DA endorses Measure B

YES on B wrote:

<quoted text>
But he still must prove that the amount possessed was for his "personal medical use." So the scam continues. Vote Yes on B to Repeal bogus Measure G.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, now that I read the whole thing, not sure how to take this. You realize that this means we are likely headed back to the CUA days? Without limits means two things: 1) It will be taken advantage of, as always and 2) Everyone will be arrested, even for 1 plant, and made to prove that they possessed for reasonable medical needs. Don’t forget, even NORML supported the MMP. I wouldn’t be jumping for joy just yet...
While it appears to be decided on solid grounds, it’s the unfortunate result of political incompetence...go figure.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, now that I read the whole thing, not sure how to take this. You realize that this means we are likely headed back to the CUA days? Without limits means two things: 1) It will be taken advantage of, as always and 2) Everyone will be arrested, even for 1 plant, and made to prove that they possessed for reasonable medical needs. Don’t forget, even NORML supported the MMP. I wouldn’t be jumping for joy just yet...
While it appears to be decided on solid grounds, it’s the unfortunate result of political incompetence...go figure.

John Thomas wrote:

RC
>>>"How about we start over, place all the counties back on the same level of protection, and then move forward in solidarity?"
Because solidarity is the one thing we lack due to the nature of the Inquisition. Because they have made such pariahs out of marijuana consumers, giving years of prison for the unrepentant, marijuana consumers don't even know who their brothers are in this struggle. They must be so secretive, they assume everyone around them, except for some precious one or two, are non-consumers who would gladly turn them in for any possible advantage to gain.
>>>"You still have not indicated why, as an outsider, you want to subject Mendocino to less protection of the law than surrounding counties,"
I have many times, of course. You just keep repeating that silliness as a campaign phrase.
End ALL aspects of the monstrous fraud of marijuana prohibition! NO ON B!

YES on B wrote:

Ending federal prohibition is a great long term solution, but we can't accomplish that at the local level. The best we can do in the meantime is quit making ourselves a target for commercial growers. The anti-bees say B will do nothing to help with the big grows, that it will only be used to go after the small growers. But read the full statement by District Attorney Meredith Lintott where she clearly and emphatically says that B will be used against the big growers, not the small ones. Who shall we believe? The DA or the self-interested growers and lobbyists who defend commercial marijuana as a great thing?
The DA is the one who will file charges or not. She makes it clear that Measure G is used to protect the large growers. And she says she will accept Measure B as a "mandate to arrest and prosecute the large commercial growers."
It is a lie to say that Measure B targets one plant or seven plants. The Sheriff and DA have better things to do and have said so.

District Attorney Endorses Measure B

District Attorney Meredith Lintott released the following statement endorsing Measure B:

"Today I am announcing my endorsement for Measure B. I do so because Measure B is consistent with the protection of the rights of legitimate medical marijuana patients and will provide consistency in the law which will greatly assist in the successful prosecution of commercial growers.
As a candidate for District Attorney I pledged to protect the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers. I also said I would prosecute those who abuse the protections given to medical marijuana as a cover for commercial growing.
As District Attorney, it is obvious to me that Measure G has become a barrier that greatly complicates the prosecution of solid cases, even where there is overwhelming evidence of commercial cultivation, possession, transportation and sales. The defense attorneys never fail to cite Measure G as a defense for those charged with violating the laws against commercial marijuana. This is true even for the largest growing operations.
Measure G was widely considered to be an advisory measure when it passed, but was later codified as part of the Mendocino County Code. More recently the Board adopted the 25 plant limit from Measure G as the standard for the County, although there is some question whether or not the action of the Board adequately covered all the legal bases.
Measure G, if it is law at all, is bad law because it is internally inconsistent and its major provisions are of dubious legality. Most significantly, it is in direct conflict with state law and defense attorneys are skillful at emphasizing conflicts in the law in order to create doubt on the part of jurors.
As a prosecutor, Measure B will make my job easier by providing consistency in the law. I also believe the state limits protect the rights of medical patients and therefore no legitimate medical patient will suffer if Measure B passes. That is why I support Measure B.
I will accept the passage of Measure B as a mandate from the public to focus marijuana enforcement and prosecution activities on the large commercial growers and those that are endangering public safety and harming the environment. I will also challenge the public to support adequate funding for enforcement and prosecution so that Sheriff Allman and I can carry out the mandate of the public to go after the commercial growers that are harming our county and our environment."
Meredith J. Lintott, April 30, 2008

