The only marijuana magazine bringing you the stories of other pot smokers and smugglers.

Quick Hits (page 4)

Narcotics trade thrived in Bronze Age Middle East

By: Associated Press

Jerusalem - A thriving Bronze Age drug trade supplied narcotics to ancient cultures throughout the eastern Mediterranean as balm for the pain of childbirth and disease, proving a sophisticated knowledge of medicines dating back thousands of years, researchers say.

Ancient ceramic pots, most nearly identical in shape and about five inches long, have been found in tombs and settlements throughout the Middle East, dating as far back as 1,400 B.C., said Joe Zias, an anthropologist at Jerusalem's Hebrew University.

"It's a window to the past that many people are unaware of," Zias told a recent conference in Israel on DNA and archaeology.

"Here's something used in prehistoric times and it's used until today."

When turned upside down, the thin-necked vessels with round bases resemble opium poppies pods.

The Mycenaean ceramics were analyzed with a procedure called gas chromatography that turned up traces of opium.

Hundreds of the pots have been found. They commonly show up in the hands of antiquities dealers in places like Jerusalem's Old City. "Give me an hour there and I could find you 10 of them," Zias said.

Based on ancient Egyptian medical writings, researchers believe opium and hashish - a smokable drug from the concentrated resin from the flowers of hemp plants - were used during surgery and to treat aches and pains and other ailments. Hashish also was used to ease menstrual cramps and was even offered to women during childbirth.

Furthermore, archaeologists believe the opium was eaten rather than smoked.

The drugs are part of a medical record that shows the ancients were far more advanced than most people realize, Zias said, noting evidence that the Romans left records of 120 surgical procedures.

Mark Spigelman, a Zias colleague at Hebrew University, found one of the poppy-shaped ceramic pots from the middle Bronze Age in Siqqura, a Giza cemetery near the pyramids outside of Cairo, during a dig four years ago. The pot, found in an 18th Egyptian Dynasty grave, was identical to other pots found throughout ancient Israel and the Middle East.

"These guys were selling opium all over the Middle East," Spigelman said. "This is the original Medellin cartel, 3,500 years ago," he said in a joking reference to the violent Colombian cocaine cartel.

It seems more likely, however, that the ancient trade was run by respected healers.

"We know for sure these things were used for medical purposes," Zias said. "The question is whether they were used for recreational purposes."

Click here for more Quick Hits.

Tan 'n' Trends

Growin' Our Own (page 4)

Medical Marijuana (Rx) in California - How it Works and How to get it

By: Bill

Did you ever wonder how to apply for medical Rx marijuana use and what's involved to get a physician's recommendation? If you qualify this could save you from a conviction for growing and possessing Rx marijuana under California state law. This article explores behind the scenes of California's Proposition 215, Compassionate Use [of Medical Marijuana] Act of 1996. This act added Health & Safety Code Section 11362.5, which exempted Rx marijuana as a crime. We will review how the Act works, law enforcement problems for users, how to locate a physician, what you can buy and conflicting federal law. We cover the July 18th California Supreme Court decision. This relevant summary about these and other issues concerning legal medical Rx marijuana use in California is not intended to be legal or medical advice, but is offered to educate Bud Life readers about some of the issues which should be further investigated with your lawyer and doctor, who ARE qualified to give you advice.

Background and U.S. Supreme Court Decision (2001)

