No on B, Yes on B backers state case

Vote yes on B , hamburg was arrested with 50 pounds, is that commercial or medical. if you say medical your smoking too much. we are done with the discusting world of dope, have you seen the HEADROOMS NEW ADS LATELY? one of there t shirts has a picture on it of big buds, that reads" WHO SAYS MONEY DOESNT GROW ON TREES" dont fall for the twinkie defense of hamburg, and others who like dirty money, vote know on B

SORRY ITS EARLY in the morning, vote yes on b

MENDO LONG TIME RESIDENT wrote:

Vote yes on B , hamburg was arrested with 50 pounds, is that commercial or medical. if you say medical your smoking too much. we are done with the discusting world of dope, have you seen the HEADROOMS NEW ADS LATELY? one of there t shirts has a picture on it of big buds, that reads" WHO SAYS MONEY DOESNT GROW ON TREES" dont fall for the twinkie defense of hamburg, and others who like dirty money, vote know on B

Marijuana growers in Mendocino are being specifically targeted this year for a high intensity investigation and prosecution effort. It will coordinate the DEA, IRS, CAMP and the Franchise Tax Board, per the IRS' website. They already allocated funds for six more choppers, over 100 additional CAMP raiders, and scores of IRS agents looking at the "businesses" being used as fronts by growers for money laundering.

You can assist by submitting a tip to the DEA at www.usdoj.gov/dea/submit_tip_form.htm . You can also call DEA Special Agent in charge Javier F. Pena in San Francisco. Tips to CAMP can be submitted at www.ag.ca.gov/bne/camp.php , or by calling Sacramento. Tips to the IRS regarding violations of the Money Laudering Control Act of 1986 and section 6050 of the Internal Revenue Code can be submitted to the IRS High Intensity Money Laundering and Related Financial Crime (HIFCA)Task Force at www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement .

Turning in criminal marijuana growers is not only the right thing to do, it's PROFITABLE as well. In conjunction its Investigation and Prosecution effort in Mendocino, the IRS is offering rewards to informants on those marijuana cultivators evading taxes in violation of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and section 6050 of the Internal Revenue Code. Anonymous tips can be submitted to the IRS High Intensity Money Laundering and Related Financial Crime (HIFCA)Task Force at www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement .

How to claim a reward:

IRS Publication 733 details the regulations for claiming a reward. You must complete IRS Form 211. Your information can be delivered personally to any IRS office, or you can write to:

Head of the Criminal Investigation Division
Internal Revenue Service
Washington, DC 20224

If a recovery is made as a direct result of information you provided, you may qualify for a reward of 15% of the amount recovered including taxes, fines and penalties, but not interest -- with a maximum payment of $2 million.

If your information was valuable, although not specific, in determining liability, you may be rewarded with as much as 10% of the amount recovered, again with a $2 million cap.

If your information was the originating cause of the investigation, but had no direct relationship to the determination of tax liability, the reward is 1% of the amount recovered, again with that $2 million limit.

Using an assumed name
If you're not claiming a reward for the information, you can use an assumed name. But if you want to claim a reward, you must use your own name. The IRS is legally prohibited from disclosing the identity of an informer to unauthorized persons.

Just some more harmless well-doers caught. Screw 'em!

Huge bust nets 137 pounds of bud
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 04/17/2008 01:15:59 AM PDT

Acting on information from the Illinois State Drug Task Force, local drug enforcement agents on Tuesday arrested two men in the tiny hamlet of Honeydew for allegedly conspiring to distribute marijuana.

More than a dozen agents with the Humboldt County Drug Task Force, the sheriff's office and the Illinois Drug Task Force served a warrant at a residence on Applewood Road and arrested Christopher Cramer and Leland Bauer without incident.

Cramer was arrested on federal charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and Bauer was booked on misdemeanor warrants, and will be indicted for an alleged conspiracy to distribute marijuana, officials said.

The officers allegedly found 93 pounds of processed marijuana bud in the residence, another 40 pounds in Cramer's pick-up and four pounds in Bauer's car. They also reportedly seized a Glock .40 caliber handgun, a .30-.30 caliber rifle and two shotguns.

