<![CDATA[Kind Green Buds Forums - All Forums]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/ Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:42:29 -0600 MyBB <![CDATA[Police Shut Down Last Remaining Pot Shop In Chatsworth]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1861 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 18:40:45 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1861
Police said narcotics officers from the Los Angeles Police Department’s Devonshire Division served a search warrant around 3 p.m. at the Herbal Medicine Care facility in the 10100 block of Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

The warrant was served after an extensive investigation into criminal conduct at the store provided detectives with probable cause to serve the warrant and shut down the business.

Three people were arrested for suspicion of possession of marijuana for sale. More than 50 pounds of marijuana, including 156 plants valued at over $600,000, were confiscated, as were the store’s medical records.

Police pointed out at a 6 p.m. news conference at the police station that although California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996 allowing the medical use of marijuana, state and federal law continue to make illegal to use marijuana for recreational use.

Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas said, “We’re not done yet. There are approximately 200 other locations within the San Fernando Valley that we’re also going to be targeting.”

There were once more than 60 medical marijuana businesses in the Devonshire Division.

Starting in December 2008, members of the Devonshire Division Narcotics Enforcement Detail investigated 37 facilities, found them to be in violation of the state law, and closed them down.]]>
Police said narcotics officers from the Los Angeles Police Department’s Devonshire Division served a search warrant around 3 p.m. at the Herbal Medicine Care facility in the 10100 block of Topanga Canyon Boulevard.

The warrant was served after an extensive investigation into criminal conduct at the store provided detectives with probable cause to serve the warrant and shut down the business.

Three people were arrested for suspicion of possession of marijuana for sale. More than 50 pounds of marijuana, including 156 plants valued at over $600,000, were confiscated, as were the store’s medical records.

Police pointed out at a 6 p.m. news conference at the police station that although California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996 allowing the medical use of marijuana, state and federal law continue to make illegal to use marijuana for recreational use.

Deputy Chief Jorge Villegas said, “We’re not done yet. There are approximately 200 other locations within the San Fernando Valley that we’re also going to be targeting.”

There were once more than 60 medical marijuana businesses in the Devonshire Division.

Starting in December 2008, members of the Devonshire Division Narcotics Enforcement Detail investigated 37 facilities, found them to be in violation of the state law, and closed them down.]]> <![CDATA[Merry meet!]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1852 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:00:34 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1852 ]]> ]]> <![CDATA[medicinal strains for diabetes?]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1850 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:45:55 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1850 <![CDATA[first grow]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1848 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:32:12 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1848 <![CDATA[New Strains?]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1835 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:36:26 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1835
Hits]]>
Hits]]> <![CDATA[Newbe]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1834 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:29:24 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1834
Smoke em if got em.

Hits]]>
Smoke em if got em.

Hits]]> <![CDATA[whats up from the land of entrapment]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1833 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:44:37 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1833 <![CDATA[can you medicate with medical marijuana while on house arrest]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1832 Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:10:27 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1832
hi i am a medical cannabis user out of nm well last year i was forced to stop medicating due to a incarceration and i currently got sentenced to a 1 yr house arrest and 5 yrs probation so i realized i cannot be with my meds for this long of a period of time i currently can take any meds prescribed by a doctor would this include cannabis to i currently take Xanax and other pain and sleeping meds i can do with out if i could only proceed with medicating with cannabis i could go with out benzo and opioid medications with this one herb if any one has been in this situation i would appreciate any in put on how to proceed with medicating legally if you need any more info just let me know my dx is for ptsd im a medical cannabis patient in new mexico and a legal cannabis card holder [/u]
]]>
hi i am a medical cannabis user out of nm well last year i was forced to stop medicating due to a incarceration and i currently got sentenced to a 1 yr house arrest and 5 yrs probation so i realized i cannot be with my meds for this long of a period of time i currently can take any meds prescribed by a doctor would this include cannabis to i currently take Xanax and other pain and sleeping meds i can do with out if i could only proceed with medicating with cannabis i could go with out benzo and opioid medications with this one herb if any one has been in this situation i would appreciate any in put on how to proceed with medicating legally if you need any more info just let me know my dx is for ptsd im a medical cannabis patient in new mexico and a legal cannabis card holder [/u]
]]> <![CDATA[Mendocino County eliminates pot-growing permits]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1817 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 16:10:22 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1817 by Kevin Fagan, San Francisco Chronicle

Mendocino County, a national epicenter of all things marijuana, crumpled under pressure from Uncle Sam last week and stripped itself of more than a half-million dollars in annual pot income.

The Board of Supervisors voted to cancel its novel medical marijuana permit program on Tuesday, saying federal prosecutors had threatened to sue the county if the program stayed on the books.

Under the 2-year-old program, the most comprehensive in the state, Mendocino County issued permits to cannabis collectives, allowing them to grow as many as 99 plants at a time, and the sheriff performed monthly inspections on their zip-tied bundles of pot.

Sheriff Tom Allman's office collected $663,230 last year in fees for the inspections, which certified that the marijuana was grown for medicinal purposes only.

County law now reverts to a limit of 12 cannabis plants per individual.

U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in San Francisco, whose office's jurisdiction includes the North Coast, declined to comment. She and other federal prosecutors in California have been cracking down on medical marijuana operators and overseers since October, threatening scores with lawsuits or jail if they don't shut down.