In 1996, California voters, via the peoples' initiative vs. legislative process, were able to bypass the dysfunctional state legislature and put the Compassionate Use Act on the ballot for voters to decide the medical marijuana issue. Voters passed this measure, which put California state law at odds with the federal law classifying marijuana and THC as a restricted drug. That's right, state law vs. federal law, which creates political and jurisdictional issues that we haven't seen since the feds successfully took over the separate states with the Civil War. The United States Code, Title 21 Section 812 (10) (17), criminalizes marijuana and THC. The Controlled Substances Act (federal) provides there is only ONE exception to manufacture [growing] and distribution of marijuana, which is limited to federal research purposes. Even under the research exception the feds only allow medical use of marijuana to about 8 people. The U.S. Supreme Court in: U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative 121 S. Ct. 1711 (2001) did not find an "implied" exception to U.S. law based on a medical necessity. The Court did not find that the California law was in line with U.S. law nor has Congress found any medical benefit in marijuana. The distributing cooperatives were in violation of U.S. law and must stop distributing marijuana. In other words since the U.S. politicians recognize no medical value from marijuana, (while the feds dispense it for medical purposes) the court was not going into the politicians' reasoning to change federal laws or recognize the California law. Under the concept of separation of powers, politicians make laws and courts interpret them.

However this U.S. Court decision admittedly failed to consider certain arguments about state jurisdiction vs. federal jurisdiction as the court held that these issues were not raised in the appeal. If and when these issues are raised and determined by federal courts, the DEA may or may not be stopped from arrests of California medical Rx marijuana patients and their Rx care givers. Presently the DEA operates unencumbered in California and busts co-ops and marijuana users.

California Supreme Court Decision (July 18, 2002)

There is no uniformity for application of the Compassionate Use Act in the 58 counties of California. Neither the California Attorney General nor the California courts have given any opinion on what is allowed for quantity of plants or bud in possession. The lack of any statewide opinion or standard has left it up to each of these 58 county sheriffs and prosecutors to determine the reasonable amount of plants and weed in possession. Some will arrest and prosecute for having over 3 plants, where in another county you can grow 99 plants. This is a ridiculously wide variance in the state with differing local county applications of the Act. It is submitted that the California Attorney General has shirked his duties to us, local law enforcement and prosecutors by failing to render any type of guideline for this law. The court stated no opinion on the number of plants or quantity which would set a standard for this state.

The appealed case, Mower, was prosecuted in a 3 plant county and the qualified medical grower convicted for having 31 plants. This case was appealed to the Fifth District Court in Fresno, California, where Chief Justice James Ardize is the brother-in-law of California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter. It was then appealed to Marvin Baxter's California Supreme Court.

[Note: it is reported that the California Supreme Court with Justice Baxter had upheld decisions from brother-in-law Judge Ardize's Court almost 90% of the time. This was until a law professor discovered and disclosed the nepotism. Only after this public disclosure has Justice Baxter refrained from ruling on cases sent up by his brother-in-law's appellate court. Justice Baxter was formerly the Judicial Appointments Deputy for 2 California Governors, and was responsible for recommending about 1,000 attorneys who were appointed to judgeships in California. From this base he has extreme political power throughout California.]

The California Supreme held that medical Rx marijuana is an exception to the Health and Safety laws that criminalize marijuana. It is significant to note that marijuana is not criminalized in the California criminal/penal code, but like federal law, has been done so as a public health matter. It is offered that a constitutional amendment (as was done with liquor prohibition) would have been necessary to criminalize this drug without this health excuse. This health issue was a politicians' back door to make pot illegal. The court further held that medical Rx marijuana was no different than other prescription drug, and was not criminal. Although it recognized a "limited" immunity to qualified medical users, the court held that these users could be arrested. After arrest the users could use the Act AND doctor's recommendation as a defense to prosecution which could be raised prior to a full trial. This is not significant as any defense can be raised by motion or demurrer prior to a trial and prior to an arraignment. This means you still can be arrested or cited and have your pot taken away. Only when you go to court for prosecution would you then make a motion or demurrer to the charges and request a judge to dismiss your case based upon your defense of "limited" immunity.

