Wake drug sting yields 240 marijuana plants

RALEIGH (WTVD) — Wake County ABC Law Enforcement announced Thursday the confiscation of more than 200 marijuana plants from various Wake County residences following a 5-month investigation.

The investigation specifically targeted the manufacture and distribution of marijuana in Raleigh and the Wake County area.

Authorities executed eight search warrants at homes in Raleigh and one in Fuquay Varina Thursday. All of the homes are located within neighborhoods that are in the vicinity of schools, city parks and a daycare center.

Officers discovered indoor marijuana growing operations and seized about 240 plants. They also seized large amounts of processed, ready to sell marijuana.

Authorities have not released any suspect names. However, they say numerous arrests are expected and pending.

Multiple law enforcement agencies are involved in this investigation, including the Wake County Sheriff’s Office, the Raleigh Police Department, the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, the City County Bureau of Identification, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Man arrested for allegedly cultivating marijuana

By COLBY FRAZIER — April 29, 2010

A 39-year-old Santa Barbara man was arrested on Tuesday for allegedly cultivating marijuana plants and violating the terms of his probation, which included a “no marijuana cultivation” clause, authorities said.

The man, Peter Joseph Gardner, was taken into custody after driving by his residence, located in the 2900 block of La Combadura Road, several times while detectives were searching the residence.

Authorities also served a search warrant at a residence in the 4700 block of Chandler St., where they say Gardner was cultivating the marijuana in order to skirt around his probation.

Detectives found 86 active marijuana plants, including a half of a pound of cultivated marijuana and scales, indicating the man intended to sell the drug, authorities said.

According to a Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department news release, the investigation into the growing operation spanned three months.

The marijuana seized during the investigation has an estimated street value of $220,000.

Gardner was booked into county jail on suspicion of possession of marijuana for sales and cultivation of marijuana.

Authorities said other people living at the locations were contacted but were released without being charged.

The Politics of Pot: Vague law means access to marijuana varies

Click photo to enlarge

Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey talks to a reporter about medical marijuana.(Ty…

• The Politics of Pot
• Apr 30:
• More students seeking help with pot addiction
• The Great Debate: an example of civil discourse at its best
• The Politics of Pot: Dispensaries would be an improvement for marijuana patients
• Apr 29:
• The Politics of Pot: The rules in Butte County
• Apr 28:
• Business booming for medical marijuana doctors
• Chico grapples with regulating medical marijuana, as its foothold here grows

CHICO — Californians access to medical marijuana has everything to do with their zip code.

Right now, for the residents of Chico and Butte County, there is no legitimate storefront to procure marijuana.

Redding, just 75 miles north, has 19 medical marijuana dispensaries.

Chico patients must grow their plants themselves, join a collective that grows for them or engage in illegal activity if they wish to medicate themselves with marijuana.

Why?

It all comes down to the law that made medical marijuana legal in the first place.

Proposition 215 provides very few guidelines for law enforcement officials or medical marijuana users, leaving enforcement subject to court decisions and the leanings of municipalities.

With just a few hundred words, the law is vague, said Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey and confusing for police and the public, a notion Chico Police Chief Mike Maloney agrees with.

“Proposition 215 and SB420 did not address all the issues that law enforcement and society would expect to face,” Maloney said.

For example, there is nothing in the law about the amount of marijuana one can possess or how it can legally be obtained, an omission that burdens cities and counties across the state.

For Chico, those questions are coming to the forefront, with the City Council expected to weigh in soon on regulations for residential marijuana grows as well as dispensaries.

But even if the council determines particular areas

---

Advertisement

---

within the city for dispensaries, the question of whether they are permissible comes down to one individual: Mike Ramsey.

As the chief law enforcement official in the county, he interprets the state’s laws and court decisions.

Ramsey’s opinion on what is and isn’t permissible by law drives the type of cases that are prosecuted in the county.

And in his opinion, any cash exchange for marijuana is tantamount to criminal conduct.

“You can’t zone for illegal uses,” Ramsey said. “You can have legitimate cooperatives or collectives growing in a commune style. But storefront dispensaries are illegal.”

Ramsey said the spirit of collectives and cooperatives is to provide help to those who cannot grow medicinal marijuana on their own.

Caretakers are also allowed to participate in the process on behalf of patients, but Ramsey said dispensaries cannot take on the role as caretaker and cooperatives are only supposed to grow marijuana for a closed set of patients.

“The cooperative or collective can grow marijuana, but there is no provision for the distribution or sale of marijuana,” Ramsey said. “You cannot sell marijuana.”

There is likely no law enforcement official in the state that will argue that the sale of marijuana is legal.

But there are many who interpret the law differently than Ramsey and see dispensaries as legitimate operations.

In Humboldt County, where there are a handful of dispensaries, District Attorney Paul Gallegos said to his knowledge no dispensary owners have faced criminal prosecution from his office.

Gallegos, who said he voted for Proposition 215, agreed with Ramsey the trouble with enforcing the law is that Proposition 215 is “murky” and provides no “clear cut guidelines.”

“When the law gives that much discretion you see very different applications,” Gallegos said. “You get varied perspectives.”

But while he wouldn’t go as far as labeling dispensaries legal, Gallegos did say he doesn’t perceive a problem with the purchase of marijuana, as long as an entity isn’t making a profit.

“The law actually allows the exchange of cash; it allows for just compensation,” Gallegos said.

Gallegos said he has yet to see any evidence of a dispensary in Humboldt County violating this premise and said no local law enforcement officials have brought him concerns over illegal activity at dispensaries.

He added that even if there was suspicion that illegal activity was occurring at dispensaries, law enforcement officials have a tough burden of proof in prosecuting cases because of Proposition 215.

Collecting sufficient evidence for prosecution could drain resources for a problem that doesn’t necessarily bring a high level of concern to the public’s safety, Gallegos said.

“It’s marijuana,” Gallegos said. “It’s not the crime of the century.”

Gallegos said his role as a district attorney is to enforce the law in a manner that balances the rights of individuals, and said when it comes to medical marijuana, he strives to protect the rights one has to assuage their personal pain.

“I believe the alleviation of suffering is a worthwhile goal,” Gallegos said.

But, for those who see legitimacy in dispensaries, Ramsey sees a play for political power.

He said he discussed the criminality of storefront dispensaries with a district attorney in the Bay Area.

Ramsey said the DA there conceded that dispensaries are illegal, but said he held an allegiance to his constituents, who overwhelmingly support dispensaries.

“Basically he told me he was not going to enforce the law,” Ramsey said.

Which to Ramsey, only exemplifies another belief of his.

“Medical marijuana is more about politics and profit, than medicine,” Ramsey said.

Staff writer Toni Scott can be reached at 896-7767 or tscott@chicoer.com.

The lead-up to a crackdown on medical marijuana in Montana

Posted by Matthew Frank on Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 9:10 AM

With so many disparate groups pointing out the inadequacies of Montana’s medical marijuana law and offering suggestions for improvement during Tuesday’s interim committee hearing in Helena, it’s difficult to get a sense of which way the political winds are blowing eight months before the 2011 legislative session begins. All that’s clear is that the law will very likely change one way or another.