Prosecutors say the goal of their crackdown is to eliminate cannabis operations that have no connection to medical uses, or are too close to schools or parks. The cultivation and sale of marijuana for medical use is legal under a 1996 California law, but it remains illegal in the eyes of the federal government.

Allman said that despite the loss of revenue, he has no plans to lay off deputies. The revenue loss is not expected to affect other county departments, officials said.

"They didn't take away all of the tools in my toolbox," the sheriff said. "We'll still offer voluntary zip-tie permits for about $25 apiece," down from $50 under the canceled program. "Last year alone we raised $60,000 with that.

"There is still time for more to happen between now and April, around the growing season, when we usually collect our fees," Allman said. "But I certainly see this as a step backward."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...z1kyx7mra0]]> by Kevin Fagan, San Francisco Chronicle

Mendocino County, a national epicenter of all things marijuana, crumpled under pressure from Uncle Sam last week and stripped itself of more than a half-million dollars in annual pot income.

The Board of Supervisors voted to cancel its novel medical marijuana permit program on Tuesday, saying federal prosecutors had threatened to sue the county if the program stayed on the books.

Under the 2-year-old program, the most comprehensive in the state, Mendocino County issued permits to cannabis collectives, allowing them to grow as many as 99 plants at a time, and the sheriff performed monthly inspections on their zip-tied bundles of pot.

Sheriff Tom Allman's office collected $663,230 last year in fees for the inspections, which certified that the marijuana was grown for medicinal purposes only.

County law now reverts to a limit of 12 cannabis plants per individual.

U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in San Francisco, whose office's jurisdiction includes the North Coast, declined to comment. She and other federal prosecutors in California have been cracking down on medical marijuana operators and overseers since October, threatening scores with lawsuits or jail if they don't shut down.

Prosecutors say the goal of their crackdown is to eliminate cannabis operations that have no connection to medical uses, or are too close to schools or parks. The cultivation and sale of marijuana for medical use is legal under a 1996 California law, but it remains illegal in the eyes of the federal government.

Allman said that despite the loss of revenue, he has no plans to lay off deputies. The revenue loss is not expected to affect other county departments, officials said.

"They didn't take away all of the tools in my toolbox," the sheriff said. "We'll still offer voluntary zip-tie permits for about $25 apiece," down from $50 under the canceled program. "Last year alone we raised $60,000 with that.

"There is still time for more to happen between now and April, around the growing season, when we usually collect our fees," Allman said. "But I certainly see this as a step backward."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...z1kyx7mra0]]> <![CDATA[KGB 420 Contests announced!]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1706 Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:32:26 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1706
If you are not already subscribed, you can do so here: KGB 420 Contests & Newsletter Signup

Good luck! Wink]]>
If you are not already subscribed, you can do so here: KGB 420 Contests & Newsletter Signup

Good luck! Wink]]> <![CDATA[Mendocino county medical marijuana law revision proposed]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1660 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:38:54 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1660 By TIFFANY REVELLE, The Daily Journal

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will consider eliminating the county's medical marijuana permit program in answer to recent legal threats from the U.S. Attorney's Office.

County Counsel Jeanine Nadel is recommending the board adopt a changed version of County Code Chapter 9.31, which currently allows medical marijuana collectives to grow up to 99 plants per parcel if they get a permit for an exemption to the county's 25-plant limit from the Sheriff's Office and follow a set of rules.

Nadel is proposing to cut the ordinance's provisions that have to do with the exemption, the permits and inspection requirements, shrinking the 21-page document to eight pages.

"This is not telling people they can't grow marijuana, as per the state attorney general's guidelines; it's telling local government that we can't collect money for it," Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman said.

If the board adopts the changed ordinance, it would still allow growers to have up to 25 plants per parcel for medical use. Growers could still voluntarily buy zip ties the Sheriff's Office sells for $25 each to show the plants are grown in compliance with state law.

If approved, the ordinance would be back for a second reading Feb. 14, and would be effective 30 days after that.

Allman, whose department has collected about $500,000 in zip-tie and medical marijuana permit fees, said he doesn't yet know how the change might affect his finances.

"Through June 30, we're OK," he said.

The question that remains unanswered is how the permit program's elimination would affect his 2012-13 budget, according to Allman. No layoffs are planned for the near future, he noted.

The county first adopted its medical marijuana cultivation ordinance in 2008 with a 25-plant limit, and revised it in 2010 to give the county a code enforcement hammer for neighborhood and environmental concerns, and to set up the 99-plant exemption and permitting process.

At least part of the reason for the sudden about-face has to do with a legal threat from the U.S. Attorney's Office, delivered to the county at a Jan. 3 meeting.

It's unclear how much the proposed changes have to do with the state Supreme Court's decision earlier this week to review the Pack v. City of Long Beach case. The court's October ruling dismantled the city's similar permitting program on the premise that it conflicts with federal law, which regards any marijuana use as illegal.

The court found that the city's ordinance crosses the line of decriminalizing cultivation, use and possession of medical marijuana under California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Requiring a permit, according to the ruling, implies that the city is authorizing collectives to operate.

