06 April 2008, 12:22

Mendocino Sheriff: No Stance On Pot Vote

Ukiah, CA - An escalating war of words is being waged over Mendocino County's Measure B, which if passed in the June primary will repeal the nation's first initiative to legalize personal marijuana use.
By refusing to take an official position on Measure B, Sheriff Tom Allman had hoped to stay out of a divisive debate. Emotions are running high over an underground marijuana economy that now dwarfs legitimate agriculture production including timber harvesting.

But because a pro-medical marijuana group decided to include past Allman comments in its ballot argument against Measure B, the sheriff has reiterated his stance:

"I am not taking any position. That's not my job," Allman said.

At issue are Allman quotes in a ballot argument submitted by opponents of Measure B.

Allman is quoted as saying that if county voters were to adopt more restrictive state standards, it "would be a burden on law enforcement."

Allman is also quoted as saying his deputies "will not be able to focus on any other public safety issue."

The sheriff doesn't deny making the statements reported in The Press Democrat a year ago. But he said they've since been taken out of context.

"We've already stepped up our enforcement against major marijuana growing. It's already a burden," Allman said.

Measure B proponents argue that marijuana cultivation in the county is "clearly out of control." They want Measure B passed in hopes of keeping crime-related problems in check, while erasing the county's national reputation as a haven for marijuana growers.

Measure B would repeal a 2000 initiative that legalizes personal use of marijuana, and makes enforcement of pot-related laws the "lowest priority" for local law enforcement.

The 2000 pot initiative was passed by a large margin, which led medical marijuana advocates to lobby former Sheriff Tony Craver and the late District Attorney Norman Vroman. Craver and Vroman eventually agreed to adopt a local standard allowing up to 25 plants per individual for medical use. In comparison, state standards called for no more than six plants per person.

Since 2000, marijuana production has soared in Mendocino County, as it has statewide despite continuing state and federal efforts to crack down.

The ballot argument in support of Measure B contends that the relaxed county standard "has made us a magnet for get-rich-quick growers who hide behind medical marijuana as a cover for commercial marijuana production."

Opponents in their ballot argument said they fear Measure B "is a backward step towards marijuana re-criminalization that targets small-scale, personal use growers."

Note: Official's statements used by opponents of measure to repeal marijuana law.

Source: Press Democrat, The (Santa Rosa, CA)

Oregon: Bill To Limit Medical Marijuana In Workplaces Fails

A bill to limit the use of medical marijuana in the workplace has gone up in smoke. The bill would have expanded an employer's ability to prohibit the use of medical marijuana by workers in jobs deemed hazardous by the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration, including construction, law enforcement, forest services and some manufacturing.

Associated General Contractors, representing commercial construction companies, said the bill was needed not only to prevent accidents but to keep construction companies from losing federal contracts for failing to abide by federal workplace drug laws.

The proposal, however, faced quick opposition from civil liberties organizations. It also failed to win backing from Associated Oregon Industries, an advocate for Oregon businesses that supported attempts to pass similar legislation in 2005 and 2007.

J.L Wilson, an AOI lobbyist, said this year's bill was too narrow in focus. "We feel this is a workplace issue that spans all sectors of employers, not just those in dangerous occupations," Wilson told the (Portland) Daily Journal of Commerce.

Under Oregon's 1998 medical marijuana law, employers don't have to let patients with medical marijuana cards smoke it in the workplace. But the law left it unclear whether employers must accommodate workers who smoke medical marijuana off the job.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled against a registered medical marijuana user who was fired from his job at a Columbia Forest Products plant after urine tests detected traces of the drug. But the court's decision avoided the central issue of marijuana use outside of the workplace.

The two industry groups said they intend to work together next year for a more comprehensive medical marijuana bill. Drew Hagedorn, a lobbyist for the Oregon-Columbia chapter of the Associated General Contractors, said the group's lobbying efforts for 2009 will also include pushes for more transportation funding and a shorter statute of repose on construction defect lawsuits.

The group is also working with legislators to fix a typo in House Bill 3242, which set new experience requirements for commercial construction licenses.

As written, the bill requires Level 2 contractors to have at least eight years of experience and Level 1 contractors to have at least four years. Those requirements will be flip-flopped. "The numbers were juxtaposed," Hagedorn said. "That was a concern for everyone because it serves as a barrier to entry-level contractors."

Contact: Associated Press

Source: OregonLive.com: Everything Oregon

Congress Won't Talk About Hemp

The three members of the state's congressional delegation offer little hope for anyone interested in growing industrial hemp. As long as the DEA considers hemp to be defined the same as its cousin, marijuana, there is virtually no chance Congress will take up the battle.

Two North Dakota farmers have sued the U.S. government to change the definition of industrial hemp. U.S District Judge Daniel Hovland dismissed the lawsuit in November, saying the issue should be resolved in Congress.

But our congressional delegation isn't confident that Congress will even discuss the issue, much less act on it. Unfortunately, they're right. We suspect a couple of years from now, this issue won't have changed any - growing industrial hemp in the United States will still be illegal, and hemp proponents will still be trying to make their case to the federal government.

We believe the government should take up this issue - but we also believe the government won't.

Source: Minot Daily News