Paco wrote:

think about this if you stop growing marijuana in mendocino county the whole county will be broke and will go back to the way i remember ukiah back in 1998 a dirty town infested with meth at least know everybody is on weed so its more mellow so think about this do you want your kids to be pot heads or tweekers? i choose pot heads

I choose neither. Be a Parent and be involved with your children. Then you wouldn't have to choose between the two. DRUGS ARE BAD, OK. That includes POT>

reality checker wrote:

Just some more harmless well-doers caught. Screw 'em!
Huge bust nets 137 pounds of bud
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 04/17/2008 01:15:59 AM PDT
Acting on information from the Illinois State Drug Task Force, local drug enforcement agents on Tuesday arrested two men in the tiny hamlet of Honeydew for allegedly conspiring to distribute marijuana.
More than a dozen agents with the Humboldt County Drug Task Force, the sheriff's office and the Illinois Drug Task Force served a warrant at a residence on Applewood Road and arrested Christopher Cramer and Leland Bauer without incident.
Cramer was arrested on federal charges of conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and Bauer was booked on misdemeanor warrants, and will be indicted for an alleged conspiracy to distribute marijuana, officials said.
The officers allegedly found 93 pounds of processed marijuana bud in the residence, another 40 pounds in Cramer's pick-up and four pounds in Bauer's car. They also reportedly seized a Glock .40 caliber handgun, a .30-.30 caliber rifle and two shotguns.

why would the Illinois Drug Task force involved? There seems to be information missing from this report. I'd like to know more

never mind, i found it. This is the example of the CRIMINALS! who would be doing this anyway. Humboldt county doesn't have measure G, so you can't balme measure g for the criminal aspect in this case. I have a feeling they were not using a prop 215 defense either.

So, ultimately, what we have with the latest bust, is not an example of 215 abuse, nor measure g abuse. It is an example of criminals. Period.

it is becomeing very clear that a lot of people are unable to destinguish between legitemite growers and outlaws.that is not a good basis to pass a measure like b.

anyone wrote:

it is becomeing very clear that a lot of people are unable to destinguish between legitemite growers and outlaws.that is not a good basis to pass a measure like b.

There are some that feel that less pot on the streets, be it from legitimate growers or outlaws, is a good thing.

I'd like to hear someone from No on B address the concerns o the Yes on B side. If they truly think it's a medicinal drug, then what are they doing to stop the abuse/misuse of it? I believe in vicodin for pain control but support controls to stop abuse. The fact that No on B supporters fight any controls makes me think that many of their motives are not as altruistic as they would lead me to believe. I know, it's cynical of me.

raised in Ukiah wrote:

I'd like to hear someone from No on B address the concerns o the Yes on B side. If they truly think it's a medicinal drug, then what are they doing to stop the abuse/misuse of it? I believe in vicodin for pain control but support controls to stop abuse. The fact that No on B supporters fight any controls makes me think that many of their motives are not as altruistic as they would lead me to believe. I know, it's cynical of me.

Not cynical, realistic. I would add that when no on B folks even bring up the medicinal argument, they are not being true to the principles of compassion. The fact is that Measure B will do little to hinder a legitimate patient, it is more about refocusing on personal use unassociated with medicinal use.

raised in Ukiah wrote:

I'd like to hear someone from No on B address the concerns o the Yes on B side. If they truly think it's a medicinal drug, then what are they doing to stop the abuse/misuse of it? I believe in vicodin for pain control but support controls to stop abuse. The fact that No on B supporters fight any controls makes me think that many of their motives are not as altruistic as they would lead me to believe. I know, it's cynical of me.

I will try. yes on b claims:
home invasions: claim they are rising yet provide no statistics or numbers to validate this claim.

large commercial grows: most are on public land or trespass growers WITHOUT dr notes for mmj.

25 plants=25 pounds: no scientific study to validate this claim.

Measure g opened doors for large scale commerical grows: criminal grows were occuring before meas. g passed and will continue without it.

Measure G ties the hands of leo: if so, how are they able to make those large hundreds or thousand plant raids?

Reducing the patient plant limit from 25 to 6 to curb illegal grows: Makes leo job MORE BURDENSOME!

It just boils down to this. Criminals will grow whatever amount they want regardless of the limits placed on patients. Its not patients growing thousands of plants on public lands and polluting the land, it is the criminals. Criminals will continue to break ANY LAW you create, as long as they can make money. Stop the prohibition, stop the profits.

a few facts I just learned about the man who initiated the state minimums. Mr. Malika (sp?) based his recomendation for 6 plants on the amounts allowd by the federal govt for the IND patients. Malika stated that they receive 4 lbs per year and falsified a shipping order to back up his statement. When fed IND patients were questioned about this, they all stated they receive 300 grams per month. That is 3600gms per year. 3600gms/454 gms per pound =7.929 pounds. Almost double what Malika stated. Malika has since been disqualified in court in several cases. Placer county v. Dr. Michael Baldwin was one of them. The final case was state v. Kubby in which his career (Malika's) was destroyed. My attorneys have copies of all of these trasnscripts.