• Cathrine L. Walters

For a full rundown of the more salient issues raised at the Children, Families, Health and Human Services Interim Committee hearing in Helena, check out Mike Dennison’s coverage for Lee.

For a somewhat different account of the hearing, read former Indy reporter and current Great Falls Tribune Capitol Bureau Chief John S. Adams’ piece. Adams covers what’s perhaps the most interesting tidbit to come from the hearing—that Montana NORML plans to push a bill next year that would legalize marijuana in the state.

John Masterson, of the Montana chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, told lawmakers that they will not be able to solve the problems raised at Tuesday’s hearing unless they legalize, tax and regulate marijuana use for all adults in the state. Masterson said a legal market for adults solves many of the problems stemming from the current law “and acknowledges the scientific fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, safer than cigarettes, safer than almost all over-the-counter drugs.”"We already have a working infrastructure for how we might tax and regulate marijuana for all adults in our beer and brewery system,” Masterson said. “It allows limited production at home for adults; it involves licensed producers and licensed retailers who are responsible for age verification.”

Masterson told the committee that legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana could net the state an estimated $24 million annually in tax revenues.

Masterson said after the hearing that Montana NORML plans to support a tax and regulation bill in the next session.

The Missoulian’s Betsy Cohen fleshed out Masterson’s thoughts a bit more in a Tuesday story previewing the hearing.

The AP focused on another nugget coming out of the hearing—the Montana Board of Medical Examiners plans to crack down on mass medical marijuana screenings, like those conducted by, most notably, Montana Caregivers Network.

A Montana Board of Medical Examiners review suggests people are being added to the state’s medical marijuana registry who do not suffer from the chronic and debilitating conditions that are required for certification, Dr. Dean Center, a Bozeman physician and board member, told state lawmakers Tuesday.”As everyone knows, the number of people being certified has just exploded,” Center said. “The entrepreneurial spirit has taken hold.”

Under scrutiny are clinics hosted by medical marijuana advocates that travel across the state with doctors who spend just a few minutes screening hundreds of potential patients. Then there are out-of-state physicians involved in medical marijuana screenings, sometimes using teleconferences or videoconferences to diagnose patients as having a qualifying condition. …

The medical board is preparing a position statement on adequate evaluation and monitoring of patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses. The statement that “will likely affect the process of mass screenings and may preclude remote electronic method of evaluation without some sort of modification or adjustment,” Center said.

The committee, led by Rep. Diane Sands, D-Missoula, plans to host a stakeholder meeting in the coming weeks to try to develop consensus recommendations for how to improve Montana’s medical marijuana law. The committee will consider those recommendations at its June meeting.

Montana has more than 12,000 registered medical marijuana patients, according to the state’s

Police removed the back seat of the car and searched the trunk but found no drugs. They then summoned a drug-detecting dog to the scene to sniff Reid’s luggage. The dog, which arrived about two hours after the initial traffic stop, signaled that it detected drugs in the luggage.

Police opened Reid’s suitcase and found 12 pounds, 11 ounces of high-grade marijuana.

Reid signed a form waiving his rights to a lawyer at the state police barracks. He told police that he obtained the drugs in Cleveland.

Campuses scramble to deal with medical marijuana

Across the street from the University of Colorado’s flagship campus in Boulder you’ll find Dr. Reefer, a small storefront bedecked in neon and an easily identifiable marijuana leaf.

Inside, the air is heavy with the pungent aroma of marijuana. “Bud tendress” Lauren Townsend, 21, explains to a visitor how some student customers buy cannabis-infused sodas or brownies so they can discreetly ingest the drug in the campus library while they study. She demonstrates how to hold the soda bottle so any reference to marijuana is obscured. Or, clients can buy the more typical form of marijuana to be smoked in the privacy of their own homes.

Within 500 feet there are three other medical marijuana dispensaries also targeting students, the maximum allowable in Boulder in that amount of space.

Other college towns in Colorado are experiencing a similar phenomenon, leaving campus officials scrambling to come up with policies on the budding use of medical marijuana by students – and, in some cases, staff. It’s no easy task considering ambiguities in the state’s ever-changing medical marijuana laws, threats of lawsuits by pro-pot advocates or cities attempting to set limits of their own. The Legislature is now considering a measure that would ban anyone under age 21 from entering a dispensary. There are about 100 dispensaries in Boulder and 1,000 statewide.

“We’re kind of ground zero for this right now,” said Meloni Rudolph, associate dean/student judicial officer at the Metropolitan State College of Denver. “In Colorado, with the dispensary thing, it’s such a J-curve right now.”

Mostly, campuses are clearly articulating that marijuana – medicinal or otherwise – is illegal under federal law and therefore illegal to possess or consume on any campus that receives federal dollars.

But that hasn’t stopped medical marijuana registry card-toting students from inquiring about using the drug in their dorm rooms or requesting that schools establish designated smoking rooms for them.

Marijuana citations spike at CU

CU-Boulder spokesman Bronson Hilliard said between 10 and 15 percent of students contacted by campus police for having marijuana present medical marijuana cards. CU is among many campuses that will exempt students with registry cards from the requirement that freshmen live on campus. So far, three students have been released from their housing contracts because of their desire to use medical marijuana.

“We will nullify the housing contract with no penalty,” said Hilliard, who sits on the campus’ alcohol and drug working committee.

One CU employee even inquired about using marijuana on the job.

“We know it’s a growing phenomenon,” Hilliard said. “We have to be clearer about the policy at CU from acceptance through orientation and move-in.”

In 2009, when CU-Boulder police officers first started seeing medical marijuana cards, there were 312 citations issued for the petty offense of possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, up from 166 in 2008, said CU-Boulder police spokeswoman Molly Bosley. Through March of this year, police have reported 78 marijuana possession cases. Some of the increase could be due to the availability of medical marijuana – but Bosley also noted that the department hired more officers during that time.

The Colorado School of Mines in Golden has fielded two requests from students who wanted to use medical marijuana in residence halls, said Rebecca Flintoft, director of auxiliary services and housing. Flintoft was prepared to let them out of the on-campus housing requirement but both students chose to stay and forego their medical marijuana – at least while on campus, she said.

Some students eat their “medicine”

Metro State College is a commuter campus without residence halls, but medical marijuana has still become an issue.

Medical marijuana or not, pot in any form is technically banned on Metro’s campus, said Emilia Paul, associate vice president of student life.

“It’s still a violation whether it’s under a medical license or we catch them (smoking) in the alley,” Paul said. “Generally, we don’t tend to criminalize minor cases unless there are other activities involved when it comes to marijuana.”

Paul said a handful of students on the state registry have requested designated places to smoke pot at Metro’s health and counseling centers. They’ve also asked people at the campus health center to write them prescriptions – something campus personnel are prohibited from doing.

