Friday, August 27, 2010

Sierra High School v. Marijuana Farm Team

.

Here we go again...

America's grand experimental system of self-governance breaks down when selfish citizens do not voluntarily follow the laws adopted for the common good. And when the system of enforcement, designed to help the selfish ones comply, is overwhelmed, who is going to protect the public interest?

The Supreme Court of California, in People v. Kelly, filed January 21, 2010 [47 Cal. 4th 1008; 222 P.3d 186; 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 733; 2010 Cal. LEXIS 113], in footnote 21 said,


At this point the Court of Appeal observed: “An argument against the CUA [1996 Prop 215] was [that] it ‘allows unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere … in backyards or near schoolyards without any regulation or restrictions. This is not responsible medicine. It is marijuana legalization.’ (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996), argument against Prop. 215, p. 61.) San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan responded, ‘Proposition 215 does not allow “unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere.” It only allows marijuana to be grown for a patient's personal use. Police officers can still arrest anyone who grows too much, or tries to sell it.’ (Id., rebuttal to argument against Prop. 215, p. 61.)”

Two facts exist:
  1. The Barefoot Dirty Girls obviously have no intention to voluntarily conform to Manteca law about enclosing and securing their "weed patch."
  2. The City of Manteca obviously has no intention (or pretence) of enforcing its own law about enclosing and securing outdoor "weed patches."
Today, I sent the following email to the Manteca Unified School District superintendent and entire school board, the City of Manteca city manager and police chief, and the Manteca Bulletin newspaper editor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Manteca Unified School District
Superintendent Jason Messer – jmesser@musd.net
2271 West Louise Avenue
Manteca, CA 95337
August 27, 2010

Dear Mr. Messer,

This email is to inform you of an active marijuana growing operation just over the back fence (west) of Sierra High School, on the middle lot of the three residential lots located there - the one numbered as 810 Fishback Street. This information will assist you in continuing to protect the health, safety, general welfare and public morals of the students in your charge by nipping this unlawful use before it buds.

On July 8, 2010, I took some photographs of the marijuana plants to the Manteca Police Department and asked for an investigation (blog post and pictures here.) The next day the MPD called to inform me that the property owner held a medical marijuana card AND was also advised of Manteca’s Health & Safety ordinance, MMC 8.35 Cultivation and Possession of Medical Marijuana, which prohibits cultivation openly and unsecured. The owner was given a “few weeks” to enclose and secure the plants, but to date has failed to comply. Voluntary compliance with any law is something this owner never does; when informed of these laws the owner simply scoffs and ignores. The City of Manteca has briefly touched the situation, but without follow up or resolution, although “the purpose and intent of this chapter [is] to require that medical marijuana be cultivated in appropriately secured enclosed structures so as not to be visible to the public domain, to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public.” (ibid.)

Manteca city law, Section 8.35.030 Cultivation Restrictions, in part, specifies:

B. Secure Enclosed Structure. The cultivation of medical marijuana shall at all times occur in a secure, locked, and fully enclosed structure that includes solid walls, a ceiling, roof or top. No outdoor growing shall be permitted within the city.

G. Collective or Cooperative Cultivation. For the collective or cooperative cultivation of marijuana, such cultivation shall be prohibited within any residential districts as defined by the Manteca Municipal Code or within one thousand feet of any residential district, school, recreation center, or youth center.
This pot farm is not a collective or cooperative, which has the 1,000 foot distance requirement. As a single-user grow on a residential lot - without the distance requirement - the Secure Enclosed Structure requirement is even more imperative, yet nothing but an easily scalable chain link fence separates one or more of your students (or an interloper) from a serious problem - with the law, dope, dogs or unstable scofflaws.

You, Mr. Messer, representing the Manteca Unified School District, are hereby informed of this potential “attractive nuisance.” Since the policy of your school board directs “The Superintendent … to work closely and cooperatively with [local] agencies, and to bring all areas of conflict to the Board of Education whenever it appears that they cannot be promptly and appropriately resolved,’ (Policy 1410, Community Relations, Local Units), I wish you success in resolving this situation with the unconcerned Manteca Police Department and the recalcitrant property owner.

