COUNTY JURORS TO RULE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA ONCE AGAIN

Defendants cultivated pot plants in Petaluma to supply buyers club in San
Francisco.

For the second time this year, a Sonoma County jury will be asked to set
the limits of California's medical marijuana law.

Defense attorneys believe it will be the state's first jury trial involving
a medical marijuana supplier.

Sonoma County prosecutors have taken a hard line in medical marijuana
cases, but a local jury recently said 75 plants weren't too many for a
Santa Rosa man who smokes pot daily to alleviate chronic pain.

Barely a month after the acquittal of Alan MacFarlane, medical marijuana
advocates are counting on another Sonoma County jury to approve a Petaluma
pot farm that supplied a buyers club in San Francisco.

As that trial gets under way in a Santa Rosa courtroom, the U.S. Supreme
Court is considering the legality of the buyers clubs themselves. Clubs
opened in Oakland, Ukiah and other cities after voter approval of
Proposition 215.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer is siding with the clubs in the Supreme Court
case, and San Francisco District Attorney Terrance Hallinan is scheduled to
testify for the farmers in the Sonoma County case.

But Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins said he doesn't want the
county to become the pot garden for the rest of the Bay Area. And Mullins
said he believes the clubs are illegal.

A Proposition 215 co-author, who is defending the Petaluma pot farmers,
said Mullins is out of step with California and even his own county.

Oakland attorney William Panzer said the 800-plant operation provided
marijuana to a San Francisco buyers club that was honored by Mayor Willie
Brown and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

Mullins replied that San Francisco officials are entitled to their views on
marijuana, but "they're not entitled to grow it in Sonoma County."

"Why not grow it in Golden Gate Park?" he asked. "What entitles them to use
Sonoma County? It creates a profit-making motive for those people in San
Francisco."

Panzer said the fact the pot is grown in Sonoma County and used elsewhere
should make no difference.

"If you produce gas at a refinery in Richmond, it doesn't mean you can't
sell it in Sonoma County," Panzer said. "Does that mean Sonoma County wine
shouldn't be sold in the Bay Area?"

Jury selection is under way in the Sonoma County farm case and testimony
could begin as early as Tuesday.

The defendants, Kenneth E. Hayes and Michael S. Foley, were growing more
than 800 plants. They said it was to supply customers of a 1,200-member San
Francisco buyers club called CHAMP -- Cannabis Helping Alleviate Medical
Problems -- which was run by Hayes.

The two men were arrested in May 1999 after officers found the plants in a
greenhouse operation on King Road near Petaluma. Also seized were 14 pounds
of marijuana, more than a pound of hash and $3,700.

Although the cultivation and sales charges are relatively common, the trial
may deal with a much larger issue that has grown out of Proposition 215,
which allows marijuana possession with a physician's approval for medical
patients and their caregivers.

The crux of the case is whether Hayes could be designated a "caregiver" for
1,200 people.

He says his club, near the old U.S. Mint building on Market Street, has
high security and screens its members to ensure they have doctor approval
before they are sold marijuana. In some instances, they are given pot if
they can't afford it.

Club members suffer from AIDS, cancer and other serious diseases, he said.

Sonoma County prosecutor Carla Claeys maintains that Hayes' club is not on
trial; the two defendants are.

She said Hayes did not provide housing, health or safety services for the
patients at CHAMP, which is the legal criteria for being considered a
caregiver.

But co-defense counsel Chris Andrian said the pot club served as a safe
environment and provided counseling, support and food, part of being a
caregiver.

Claeys wants to introduce evidence in the upcoming trial that Hayes was
arrested for marijuana cultivation in 1997 in Marin County for more than 50
plants.

She also said Foley has a pending marijuana case in San Francisco relating
to 365 plants that were seized at his house, along with more than $3,000 in
cash.

Judge Robert Boyd ruled the other cases can't be disclosed to the jury
unless the defendants somehow "opened the door" through their own testimony.

The real problem, Mullins said, is Proposition 215 itself.

Repeating a view he has stated many times since the measure was approved in
1996, Mullins said Proposition 215 left too many questions unanswered.

"The people who drafted the statute were committing a fraud on patients,
promising something they could deliver when there was no distribution
scheme set up," Mullins said.

Panzer said Hayes provides a safe method for people to obtain marijuana for
medical purposes. "Mr. Mullins is helping business to drug dealers," he said.

Mullins said he has allowed patients and their caregivers to grow enough
marijuana for their own use and is even open to the idea of small
cooperative gardens where two or three individuals or their caregivers can
grow plants.

As far as whether marijuana has medicinal value, Mullins said, "There
hasn't been any scientific research in a long time. I have certainly
listened to anecdotal material. That's far different than research. The
answer is that it may."