“Students say, ‘I’m here a lot. I can’t dose because I’m away from home,’” Paul said. “In checking with the police, the answer is “no.”

Instead, Paul said she’s hearing about students ingesting edible forms of the drug, which is difficult if not impossible for campus police to monitor.

“It’s certainly an emerging issue,” Paul said. “I have a feeling this is not going to go away.”

Expanding medical marijuana registry

By the end of this year, 2 percent of Colorado’s population will have medical marijuana cards if the pace of applications continues its current trend line, said Metro’s Rudolph. On Jan. 12, the state received 1,900 medical marijuana applications in one day. According to the state, the number of medical marijuana registry applications increased from about 270 per day in August 2009 to 1,000 per day in February 2010. The turnaround time for applications now is about six months.

“It appears they are continuing to issue a lot of these cards,” said Detective Jason Mollendor, of the Auraria Campus Police Department. “Students that have these cards want to use this drug on campus. But, to be honest, it’s no different than getting drunk. There is a change in physiology that will affect their ability to go to class and function. While they think they need the drug for pain control or nausea, they really are harming their own education by doing this.”

Not all students agree with that assessment, however.

Andrew Orr, the 20-year-old head of CU-Boulder’s NORML chapter, a group that advocates for the legalization of marijuana, believes students on the state registry – at the very least – should be allowed to use marijuana in residence halls.

“If a person needs to use medical marijuana to improve their life or maintain a regular lifestyle, it should be their right to consume in the dorms just as I was prescribed painkillers,” said the film and history major who is on the registry and uses medical marijuana to treat pain and muscle tension related to a spinal injury and subsequent surgery.

Students use medical marijuana to deal with anxiety, insomnia, sports injuries or other ailments often categorized under “severe pain,” one of the accepted conditions for which one can get a medical marijuana card in the state of Colorado, Orr and dispensary operators say.

“I think it’s a little ridiculous,” CU-Boulder applied math and finance major Rob Richmond, 20, said. “People do it just for the sake of having a card. They tend to make something up just to get a card. People are proud of it.”

Richmond chuckled when asked if his three buddies on the state registry have legitimate medical problems.

Friend and fellow CU student Brad Stachurski, 20, worries the proliferation of dispensaries and medical marijuana in Boulder will “hurt the value of our degrees.” When he tells out-of-state friends where he goes to school, they grill him about drug use.

At Fort Lewis College in Durango, authorities have yet to tweak campus policies to address medical marijuana. A recent student referendum calling for campus officials to treat marijuana offenses the same as those involving alcohol did not pass due to low voter turnout. But students are clearly concerned about the campus’s handling of all types of marijuana.

“It’s something I would imagine we’re going to address this summer,” spokesman Mitch Davis said.  “There is confusion as to whether medical marijuana is allowed or not. It is not. You can’t smoke it in a public area and endanger people around you. That’s really what that boils down to. It falls back on the tobacco policy. You can’t smoke in dorms.”

Colorado State University officials are also discussing their handling of medical marijuana among students and staff, CSU spokesman Brad Bohlander said.

“Like most businesses and institutions of higher education, the university is in the process of developing protocols for these situations,” Bohlander said.

Currently, drug possession by students is handled in a few different ways. Students can be issued a traditional citation by the campus police or they may be issued an internal ticket, which routes them through the Office of Conflict Resolution and Student Conduct Services, Bohlander said. That office may opt to send the student through a CSU treatment program. Students are also referred to the DAY (Drugs Alcohol and You) Program for a self-assessment that provides individualized feedback, including specific recommendations and the option to attend DAY programs.

The Fort Collins City Council also passed a law banning dispensaries within 500 feet of CSU, he said.

As the state’s land grant university, CSU’s 54 extension agents have even got caught up in the medical marijuana fray.

“People were bringing in marijuana plants and seeking advice,” Bohlander said. “Extension agents weren’t sure what to do with that.”

“We asked the legal department for an opinion. The legal direction was that  extension agents should not be giving advice. Marijuana remains illegal on a federal level.”

Medical marijuana stats

- Number of people in Colorado with medical marijuana cards – 21,625

- Percent of men on the state registry: 74 percent

- Average age of people on the registry: 40

- Percent of people on the state registry who live in the Denver metro area: 57 percent

- Percent of people on the registry who report using medical marijuana for severe pain: 91 percent

- Number of applications received daily by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: 1,000

Photo: Redding Record Searchlight

Sheriff Steve Warren wishes he was a DEA agent: “No matter what, marijuana is still against federal law”

Maybe Lassen County Sheriff Steve Warren wasn’t paying attention 14 years ago when medical marijuana was legalized in California.

Some Wingnut Site

The Secret Service arrested an ABC News sound engineer covering President Barack Obama’s Iowa trip after marijuana was discovered in his backpack Tuesday, ABC News confirmed, reports UPI

.

“While we did not hire this soundman directly, we certainly regret that the Secret Service and local authorities had to waste their valuable time dealing with this matter,” said ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider, according to TVNewser.

Cannabis cultivation threatens food security in Ondo

By Ayodeji Moradeyo April 27, 2010 03:31AM

print email

Over the past year, medical marijuana has consumed Colorado’s news headlines and political debates. But with an estimated 100,000 patients now legally authorized to use marijuana to treat debilitating medical conditions, a handful of lawmakers threaten to dismantle a transparent dispensary system in favor of constitutionally-suspect regulations that could embolden a now-distressed black market.

We remain cautiously optimistic that the cloud of Prohibition will continue to clear. Repeatedly, courts have sided with patients in litigation surrounding medical marijuana rights. Voters, too, continue to express support for an emerging medical marijuana marketplace where transactions occur in well-lit, safe, taxable, environments instead of darkened back alleys, as they did in the decades before Colorado voters first approved medical marijuana in 2000.

While opponents mock this thriving industry and impugn patients’ motives, six in ten voters continue to support medical marijuana rights. Notably, pro-medical marijuana sentiment runs strong even in the most unanticipated of places. In nursing homes across Colorado, terminally-ill residents use marijuana as an alternative to the haze of highly addictive narcotics.

While the state’s economy continues to flounder, legislators have spent hundreds of hours over the last four months formulating proposals that could dismantle the state’s system of retail dispensaries. Sen. Chris Romer, a Denver Democrat also running for Mayor, proposes Senate Bill 109 and House Bill 1284. As he explained it recently, the legislation would establish an army of “auditors with guns” to meet his goal of putting “well over 50 percent” of Colorado’s legal marijuana businesses “out of business.”

The proposals come after Senator Romer previously posted on this site that his efforts to establish a complex regulatory structure for medical marijuana were “now over.”

Even more concerning, a handful of our fellow Republicans have now signed onto a ballot measure that would prohibit caregivers from making any profit whatsoever. If approved by legislators, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5 could appear on this November’s ballot. It would ask voters to amend the Colorado Constitution to exclude retail sale or commercial cultivation of medical marijuana from constitutional protections, while also establishing overly cumbersome entitlements governing caregiver-patient relationships.

