million of that is mandatory spending for required Federal or State programs. What should have been $250 million + is now $195 million in discretionary funds to run parks, fix roads, and support our infrastructure.

Balancing our budget under these circumstances, with possible money grab from the state looming, will require unprecedented cuts in programs and services. Current budget solutions will reduce our County workforce by an additional 300 positions. A few years ago, Sonoma County had over 4,000 employees. If current budget proposals remain, we will begin our year with just over 3,000 people. Concurrently, there are dramatic increases in need for services by those in our community who have suffered unemployment and foreclosure.

As mentioned, the County Budget is a collaboration between Departments, and the CAO, which details programs and jobs which will be impacted or eliminated. We will be doing less with less but what we endeavor will be done well. Technology advances will be implemented where possible to reduce expenditures, and we will get through this difficult time.

To help close the gap, everyone is being asked to sacrifice. County vendors have been asked to reduce their contracts by 10%. Negotiations are ongoing with employee unions in a continued effort to reduce the loss of programs and jobs. No one thing will be enough to eliminate the reductions proposed, but we may well stem the tide through some of these efforts.

Projections for the next several years show that we will be at diminished levels of revenue for a number of years. However, our County is committed to searching for additional revenue sources, partnerships, and collaboration to provide effective, vital services. Further, recent revenue figures have showed a trend toward stabilization and a slight upturn, so the news isn’t completely Grim.

While unemployment continues to hover at around 11%, the Governor’s May revise of the state budget includes elimination of CalWorks and other supportive programs. CalWorks is an essential program allowing lower income people to find jobs by providing training and vital support (like childcare subsidies to working families). Ironically, nearly 70% of the money to fund this program comes from the Federal government. While eliminating CalWorks means saving 30% of the total contribution to the economy. The ripple effect of this is hard to quantify, but certainly life will be that much harsher for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. More people will be in danger of homelessness and despair.

This scenario could have been written by the Grimm Brothers, but it is no fairy tale.

Please join me and the staff of the Sonoma County Water Agency on Thursday, June 9th for a discussion of the State Water Board’s Interim Russian River Flow Change order, and impacts on the lower Russian River community. The meeting to discuss this measure to meet the requirements of the Biological Opinion will be at the Guerneville Veteran’s Building from 6:30 to 8pm.

Finally, please vote NO on Proposition 16! If you live in the Russian River Fire District, please vote yes on measure F.

Read article »

Barrister Bits: Hands-Free Cellphone Laws

DEAR READERS: Do you have a legal question that is burning on your mind? If so, please email me. Names will remain confidential. Every inquiry may not be published, although we will publish as many as possible. This Q & A Legal Column is intended as a community service to discuss general legal principles and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Q. My chiropractor told me that police officers are exempt from California’s cell phone laws. Seems a bit unfair that the men and women in blue can chat away on their cell phones, and then freely hand-out tickets to us. Does this ring true?

Signed: Aligned and Hands-Free

Dear Aligned: By now, one would think that the cell phone laws would be well-tested and understood. Yet, since the laws took effect over 1 ½ years ago, confusion abounds. There are two primary sections of the California Vehicle Code that are in play--one for drivers over 18 years (CA Vehicle Code sec. 23123) and the second one for drivers under 18 years old (CA Vehicle Code sec. 23124). Because it is a state statue, the law applies to any driver within the borders of our Golden State…residents and tourists alike.

The smartest way to obey the law is to avoid using a cell phone while driving so there is no grounds for dispute. Some Californians have been cited for simply picking up their cell phone to check the time. The citation is hard to fight in court as it is often your word against the police officer’s word. Bottom line: If you are over 18 and driving, you must use a “hands-free” device. Translated, you must use a Bluetooth or the speaker feature on your cell phone, as long as the phone is not in your hand (although it can be in your lap).

As with any law, there are exceptions. For example, you can “hand-hold” your cell phone if you are on private property, or if you need to make an emergency call. “Emergency” is a call to the police, fire, or your doctor. Calling your partner to grab an extra tofu at Andy’s is not considered an emergency.

The law also provides an exception for certain vehicles, such as commercial motor trucks, farm vehicles, tow trucks, and yes…”emergency services professional” while operating an authorized emergency vehicle—which is broadly defined and includes our police, sheriffs, fire departments, etc. So, your chiropractor is right—police are exempt as long as they are operating an authorized emergency vehicle, like their police car.

Now, if you are under 18, you are not allowed to use the cell phone at all—not for texting, calling, videos, anything…even if it is “hands-free”. Nada. No cell phone use at all allowed.

What are the fines? $20 for the first offense and $50 for the second. So by now you may be thinking, “That’s not so bad, I can risk it”! But wait…once you are ticketed, other “fees” will likely be added, such as a “conviction assessment”, a court security fee and a traffic administration fee. By the time the tally is final, the first offense typically will cost you around $142 bucks! Plus, to add salt to the wound, the conviction will go on your driving record (although currently you will not be assessed any “points”). One survey estimates that the CHP issued 234,000 tickets through 2009 for violating the cell phone laws.
As of this writing, the original author, State Senator Joe Simitian, has introduced SB 1475 which adds even more punch. If passed, the new law would increase fines to $50 for the first offense and $100 for the second, plus will cost the driver One (1) Point on their driving record. The introduced legislation would also ban bicyclists from talking on a cell phone without a headset.

So glad you asked the question. I think while driving I’ll just hum the “Roadhouse Blues”… “Keep your eyes on the road, your hands upon the wheel”!

Debra A. Newby is a resident of Monte Rio and has practiced law for 28 years. She is a member of the California, Texas and Sonoma County Bar Associations. She maintains an active law office in Santa Rosa and emphasizes personal injury law (bicycle/motorcycle/motor vehicle accidents, dog bites, trip and falls, etc.) and expungements (clearing criminal records). Debra can be reached via email (debra@newbylawoffice.com), phone (707-526-7200), fax (526-7202) or pony express (930 Mendocino Avenue, Suite 101; Santa Rosa, 95401).

Read article »