In a Friday e-mail, 2nd District Supervisor John McCowen, who helped rewrite 9.31 to allow the exemption and permits in 2010, notes that the state Supreme Court "announced a couple of days ago that they will review the Pack decision which held that local jurisdictions may regulate, but not permit, medical marijuana," and goes on to say the Pack case has little to do with the proposed changes.

"It may be assumed that the federal threat was consistent with the Pack decision, but did not rely on it," he wrote. "Therefore, the state Supreme court review of Pack does not affect changes that are required to address the federal threat."

Nadel wrote in an agenda summary for the board that she is proposing the changes "due to concerns expressed by federal authorities and the recent ruling in Pack v. Superior Court (City of Long Beach)."

Nadel said last month that her office was waiting for further developments, including an effort to take the ruling off the books as precedent for future court decisions.

Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, or at 468-3523.]]> By TIFFANY REVELLE, The Daily Journal

The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will consider eliminating the county's medical marijuana permit program in answer to recent legal threats from the U.S. Attorney's Office.

County Counsel Jeanine Nadel is recommending the board adopt a changed version of County Code Chapter 9.31, which currently allows medical marijuana collectives to grow up to 99 plants per parcel if they get a permit for an exemption to the county's 25-plant limit from the Sheriff's Office and follow a set of rules.

Nadel is proposing to cut the ordinance's provisions that have to do with the exemption, the permits and inspection requirements, shrinking the 21-page document to eight pages.

"This is not telling people they can't grow marijuana, as per the state attorney general's guidelines; it's telling local government that we can't collect money for it," Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman said.

If the board adopts the changed ordinance, it would still allow growers to have up to 25 plants per parcel for medical use. Growers could still voluntarily buy zip ties the Sheriff's Office sells for $25 each to show the plants are grown in compliance with state law.

If approved, the ordinance would be back for a second reading Feb. 14, and would be effective 30 days after that.

Allman, whose department has collected about $500,000 in zip-tie and medical marijuana permit fees, said he doesn't yet know how the change might affect his finances.

"Through June 30, we're OK," he said.

The question that remains unanswered is how the permit program's elimination would affect his 2012-13 budget, according to Allman. No layoffs are planned for the near future, he noted.

The county first adopted its medical marijuana cultivation ordinance in 2008 with a 25-plant limit, and revised it in 2010 to give the county a code enforcement hammer for neighborhood and environmental concerns, and to set up the 99-plant exemption and permitting process.

At least part of the reason for the sudden about-face has to do with a legal threat from the U.S. Attorney's Office, delivered to the county at a Jan. 3 meeting.

It's unclear how much the proposed changes have to do with the state Supreme Court's decision earlier this week to review the Pack v. City of Long Beach case. The court's October ruling dismantled the city's similar permitting program on the premise that it conflicts with federal law, which regards any marijuana use as illegal.

The court found that the city's ordinance crosses the line of decriminalizing cultivation, use and possession of medical marijuana under California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Requiring a permit, according to the ruling, implies that the city is authorizing collectives to operate.

In a Friday e-mail, 2nd District Supervisor John McCowen, who helped rewrite 9.31 to allow the exemption and permits in 2010, notes that the state Supreme Court "announced a couple of days ago that they will review the Pack decision which held that local jurisdictions may regulate, but not permit, medical marijuana," and goes on to say the Pack case has little to do with the proposed changes.

"It may be assumed that the federal threat was consistent with the Pack decision, but did not rely on it," he wrote. "Therefore, the state Supreme court review of Pack does not affect changes that are required to address the federal threat."

Nadel wrote in an agenda summary for the board that she is proposing the changes "due to concerns expressed by federal authorities and the recent ruling in Pack v. Superior Court (City of Long Beach)."

Nadel said last month that her office was waiting for further developments, including an effort to take the ruling off the books as precedent for future court decisions.

Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@pacific.net, or at 468-3523.]]> <![CDATA[Advocates Back CA Medical MJ Regulation Initiative for 2012 Ballot]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1654 Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:52:12 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1654 medical marijuana laws has been filed for the 2012 ballot: the
Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act.

The initiative is designed to address widespread public
concern over the confusing and chaotic state of medical marijuana
laws in California. The lack of clear and unambiguous state laws
regarding distribution and sales has been a major factor behind the
continued federal raids on dispensaries and providers in California.

MMRCTA is designed so as to fulfill Prop 215's mandate
to establish "safe and affordable access" to all patients in medical
need. The campaign is backed by a broad coalition of advocates
including: ASA, the UFCW, Cal NORML, the Coalition for Cannabis
Policy Reform, DPA, MPP, California Cannabis Association, the Emerald
Triangle Trade Association, and others.

Sponsors believe that the MMRCTA is the most pressing and
realistic ballot proposal for cannabis reform in California in 2012.
Their campaign poll found that 70+% of California voters support
uniform state rules for regulating, controlling and taxing medical
marijuana, well above the 60% threshold that is regarded to be
necessary for a successful initiative. In contrast, a slim 52%
support full-scale adult legalization.

Sponsors have lined up start-up funding and are urgently seeking
an additional $1 million in pledges for the petition drive, which is
expected to launch around Feb. 9th.

INITIATIVE TEXT]]> medical marijuana laws has been filed for the 2012 ballot: the
Medical Marijuana Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act.

