Drug Warrior Funding Cut. They vow to press on.

OROVILLE, Calif. -- The possible elimination of state funding won't be enough to shut down a drug enforcement program in Butte County.

The Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force is facing the loss of $500,000 in state funding.
To keep BINTF alive, law enforcement agencies will have to band together to replace two commanders from the state bureau of narcotics enforcement and find a new building for the task force.
But Oroville Police Chief Bill LaGrone says letting BINTF die is simply not an option.
“It would be absolutely devastating for the Oroville Police Department for this task force to go away,” said LaGrone. “We are absolutely determined to keep this thing going, to keep BINTF alive, and to do what is necessary to keep the intervention going of the flow of narcotics into our community.”
District Attorney Mike Ramsey says they should know by the middle of the month if BINTF will be able to keep its funding.

CN&R on ordinance repeal Ramsey orchestrated. Council feels "bullied..."

City Council back-pedals on medi-pot ordinance

Panel also votes to retain redevelopment agency

By Meredith J. Graham 
meredithg@newsreview.com
More stories by this author... 

This article was published on 08.04.11.

Related stories: City Council approves dispensary ordinance Decides to take “baby steps” by allowing only two businesses to operate. CN&R, 06.09.11. Chico cops revolt against pot ordinance The medical-marijuana law will allow for two dispensaries in town, but police say it violates federal law. CN&R, 07.28.11.

“We’re being bullied.”
That was the general feeling conveyed at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting related to medical marijuana, the “we” being the city and the bully being the federal government. Under vague threats of prosecution—city staff, including council members, could go to jail for conspiracy, according to U.S. Attorney Benjamin Wagner—the council backed down, voting to repeal the dispensary ordinance it passed just last month.
“When you get a letter from the U.S. attorney addressed to yourself, that really opens your eyes,” said Mayor Ann Schwab. She was referring to the letter Wagner sent her just days before the council approved the ordinance July 5. “The eyes of the federal government are on us as elected officials.”
City staff tended to agree. City Manager Dave Burkland and City Attorney Lori Barker made a trip last month to Wagner’s Sacramento office to try to understand better what the city could do to keep from being prosecuted. Neither could offer any specifics gleaned from the meeting, other than the dispensaries’ facility size seemed to be an important factor. The message that did get through, loud and clear, was that city officials could face prosecution for conspiracy by allowing for facilities meant for the manufacture and distribution of marijuana.
“I don’t understand how a conspiracy charge could be held up,” countered Councilman Andy Holcombe, also an attorney. He pointed to several ways in which the ordinance could be reworded to clearly state the intent of the law is to provide safe access to medicine for seriously ill patients. “It really comes down to intent.”
Surprisingly, only 16 members of the public showed up to offer their opinions on the matter, and they varied from members of the Chico Police Officers Association, which has already come out publicly against the ordinance, to those involved in local dispensaries, who pleaded for the ability to offer a safe, legal way for patients to obtain their medicine.
Some, like Chamber of Commerce President Jolene Francis, suggested that not repealing the ordinance would be “calling their bluff.” Others, like local blogger Quentin Colgan, considered repeal nothing short of cowardice. “This is when we need the City Council to stand up for us—stand up to the bully,” he said.
“We are being bullied. But we’re being bullied by the federal government,” acknowledged Vice Mayor Jim Walker. “I don’t like this at all. I think we should take a breath and revisit this—maybe six months is the right amount of time to do that.”
Holcombe shot back: “We’ve taken enough breaths; it’s time to exhale. We’re not thumbing our noses at anyone—this is about protecting sick people. I think we can—and should—stand up to the bully.”
In the end, though a majority of the council seemed to agree that some sort of similar ordinance ought to be in place at some point, a motion to repeal by Councilman Mark Sorensen carried 4-3, with council members Holcombe, Scott Gruendl and Mary Flynn—who posed the curious question of how Chico happened on the U.S. Attorney’s radar in the first place—dissenting.

Mike Ramsey wastes resources trying to limit patient rights and LOSES...

Butte County patients win medical marijuana ruling by state's top court

by Denny Walsh, Sacramento Bee
September 25th, 2009

Once out of the hands of the Butte County Sheriff's Department, seven people growing medical marijuana as a collective have had a spectacular run through the courts.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday denied review and let stand a 3rd District Court of Appeal opinion in July upholding the right of patients to collective growth of marijuana. The opinion also affirmed the ability of patients to sue if their right to collectively cultivate is violated by local law enforcement.

The 3rd District's decision upheld a 2007 ruling by Butte Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts that seriously ill people cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights."

The county had argued grower David Williams should have allowed himself to be arrested and then sought vindication through prosecution.

Williams was forced by a sheriff's deputy in 2005 to uproot 29 of 42 plants on his Paradise property or face arrest and prosecution. Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group, filed a lawsuit against Butte County in 2006 on behalf of Williams and the six other collective members. Roberts rejected the county's argument that California's Compassionate Use Act prohibits collective cultivation. The case now goes back to Roberts.

ASA spokesman Kris Hermes said Thursday the plaintiffs will seek damages and attorneys' fees from the county.