Opinion: S. Tahoe medical marijuana patients prepare to fight back
By Steve Kubby
Local medical marijuana patients are in a panic, because of the new South Lake Tahoe city ordinance that takes effect today. Frustrated and frightened patients complain that it is impossible to get their landlords to sign notarized letters giving permission for them to grow — even though they already know and allow their tenants to do so. Apparently, landlords are reluctant to sign something that would incriminate them for violating federal law and the Controlled Substance Act.
Patients must also register in public records that they are growing, a clear violation of their Fifth Amendment rights. Too bad for you if the city decides you are not in compliance, their ordinance allows them to publish your name in the newspaper and fine you $1,000 per day. As a result, few patients have registered and are now on alert for an unwelcome visit from the city.
Steve Kubby
The current cultivation ordinance punishes bona fide patients by creating expensive and difficult barriers to rights already granted to them by the voters of California. In contrast, the city rewards illegal growers, because nearly anyone can qualify, provided they have enough money and time to jump through all the hoops, give their landlords money under the table, and get a medical recommendation for the right price. Under the new system that starts today, illegal growers and out-of-towners will be flocking to the city of South Lake Tahoe by the thousands, something none of us wants.
We believe our best option at this point is to put our own model ordinance on the ballot instead. We have already verified that we need 856 validated signatures to qualify. Below is the current version of the citywide voter initiative that we will be filing.
South Lake Tahoe Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance
The People of the City of South Lake Tahoe, California, do enact as follows:
Section A. Findings, and Orders
The People of the City of South Lake Tahoe find and order all of the following:
(1) Adults 21 years and older, who are bona fide medical marijuana patients, may produce up to 6 mature outdoor flowering plants, or up to 12 mature indoor flowering plants per person; or a total number of plants cultivated per household not to exceed 12 mature flowering plants outdoors or 24 plants indoors. The cultivation shall take place in an indoor or outdoor space or area not visible to the public.
(2) No taxes, fees, laws, rules, regulations, zones, local city or county zoning requirements may be adopted or enacted to defeat, deny, or prohibit the purposes of this Act, or to defeat, deny, or prohibit adult medical marijuana patients, 21 or older or from engaging in the activities authorized and protected by this Act.
(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent a property owner from prohibiting marijuana cultivation on their property or conduct that damages their property, so long as that is clearly stated in their rental agreement or lease.
(4) This Act preempts and nullifies any and all conflicting local regulations, but allows for a greater number of plants if a physician has written a letter or recommendation that states that these limits are insufficient for their patient.
(5) No regulations, taxes, or fees shall be enacted or imposed upon marijuana for qualifying patients or their caregivers.
(6) Elected, appointed, hired employees, officers, and officials of the City of South Lake Tahoe shall not directly or indirectly cooperate with or assist federal, state, or county officers or officials, volunteers, or employees who eradicate marijuana, act for seizure or forfeiture, or demand entry without a warrant or to defeat any liberally construed purpose of this Act, nor may any state or local agency contract to eradicate marijuana that is being grown, manufactured or stored under the provisions of this Act. Violation of this clause shall be a felony, punishable by up to one year in prison.
(7) The City of South Lake Tahoe is ordered to protect and defend all provisions of this Act from any and all challenges or litigation, whether by persons, officials, cities, counties, the state or federal governments.
(8) Child Protective Services is hereby enjoined from seizing any child or infant, based in whole or part on the cultivation or presence of marijuana in a home.
(9) South Lake Tahoe City Police are hereby enjoined from arresting anyone age 21 or older for any marijuana related offense, which is protected by this Act.
(10) This Act shall become effective immediately upon passage and may be applied retroactively to protect patients or caregivers from civil or criminal prosecution.
(11) Patients and caregivers shall have the right to transfer their marijuana to other patients or collectives and be paid a non-taxible remuneration for their out of pocket expense and their time.
(12) The City of South Lake Tahoe is hereby enjoined from banning or limiting the number of medical marijuana collectives, dispensaries or delivery services operating within the City.
Section B. Severability
If any of the provisions of this Act, or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.
Steve Kubby is CEO of Strategic Campaigns LLC and serves as chief officer and campaign chairman for a new California voter initiative to Regulate Marijuana Like Wine.
I am not a big fan of people having their rights taken away. Even if I do not like what they might do with themselves for it.
An effect of our trending toward militarized police, and out of control regulations is that people are more and more depressed. The more and more we pile laws, regulations, and monitors on people, the less free action they feel they have; the more embattled they feel; and the more we strip them of the capability to make their own decisions: The less likely they are to do remarkable, productive, progressive, and imaginative things.