The initiative is designed to address widespread public
concern over the confusing and chaotic state of medical marijuana
laws in California. The lack of clear and unambiguous state laws
regarding distribution and sales has been a major factor behind the
continued federal raids on dispensaries and providers in California.

MMRCTA is designed so as to fulfill Prop 215's mandate
to establish "safe and affordable access" to all patients in medical
need. The campaign is backed by a broad coalition of advocates
including: ASA, the UFCW, Cal NORML, the Coalition for Cannabis
Policy Reform, DPA, MPP, California Cannabis Association, the Emerald
Triangle Trade Association, and others.

Sponsors believe that the MMRCTA is the most pressing and
realistic ballot proposal for cannabis reform in California in 2012.
Their campaign poll found that 70+% of California voters support
uniform state rules for regulating, controlling and taxing medical
marijuana, well above the 60% threshold that is regarded to be
necessary for a successful initiative. In contrast, a slim 52%
support full-scale adult legalization.

Sponsors have lined up start-up funding and are urgently seeking
an additional $1 million in pledges for the petition drive, which is
expected to launch around Feb. 9th.

INITIATIVE TEXT]]> <![CDATA[New KGB Twitter page!]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1584 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:35:31 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1584
come check it out here --> KGB Twitter]]>
come check it out here --> KGB Twitter]]> <![CDATA[New KGB Facebook page!]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1562 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 19:35:41 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1562
KGB Facebook

visit and Like to show your support! Thanks! Wink]]>
KGB Facebook

visit and Like to show your support! Thanks! Wink]]> <![CDATA[California Supreme Court to weigh in on medical marijuana laws]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1552 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:43:09 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1552 By Howard Mintz, Mercury News

The California Supreme Court has jumped into the fray again over the legality of medical marijuana laws, deciding on Wednesday to review two lower court rulings that impact how and whether local governments can regulate pot dispensaries across the state.

In their weekly closed-door session, the justices voted unanimously to review cases out of Long Beach and Riverside that dealt with the ongoing conflict between California's voter-approved law allowing the use of medical marijuana and federal laws barring the use or sale of the drug. The state Supreme Court's rulings in the cases are likely to have a widespread impact in the Bay Area, where cities from San Jose to Oakland have regulations dealing with medical marijuana providers.

In the Long Beach case, a state appeals court last year concluded the city's attempts to regulate medical marijuana collectives clashed with federal drug laws and struck down the city's ordinance. A separate appeals court ruling out of Riverside County found that local governments have the right to legally ban medical pot dispensaries, giving local officials the clout to shutter them despite Proposition 215's provisions allowing marijuana use for medical purposes.

The Supreme Court's intervention comes at a time when federal law enforcement officials have resumed a high-profile crackdown on medical marijuana providers throughout California. There are federal lawsuits pending in San Francisco and elsewhere challenging that campaign.

Medical marijuana advocates were pleased the Supreme Court is reviewing the issue. Santa Cruz County filed a brief in the Riverside case urging the court to review the lower court ruling, which has spurred some local governments to ban medical pot dispensaries altogether.

"These cases were very problematic for patients and their ability to safely and legally access a medication that works for them," said Joe Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group.]]> By Howard Mintz, Mercury News

The California Supreme Court has jumped into the fray again over the legality of medical marijuana laws, deciding on Wednesday to review two lower court rulings that impact how and whether local governments can regulate pot dispensaries across the state.

In their weekly closed-door session, the justices voted unanimously to review cases out of Long Beach and Riverside that dealt with the ongoing conflict between California's voter-approved law allowing the use of medical marijuana and federal laws barring the use or sale of the drug. The state Supreme Court's rulings in the cases are likely to have a widespread impact in the Bay Area, where cities from San Jose to Oakland have regulations dealing with medical marijuana providers.

In the Long Beach case, a state appeals court last year concluded the city's attempts to regulate medical marijuana collectives clashed with federal drug laws and struck down the city's ordinance. A separate appeals court ruling out of Riverside County found that local governments have the right to legally ban medical pot dispensaries, giving local officials the clout to shutter them despite Proposition 215's provisions allowing marijuana use for medical purposes.

The Supreme Court's intervention comes at a time when federal law enforcement officials have resumed a high-profile crackdown on medical marijuana providers throughout California. There are federal lawsuits pending in San Francisco and elsewhere challenging that campaign.

Medical marijuana advocates were pleased the Supreme Court is reviewing the issue. Santa Cruz County filed a brief in the Riverside case urging the court to review the lower court ruling, which has spurred some local governments to ban medical pot dispensaries altogether.

"These cases were very problematic for patients and their ability to safely and legally access a medication that works for them," said Joe Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group.]]> <![CDATA[New grow room]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1546 Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:55:35 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1546 <![CDATA[Feds raid pot dispensaries in Costa Mesa]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1524 Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:40:50 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1524 Federal authorities announced they have also filed federal lawsuits against property owners, alleging the owners were knowingly letting marijuana stores operate.

By SALVADOR HERNANDEZ / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Federal authorities raided two medical marijuana dispensaries this week, including one where the owner promised a code enforcement officer he'd make a donation of $500,000 to the city every year.

The owner of the dispensary told the city employee he was going "to make so much money" he would be able to make yearly donations that would help fix the city's budgetary issues and prevent the layoff of city workers.