Sincerely,

Richard Behling (Dances With Timberwolves)
(contact info)

copied to:

MUSD Board of Trustees:
Michael Seelye – mseelye@musd.net
Manuel Medeiros – mmedeiros@musd.net
Vern Gebhardt – vgebhardt@musd.net
Evelyn Moore – emoore@musd.net
Wendy King – wking@musd.net
Rex Holiday – rholiday@musd.net
Nancy Teicheira – nteicheira@musd.net

City of Manteca administration:
Steve Pinkerton – citymanager@mantecagov.com
Dave Bricker – mantecapd@mantecapd.com
Manteca Bulletin:
Dennis Wyatt – dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(The email addresses for Medeiros, Moore, and Teicheira are incorrect. Mr. Gebhardt, who is not standing for reelection in November, has already sent a short response.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Behling,



I want to thank you for pointing this out to our Superintendent and Police Dept. I will see that there is follow up regarding this, and I am sure other Board members will do the same. We have an excellent Superintendent In Jason Messer and I am sure he will work with the Police Dept. to correct any illegal activity such as this.


Sincerely,
Vern Gebhardt


I hope such is the case.
.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

this is 2010 and medical marijuana has been legal since 1996! There is nothing wrong with having any kind of plants in your backyard. Pull your head out

noisemaker said...

First sentence, two points! Second sentence, zero points; try following the LEGAL trail since 1996. Third incomplete sentence, ...? (Oops, his/her head, with any remaining brain cells, disappeared!)

KaVaTpoT said...

i support being able to grow your own meds! get over yourself its not Crack heroin or Alcohol..... do you drink in your home? i dont think it is any way near as bad as alcohol so .... get over it & let it be!

noisemaker said...

California's Compaaaaassionate Use Act of 1996 is a prime example of letting direct democracy (popular initiatives) undermine our constitutional republic. That Act and its enabling Act need to be repealed, not expanded as in Proposition 19. Keeping medical marijuana within the boundaries of trained medical practitioners MAY have been a better way to go.

I am dead set against hallucinogens and other mind-impairing substances because of the "frictions" (some deadly or criminal, most just stupid) they cause with other people. Allowing people like Anonymous and KaVaTpoT to vote themselves a "legal right" to get and stay stupid illustrates the depths to which California has fallen. We're supposed to be a first class, productive, world power when our citizens are lazy, stupid, self-centered dopers?

Do you know that backcountry campers can be cited and fined if bears get their food? The food has to be secured. Yes, my neighbors can currently legally grow their own "meds" on their property - under the condition that it be enclosed and secured.

Which of us is having trouble understanding the simple concepts here? Grow a brain - and use it.

p.s. I don't drink alcohol.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like the only real nusciance in this situatin is your attitude. Unlike you I think a democracy would be great. California is a democracy (majority rule, one person one vote) and if you want a republic, well our national goverment is one. you sound overly obsessed, even listenting to what shoes, or not, they are wearing. I encourage you to get help before you get in serious trouble. Get anger management at least, but therapy when your ready would help you alot too.

noisemaker said...

First the lone prop - Anonymous (Nov 4) is able to string together a fairly coherent paragraph - although it should have been two coherent but wrong headed paragraphs.

The first major wrong turn was the statement, "California is a democracy." To the contrary, California is a constitutional, representative republic, just like the U.S., except for the provision for binding initiatives (direct democracy). This wormhole provision has caused much, but not all, of Sacramento's legislative gridlock and California's failing financial accounts we have suffered for decades.

Direct democracy is another name for "tyranny of the majority." The framers of the U.S. Constitution explicitly established a system of "hard coded" protection for both majority and minority rights, then placed judicial sentinels to safeguard the law, then surrounded that with the slower-than-snails system of amending the hard code, then wrapped the whole package in representation as a filter and buffer against direct democracy.

California, as represented by Anonymous (Nov 4), is well on its way to self-indulgent self-destruction with its binding initiative system.

The second major wrong turn by Anonymous (Nov 4) was to resort to ad hominum attacks (see Aug 10, 2009 post):

"the only real nusciance in this situatin is your attitude."

"you sound overly obsessed"

"get help... anger management at least"

"therapy"


Yes, my attitudes have had some serious adjustment for the better these last few years. Once I saw how my lying neighbors deceived (or manipulated) the corrupt, incompetent flunkies running the city, and terrorized and brutalized the older couple living next door for twenty years before my arrival, and tried to pull the same shit on me... once I discovered Lyin' Lynda's dirty little secret, my attitude brightened greatly and my determination to correct these despicable, illegal actions deepened.

Should I now just give up the fight and join the doper ranks? Do the political "Go along to get along" thing? Live and let live? Screw the law? ...and the neighbors? {shudder at mental image} Vote myself a new inalienable right - out of thin air - on the next California proposition?

No... to do so would be to live in the world of Anonymous (Nov 4).