A controversial medical marijuana dispensary was cautiously approved by the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Committee Wednesday before a standing-room-only crowd of about 80 people in the Sonoma Fire Station meeting room.

The SVCAC is an advisory body and will send its nonbinding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. The facility is proposed for 19445 Riverside Drive. The vote was 6-1 with Clarence Jenkins opposing it.

"This is a tough issue," he said. "But we have to make decisions that are in the best interest of the community we represent." Jenkins represents Verano West where the facility will be located.

Dona Frank, the applicant, was expecting denial when she addressed the group. "I am perplexed as to why you are getting this issue now," she said. "We came before you in June and we were ignored. Now five silent months later, we're here again because Valerie Brown wants you to review it."

She accused Brown of being "bullied by NIMBY neighbors." NIMBY is an acronym for "not in my backyard."

"She wants you to make the decision so she can say you opposed it and then she can look like a good guy."

"I'm a NIMBY and I'm proud of it," a woman shouted from the middle of the room.
In defense of Brown, ex-officio commissioner Dick Fogg responded that the supervisor had invoked a process called original jurisdiction, meaning the decision goes straight to the Board of Supervisors, which can reduce time for an applicant. Alternate Bill Willers further explained that five months ago the item was brought up under public comments, and legally no action could be taken then.

The issue has gone before the Sonoma City Council, which declined comment because the proposed dispensary would be outside city jurisdiction.

The proposal is for a 4,551-square-foot medical cannabis facility in what was once the Nicholas Turkey Farm warehouse. The site is developed and, while outside the city limits, it is totally urban. The dispensary expects to serve about 15 vehicles an hour, seven days a week, for an average stay of 8 minutes. Three security guards will be on site during operating hours and security cameras will be monitored 24 hours a day. There are two buildings on the site occupied by several tenants. While originally proposing to use a caretaker's residence, this request has been withdrawn. Very little "product" will be kept at the site in hopes of discouraging potential thieves.

The crowd, which filled the chairs and spilled out into the hallway, was divided among supporters and opponents. The major concerns identified by speakers were security, crime, proximity to residences, and impact on other businesses on the site. But traffic was the major concern.

"Traffic is already a nightmare there," said resident Gary Laysse. "When you pull out of the driveway, you can't go left because cars are backed up at the stop sign." Numerous speakers noted peak hour back ups on Riverside Drive that extend several blocks.

Sol Weiner, a retired police lieutenant, suggested that facilities of this type often attract crime.

He noted that security guards are not trained in law enforcement, and if there is a problem they will have to call the sheriff.

"While there are legitimate uses for medical marijuana, there are misuses as well," he said. "Security guards have no control over clients once they leave the premises. They can get into their car, use the product, then drive. That's illegal."

Lisa Gygax, the applicant's attorney, said that all requirements of Sonoma County's new ordinance regulating cannabis dispensaries (adopted in March), have been fulfilled. A traffic study has been done by another tenant of the site, security guards are given special training, no one is allowed to use the product on site, and Frank's other facility in Santa Rosa has had no crime problems. She noted that the only outstanding discretionary issue is a requirement for a facility to be 100-feet from a residential zoning district. Their dispensary is 60 feet away. The ordinance allows this requirement to be waived if the applicant can show that an actual physical separation exists between land-use parcels to mitigate the impact.

Ig Vella, a former county supervisor and non-voting commissioner, suggested that instead of saying "no," the commissioners vote "yes" with conditions.

"Grant a conditional use permit for one year with a six-month review," he said. "If there is one discrepancy in that time period, then that's the end of it."

The motion was made by Mark Bramfitt, seconded by Cynthia Wood to recommend approval with the following conditions: that the staff carefully evaluate the distance issue; that traffic issues be studied and mitigated; that the applicant be reviewed in one year to be sure there are no discrepancies or violations of the ordinance. The motion also asked that PRMD review the other tenants in the building to be sure they have proper use permits. Votes in favor besides Bramfitt and Wood were Garry Baker, Bob Felder, Bob Williams and Yvonne Bowers.

Source: Sonoma Index-Tribune, The (CA)
Copyright: 2007 Sonoma Valley Publishing
Website: sonomanews.com

A gunman stole 3 pounds of marijuana from the garden of several medical marijuana users at a southwest Modesto home last week.

The growers valued the prime buds, which they'd tended from seeds for nine months in a greenhouse full of bell peppers, tomatoes, corn and sunflowers, at $12,000 to $16,000.

No one has been arrested.

The four men each had medical clearance to use marijuana, which allowed them to grow cannabis for personal use, Modesto police reported.

The men reported the theft twice, first to police and then to their insurance company. Their renter's insurance, they hoped, would compensate them for the loss. It wouldn't have been the first payout on pot.

One insurer paid $12,375 to a Sacramento man who lost 3 pounds to an armed in - truder in 2000, according to news reports. A year earlier, another Sacramento man was the first person reportedly reimbursed for marijuana through household insurance. He received $6,500 from CGU California Insurance for 13 plants sheriffs' deputies seized from his garage. A handful of other reimbursements have been reported since then.