The following day, the city sent the dispensary a letter, informing the owner he was operating in the city without a business license.

This week, Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration raided the dispensaries and several homes connected with the store fronts.

Federal officials said they also filed lawsuits against property owners where the dispensaries were housed, alleging the owners of the property knew they were allowing marijuana stores to conduct business.

Among the dispensaries that were raided was Otherside Farms on 110 Broadway Street, according to an affidavit for the search warrant.

According to the affidavit, Otherside Farms had been in operation since Dec. 2009, when the owner filled out a business license with the city.

On Aug. 31, 2011, the dispensary was inspected by a code enforcement officer with the city, according to the affidavit. The owner, Chaddwick McKeen, showed the business to the city employee and said he planned to make a donation of $250,000 to the city by the end of the year.

According to documents, McKeen told the code enforcement officer he expected to run all other marijuana dispensaries out of business, and to make donations of $500,000 every year afterward to the city.

DEA agents also searched a condo at the 3000 block of Rivoli, in Newport Beach, which is believed to be the home of McKeen.

Authorities also served search warrants at American Collective, a dispensary at 128 Cabrillo Street, in Costa Mesa, and a commercial building at 2246 Newport Boulevard, which is believed to have been used as a marijuana grow to supply American Collective.

According to court documents, city officials have cited American Collective 18 times from Dec. 2010 to Aug. 2011.

Two other homes in Costa Mesa, 300 block of Ramona Place and 800 block of Senate Street, were also searched.

Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office, said no arrests were made in connection with the searches, but two or three individuals were briefly detained while the searches were conducted.

Federal prosecutors also filed four lawsuits against property owners in Costa Mesa and Los Angeles County, were owners had been warned by federal authorities that marijuana businesses were operating. Prosecutors have also sent letters to marijuana store operators in Costa Mesa, where officials said nearly two dozen marijuana stores are currently operating.

Though medical marijuana continues to be against federal law, the medicinal use of marijuana is legal in California. But in affidavits filed in federal court, DEA investigators stated the dispensaries that were searched have been operating as marijuana stores for profit, a violation of California law.

"American Collective operates to make a profit, and attempts to disguise the breadth of their criminal activity by claiming they cater exclusively to persons suffering from medical illnesses, when in fact persons without any medical condition can purchase marijuana at these retail establishments," the affidavit reads.

According to the U.S. Attorney's office, the buildings being named in federal lawsuits include three buildings at 440 Fair Drive, where the owner has been "cited numerous times by Costa Mesa officials for allowing the operation of marijuana dispensaries," according to the suit.

American Collective and Otherside Farms are also named in the suits.]]> Federal authorities announced they have also filed federal lawsuits against property owners, alleging the owners were knowingly letting marijuana stores operate.

By SALVADOR HERNANDEZ / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

Federal authorities raided two medical marijuana dispensaries this week, including one where the owner promised a code enforcement officer he'd make a donation of $500,000 to the city every year.

The owner of the dispensary told the city employee he was going "to make so much money" he would be able to make yearly donations that would help fix the city's budgetary issues and prevent the layoff of city workers.

The following day, the city sent the dispensary a letter, informing the owner he was operating in the city without a business license.

This week, Agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration raided the dispensaries and several homes connected with the store fronts.

Federal officials said they also filed lawsuits against property owners where the dispensaries were housed, alleging the owners of the property knew they were allowing marijuana stores to conduct business.

Among the dispensaries that were raided was Otherside Farms on 110 Broadway Street, according to an affidavit for the search warrant.

According to the affidavit, Otherside Farms had been in operation since Dec. 2009, when the owner filled out a business license with the city.

On Aug. 31, 2011, the dispensary was inspected by a code enforcement officer with the city, according to the affidavit. The owner, Chaddwick McKeen, showed the business to the city employee and said he planned to make a donation of $250,000 to the city by the end of the year.

According to documents, McKeen told the code enforcement officer he expected to run all other marijuana dispensaries out of business, and to make donations of $500,000 every year afterward to the city.

DEA agents also searched a condo at the 3000 block of Rivoli, in Newport Beach, which is believed to be the home of McKeen.

Authorities also served search warrants at American Collective, a dispensary at 128 Cabrillo Street, in Costa Mesa, and a commercial building at 2246 Newport Boulevard, which is believed to have been used as a marijuana grow to supply American Collective.

According to court documents, city officials have cited American Collective 18 times from Dec. 2010 to Aug. 2011.

Two other homes in Costa Mesa, 300 block of Ramona Place and 800 block of Senate Street, were also searched.

Thom Mrozek, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office, said no arrests were made in connection with the searches, but two or three individuals were briefly detained while the searches were conducted.

Federal prosecutors also filed four lawsuits against property owners in Costa Mesa and Los Angeles County, were owners had been warned by federal authorities that marijuana businesses were operating. Prosecutors have also sent letters to marijuana store operators in Costa Mesa, where officials said nearly two dozen marijuana stores are currently operating.

Though medical marijuana continues to be against federal law, the medicinal use of marijuana is legal in California. But in affidavits filed in federal court, DEA investigators stated the dispensaries that were searched have been operating as marijuana stores for profit, a violation of California law.