Malika was a cop with an Associates Degree in police science.

Considering that the state minimim plant limits were based on figures 1/2 of the actual amount, it would be logical to calcualte that if Malika used the actual amount of cannabis the IND patients received, that the recommended minimums would have been 12 mature plants, not 6.

Additionally, the IND patients smoke an average of 10 grams/day. factoring in the federal DEA plant yeild study, the average plant canopy for each IND patient is set at 257 square feet. This number comes from their yield study in 1992 which concluded that 1 cannabis plant will yield 1/2 ounce per square foot.

I think it is best that we use a scentific study as a guideline for setting patient limits, which cannot be calculated by plant numbers. Any farmer can tell you that he cannot determine how much his crop of corn will produce simlply by counting the number of plants he planted.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
I will try. yes on b claims:
home invasions: claim they are rising yet provide no statistics or numbers to validate this claim.
large commercial grows: most are on public land or trespass growers WITHOUT dr notes for mmj.
25 plants=25 pounds: no scientific study to validate this claim.
Measure g opened doors for large scale commerical grows: criminal grows were occuring before meas. g passed and will continue without it.
Measure G ties the hands of leo: if so, how are they able to make those large hundreds or thousand plant raids?
Reducing the patient plant limit from 25 to 6 to curb illegal grows: Makes leo job MORE BURDENSOME!
It just boils down to this. Criminals will grow whatever amount they want regardless of the limits placed on patients. Its not patients growing thousands of plants on public lands and polluting the land, it is the criminals. Criminals will continue to break ANY LAW you create, as long as they can make money. Stop the prohibition, stop the profits.

“Checker”...when will you address the credibility issues in previous posts and stop spreading misinformation and deception?

Who says 25 plants = 25 lbs (not a rhetorical question, it may have been said and I’d like to know by whom)?

Nobody says that large grows didn’t exist before Measure G, but it did provide an opportunity for more of them. Who wouldn’t want to grow where all MJ laws are the lowest priority for law enforcement?

Measure G tied the hands by placing all marijuana laws on the lowest priority. This means that LEO have to decide when an illegal grower is big enough to warrant attention in accordance with that directive, hence only the biggest growers get busted. Without that establishment of priority, LEO can now go after anyone who is not a legitimate MMJ user and enforce the laws of the State, no matter where they grow or the quantity they have.

I am glad you finally shelved the medical MJ argument that says that patients will be unable to get what they need. But now your argument is that law enforcement will have to work? Great.

It boils down to this...as long as MJ is prohibited and Mendocino provides a safer haven for criminals, they will come. I do agree, stopping the prohibition will help, but that hasn’t happened and likely will not for some time. In the meantime, let’s not provide any incentive to the undesirables.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
“Checker”...when will you address the credibility issues in previous posts and stop spreading misinformation and deception?
Who says 25 plants = 25 lbs (not a rhetorical question, it may have been said and I’d like to know by whom)?
Nobody says that large grows didn’t exist before Measure G, but it did provide an opportunity for more of them. Who wouldn’t want to grow where all MJ laws are the lowest priority for law enforcement?
Measure G tied the hands by placing all marijuana laws on the lowest priority. This means that LEO have to decide when an illegal grower is big enough to warrant attention in accordance with that directive, hence only the biggest growers get busted. Without that establishment of priority, LEO can now go after anyone who is not a legitimate MMJ user and enforce the laws of the State, no matter where they grow or the quantity they have.
I am glad you finally shelved the medical MJ argument that says that patients will be unable to get what they need. But now your argument is that law enforcement will have to work? Great.
It boils down to this...as long as MJ is prohibited and Mendocino provides a safer haven for criminals, they will come. I do agree, stopping the prohibition will help, but that hasn’t happened and likely will not for some time. In the meantime, let’s not provide any incentive to the undesirables.

John McCowen and Ross Liberty on Monday night at the forum. Do you agree or disagree that you get 1lb per plant? would lilke to know your position on that estimate.