YES on B wrote:

<quoted text>
The anti bees have yet to refute a single point that Meredith Lintott makes in her endorsement statement.

Measure G was widely considered to be an advisory measure when it passed,

[As a candidate for District Attorney I pledged to protect the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers. I/QUOTE]

Maybe she did. I find it difficult to reconcile that pledge with two items which were brought up recently, namely the alteration in the number of cards used in a recent trial without the knowledge of the defendant (so he claims), but moreover, what seems to be an outright violation of Measure G all along.

I noted (since I've been having to re-read these things), that Measure G instructs the DA and Sheriff to manicure all medical marijuana brought into evidence, and try on only the flowers.

I'm not seeing any indication that ANYONE has followed this instruction, yet they all supposedly swore oaths to do so.

Given the circumstances, there might even be civil rights litigation (seems legit to me, at least). If it was decided and set precedent, the county could end up in Half Moon Bay's problem (broke from lawsuits).

It's not my job to read and interpret the law, it's hers, and the county's welfare rests on her ability to do it. I don't think she's up to that task, personally.

[QUOTE]As District Attorney, it is obvious to me that Measure G has become a barrier that greatly complicates the prosecution of solid cases, even where there is overwhelming evidence of commercial cultivation, possession, transportation and sales. The defense attorneys never fail to cite Measure G as a defense for those charged with violating the laws against commercial marijuana. This is true even for the largest growing operations.

Measure G, if it is law at all, is bad law because it is internally inconsistent and its major provisions are of dubious legality. Most significantly, it is in direct conflict with state law and defense attorneys are skillful at emphasizing conflicts in the law in order to create doubt on the part of jurors.

writch wrote:

<quoted text>
Gee, are you sure? With the way you guys paste the same text over and over, it's getting hard to find my own responses, let alone other folks'.
But let's see. I was able to cut this down to 4K:
<quoted text>
I called and spoke to the DA at the time I moved here, Norm Vroman. He was quite specific in his understanding of the law, and it didn't agree with how Lintott interpreted it. He didn't view it as 'advisory'. At least, that's what he told me.
<quoted text>
Well, to me, it means that she's lousy at manicuring a case to send it through clean, get a decent decision, and use it to throw out the endless chatter.
I think we are all agreed that when someone without cards has more than twenty-five plants that Measure G isn't actually a defense, since it's over the priority limit, and it IS actually illegal to grow pot in California if it's not medical.
The murky part comes from the medical cards. We don't know if G can limit a card grow to twenty-five plants (they say it does, I suspect it might not). If she had been doing her job proficiently, we would likely already have that test case.
The fact that she has trouble reading what seems to be a pretty simple law stems, IMHO, from the intentional ignorance that she thinks she can get away with.
But it works on the Measure B people fine, so I have to give her credit for that.
<quoted text>
Well, the other side keeps saying this, but really, the only 'inconsistency' that they've pointed to has been that on the top level, the wording says only 'priority' where in the detail points it specifies what number should be the limit at which 'priority' occurs.
The only time it should really be coming into conflict with state law is when prosecuting somebody covered by Measure G, but that shouldn't happen, should it?

YES on B wrote:

<quoted text>
But he still must prove that the amount possessed was for his "personal medical use." So the scam continues. Vote Yes on B to Repeal bogus Measure G.