"American Collective operates to make a profit, and attempts to disguise the breadth of their criminal activity by claiming they cater exclusively to persons suffering from medical illnesses, when in fact persons without any medical condition can purchase marijuana at these retail establishments," the affidavit reads.

According to the U.S. Attorney's office, the buildings being named in federal lawsuits include three buildings at 440 Fair Drive, where the owner has been "cited numerous times by Costa Mesa officials for allowing the operation of marijuana dispensaries," according to the suit.

American Collective and Otherside Farms are also named in the suits.]]> <![CDATA[Marijuana Use Does Not Harm Lungs, 20-year Study Finds]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1480 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:10:31 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1480
The peer-reviewed study tracked 5,115 young adults in Oakland, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Birmingham who smoked marijuana or tobacco or both and were given lung function tests repeatedly over the 20 years between 1985 and 2006. Their findings showed that while tobacco smokers clearly had declining lung capacity, marijuana smokers who used marijuana between one "joint year” (365 joints or filled pipe bowls over the 20-year-period) and 7 "joint years" (2,555 joints or filled pipe bowls over the 20-year-period) did not have impaired lung function.

"With up to 7 joint-years of lifetime exposure (eg, 1 joint/d for 7 years or 1 joint/wk for 49 years), we found no evidence that increasing exposure to marijuana adversely affects pulmonary function."

The study was unable to make conclusive statements about the effects of more frequent marijuana use because it lacked a large enough sample of heavy users, however the authors did state "our findings do suggest an accelerated decline in pulmonary function with heavy use and a resulting need for caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered."

Dr. Donald Tashkin, a UCLA pulmonologist who researches medical marijuana but was not involved in the study, said that marijuana smoke may be less harmful than tobacco smoke despite many similar ingredients because the active ingredient THC (Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol) may have anti-inflammatory effects. "We don't know for sure," he said, "but a very reasonable possibility is that THC may actually interfere with the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."

Dr. Jeanette Tetrault, a substance abuse researcher at the Yale School of Medicine who was also not involved in the study, told Reuters: "I think a lot more work will need to be done to make any blanket statements about safety… These are only two measures of pulmonary function and don't really paint the entire picture."


Sources:

Anahad O'Connor, "Marijuana Smoking Does Not Harm Lungs, Study Finds," http://www.nytimes.com, Jan. 11, 2012

Genevra Pittman, "Pot Smokers Don't Puff Away Lung Health: Study," http://www.reuters.com, Jan. 11, 2012]]>
The peer-reviewed study tracked 5,115 young adults in Oakland, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Birmingham who smoked marijuana or tobacco or both and were given lung function tests repeatedly over the 20 years between 1985 and 2006. Their findings showed that while tobacco smokers clearly had declining lung capacity, marijuana smokers who used marijuana between one "joint year” (365 joints or filled pipe bowls over the 20-year-period) and 7 "joint years" (2,555 joints or filled pipe bowls over the 20-year-period) did not have impaired lung function.

"With up to 7 joint-years of lifetime exposure (eg, 1 joint/d for 7 years or 1 joint/wk for 49 years), we found no evidence that increasing exposure to marijuana adversely affects pulmonary function."

The study was unable to make conclusive statements about the effects of more frequent marijuana use because it lacked a large enough sample of heavy users, however the authors did state "our findings do suggest an accelerated decline in pulmonary function with heavy use and a resulting need for caution and moderation when marijuana use is considered."

Dr. Donald Tashkin, a UCLA pulmonologist who researches medical marijuana but was not involved in the study, said that marijuana smoke may be less harmful than tobacco smoke despite many similar ingredients because the active ingredient THC (Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol) may have anti-inflammatory effects. "We don't know for sure," he said, "but a very reasonable possibility is that THC may actually interfere with the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease."

Dr. Jeanette Tetrault, a substance abuse researcher at the Yale School of Medicine who was also not involved in the study, told Reuters: "I think a lot more work will need to be done to make any blanket statements about safety… These are only two measures of pulmonary function and don't really paint the entire picture."


Sources:

Anahad O'Connor, "Marijuana Smoking Does Not Harm Lungs, Study Finds," http://www.nytimes.com, Jan. 11, 2012

Genevra Pittman, "Pot Smokers Don't Puff Away Lung Health: Study," http://www.reuters.com, Jan. 11, 2012]]> <![CDATA[Long Beach pot clinic shutdown looms]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1468 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:11:05 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1468 By Greg Mellen, The Press Telegram

LONG BEACH - The Avalon Wellness Center sits in an industrial neighborhood on Long Beach's Westside.

Surrounded by welding and industrial supply businesses, the gray block building almost disappears in the bleak backdrop, but for the green medical cross painted on the wall.

Avalon may have to close its doors if the City Council on Tuesday follows a recommendation to repeal existing ordinances allowing medical marijuana dispensaries, and ban the sale and distribution of cannabis.

The recommendation from City Attorney Bob Shannon comes in the wake of an Oct. 4, 2010, state Court of Appeal decision that struck down the local law allowing the sale and distribution of marijuana.

The three-judge panel said the Long Beach law requires applicants to violate federal laws that prohibit the sale and distribution of marijuana.

California has allowed limited use of the drug since 1996.

The California Supreme Court has been asked to review the precedent-setting decision - which cities across the state are watching - and is expected to decide by Feb. 8 whether to hear the case.

