CANNABIS CLUB POT-GROWING TRIAL BEGINS

The state's first jury trial on suppliers to cannabis clubs got under way
yesterday, pitting Sonoma County's vigorous prosecution of pot growers
against the more tolerant views in San Francisco.

While San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan openly supports
medical marijuana clubs, Sonoma County District Attorney Mike Mullins said
he doesn't want his county to be transformed into a pot garden for the Bay
Area.

"If San Francisco wants to have a marijuana supplier, they can grow it in
Golden Gate Park," Mullins said yesterday. Cannabis clubs, he said, are
illegal.

The trial that started yesterday focuses on two Petaluma growers, who are
being tried for providing cannabis for a San Francisco club for users of
medical marijuana. In opening arguments, prosecutors argued that the motive
was greed. The defense insisted it was providing lawful compassionate use.

Hallinan, who is on the witness list for the defense, sent an observer from
his office to monitor yesterday's court action.

Cannabis clubs sprang up in several California cities after the 1996
passage of Proposition 215, which permits cultivation and consumption of
the weed for chronically ill people who have a doctor's recommendation.
Proponents say cannabis helps alleviate the effects of chemotherapy,
promotes appetite in cancer and AIDS patients and helps relieve pain.

Defendants Kenneth E. Hayes and Michael S. Foley grew 899 marijuana plants,
some in six greenhouses and others inside a barn on a rural King Road farm.
Fifteen pounds of dried weed, one pound of hash, $3,700 in cash and a rifle
also were found on the property.

Hayes was the executive director of the 1,280-member club CHAMP -- Cannabis
Helping Alleviate Medical Problems, described as a cross between "a living
room and a cabaret" -- located in the Castro district. Foley was the club's
general manager. Both men face felony charges for unlawful cultivation and
possession of concentrated cannabis for the purpose of sale.

There is also an enhancement for the rifle, which an Oakland defense lawyer
said was used to protect Hayes' chickens from raccoons.

Surrounded by burlap bags containing confiscated weed, Sonoma County
prosecutor Carla Claeys began her remarks by saying the two defendants met
and hatched a plan to run a sophisticated $500,000 operation.

"This is a case of profit. It was not done for compassionate use or from
the kindness of their hearts," Claeys said. "It was about money.

"This is not a case about cannabis clubs in San Francisco or politics in
San Francisco or whether marijuana should be used for compassionate
purposes. It was a sales game. It wasn't for compassion. It was for greed."

In testimony yesterday, Sonoma County Sheriff's Deputy Steven Gossett said
that when he served the search warrant in the morning of May 14, 1999, the
rented house reeked of marijuana smoke.

Mullins said his office interprets the state law as allowing an approved
patient to grow cannabis for personal use -- or if a person is unable to do
so, an approved caregiver may instead.

In other words, one-on-one situations are allowed, Mullins said, not
extensive sales operations.

Defense lawyer William G. Panzer, who co-wrote Proposition 215, said Hayes
was a designated "caregiver," who gave the cannabis "essentially free of
charge" to ill people. He said Hayes' San Francisco club provided a
gathering spot for his members, where social interaction, massages, dinners
and doctors consultations were available.

Hayes, he said, operated with the full knowledge of the San Francisco
Police Department and Hallinan's office. He also said CHAMP was honored by
Mayor Willie Brown and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

"Mr. Hayes was essentially doing God's work," Panzer said. "He grew this
for compassionate use."

During a break outside the Santa Rosa courtroom, Panzer said Mullins'
stance is counterproductive because it forces medical users to resort to
black market suppliers.

"I see Mike Mullins as Captain Ahab going after the great white whale of
medical marijuana," Panzer said. "He honestly believes there is no medical
benefit. He doesn't want reasonable regulation and is giving business to
drug dealers."

Mullins said he knows of no research that supports the medical benefits of
marijuana. He said if anyone is driving ill people into the arms of drug
dealers, it is the initiative drafters.

"Right now, there are 58 different ways of interpreting this because there
is no uniformity," Mullins said. "They drafted a hopelessly ineffective
initiative that fails to provide a means to distribute this particular
product. "