In this writer's opinion the court doesn't like the Act, and didn't want to make this ruling. However with tongue in cheek, the Justices left the medical pot users to be arrested and to go through the hassle of court prosecution to prove their defense. It is only at the police stage of investigation that an honest police officer in his/her discretion may cut you loose instead of citing or arresting you. This appears to be a class discrimination especially when the Justices stated Rx marijuana was no different than any other prescription drug. We must conclude that no other holder of a prescription drug would be arrested and have to go to court to prove innocence or to have their case to be dismissed. In other words, if you have a prescription bottle of codeine you shouldn't be arrested. If you have an ounce of bud you might be arrested and later forced to prove your innocence. We at Bud Life call this discrimination between prescriptions. If your odds of holding a Rx marijuana prescription can get you arrested, when a codeine Rx won't, this sounds like discrimination. A better decision, and one Mower was seeking, was to stop law enforcement from making any arrest at all. Upon presentation of medical proof or a co-op member card the Rx user should be released at the scene of police detention with the matter ended. However with quantities still in question the arrests will continue. Why would a holder of a prescription medicine like Rx marijuana be arrested or cited and then have to go to court to prove their innocence by offering a defense or motion to dismiss the case? Why have the Rx pot confiscated? This is clearly a court decision that creates a specific class of person, those who will be hassled because their prescription is one for marijuana. This is exactly where the court left the matter. California NORML disagreed with the discrimination against marijuana prescription holders. We stand by our view point that marijuana prescription holders are treated differently, without any standards, subjecting one to arrest and are thus discriminated against. Perhaps this protected process was intended to protect job security for police and fellow judges. However, regardless of the arrest, prosecutors must think twice before filing charges against these medical users. Why would a prosecutor file a charge he/she knows will be dismissed? Is this, too, job security? Defense lawyer security? The court ruling leaving medical users to deal with law enforcement is reminiscent of the old Viet Nam War days saying: "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out". Put in context: "Arrest 'em all (anybody with marijuana) and let the judges sort it out".

What is clearly involved in this discriminatory court decision is the continued mentality of a police state and squandering public money. Money for continued law enforcement hassle, booking and jail, wasted court time, prosecutor and defense costs. Had the court done the right thing it would have stopped arrests of Rx users and eliminated all of this expense. However, in the carefully crafted decision they left the old schemes in place. Thus the decision assured that there were no lost government jobs or reduction in any agency budgets. We the People are to be protected by our courts of last resort from the encroachments of other branches of government. From this decision we clearly see how our courts are not making efforts to protect us. This court decision protects the establishment encroachments against us. Other failures of the decision are: no state standard on the amount of plants one may grow, or how much Rx pot is too much. So we still have counties with a 3 plant maximum and those with a 99 plant maximum, and all of those in between. The court did state that a care giver (grower) must hold a written designation from the person needing care. Co-ops have a written designation when a person requests membership.

How to get Medical Marijuana

Step one is confirming you have an existing medical history that would qualify you for a doctor's recommendation or prescription for marijuana. Contact NORML's website or some other source for information on how to find a doctor who is willing to risk his license by prescribing medical bud. Make an appointment to see this doctor. Make a copy of your medical file with the history of your condition and take it to your medical exam. You will be required to prove your identity, submit forms and have an exam, as is deemed necessary by the physician. He will review your medical file. Photographs may be taken of yourself and your identification for the doctor's records. Additional advice may be given such as weight loss, etc. If qualified, you will be issued a recommendation and/or prescription for medical [Rx] marijuana pursuant to the Act. You may want to ask your doctor where a local co-op Rx dispensary is located where you may fill your prescription. Some co-ops have been busted by the feds who do not honor Prop 215, so there may be new locations for you to discover. You may go to a registration point where you can be issued a co-op membership ID card, which looks like a driver's license. The issuer may then refer you to nearby grower's co-ops. Once you find a the grower's coop you will be required show your Rx, membership ID, to sign in, and answer that you have no camera, cell phone or other device. Then you can finally make your entry behind a secure door and into the pharmacy where cheerful employees will greet you. Some pharmacies are very formal with lazar bar code readers, and others less formal. Your Rx can come in labeled child proof plastic containers, or in a baggie. You have the choice of varieties of cannabis and concentrates from which to choose. White Rhino, Jack Herrer, Bubble Berry, and other clones may be available for about $10. Bag 'em up and go back out into the real world. Now you have to deal with cops and judges who don't want you to have what you have. Prices may range from $10-65 for an 8th. Ounces are discounted. Other arrangements can be made if you are indigent. Limits vary from an ounce a day to more or less. Sometimes hashish, keif, and hash oil capsules are available. Good luck in the process.