Carl Kemp, a lobbyist representing Long Beach collectives, says at the very least the City Council should wait until the Supreme Court says whether it will hear the case.

He says the Supreme Court may render a decision that would support the Long Beach ordinance and "bring it back to life."

Shannon, however, said even if the Supreme Court reviews the appeal, it will take a year to make a final decision and until then "the ban is clearly required."

Kemp disagrees, saying that in deciding whether it will review the appeal, the high court has several options for the interim that could leave doors open for the ordinance while it considers the case.

"To repeal and ban (collectives) before the court says anything is foolish," Kemp said.

While other cities can sit on the sidelines and await the high court ruling, Shannon said Long Beach is not among them because it is the named defendant in the appellate court's ruling.

"We are required to comply and be more directly involved," he said. "We don't have the ability to ignore the (appellate) ruling."

After Long Beach decided to approve medical marijuana in the city, it set up a lottery for collectives and issued a limited number of permits to cultivate and distribute marijuana to patients.

Hundreds or thousands of dollars in fees were charged. At the time, many advocates of the ordinance claimed it was restrictive to the point of making it virtually impossible to operate.

"No other city has such onerous requirements," said Paul Violas, an attorney who represents medical marijuana advocates.

One of the collectives that went through the process was Avalon. Valerie Crist, Avalon's director, said her collective spent tens of thousands of dollars to renovate the property, submit architectural and building plans and comply with and even exceed a laundry list of city requirements.

Chris Cantella, the cultivation manager, said he had to "part the Red Sea" to fulfill a city requirement and install a carbon dioxide detection system. In addition to its bunker-like exterior, Avalon customers are met by a security guard and 24-hour surveillance cameras.

"I wish the city would come and see us," Crist says. "If they came to see what we are about they'd change their minds."

Crist says her nonprofit collective's "compassion program" has given away large amounts of medical marijuana to gravely ill and poor patients in dire need.

One of those is Mimi Weil, 61, who says she's in a terminal stage of hepatitis C that went undiagnosed for nearly 40 years after a blood transfusion. She was prescribed other drugs, but they affected her motor skills, caused her to fall repeatedly and left her disoriented, she said.

Two weeks ago, she began taking Phoenix Tears, a cannabis oil that proponents say can cure a multitude of maladies and help the body regenerate.

Weil doesn't know if the treatment will save her, but she says doctors "have already killed me enough with their conventional medicine."

She says she looks and feels like a different person since she began taking Phoenix Tears and plans to add cannabis milk to her regimen.

To produce a gram a day of the distilled Phoenix Tears, Weil uses two to three pounds (between about 906 and 1360 grams) of medical marijuana a month, according to Cantella.

"(Doctors) have done everything but turn me inside out," Weil said.

She adds that if she is going to die, she doesn't want to do it while zonked out on morphine.

"I want to go out enlightened," she says.

Gregory Lefian, president of the Long Beach Collectives Association, says his group is in a tough position - deciding between the law and what he sees as legitimate medical needs of patients.

"We're between a rock and a hard place," he said. "I promised my mom I wouldn't do anything illegal. But what's the moral thing to do?"

Opponents of medical marijuana say patients like Mimi Weils are far outweighed by those who use the drug simply for a high. They argue medical marijuana dispensaries aren't medical at all, and that they attract crime and are thinly veiled fronts for drug dealing.

"What you have is a bumper crop of 18- to 30-year-old males with medical issues they never had in the past," Shannon said.

This perception has resulted in a backlash against the pot dispensaries.

While California has the nation's most permissive medical marijuana laws, 185 cities and counties have banned pot dispensaries entirely. Long Beach may join the list Tuesday.

The City Council in December deadlocked 4-4 on approving the ban, but continued the recommendation so that Councilman Robert Garcia, who was not at the meeting, could vote. In the past, Garcia has expressed support for medical marijuana patients.

In December, council members Gary DeLong, Patrick O'Donnell, Gerrie Schipske and James Johnson voted in favor of the ban; council members Suja Lowenthal, Dee Andrews, Rae Gabelich and Steve Neal voted against the ban.

If the council approves the ban, it is certain to wind up in court.

"We don't want to fight," Kemp said.

Violas, the lawyer, sounded less hopeful.

"From the beginning the city attorney and the police have only been interested in shutting (dispensaries) down," he said.

Phillip Zonkel, Eric Bradley and the Associated Press contributed to this report.]]> By Greg Mellen, The Press Telegram

LONG BEACH - The Avalon Wellness Center sits in an industrial neighborhood on Long Beach's Westside.

Surrounded by welding and industrial supply businesses, the gray block building almost disappears in the bleak backdrop, but for the green medical cross painted on the wall.

Avalon may have to close its doors if the City Council on Tuesday follows a recommendation to repeal existing ordinances allowing medical marijuana dispensaries, and ban the sale and distribution of cannabis.

The recommendation from City Attorney Bob Shannon comes in the wake of an Oct. 4, 2010, state Court of Appeal decision that struck down the local law allowing the sale and distribution of marijuana.

The three-judge panel said the Long Beach law requires applicants to violate federal laws that prohibit the sale and distribution of marijuana.

California has allowed limited use of the drug since 1996.