Patients will face an uphill battle and must band together to counter the special interests and establishment voices that seem to disfavor dispensaries. While Colorado’s largest newspaper, The Denver Post, has established an excellent medical marijuana advertising section that has pumped much needed revenue into its coffers, ColoradoCannabisCorner.com, it uses its editorial page to bash dispensaries. A recent editorial argued that “dispensaries are never even mentioned in the medical marijuana constitutional amendment.” Another Post editorial called legal retail medical marijuana a “farce” and “hypocrisy.”

This assertion despite the Colorado Constitution Article XVIII § 14(2)(d)’s specific reference to “acquisition, possession, manufacture, production, use, sale, distribution, dispensing, or transportation of marijuana.” If “dispensing” marijuana is explicitly contemplated, then a dispensary must reasonably be considered legal.

Marijuana is the only legal industry in America that endures such brazen threats from elected and opinion elites. If a politician had said that he plans to put “well over 50 percent” of all, say, supermarkets, out of business, would he suffer from voters?

Colorado House Bill 1284 and Senate Bill 109 would realize Senator Romer’s dream of putting “well over half” out of business with requirements that no other business sector need satisfy. For example, the current version of HB 1284 purports to allow local governments to ban the exercise of this constitutional right to the medical use of marijuana. This would subject constitutional rights to government approval, when the principal purpose of constitutional rights is to protect vulnerable or unpopular minorities against the majority. Popular things don’t need constitutional protection; pitchfork-wielding mobs are not screeching to ban Mom and apple pie. Although medical marijuana remains popular statewide, there remain geographically-isolated pockets of irrational prejudice and NIMBY-ism relating to medical marijuana. Medical marijuana patients are the new despised minority; typical arguments recycle emotional Segregationist canards of “property values,” “increased crime,” and “we must protect the children,” none of which have any empirical support.

HB 1284 requires the state to go, hat in hand, to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and request that the federal DEA “reschedule” marijuana from a Schedule I substance to a Schedule II substance. Lately here, the DEA’s favorite pastime has been to laugh in Colorado’s face when it comes to medical marijuana. However, in this instance, the DEA’s inevitable laughter at Colorado’s rescheduling request would be justified, since HB 1284 somehow ignores that it is the U.S. Congress, not the DEA, which sets the schedules for drugs. Before requesting the DEA to do something it cannot do, the Colorado Legislature should keep its own house in order, and reschedule marijuana away from Schedule I in its own State-level classification, Colorado Revised Statutes section 18-18-203.

HB 1284 requires that all officers, directors, stockholders, and employees be of “good moral character and reputation.” What organization could comply with such a sweeping and vague requirement? Probably not even Focus on the Family, or the Colorado State Legislature for that matter. HB 1284 requires those in the medical marijuana business to repay all student loans and have no outstanding judgments due to any government agency, such as a parking ticket.

HB 1284 irrationally requires that retailers themselves cultivate no less than 70% of their supply offered to customers, and that no wholesalers can exist. If such a requirement applied to supermarkets, i.e., that the supermarket must grow 70% of the wheat for the bread on the shelves, and that every farmer growing the wheat must also be a retailer, it would put both farmer and supermarket out of business, stuck in an infinite loop of government “auditors with guns” tracking every last minutiae of the production chain.

HB 1284 also attempts to resurrect the notorious limit of five patients per caregiver, an unconstitutional limit which the Colorado Health Department illegally adopted and was enjoined by a court from enforcing. How can a caregiver function with any economies of scale if limited to five patients?

If these proposals become law and the government puts “well over half” of dispensaries out of business, would the production, sale, purchase, and use of marijuana end? Of course not. It would simply go back underground, back to unsafe darkened alleys, un-taxable, with no quality control.

And those who need it the most, the 75-year-old grandmother in a wheelchair, would suffer in the black market. Try as the government might to repeal the laws of supply and demand, marijuana will always be grown, sold, and consumed.

Let’s hope legislators can understand even more basic economies of scale. With 100,000 voters now registered as patients and another couple million who believe strongly in medical marijuana rights, lawmakers should think twice before dismantling the dispensary industry.

The pot economy: No one seems to know if it exists

Click photo to enlarge

• «
• 1
• »

How much of Mendocino County’s economy marijuana represents was one of the biggest questions at a Saturday forum on “Life After Legalization” at the Saturday Afternoon Club in Ukiah – and no one has any real answers.

The forum, brought south by Humboldt County’s KMUD radio host Anna Hamilton from where it started last month, aimed to answer the myriad questions about what should happen if the voters pass the Tax Cannabis 2010 California ballot initiative.

About 200 people from all angles of the question filled the room to its capacity: growers, workers, property owners, patients, business people, government representatives, media and people who were “just curious.”

There were differing views about what legalization would do to the price of marijuana, with some believing it would drive down the price and displace trimmers currently paid between $20 and $40 per hour, and others believing legalization would increase demand.

Either way, it was obvious that the people in the room weren’t satisfied with the answers Ukiah Chamber of Commerce CEO Burt Mosier offered about how the initiative, if it passes, will affect the area’s economy. He said he has no hard, cold numbers showing where growers shop, and how much local businesses depend on them.

“All the time, I keep hearing from my members that … the influx of money makes a difference in their survival; I know that,” Mosier said. “I have members who tell me it’s the only way they can survive. I have members who

---

Advertisement

---

tell me they’re absolutely against it. I have members who don’t know what to do.”Asked how many medical marijuana industry representatives were chamber members, Mosier said he doesn’t discuss members’ information.

Pressed further by another audience member, Mosier said some of his members depend on growers’ patronage and others don’t believe any cannabis dollars come through their doors.

“I don’t know if that’s real or not,” he said.

Les Tar, a KMFB radio host, said he wouldn’t be snowballed, and that “The whole county is lubricated, baby, with marijuana dollars!”

Mosier asked Tarr if he had the numbers to back up his claim, and reiterated that he was only reporting what chamber members had told him.

Another man asked him if chamber members saw tourism from patients coming into Mendocino County to sample its marijuana.

“In economic development in Mendocino County, it is very hard to put your finger on numbers that you can prove,” Mosier said. “I know numbers, I can’t prove them, I can’t disprove them.”

He continued, “Until we start having the conversations out in the public, out in the open, and people are willing to share, there’s no way that I can say to you that I have numbers that I can present to you and I can verify them.”

Another man asked if Mosier knew where local growers spend their money, if not in Mendocino County.

“No, I don’t, because you won’t tell me,” Mosier said.

The same audience member commented that local growers do shop local, to which Mosier answered that the chamber supports localization, but doesn’t have verifiable numbers.

A woman in the audience said Mosier’s presence at the forum alone showed progress in the movement for marijuana to become part of the area’s mainstream.

She asked how those in the marijuana industry could get buy-in from the business community to brand and market the county’s “hand-crafted, GMO-free, organic, native Mendocino County marijuana.”