Feds Need the Sheriff and Local cops and Vice Versa - Rewards

The feds, for the most part, have no jurisdiction and can't get involved in local law enforcement without the aid of local cops. However, local sheriffs and police do ask the feds like the DEA for help in drug busts and other matters. Why do local cops go to the feds? Because the feds will pay 80% of the value of recovered property AND drugs seized to local law enforcement. For example, if the locals call in the feds and both agencies get a crop of marijuana with an inflated value of $1 million, but no cash, the locals will be paid $800,000. This is amazing even though there is no cash recovered, no arrests, and no sales. Why the feds pay these types of rewards is not yet known to this writer. So who is profiting from drugs? Local cops profit from drugs on the condition that they bring in the feds. This became a big issue in the state of Missouri as the funds seized by local law enforcement were earmarked for schools. However, if local law enforcement called in the feds the local police kept the reward money, bypassing schools. This cheated the schools out of money and rewarded police. Local police circumvented state law by calling the feds. This loophole is another look at American law enforcement and justice.

One Bud Life Reader's Rx Experience with the Law

One Bud Life reader, an amputee and diabetic, told us he bought 20 clones at a San Francisco co-op to transplant at home. He caught a taxi and then went to Amtrak, where he was stopped and questioned by local cops about his visible crop. He showed his prescription, doctor's papers, and co-op card. Then the Bay Area cops left him alone.

In some cities like Oakland, the city council passed a directive to the local police to let anybody with a co-op card go, so law enforcement is different than, let's say, in Judge Ardize's jurisdiction of Fresno and other counties. Bud Life inquired in Judge Ardize's jurisdiction. After referral by the Fresno County District Attorney's Office to Fresno County Deputy Sheriff Lt. Johnson, we asked about their policy on number of allowable Rx plants and pot in possession. He said he had no idea, and hadn't had the question arise. He suggested that one keep a diary of how much pot they smoke and if busted they could use the diary as evidence of their medical need and somehow equate daily use into allowable plants. He didn't say you won't get arrested to let a judge sort it out.

We also contacted the Fresno City Police Department about hiring requirements and marijuana use. We were informed that prior use or conviction of marijuana is not grounds to be denied employment, whereas other drugs are treated differently. A polygraph exam is required for employment and dishonesty is the main reason for disqualification, not marijuana use.

From a pay phone (no caller ID back to your phone) you can check your jurisdiction by calling the district attorney to see what they prosecute, and how they treat Rx marijuana. Then try the sheriff and city police. You may get 3 different answers. You should also check with your lawyer.

Click here for more Growin' Our Own.

Pipeline (page 4)

Cookie Cutter Warrants

By: Wayne Wilson (Sacramento Bee)

Press releases heralding the exploits of Placer County's wide-ranging Marijuana Eradication Team kept the media's fax machines purring in 1998 and 1999.

Not many days went by without a new announcement by sheriff's representatives that a search warrant had been served, suspects had been arrested and indoor pot gardens had been seized, most of them in neighboring Sacramento County.

Today, the raids have stopped. And the focus has shifted from reports of ambitious police actions to charges of misconduct.

More than a dozen individuals targeted by the Placer County narcotics unit in 1998 and 1999 now claim, in five federal lawsuits, that their civil rights were violated by "lying," "malicious," "unprofessional," "storm-trooper-style" officers.

One judge agrees there were defects in the warrants and went so far as to accuse a detective of lying to the magistrate who issued those warrants about license plates he said he checked and subpoenas he said he served.

In papers filed with the court, a Sacramento deputy district attorney prosecuting the drug cases steadfastly defended the detective's actions as "mistakes," saying, "If you flyspeck a man's career and look at 40 warrants ... you are going to find some mistakes."