The Modesto men's insurance company declined. But the company, said Antonio, 50, who asked to be identified only by his first name, told him they would have considered his claim if the outdoor plants had been appraised or if his buds had been inside.

Farmers Insurance Group could not confirm Antonio's explanation Thursday or comment on the company's general policy, spokesman Jerry Davies said.

"Each claim like that is different," Davies said. "They are all investigated from the get-go."

But the company has compensated for pot losses before. In 2000, a Southern California couple received almost $7,000 from Farmers after police seized 14 pot plants from them, news reports show. Farmers concluded the plants fell within the "trees, shrubs, plants and lawns" section of its homeowner's policy.

California has more than 200,000 medical marijuana users, according to Dale Gieringer in the state office of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Twelve other states, according to NORML, have medical marijuana laws: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

"This isn't just something strange happening out in California," said Ryan Landers, senior adviser in Sacramento for the Compassionate Coalition, a nonprofit group that supports medical marijuana efforts.

California insurance companies that have covered marijuana losses cite Proposition 215, the 1996 California ballot measure that authorized medicinal marijuana. If it's legal to use the plant, and you have a doctor's note to prove it, then it's legal to own it, the reasoning goes. And if you own it and you're insured, the plants can be covered like any house plant or shrub.

One reason insuring marijuana poses a challenge, said Candysse Miller, the executive director of the Insurance Information Network of California, is that it's hard to determine its value.

"That's a challenging thing to do with a narcotic that's sold on the street in most cases," she said. "You have to determine street value. And what street? It's a pretty broad market. There aren't a lot of people writing receipts for marijuana."

Another complication is that states and the federal government have butted heads for years over medical marijuana, leaving insurance companies with different policies.

"Until that's clearly defined, you're going to find insurance companies on both sides," Miller said.

According to State Farm spokesman Greg Sherlock, the company does not cover marijuana related losses.

Allstate "possibly" covers certain losses, spokeswoman Patty Kelly said. "If it was legal to have a plant, it could be covered by personal property under a homeowner's policy," she said.

In 2001, Allstate paid a Placer County man $4,900 for 17 plants, according to a news report.

The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt several blows to medical marijuana users since then. That year, justices ruled against the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use. And insurance payouts on marijuana have become increasingly rare since a 2005 ruling that the federal government can ban its possession, even in states that have approved it for medical use.

Because of the legal battles, insurance companies have become more cautious, said Landers, who suffers from full-blown AIDS, chronic pain and chronic headaches. In 1999, he received $10,000 when someone stole 11/2 to 2 pounds of marijuana from his home. He was the second person to receive an insurance check for lost marijuana, but payouts such as his would be hard to come by these days, he said.

"You're going to have a fight on your hands."

Source: Modesto Bee, The (CA)
Copyright: 2007 The Modesto Bee
Website: ModBee.com - Modesto and Central Valley News, Sports, Cars, Jobs, Homes and Classifieds

Lawmakers hear from experts at a capitol hearing about the medicinal use of marijuana.

Dr. David Bearman is one of thousands of medical doctors who supports legalizing pot for patients.

"The fact of the matter is is that 75-to-80% of Americans in any poll done in the last 25 years has favored the legalization of medical marijuana."

The California physician who graduated from the University of Wisconsin says it's next to impossible for patients suffering from debilitating pain to find a doctor to prescribe medical marijuana. One such victim was relieved to find Dr. Bearman.

"…broke down in tears and said 'You know I'm not a criminal. This is the only thing that works.' I mean, you be really put to tears yourself to hear the stories of some of these people who say 'I would commit suicide if it hadn't been for marijuana because it relieves my pain like nothing else.'"

Dr. Bearman testified at an informational Health Committee hearing at the state capitol in support of the controversial drug. As for prescribing legal painkillers for patients in pain, Bearman says if they can find one that even works, there are usually too many side effects, so patients must take other medications to alleviate those side effects, only to create new ones, which need more meds. He says these people are not criminals.

"It's pretty absurd for the federal government to be expending precious federal dollars going around arresting people with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and failed back syndrome."

Dr. Bearman says he pre-screens each patient to make sure they have a well-documented, bona fide diagnosis. Opponents worry about the potential for abuse, saying people might use it for recreational use.

"Well I think that if we were to use that logic for all drugs we would have very few medications available for physicians to use. All drugs have an abuse potential."

Bearman has a 40-year history as a professional in providing drug abuse treatment and prevention. He says the "potential for abuse" argument is "totally bogus." Meanwhile, Bearman says many people are using alternative medicines, so their doctors would be wise to be aware of the various medications their patient is taking.

Dr. David Bearman is originally from Rice Lake, Wisconsin. He graduated from the UW in '63 before eventually finding his way to California.

NOTE: Medical marijuana is currently legal in: Maine , New Hampshire , Rhode Island , Montana , Washington , Oregon , California , Nevada , Colorado , New Mexico , Alaska , and Hawaii . In Wisconsin, a poll conducted by Chamberlain Research Consultants showed a 75.7% support for legislation to permit patients with serious illnesses to use marijuana for medical purposes with their physicians' approval.

Source: WRN.com
Copyright: 2006 Learfield Communications, Inc.
Website: Wisconsin Radio Network: Experts explain health benefits of marijuana