Mosier said he heard talk of boutiques being established, marketing the county’s organic marijuana with existing brands and how to turn the industry into tourism, but emphasized again the need for “open and honest conversation.”

Asked by one man how to channel dollars and support into the effort to find support and representation for the growing community, Mosier recommended “becom(ing) engaged in the process” at the city and county levels.

One woman asked if the chamber could hold meetings to expose local merchants to the issue.

“We’re open to any dialog that affects this community. You all gave me a bad time when we were talking about the shopping, but I have a question for the rest of you,” Mosier said, “When you all go into the stores, do you tell the people who you are? Do you tell the people where these dollars are coming from? Do you think that there’s a magic formula that automatically pops it out? Do these business owners know?”

Mosier’s questions met with a mixture of laughter and anger.

One man shouted from the back of the room, “Do you tell people where your money comes from when you make a purchase? Why the hell should we?”

A man from Marin County noted that its chamber and city council wrote a letter stating it supported its growers despite the threat of federal raids.

“My point is that your chamber should know what’s going on here. I know what’s going on here, and I’m from a long way away. You should know what’s going on here,” the man said.

That comment started a small verbal scuffle, where one person said the speaker was “dead wrong,” and another told them to “knock it off.”

One woman stood up and suggested that merchants who are chamber members could ask patrons to fill out an anonymous form asking if the money came from marijuana growing. The suggestion got a mixed response.

Mosier suggested people could “mark their dollars,” which met with louder mixed reaction in the crowd.

Asked if a marijuana growing collective could join the chamber, Mosier said, “As far as I’m concerned, yes.” That was met with applause.

He added that a poll that went out to chamber members when Measure B passed – repealing the county’s Measure G, which allowed anyone to grow up to 25 plants and imposing state standards on medical marijuana – came back “dead-even.”

One man urged growers present to join the chamber.

“He’s talking to us like we’re them and us. Let’s join them,” the speaker said.

Asked if the chamber could afford to study the impact of the marijuana industry on the county’s economy, Mosier said he wished it did.

The man suggested asking economics students working on a PhD to do the research as a way to get it done free.

“That’s one of the things that we would get behind if that would come out of this and the future meetings,” Mosier said.

One woman suggested forming a seller’s collective so prices can be set proactively, rather than being determined by the buyers in Southern California.

One man asked if someone already in business growing marijuana could join the chamber.

“That’s a difficult question,” Mosier said. “We’re going to have to talk about that.”

Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, or at 468-3523.

In Mendocino County, pot initiative’s a touchy topic ShareThis Buzz up! By Peter Hecht phecht@sacbee.com Published: Sunday, Apr. 25, 2010 – 12:00 am | Page 1A Last Modified: Sunday, Apr. 25, 2010 – 10:10 am LAYTONVILLE – Along Mendocino County’s Redwood Highway, just beyond the sign depicting a hovering alien spaceship, veteran marijuana cultivator Tim Blake sees the future. He views his Area 101 spiritual retreat as the answer to the looming upheaval for a renowned California pot-growing region challenged by a November state ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for adult recreational use and new growing techniques. Blake hopes his roadside haven, where local marijuana tenders gather to share smokes and tales of the harvest, will emerge as a nostalgic tourist draw – a destination honoring Mendocino’s proud pot traditions. California produces one-third of America’s pot, with an estimated $13.8 billion cash crop, counting legal medicinal grows and vast illicit production. In this county of 90,000 people, it is an uncomfortable topic. Most civic leaders would rather talk about the enchanting Mendocino Coast, the picturesque mountains and the charming towns. But weed fuels the regional economy. “There are people who don’t want to talk about it because that may seem as if they’re endorsing it,” said Bert Mosier, chief executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce in the county seat of Ukiah. “But this affects our community.” It isn’t just the November initiative that has upset the area’s pot culture and stirred calls for new approaches. Blake and others say the local market is already in free fall. Across California, legal medical marijuana dispensaries and indoor hydroponics warehouses that grow high-potency pot are undercutting Mendocino’s outdoor crop. For years, most Mendocino cultivators have grown their “Northern Lights” and “Super Skunk” strains beneath the stars and coastal redwoods. Increasingly, their weed can’t compete with the high-octane “Purple Urkles” and “OG Kushes” that flower under glowing indoor lamps. Pot from Mendocino County fetched more than $5,000 a pound just a decade ago. Now it goes for closer to $2,000, Blake says. “Most people up here are growing,” he said. “And for every grower, you support the gas station, the dry cleaners, the health food store. But everybody’s numbers are down. Nobody has any money.” On Saturday, scores of Mendocino marijuana growers and local officials met in Ukiah to ponder the impact on the county if California voters decide to legalize marijuana beyond current medical use. They brainstormed remedies to economic fallout, including promoting pot tourism and branding local medicinal products to bring recognition to Mendocino’s crop and its tenders. Anna Hamilton, a Mendocino musician who hosts a radio talk show in neighboring Humboldt County, warned that the “legalization of marijuana will be the single most devastating event” to hit the region. But Matthew Cohen, a Mendocino grower whose Northstone Organics delivers pot to medical marijuana patients in Northern California, saw an economic opportunity. “Mendocino can have a hand-picked, boutique market,” he said. ‘Way of life’ threatened? Pebbles Trippet, a strictly small-time grower, says many cultivators are “worried their way of life is going to be taken away from them.” Trippet, who served jail time for pot-related offenses in three Northern California counties before she settled in Mendocino, organically farms onions, garlic, squash and medical pot on a small riverfront parcel in Cloverdale. Others see legalization as an opportunity to reshape Mendocino’s illicit culture into a legal attraction. They envision Mendocino and neighboring Humboldt County blossoming with smoke fests and meet-the-growers tours, recasting itself as the Napa Valley of pot. “People in Mendocino County know a better way and they’re ready to show it,” said Marvin Levin, 35, president of the Mendocino Farmers Collective, a new union of medical pot growers. The collective hopes to market Mendocino’s outdoor pot as environmentally sustainable cultivation. Levin contends that indoor operations, many in or near cities, leave a substantial carbon footprint with excessive electricity use, fertilizers dumped into sewage systems and buildings damaged with moisture and mold. Indoor cultivators, a minority in Mendocino, use controlled environments to produce multiple cycles a year of thick-budding designer pot strains. Outdoor growers have one large harvest producing plants 12 to 16 feet high. At harvest time, Area 101 sponsors an annual “Emerald Cup” – honoring the best local pot. No indoor product is allowed. Levin says last year’s winner was a special “Cotton Candy Kush.” He calls it “a sweet-flavored weed” that is “less musty” than a similar “Diesel Kush” grown indoors. Tradition of illegal growing Mendocino’s effort to honor its pot traditions belies its long – and continuing – role in criminal marijuana cultivating and trafficking. Blake admits he used to illicitly truck thousands of Mendocino pot plants for distribution in the San Joaquin Valley. He says he quit the illegal trade after he was spooked by a series of federal raids. “I went from a kingpin to a no-pin,” he says. Now Blake, a 53-year-old cancer survivor, has a county permit to grow 99 medical marijuana plants, the maximum allowed on large acreage. The county allows 25 plants on parcels of five acres or less, if grown for multiple medical users. But many growers have neither pretense of medical cultivation nor care about limits. Last September, sweeps by federal, state and local narcotics officers resulted in the arrests of numerous local residents illegally cultivating several hundred plants each in mountainous terrain near Laytonville. Local grower James Taylor Jones, a grizzled Grateful Dead fan who came to the county nine years ago with his wife, Fran Harris, is a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. He quit cocaine 25 years ago and gave up drinking 16 years ago. He regularly attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, yet says he is a spiritual devotee to using and cultivating pot for medical purposes. Jones and Harris, who also run a Laytonville tie-dye T-shirt shop, are part of the Humboldt Farmers Collective and have provided products for dispensaries in Mill Valley and San Francisco. They said they made $55,000 in the pot business last year. They reported it to the Internal Revenue Service as “farm income.” Jones says they’re in this lifestyle to stay “no matter what the profit is.” But he opposes legalizing recreational use. He believes it will drive other growers out of Mendocino County. “If it’s legalized, the market is going to plummet. There’s no question,” he said. But then Jones added: “Who the hell are we to say who can have pot?” Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/25/2703870/in-mendocino-county-pot-initiatives.html#ixzz0mOYYhwpK

