« Hearst newspaper$ responsible for Reefer Madness? | Main | Damage to hemp store may cause owner to close his doors »
Lawsuits contend Measure B is unconstitutional
By Hempology | April 6, 2008
Sat, 5 Apr 2008
Willits News (CA)
Mike A’Dair
POT WAR GOES TO COURT
A second lawsuit seeking to block Measure B from appearing on the June ballot was filed last week.
The suit, filed by independent newspaper publisher Richard Johnson, follows an earlier lawsuit by Mendocino attorney E. D. Lerman on behalf of medical marijuana clients Paula Laguna and George Hanamoto.
The Lerman suit was filed March 26; Johnson’s lawsuit the following day.
Both lawsuits contend Measure B is unconstitutional because it violates the “single subject rule.” According to Johnson, that rule “is implicit in the state constitution. The state constitution forbids ballot initiatives from having more than one subject in order to prevent ‘log rolling,’ or the inclusion of high-profile subjects in an initiative merely to attract votes.
“The logic is that voters deserve the opportunity to consider matters separately, and some may want to reject one while accepting the other,” Johnson said.
As written, Measure B contains two items. The first states that voters wish to nullify Measure G, which was approved in November 2000 and sought to make cultivation, possession and transportation of marijuana the lowest priority for county law enforcement. Measure G stated law enforcement was to lay off any grow operation that had 25 or fewer plants or the equivalent amount of dried pot.
The second section of Measure B states that the California minimum limits for marijuana cultivation and possession would also apply in Mendocino County. Although not explicitly stated in the measure, those standards state that six mature plants, 12 immature plants and eight ounces of processed marijuana may be possessed by an individual at any one time.
Tuesday, Mendocino County Superior Court Judge John Behnke rejected Johnson’s pre-emptive request that Measure B not be allowed to go to the printer’s for publication in the June ballot.
Johnson had requested a temporary restraining order ( TRO ). At a hearing on the matter, Behnke rejected Johnson’s claim that a hurried judgment was in order. Instead, he set the date for a hearing on Johnson’s suit for April 18.
The court will hear the arguments on the Lerman/Laguna/Hanamoto suit on April 11 at 9:30 a.m.
Both sides have been blitzing the press with a barrage of press releases.
“A carefully coordinated scare campaign has smeared marijuana farmers as environmental monsters, foreign criminals and violent thieves,” Johnson said in one press release.
“They claim to be responding to neighborhood complaints about noises, smells and a generalized sensation of losing control of the community. Their real agenda is to eviscerate marijuana as an economic engine and as a political force before it threatens the existing establishment.”
On the other side of the issue, Ukiah businessman Ross Liberty has emerged as a spokesman for the Yes On B Coalition.
“The opponents of Measure B are trying to prevent voters from taking a stand against marijuana abuses that cause a public nuisance, endanger public safety and trash the environment,” said Liberty.
“The opponents won’t be able to block a vote on Measure B because there are no legal grounds to do so. Measure B was drafted by the county counsel at the direction of the board of supervisors and meets all legal requirements. The opponents waited two and a half months to file this lawsuit. It is a blatant attempt to circumvent the right of the people to decide this critical issue,” Liberty said.
According to former Mendocino County sheriff’s Deputy D.J. Miller, the Mendocino County Sheriff’s Office reported 1106 marijuana-related offenses in the year 2000. In 2006, there were 1535 such offenses.
According to Liberty, the term “marijuana-related offenses” means incidents noted in police and sheriff’s reports including crimes involving marijuana and incidents for which law enforcement responded to a call, and at which marijuana was noted as being present at the scene and judged by officers to be related to or involved with the dispute in question.
Topics: Articles | Comments Off
Comments are closed.