Oppression is the killer of progress. While a little local regulation does not seem like oppression, in effect, and as a part of the whole, it is just that and this ordinance embodies that problem well.
Here we are, mired in the worst global depression ever and the best we can do to solve the issues of the day seems to be pile more limits onto people. Our local leaders, and our people are reacting to a siege mentality and we are sniping at each other when the City Council votes to oppress the citizens with laws that are in contraversion to state law, and the will of the voters.
As a Christian I only have to ask myself what Jesus would do about marijuana, and I am certain that it would have NOTHING to do with regulations, laws, guns or shackles. The desire to harm medical marijuana patients in order to force their “good” action is born from hate and fear, not love and tolerance.
On the more secular side of things, I have to ask myself which is better for SLT, and other places, a police state full of frightened and home bound citizens blocked, corrected or punished at every turn with laws that dictate their adult actions, or even the color of their home; or a free society in which adults must face their decisions with real consequences, and people are free to do stupid things like take a week off to go skiing.
I say Sign that Petition!
Why waste time passing laws at the city and state level which are in violation of Federal Law. Put your energy into changing the Federal position then you can do what you want at the local level.
“I am not a big fan of people having their rights taken away. Even if I do not like what they might do with themselves for it.”……. What the heck does that mean? It’s some secret teabagger language from Babylon?
This guy needs to go out and speak with SLT residents. The voters, the majority of the voters, have no interest in what he is selling. And that, is the end of the discussion.
Good luck on getting that passed. I am so tired of the “clinics” that are across our town and the growers that supply them. The stench in our neighborhoods is growing and its time for those of us who don’t want medical marijuana in our town to fight back.
If the people buying from the clinics were really in need and had no other recourse for their disease, I’d have no issues, but to have 15,000 sick people in our small town is mighty suspicious.
Tahoe stoners. Gotta love ’em, & all that pulled this “medical” sharade over the eyes of this state. But no, actually the state (CA) was in on it from the start. If there are enough stoners on the SLT city council, it’ll be law here soon, as well.
The voters of the great state of California Legalized medical use. The use of this substance is outlined in 215 and California voted “Yes”. Cannabis can be benefitial for very severe ailments and also general wellness depending on dosage and frequency.
Steve is absolutely right the ordinance that was just passed FAVORS TRANSIENTS
AND DRUG DEALERS. These are the ones we do not want moving into our neighborhoods and setting up grow ops. The new initiative discriminates against those who are actually sick!
The City Should really be sued for the following reasons. This new ordinance would prevent this lawsuit.
A. Discriminitory – This regulation is soley directed towards sick people that use MMJ for thier ailments. Any other form of indoor home cultivation is unregulated. That is to say someone growing tomatoes for personal use using the exact same equipment does not have to pay fees and have thier privacy invaded as a sick person may. This is clearly discrimination toward a protected class (those suffing from disabilities), and the City of S. Lake should, in fact, be sued.
B. Property Rights – Anyone who purchased a home with a grow operation large or small prior to the passing of this ordanance should not be held to this until thier home goes up for sale and it is required to be inspected by a building inspector at which point the buyer is aware he must obide by the 10% rule ect.
C. Discriminitory – This law favors those with large homes. Many patients live in smaller homes and 10% of thier home is not suffecient to supply thier medicince. To Steve’s point, this ordinance favors drug dealers not patients.
D. 4th Amendment – This type of home invasion is protected under the 4th amendment. Since when are police ok to search your home over a building permit when you haven’t even built anything?
I laugh at the “stoner” rhetoric I see on this page. Are you using your iPad to post or another invention that changed the world developed by a “stoners”. I don’t call you people uneducated hillbillies who have bankrupted this city so please back off the “stoner” comments.
Dear Dry Clean – I know for a fact you use Perc, those who live in Glass Houses should not throw “Stoners”
http://ecocleanaustin.com/wet-cleaning/dangers-of-perc/
Maybe someoday SLT will regulate that and you will have to pay 1000s of dollars and jump through all kinds of hoops just to keep food on your table. Would you care then about overegulation?
Sandsconnect, look up STONER in the Urban Dictionary. (one who smokes cannabis!) So why backoff? They are what they are!
trying to ban marijuana from our city, will only cause our economy to suffer as revenue goes to real drug dealers and not LOCAL marijuana growers who have to live and prosper inside the city.
you cant judge someone who uses marijuana, when most americans use drugs too.
ever heard of aspirin, motrin, cough syrup, anti depressants, pain killers!
dont even get me started on what we medicate our youth with, its no wonder most kids are out of control these days! most people cant even handle their 2-3 yr olds!