No one in the Placer County Sheriff's Department is permitted to comment on the lawsuits or the campaign that came to be known as "Operation Greenfire."

"We've been told not to discuss it at all," said Capt. Rick Armstrong, the sheriff's spokesman.

That includes Sheriff Ed Bonner, Special Operations Unit Sgt. Ron Ashford and all the deputies involved, Armstrong said.

The veil of silence was drawn by Placer County attorney David K. Huskey, whose job, over the next several years, will be to defend against the lawsuits.

Huskey said he feels the allegations against the county and its narcotics officers are groundless and wants the matter litigated in a courtroom, not the media.

In the eye of the legal storm is Tracy Grant, a 27-year career detective in Placer County.

Grant's name is all over the warrants that permitted him and a team of officers to enter the homes of residents in Sacramento, Carmichael, Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks, Antelope, Rio Linda and Roseville. Officers said at the time they were going into Sacramento because that's where their leads took them. Placer County had blanket approval from the Sacramento County sheriff to conduct the raids.

The team was looking for indoor marijuana growing, and in most of the residences entered, found what it was looking for.

Among 36 raids followed, 26 resulted in no-contest or guilty pleas. One produced a state prison sentence. Penalties meted out in the other 25 cases ranged from diversion to probation and county jail time.

But at least one of the raids turned up nothing, and the rest of the targets convinced prosecutors and jurors they were growing pot legally under provisions of state law.

Proposition 215, the "Compassionate Use Act" passed by California voters in 1996, allows the medicinal use of marijuana by patients with a recommendation from a physician.

But federal law criminalizes marijuana use of any kind, and the federal government does not recognize the validity of Proposition 215.

Among those targeted by Placer's Marijuana Eradication Team were:

Robert DeArkland, a 72-year-old Fair Oaks resident who, according to court records, treats his prostate cancer and heart condition with cannabis with a recommendation from his physician.

Lyman H. Sanborn, a 78-year-old Roseville resident who, in sworn statements to the court, said he's never seen a marijuana plant.

Nothing was found in Sanborn's house and he wasn't arrested, but detectives justified the raid by claiming fresh marijuana clippings had been found earlier in a search of his trash.

Chris J. Miller, a disabled 48-year-old Citrus Heights man whose severe physical ailments and a doctor's note recommending marijuana therapy were not enough to prevent his arrest. Charges were dismissed, and deputies later were ordered by the court to return the pot and cultivation tools seized from his home.

Dr. Michael Baldwin, a 35-year-old Granite Bay dentist who won a dismissal of all charges after a protracted legal battle over his physician-approved use of pot to control pain.

All four, and a Rio Linda couple whose criminal case was picked up by federal authorities when they refused to plead guilty in state court, are among the plaintiffs suing Placer County in U.S. District Court.

Their claims are similar:

They contend Placer County and its investigators, with Tracy Grant at the helm, procured search warrants for their residences by making false statements to the magistrate.

Although the precise techniques used to target individuals have never been revealed by detectives, it is clear that almost all the suspects had one thing in common: They shopped for equipment at Greenfire, an indoor gardening shop on Auburn Boulevard in Sacramento.

Baldwin and other plaintiffs claim the police zeroed in on them after agents spotted them leaving the store with hydroponic gardening supplies, which are commonly required to grow pot indoors.

Greenfire officials declined to comment on the matter.

In affidavits supporting his application for search warrants, Grant didn't state the probable cause that prompted him to visit the various homes whose residents had been seen shopping at Greenfire.

The affadavits indicate he just showed up at the residences, noted the license plates on vehicles parked in the driveway, and identified the cars' owners through Department of Motor Vehicles records.

Grant said he also went through garbage looking for evidence. As sworn to on the affidavits, what he found in garbage at 22 Sacramento residences was:

"Marijuana ... recently cut from a mature marijuana plant ... fresh green and still moist."