Medical marijuana activists march in Downtown Safford

By Jon Johnson
Assistant Editor
Published on Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:53 AM MST

Medical marijuana initiatives have been passed by Arizonans twice before only to see the vote of the people not be enacted due to technicalities.

Supporters of the use of marijuana as medicine are hoping three times is the charm as a new initiative will likely be on the November ballot.

About 25 medical marijuana activists marched throughout Downtown Safford on Tuesday to call attention to their desire to see cannabis legalized for medicinal use and be federally rescheduled.

Medical marijuana activists march down Main Street in Downtown Safford. Photo by Jon Johnson

Currently, the federal government lists marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug along with other drugs such as heroin, Ectasy, LSD and PCP. Schedule 1 drugs are deemed to have no currently accepted medicinal use. Schedule 2 drugs, including cocaine, morphine, crystal methamphetamine, fentanyl and hydrocodone, are classified as having both a risk of abuse and accepted medicinal uses.

Activist and medical marijuana user Jerry Benson told the Courier he wouldn’t be alive today if he didn’t smoke pot.

He said he was prescribed a litany of drugs, such as Oxycontin, that damaged his liver and created additional health issues. He said he was given 90 days to live, so he threw out his prescription pills and started using cannabis instead. Years later, Benson is healthy enough to ride his bicycle around the city.

Additionally, Benson said if doctors could prescribe marijuana, there would be less Oxycontin and other hydrocodone pill abuse by people in the area. He said it would especially affect the local problem of youths who crush the pills and inject them, essentially turning the prescribed pills into the Schedule 1 drug heroin.

Activist and medical marijuana user Charles Gilbert had his left kidney and part of his right kidney removed due to cancer. He said pot was more effective in helping him deal with his pain than the Percocet and Oxycontin pills prescribed to him.

Arizona voters passed medical marijuana initiatives in 1996 and 1998. The 1996 initiative included more than 100 other drugs in addition to pot and wasn’t enacted because the state Legislature passed a statute that overrode it. The 1998 initiative was unable to be enacted because of conflicting federal laws regarding physicians. The act allowed physicians to prescribe cannabis, but federal law prohibits physicians from prescribing Schedule 1 drugs.

Since California passed its medical marijuana initiative in 1996 that allows possession of cannabis for patients with a doctor’s recommendation, 13 other states have followed suit. States allowing the medicinal use of pot are: California, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Colorado, Nevada, Vermont, Montana, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Michigan and New Jersey.

Recently, the Washington, D.C., City Council unanimously voted to allow patients with HIV, glaucoma, cancer or a “chronic and lasting disease” to receive a physician’s recommendation and possess up to two ounces of marijuana.

Arizona’s November 2010 initiative would permit patients with a physician’s recommendation and caregivers to purchase up to two-and-a-half ounces of usable cannabis from regulated clinics.

The regulated clinics, also known as dispensaries, would operate as nonprofit organizations. The act would also allow patients or caregivers to cultivate their own cannabis for medicinal purposes if a regulated clinic is not located within 25 miles of the patient.

End the war on drugs

By Alexander S. Peak

College Libertarians of Towson

Albert Einstein is often attributed as saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  Since the 1937 federal ban on marijuana, usage of the plant has gone up 4,000 percent according to the government’s own estimates.  Yet the unwinnable war on drugs drags on and on.

The libertarian calls for an end to the drug war for multiple reasons.  Those libertarians enamored with the Constitution, e.g., point out that nothing in the document grants the federal government authority to regulate drugs.  Thus, at least at the federal level, drug prohibition is unconstitutional.

But the libertarian also rejects prohibition on the grounds that the state has no legitimate ownership over your body.  Self-ownership was the rallying cry of the abolitionist libertarian William Lloyd Garrison, and this concept serves today as the philosophical foundation of libertarian thought.  If you own your own body, then you have the right to do with it as you please, so long as you do not use it to initiate or threaten to initiate force or fraud against the person or justly-acquired property of anybody else.

There are also utilitarian arguments in favor of re-legalization.  Drug prohibition creates a black market, which in turn causes the rate of violent crime to skyrocket.  While firms compete on the free market through advertising and improving the quality and safety of goods and services, gangs on the black market compete with guns and violence.  Re-legalization would solve this problem just as it did during alcohol prohibition.  These days, you’d never see the employees of Jack Daniels shooting up the offices of Budweiser, and this is precisely because alcohol is no longer a black-market commodity.

As of 2007, we had over two million Americans in our overcrowded prisons and jails, over a quarter of whom were there on nonviolent drug-related charges.  Unfortunately, violent criminals — e.g., rapists, thieves, murderers — are routinely released early on “good behavior” to make room for nonviolent drug users.  Moreover, if cops were legally permitted to pursue those who initiate or threaten to initiate force or fraud instead of wasting their scarce time and our tax dollars pursuing the nonviolent, we’d have far less real crime.

The war on drugs also discourages the education of American youth.  Whenever the state bans a certain substance, it artificially reduces the supply relative to the demand, which in turn drives up the price of the commodity and ensures huge profits for the peddlers.  “Why waste time in school,” many poor children think, “when I could start making real money now?”  Thus, drug prohibition draws many poor persons into the world of gang warfare.

Then there are the asset-forfeiture laws.  If you’re accused of selling drugs, you can have your property seized by the cops.  Even if you turn out to be innocent, your property is as good as gone.  And when one considers the tens of billions of tax dollars spent every year on this frivolous crusade, it’s difficult not to think about economist Milton Friedman’s reference to the drug war as a “socialist enterprise.”