As for pts not being able to get what they need, I'm not dropping that. Think about this. A patient grows 25 indoor plants, which provides this pt with thier yearly supply. One grow cycle per year. Reduce the pts number to 6, and now pt has to have 4 grow cycles per year. increase in power bill and now makes the pt 4 times more vulnerable to home invasion.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
“Checker”...when will you address the credibility issues in previous posts and stop spreading misinformation and deception?
Who says 25 plants = 25 lbs (not a rhetorical question, it may have been said and I’d like to know by whom)?
Nobody says that large grows didn’t exist before Measure G, but it did provide an opportunity for more of them. Who wouldn’t want to grow where all MJ laws are the lowest priority for law enforcement?
Measure G tied the hands by placing all marijuana laws on the lowest priority. This means that LEO have to decide when an illegal grower is big enough to warrant attention in accordance with that directive, hence only the biggest growers get busted. Without that establishment of priority, LEO can now go after anyone who is not a legitimate MMJ user and enforce the laws of the State, no matter where they grow or the quantity they have.
I am glad you finally shelved the medical MJ argument that says that patients will be unable to get what they need. But now your argument is that law enforcement will have to work? Great.
It boils down to this...as long as MJ is prohibited and Mendocino provides a safer haven for criminals, they will come. I do agree, stopping the prohibition will help, but that hasn’t happened and likely will not for some time. In the meantime, let’s not provide any incentive to the undesirables.

And for the record, I was posting in response to a request from a previous poster about what the no on b side thinks about the use/misue of the law. Not patients, but I think I addressed the pt concern in the last posting.

Do we have that many people in Mendo. County that have Medical MJ cards? Or do they have Medical cards just to sell and make some money. It's seems to me that one plants makes about 1 pound. That should be enough for a whole year for one person. From what I'm understanding. Am I right?

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
John McCowen and Ross Liberty on Monday night at the forum. Do you agree or disagree that you get 1lb per plant? would lilke to know your position on that estimate.
As for pts not being able to get what they need, I'm not dropping that. Think about this. A patient grows 25 indoor plants, which provides this pt with thier yearly supply. One grow cycle per year. Reduce the pts number to 6, and now pt has to have 4 grow cycles per year. increase in power bill and now makes the pt 4 times more vulnerable to home invasion.

I would not agree, merely because I don’t think it could be that simple. I don’t know what a good number would be, but there must be a significant difference in the size of plants, so its not so easy to generalize.

I suggest you do shelve the MMJ argument. It is moot, since the law allows them to have whatever amount their doctor recommends. If the doctor thinks the patient needs 25 plants, all they have to do is write their recommendation as such.

When you argue it in the terms you have portrayed in your hypothetical, without mentioning the patients ability to obtain a sufficient doctor's recommendation, you are being deceptive.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
I would not agree, merely because I don’t think it could be that simple. I don’t know what a good number would be, but there must be a significant difference in the size of plants, so its not so easy to generalize.
I suggest you do shelve the MMJ argument. It is moot, since the law allows them to have whatever amount their doctor recommends. If the doctor thinks the patient needs 25 plants, all they have to do is write their recommendation as such.
When you argue it in the terms you have portrayed in your hypothetical, without mentioning the patients ability to obtain a sufficient doctor's recommendation, you are being deceptive.

The doctor can only recommend an amount of dried cannabis. He cannot recommend a number of plants, hence we need to set the limits based on scientific reasearch, not a guessing game.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
I would not agree, merely because I don’t think it could be that simple. I don’t know what a good number would be, but there must be a significant difference in the size of plants, so its not so easy to generalize.
I suggest you do shelve the MMJ argument. It is moot, since the law allows them to have whatever amount their doctor recommends. If the doctor thinks the patient needs 25 plants, all they have to do is write their recommendation as such.
When you argue it in the terms you have portrayed in your hypothetical, without mentioning the patients ability to obtain a sufficient doctor's recommendation, you are being deceptive.

The reason he cannot recommend 25 plants is because he has no idea what they are going to produce. In order to assess what the plants can produce, you need to do a yield study. The DEA did this in 1992. They determined 1/2 ounce per square foot. The NIDA did thier own in 1993 and concluded 3/4 ounce per square foot. This was what Craver and Vromen based the 100 square foot canopy on.
There are different varieties that produce more than others and less than others. Climate, fertilizer, grow room or garden, infestation of mites, too much heat inside, water ph, powder mold, bud rot outside in damper areas all contribute to how much or little the plant will produce.

What we need to do is set limits according to the scientific studies, and they all state cannabis plants will produce approc 1/2 to 3/4 ounce per square foot, not per plant.