Moratorium for New Medical Marijuana Shops in SC Just Another "Reefer Madness" Ploy

As the Executive Director for Beverly Hills NORML90210.org, cancer survivor and legal cannabis patient, I am filled with mixed emotions about this ordinance. I am the first person to stand up for the rights of patients, however, there have obviously been some people in Los Angeles abusing the system. Each day we receive hundreds of emails and phone calls asking for guidance on the latest regulations. The legal system is confusing at best. Recently I testified before City Council to clarify the need for CLEAR, CONCISE and CONSISTENT legislation. In my personal life, I am faced with serious health issues that could cost my life due to my inability to qualify for a liver transplant. Does it matter that I have never smoked a cigarette or done drugs of any kind in my life? Apparently not. I used legal medicinal cannabis during my cancer treatment. While cannabis has saved my life thus far, prohibiting the growth, spread and metastisizing of the tumors throughout my system, I recently learned that the mere fact that I used Cannabis as an alternative health treatment could disqualify me for a life-saving organ transplant. My hope and prayers are that the cannabis medicine that I use daily will keep me alive until the laws can change. I am not alone. Patients like me die each and every day, but the mainstream media does not report that news. At what point will the general public and mainstream media care about this injustice? Meanwhile, I hope that others will join me in the fight for clarification and legalization for medicinal cannabis and the responsible adult use of marijuana.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Shuman
Executive Director
Beverly Hills NORML90210.org
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

Patients awaiting a liver transplant are denied a life-saving organ transplant because they smoke/smoked marijuana???? that makes NO SENSE at all!! I can see not giving an alcoholic who is still using, a liver. But marijuana? There is no evidence it does any liver damage at all. This is just prejudice, most likely from a profession heavily invested in pharmaceutical company stock that recognizes that if marijuana was available and there was widespread use, many of the drugs they sell would be gathering dust on the shelves.

The photo, which appeared in today's SENTINEL, shows a candlelight march leaving City Hall. Candles openly violate RYAN COONERTY's "Smoking ban", but note, that when their own ban inconveniences THEM, they openly violate it.

The Sentinel wrote exactly one sentence about this issue in the second paragraph of a story on increasing alcohol outlet permit fees: "Also Tuesday, the council approved extending for four months a ban on any new medical marijuana dispensaries while the city weighs an application from a third outlet to open. " at
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14273886?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com

I haven't reviewed the Council video tape nor gotten any on the spot reports. I was in the FRSC studio at the time doing an extra Street Interview show. I'll try to play the Medical Marijuana Distribution Center Moratorium section of Tuesday's City Council meeting 10 AM on Sunday's show (101.1 FM, http://www.freakradio.org). To be archived later at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb100131.mp3 (download and spin to the middle of the audio file).

Becky is claiming that the lighting of candles violates the cities recently passed smoking ban, but I can't find any wording or description of the ban that disallows the lighting of candles. Any version or description I've seen specifically mentions and mandates tobacco smoking.


Is Becky lying, or am I not finding a complete wording of the ban. (Based upon her notorious history of same, I suspect Becky is lying, but I stand by to be contradicted with some proof.)

I believe Becky is referring to MC 6.04.04(m) defining "Smoking" as "inhaling, exhaling. burning or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, weed, plant or other combustible substance in any manner or in any form."

The phrase "other combustible substance in any manner or in any form" would include, candles, gasoline in car engines, etc. if strictly applied. It seems too broadly written. But that never stopped City Attorney John Barisone.

A longer article in the Sentinel, which still makes no mention of the "emergency" requirements of extending a moratorium on the usual processing of applications, appeared last Sunday: "Santa Cruz medical marijuana advocate urges city to rule on plan for new dispensary" at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14304899?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com .

I hope to be interviewing Anita Henry, Med-EX worker, and Measure K ("Lowest Enforcement Priority for Marijuana") Commissioner and Craig Canada, local medical marijuana advocate and patient, on Free Radio Santa Cruz Thursday February 7 6-8 PM at 101.1 FM, http://www.freakradio.org . Call in at 831-427-3772 to discuss the issue.

I'll also be playing the City Council's rubberstamping of the moratorium from last Tuesday's Council meeting during the same show. It'll be archived at http://www.radiolibre.org/brb/brb0100204.m

Robert has confirmed my impression: Becky is grossly misinterpreting reality to suit her needs.

The distinct specifications of "inhaling, exhaling" clearly exclude a freakin candle.

.......weak game play by Becky.

Not that these distinctions will ever be enforced by police, but the law's wording includes "carrying" (which can refer to a candle) and "burning" (which can refer to gas in a car) not just "inhaling" or "exhaling".

For an interesting perspective on what Santa Cruz and other cities should be doing, re: the Drug War, check out today's Democracy Now! segment: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/3/addiction which includes a transcript.