I can understand that some may be at first worried about this proposal.  But when one considers that private companies will still be free to require potential employees to undergo testing, and that addicts are more likely to seek help when they don’t fear being arrested for coming forward, and that re-legalization would allow dying patients to self-medicate if they wish, it becomes clear that this is the only humane and sensible drug policy.

May 17-23 is the first annual “Hemp History Week.” Stop right there and don’t hit the remove us from your e-newsletter mailing list option. Let me explain that the history week is an effort by some farmers to allow hemp to be grown for industrial uses, not drug use.

Industrial hemp has had many uses throughout history, not just for rope. It was grown extensively during World War II as part of the war effort, but that is only one aspect of hemp production through history.

“Hemp was an important crop for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and thousands of American farmers until it was outlawed completely in 1970 by the Controlled Substance Act. I know many farmers in my district could benefit greatly from the renewed freedom to rotate industrial hemp into their growing season. Hemp History Week will help other elected officials learn about America’s rich hemp heritage along with the tremendous benefits of growing hemp in America once again,” explained Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

Two organizations are behind the Hemp History Week—Hemp Industries Association and Vote Hemp. The groups want to have at least 50,000 hand-signed postcards sent to President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder asking them to end the ban on hemp farming and let farmers grow the potentially profitable crop.

Imported hemp seed, fiber and oil are used by U.S. businesses to produce a wide array of products sold in the U.S., everything from textiles, body care products, food and even auto parts, notes those pushing for farmer approval to grow hemp. Because of purported health and nutritional benefits, hemp is one of the fastest growing industries in natural foods.

Quite a bit of the hemp ingredients have been coming from Canada. Industrial hemp could be grown in many states of the nation from north to south as noted by the Texas congressman’s statement and by actions of the North Dakota legislature to give farmers the chance to profit from growing hemp.

For the past four growing season, farmers in North Dakota have received licenses from the North Dakota Department of Agriculture to grow industrial hemp, but these farmers have not grown the crop because of federal warnings that they would be charged with breaking the law by the Drug Enforcement Administration, which classifies industrial hemp under the same rules as drug-type Cannabis.

I think the federal law has even limited investigation of industrial hemp as a biofuels/biomass energy crop. Additionally, the information I’ve been provided doesn’t rule out hemp ingredients as potential livestock feed. It seems that some accommodation could be worked out for licensing industrial hemp production if there really is large profit potential and crop rotation advantages to growing hemp.

Source: Richard Keller, AgProfessioanal Editor

Colorado acupuncturist and botanist Lacy Story knew where to go in Mendocino County when she wanted advice on finding local property to grow medical pot.

She stopped in at the indoor smoking lounge and organic foods kitchen at Area 101.

The “spiritual sanctuary and events center” of veteran marijuana cultivator Tim Blake, mentioned in Sunday’s Sacramento Bee story on the Mendocino pot culture, sprawls over 150 acres off the Redwood Highway north of Laytonville.

It’s where wannabe marijuana cultivators go for Blake’s “Ganja Boot Camp,” featuring hands-on sessions in outdoor, environmentally-sustainable pot growing.

It is an afternoon haven, and meeting place, for local growers, including legal medical marijuana farmers and others who operate strictly in the black market of illegal weed.

The regulars include James Taylor Jones and his wife, Fran Harris. The Grateful Dead devotees run a tie-dye clothing business and say they grow medicinal marijuana as small-time, “weekend warriors” in the pot trade. There are also many local cultivators such as Larry, a former welder who declines to give his last name. He is a full-time grower and distributor in the illicit market.

Area 101, a outdoor gathering place for concerts and picnics, has become such a cornerstone in Mendocino County that its conference room has hosted candidate debates for races for both county sheriff and district attorney.

That brings smiles of acceptance to the face of Blake. A Mendocino County pot grower since 1975, he once served jail time in Santa Cruz County. He faced narcotics sweeps by federal and local officers in Mendocino. Blake, a cancer survivor, went legit years ago as a legal, certified grower for medical marijuana patients.

Blake, 53, is one of the few Mendocino growers overtly in favor of legalization of marijuana, a prospect that stirs fears of economic ruin among others in the regional industry.

He envisions bus loads of tourists eventually stopping in at Area 101 for medicinal tastings and educational seminars on Mendocino pot products and cultivation.

“They’re all going to want to come up and see the crops. This is going to be a big deal for us,” Blake says. “You’ll be able to see every kind of strain. Every day, we’ll have a different grower available. If you’re from Iowa and step off the bus, somebody is going to be here to talk to you.

“We’re going to be the learning center.”

Pictured: Top – James Taylor Jones and wife, Fran Harris, add color to the grounds of Area 101. Below – Lacy Story visits lounge and gathering place for local growers. Peter Hecht/phecht@sacbee.com

Local Cannabis Lab Yields New ‘Low-Anxiety’ Strain

Health & Medicine David Downs —  Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:58 AM

One of the nation’s most sophisticated cannabis testing labs has yielded powerful results this spring, isolating a “low-anxiety” strain of the plant by closely tracking the potency of local crops.

The Harborside Health Center cannabis dispensary has just announced that it’s offering for sale a “low-anxiety” strain of medicinal cannabis, based on findings from its new Steep Hill laboratory. The “low-anxiety” strain is a custom-bred True Blueberry crossed with OG Kush, says Harborside Health Center director Stephen DeAngelo. Patients report pain relief with very little buzz after using the custom strain.

“They’re not saying that it’s no buzz at all; what they’re saying is that it’s diminished,” DeAngelo explains. “They describe it as being mellow, even, steady, not overwhelming, not producing anxiety.”

Anxiety has been a problem with modern cannabis. The Steep Hill lab has confirmed, by testing 4,000 samples, that breeders are pushing levels of psychoactive molecule THC — which can cause anxiety — to historic new heights; from a few percent decades ago to past 15 percent today.

“The standard view of cannabis is it’s something people do to get high, and THC is part of the plant that gives that quality along with others,” DeAngelo notes.

But cannabis can also relieve pain, and part of the pain relief comes from another psychoactive molecule, called CBD. “CBD is another component in cannabis that is medically effective without being psychoactive,” DeAngelo explains.

The Steep Hill lab has confirmed California breeders are selecting for THC at the expense of CBD, creating a startling trend of high-THC cannabis with the potential to cause anxiety and panic attacks in new patients, and older ones. Harborside has started reversing that trend by identifying and then breeding CBD-rich strains, the first of which is on shelves now. CBD levels in the new product are around 11 percent of the the plant, compared to less than 1 percent in the majority of crops.

“Generally what we’ve found is if we can get anything that’s got six to eight percent CBD, that’s good,” DeAngelo says.

CBD-rich strains are better for cancer patients with pain, and so-called “cannabis naïve” patients who are more apt to freak out on high-THC doses.

The Steep Hill lab is a follow-up to Harborside’s pilot Analytical Labs in Emeryville. For the first time, the composition and effects of California’s consumer cannabis strains are being systematically correlated, and it will lead to even more discoveries, DeAngelo says.