The same words appeared on all 22 warrant requests, prompting attorney Bill Panzer, who is representing plaintiffs Robert F. and Shawna R. Whiteaker, to remark on "Grant's ... amazing run of luck in discovering virtually identical garbage all over Sacramento County."

Placer County Counsel Huskey defends Grant's use of identical words and phrases, explaining it is common for affidavits to "look like boilerplate" when they are generated by police actions that are essentially similar.

"It's a common practice," Huskey said. "Once the template works, (investigators) simply fill in the new information. It doesn't mean it's inaccurate. It doesn't mean it's wrong."

Grant bolstered his allegations by stating that an examination of Sacramento Municipal Utility District records showed elevated power usage in each of the homes, a common indication of indoor growing. In many of the cases, Grant offered "comparables" showing that neighbors used much less power than those residents believed to be growing pot.

Panzer, on behalf of the Whiteakers, challenged the validity of Grant's search warrant before Sacramento Superior Court Judge Tani Cantil-Sakauye. At that time, in late 2000, the criminal action against the Whiteakers was pending in state court.

Before the judge could grant a hearing to suppress the evidence, however, she would have to make preliminary findings that "substantial evidence" of police wrongdoing existed.

On Feb. 23, 2001, Cantil-Sakauye did just that.

She announced that her review of the evidence suggested that "the whole truth" was not "presented to Judge (Gary) Ransom," the magistrate who signed the warrants.

She found that in five cases, there were no SMUD subpoenas as claimed by Grant and, in five others, SMUD had responded after the search warrant was issued.

In addition, the judge found that five of the power usage comparisons cited by Grant "were either selectively chosen" or were "not true comparables."

"I am disturbed by the fact that when an officer of the court comes to a judge and swears under oath that he has these records, that they are not in his possession," she stated.

Cantil-Sakauye also said that "discovery provided by the DA ... shows that Detective Grant didn't run those vehicles by their license plates, as he swore to Judge Ransom he did."

And she expressed concern that "this evidence was gained by way of the federal grand jury subpoena. I am not clear that Detective Grant had the authority to, on his own as a detective, issue a federal grand jury subpoena to SMUD to obtain these records."

Prosecutors said Grant had been cross-designated as a deputy U.S. marshal, and U.S. Marshal Jerry Enomoto confirmed last week that Grant was deputized in September 1999.

But that was after the raids that are now the subject of the federal lawsuits.

Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the civil rights cases point to Cantil-Sakauye's findings as demonstrations of lies Grant perpetrated on the court at the time he was obtaining warrant authorizations.

But Huskey says it is unfair to make too much of Cantil-Sakauye's remarks. The judge simply made a preliminary judgment based on incomplete evidence that would be more fully explored, and perhaps explained, by testimony at the suppression hearing, Huskey said.

When the Whiteakers' suppression motion was brought before Sacramento Superior Court Judge Gail D. Ohanesian, Grant invoked federal grand jury secrecy rules, claiming he could not respond to questions relating to the subpoenas.

Representatives of the U.S. attorney's office backed him on that issue, and the hearing was interrupted.

Ohanesian suggested that she might have to dismiss the case if Grant persisted in his refusal to answer the questions posed. Then, attorneys for the Whiteakers received an offer from Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney Joy Smiley, the prosecutor.

In exchange for guilty pleas, it promised Robert Whiteaker a sentence of 16 months, as opposed to the possibility of more than five years if convicted, and Shawna Whiteaker would serve no more than a year in the county jail.

The offer also contained a warning that if they refused, both would be prosecuted in federal court, an alternative promising much stiffer penalties if they were convicted.

The Whiteakers declined and were indicted in federal court. Their civil suit against Grant and Placer County was put on hold pending resolution of the criminal case.

Trial dates in all five civil cases are still months away, with Sanborn scheduled to kick things off Jan. 14, 2003.

Grant still is working as a deputy in Placer County and has the backing of prosecutors in Sacramento, who argued before Cantil-Sakauye that, "What the defense did here is nitpick this investigation and found a few mistakes.

Click here for more Pipeline.