STATE: POT CAN'T BE CERTIFIED ORGANIC

Mendocino County Can Advise On Pesticide Use

Mendocino County may be pot friendly, but it cannot provide its seal of
approval to organic marijuana grown for medicinal use.

In a curt letter sent this week, the state Department of Food and
Agriculture forbade the county from certifying organic pot or regulating
the crop in any way.

However, another state agency said it's probably safe for county
agriculture officials to advise individual pot growers on pesticide use.

The mixed messages demonstrate the erratic application of the 1996
California law legalizing medicinal marijuana.

But the answers satisfied Mendocino County ag regulators, who sought
guidance from the state last month after receiving several requests from
local medical-marijuana growers for organic certification, a service the
county can provide to growers of other legal crops.

Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner Dave Bengston asked state
regulators if his office should certify organic medical marijuana and
regulate the crop to protect consumers from dangerous pesticides.

In addition, the county asked whether it should regulate medical-marijuana
growers and inspect their crops, as it does for vineyards, pear orchards
and other legal farm products.

It raised the question after a dozen people brought their medical
pot-growing problems and pesticide concerns to the department in the past
year, according to Assistant Agricultural Commissioner Tony Linegar.

But the state Agriculture Department ruled the county has no business
regulating medical pot growers.

"This department and you as our agent do not certify, register, etc.,
illegal activities. Either growing or sale of marijuana violates federal
law (even the growth of one marijuana plant) and that is a federal issue
not one within the purview of this department or you," John Dyer, chief
counsel to the state Agriculture Department, wrote in a Feb. 28 letter to
the county.

Medical marijuana activists, who supported pot certification, on Wednesday
criticized the department's missive.

It's a case of "cowardly bureaucrats hiding behind federal law," said Dale
Gieringer, Bay Area coordinator for the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws.

It also shows that inconsistencies continue to plague efforts to implement
Proposition 215 more than eight years after it was approved by voters, he said.

The 1996 initiative legalized the growth and use of marijuana for treatment
of health problems, with a doctor's approval.

An official at the state Agriculture Department declined to explain the
decision.

"The letter is our statement," said Steve Lyle, the department's public
affairs director.

In contrast to the Agriculture Department, the state Department of Health
Services this year will begin an identification card program intended to
protect medical pot patients from being arrested or their plants
confiscated by authorities.

And, in response to a similar letter from Bengston, the state Department of
Pesticide Regulation said it was probably legal for the office to advise
individual medical pot growers on pesticide use.

However, the state urged Bengston to steer clear of advising cannabis
clubs, which sell medical marijuana.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a portion of California's law
that allows individuals to grow and possess medical marijuana, wrote
Mary-Ann Warmerdam, director of pesticide regulation. But she cautioned
that it is illegal to commercially sell and distribute medicinal pot.

Any pesticide advice given to medical pot growers will be limited to
telling them not to use any, Linegar said.

He noted Warmerdam confirmed his belief there are no pesticides that can be
legally used on marijuana.

Regardless of the state Agriculture Department's edict, Linegar said his
department is mandated by law to investigate all potential pesticide
poisonings.

"If we can collect evidence and prove there is an illegal use of pesticides
resulting in illness, that certainly would be subject to enforcement
action, including a fine," he said.

Though he was expecting a longer response, Linegar said the Agriculture
Department's three-sentence letter adequately answered his and Bengston's
questions.

"We asked for a clear and concise response in writing. We believe the
response we received is very clear and very concise and leaves no doubt in
our minds how to proceed," he said.