GT Legend Automotive Holdings and Compassionate Therapeutic Solutions, LLC Discuss Increasing Public Interest in Medical Marijuana

FULLERTON, Calif., Apr 26, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) — GT Legend Automotive Holdings, Inc. (Pink Sheets:GTLA) issued a statement today discussing an increase in public interest surrounding the topic of medical marijuana.

An article by Rob Reuteman entitled, “Medical Marijuana Business is on Fire,” appeared in USA Today and outlined the industry’s recent rise. The article mentions that in the past six months, the number of patients and dispensaries has skyrocketed; it’s estimated that more than 100,000 Colorado residents can legally purchase marijuana for medical use (Source: www.usatoday.com).

Medical Marijuana can be used to treat glaucoma, nausea, vomiting, appetite loss and chronic pain. It can provide relief for patients suffering from arthritis, multiple sclerosis, insomnia, seizures and other painful ailments.

Eugene Espinosa, President of GTLA, commented, “We are well aware of the increasing public awareness of the benefits of medical marijuana. We’ve already received numerous phone calls and emails requesting information about our facility’s products and services. We are introducing the community to our wellness center. We are in the right place at the right time to serve those who are suffering from chronic pain.”

About GT Legend Automotive Holdings Inc.: GT Legend Automotive Holdings, Inc. is a Nevada research and development corporation. GTLA has acquired Compassionate Therapeutic Solutions.

About Compassionate Therapeutic Solutions, LLC: Compassionate Therapeutic Solutions, LLC is a multidisciplinary behavioral health care practice that offers mental health, substance abuse and primary caregiver services to communities of Colorado. The company’s focus is to provide cost-effective quality treatment and to create, promote, and maintain a positive customer relationship with clients, associates and the community. One of the functions of the clinic would be to provide comprehensive care to individuals who are registered and authorized to utilize medical marijuana.

Forward Looking Statements:

This press release contains certain forward-looking statements. Investors are cautioned that certain statements in this release are “forward looking statements” and involve both known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors. Such uncertainties include, among others, certain risks associated with the operation of the company described above. The Company’s actual results could differ materially from expected results.

This news release was distributed by GlobeNewswire, www.globenewswire.com

SOURCE: GT Legend Automotive Holdings, Inc.

Tories’ Law-and-Order Price Tag at $10B: Watchdog By The Canadian Press – Tuesday, April 27 2010 Tags: * Headline News * Canada * Conservative Party of Canada * DRUG WAR * ECONOMY * government A price tag for part of the Conservatives’ law-and-order agenda is about to be made public — and the number is in the billions, far higher than any previous estimates. The Parliamentary Budget Officer forecasts the cost of implementing just one of the Tories’ many tough-on-crime bills is between $7 billion and $10 billion over the next five years. Kevin Page’s complex investigation into the budget implications of the so-called “Truth in Sentencing” legislation — also known as the two-for-one sentencing law — is expected to be made public early next week. Sources familiar with the document told The Canadian Press the study concludes the provinces will have to pick up about three-quarters of the costs, while Ottawa pays the rest. The cash-strapped governments of Quebec and Ontario will be particularly hard hit. “The provinces have walked into this with their eyes closed,” said Craig Jones, executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada. The report is likely to provoke a showdown between the Page’s office the government over the credibility of the analysis. Ottawa has always maintained that much of the increased costs could be absorbed by shuffling prisoners to jails where there’s extra space, or by more double-bunking — putting two prisoners in one cell. Critics call that practice “chicken-caging” and say it would be a betrayal of Canada’s international commitments to maintain corrections standards. In an interview Tuesday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said $90 million has been set aside over this year and next to implement the law at the federal level, and expand existing facilities if need be. “We’re not exactly sure how much it will cost us. There are some low estimates, and some that would see more spent — not more than $90 million.” The provinces should not see any increase in costs, Toews added, noting the impetus for the legislation came mainly from provincial attorneys-general. Bill C-25 came into effect in February, and targets the length of criminal sentences. It aims to end the common practice of giving criminals a two-for-one credit for time spent in remand — incarceration while suspects are waiting to be dealt with by the courts. Under the new law, judges are required to count the time spent in pre-trial as straight time, in most cases. As a result, many criminals will likely be in jail or prison far longer than before, putting a strain on crumbling infrastructure and tight budgets. “The risk is that longer periods of time in federal custody will put additional pressures on an aging physical infrastructure and potentially increase risks to the safety and security of staff and offenders,” warns a recent report from Correctional Service Canada. But the practical effects of the legislation have never been thoroughly examined in public. The government, for example, has refused to release its internal analysis of impacts on prison populations and costs. “It’s always difficult to estimate what the impact is going to be,” Toews said. “Quite frankly, I’m not so sure that there will be a significant increase in our population because essentially we’re dealing with the same people over and over again,” he said. They’ve been gaming the system to take advantage of two-for-one credits, using bail terms to pop in and out of remand to cut down on their time in custody, he said. “Now, they’ll stay put without intermittent releases on bail.” But the $90 million set aside by Ottawa will not be nearly enough, says the analysis done by the PBO. Page devoted a third of his staff and six months to building statistical models, and double-checked the results with outside experts, to arrive at his conclusions. Page has butted heads with the government previously, notably over deficit and spending projections issued by the Finance Department. He was asked for the C-25 cost estimate by Liberal MP Mark Holland after The Canadian Press revealed last fall that costs could be large — and that MPs passed the legislation without the benefit of a government estimate. “It’s going to show that the costs involved are mind-boggling,” Holland said in an interview. The PBO examined just one piece of the Tories’ tough-on-crime strategy, and staff were frequently stymied by government refusals to hand over information. Staff have now developed a model based on what has happened as a result of similar legislation in the United States, making it easier to determine the costs of other crime bills, Holland said. “They’re not tough on crime,” he added. “If you look at where they’re spending their money, they’re building prisons. “They’re literally trying to create the same crime factories that were created in the United States, when the United States is running in the opposite direction.” Still, the Liberals backed C-25 when it was before the House of Commons. The bill moved largely unencumbered through the Commons and Senate last year, despite damning testimony from a range of experts. Conservative and Liberal MPs voted in favour of the bill without knowing how the prison population would be affected. They also had no idea what the cost would be. Nor did they thoroughly examine the effects of the federal bill on provincial institutions. When Liberal Senators asked questions about the costs, they were told that the government analysis was confidential because it was before cabinet. Since the PBO did not have full disclosure from the government, it used Treasury Board estimates for the cost of building new prison cells and the cost of keeping inmates in jail longer. Staffers then plugged the Treasury Board numbers into a model based on flows of prisoners in parts of the United States. Aware that the government would once again attack its credibility, the PBO also created a panel of outside experts to examine its numbers. The cost estimates will be presented as a range, to take into account the imprecision of their underlying assumptions. “I no longer use the term ‘crime agenda.’ This is not a ‘crime agenda’,” said Jones of the John Howard Society, who was on the panel. “It is a punishment agenda.” – Article from CTV News.