The California Supreme Court has been asked to review the precedent-setting decision - which cities across the state are watching - and is expected to decide by Feb. 8 whether to hear the case.

Carl Kemp, a lobbyist representing Long Beach collectives, says at the very least the City Council should wait until the Supreme Court says whether it will hear the case.

He says the Supreme Court may render a decision that would support the Long Beach ordinance and "bring it back to life."

Shannon, however, said even if the Supreme Court reviews the appeal, it will take a year to make a final decision and until then "the ban is clearly required."

Kemp disagrees, saying that in deciding whether it will review the appeal, the high court has several options for the interim that could leave doors open for the ordinance while it considers the case.

"To repeal and ban (collectives) before the court says anything is foolish," Kemp said.

While other cities can sit on the sidelines and await the high court ruling, Shannon said Long Beach is not among them because it is the named defendant in the appellate court's ruling.

"We are required to comply and be more directly involved," he said. "We don't have the ability to ignore the (appellate) ruling."

After Long Beach decided to approve medical marijuana in the city, it set up a lottery for collectives and issued a limited number of permits to cultivate and distribute marijuana to patients.

Hundreds or thousands of dollars in fees were charged. At the time, many advocates of the ordinance claimed it was restrictive to the point of making it virtually impossible to operate.

"No other city has such onerous requirements," said Paul Violas, an attorney who represents medical marijuana advocates.

One of the collectives that went through the process was Avalon. Valerie Crist, Avalon's director, said her collective spent tens of thousands of dollars to renovate the property, submit architectural and building plans and comply with and even exceed a laundry list of city requirements.

Chris Cantella, the cultivation manager, said he had to "part the Red Sea" to fulfill a city requirement and install a carbon dioxide detection system. In addition to its bunker-like exterior, Avalon customers are met by a security guard and 24-hour surveillance cameras.

"I wish the city would come and see us," Crist says. "If they came to see what we are about they'd change their minds."

Crist says her nonprofit collective's "compassion program" has given away large amounts of medical marijuana to gravely ill and poor patients in dire need.

One of those is Mimi Weil, 61, who says she's in a terminal stage of hepatitis C that went undiagnosed for nearly 40 years after a blood transfusion. She was prescribed other drugs, but they affected her motor skills, caused her to fall repeatedly and left her disoriented, she said.

Two weeks ago, she began taking Phoenix Tears, a cannabis oil that proponents say can cure a multitude of maladies and help the body regenerate.

Weil doesn't know if the treatment will save her, but she says doctors "have already killed me enough with their conventional medicine."

She says she looks and feels like a different person since she began taking Phoenix Tears and plans to add cannabis milk to her regimen.

To produce a gram a day of the distilled Phoenix Tears, Weil uses two to three pounds (between about 906 and 1360 grams) of medical marijuana a month, according to Cantella.

"(Doctors) have done everything but turn me inside out," Weil said.

She adds that if she is going to die, she doesn't want to do it while zonked out on morphine.

"I want to go out enlightened," she says.

Gregory Lefian, president of the Long Beach Collectives Association, says his group is in a tough position - deciding between the law and what he sees as legitimate medical needs of patients.

"We're between a rock and a hard place," he said. "I promised my mom I wouldn't do anything illegal. But what's the moral thing to do?"

Opponents of medical marijuana say patients like Mimi Weils are far outweighed by those who use the drug simply for a high. They argue medical marijuana dispensaries aren't medical at all, and that they attract crime and are thinly veiled fronts for drug dealing.

"What you have is a bumper crop of 18- to 30-year-old males with medical issues they never had in the past," Shannon said.

This perception has resulted in a backlash against the pot dispensaries.

While California has the nation's most permissive medical marijuana laws, 185 cities and counties have banned pot dispensaries entirely. Long Beach may join the list Tuesday.

The City Council in December deadlocked 4-4 on approving the ban, but continued the recommendation so that Councilman Robert Garcia, who was not at the meeting, could vote. In the past, Garcia has expressed support for medical marijuana patients.

In December, council members Gary DeLong, Patrick O'Donnell, Gerrie Schipske and James Johnson voted in favor of the ban; council members Suja Lowenthal, Dee Andrews, Rae Gabelich and Steve Neal voted against the ban.

If the council approves the ban, it is certain to wind up in court.

"We don't want to fight," Kemp said.

Violas, the lawyer, sounded less hopeful.

"From the beginning the city attorney and the police have only been interested in shutting (dispensaries) down," he said.

Phillip Zonkel, Eric Bradley and the Associated Press contributed to this report.]]> <![CDATA[Greeting from Canada]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1427 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 17:50:49 -0600 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=1427 .

I'm a 22 year old male from Canada but not originally born there. I am originally from Germany. I moved to Canada with my family in 2005 and have been living there ever since. Canada is a great place and loved from the first time I visited.

I'm hoping to meet new people on this site and also contribute to the discussions on this site which I think I should be able to. So all in all nice to meet you guys!]]> .

I'm a 22 year old male from Canada but not originally born there. I am originally from Germany. I moved to Canada with my family in 2005 and have been living there ever since. Canada is a great place and loved from the first time I visited.

I'm hoping to meet new people on this site and also contribute to the discussions on this site which I think I should be able to. So all in all nice to meet you guys!]]>