To: Board of Supervisors, County of San Bernardino

Re: Proposed Ordinance Banning Medical Marijuana Groups &

Outdoor Cultivation
From: Richard Brumfield
Patients with a recommendation to use marijuana have a state-wide right to form
collectives and/or co-ops to cultivate medical marijuana (more properly known as
cannabis). They also have the right to do so in a safe, affordable and effective way. I
have been cultivating cannabis as medicine for some time now. Attached is a copy of
my website, http://www.fullspectrumomega.com and www.PCWEC.org .
Cannabis grown indoors is NOT the same as cannabis grown outdoors. People who are
using “marijuana” for purely recreational reasons are perfectly happy with marijuana
grown indoors; they are not paying that much attention to how it affects them
medicinally. Cannabis grown outdoors is far, far better for medicinal use. I have used
cannabis grown indoors and cannabis grown outdoors for the medicines I make from
cannabis, and I, and the patients who use my medicines, can tell the difference.
Knowing this, I now never use cannabis grown indoors for producing medicines. Serious
patients, who have developed experience with how cannabis affects their pains and
other ailments, and who have had an opportunity to experiment with both indoor- and
outdoor-grown cannabis, always prefer outdoor grown if they can get it. I attribute the
difference between plants grown indoors and outdoors to the fact that “grow” lights
simply cannot replicate the full spectrum of light that comes from the sun, nor can the
other artificial conditions.
Patients who are looking for medical relief also tend to prefer cannabis that has been
pollinated and which is producing seeds when it is harvested, a process which lowers
the THC levels in the harvested plant. This is another, more “natural,” aspect of growing
cannabis as medicine, which ties in with the all-natural outdoor production of cannabis.
In contrast, over the years, illicit, recreational users have promoted “sinsemilla”
(seedless) marijuana as the “best,” because it tends to have more THC. Such seedless
plants are best produced indoors both to hide them from the authorities and to protect
them from accidental wind-borne pollen from any cannabis plants in the area.
Legitimate patients have no reason to hide their plants; a law against outdoor
cultivation seems designed to make them feel like criminals who must hide their plants.
The State of California did not tell patients how to grow cannabis for their own uses,
neither did it give cities and counties the right to do so. This unreasonable ordinance
unnecessarily interferes with the right to grow medicine, will make it more expensive
and less affordable to grow medicine, and what is grown will be less effective.
In addition: to the argument that the city has the rights to bind over regulations, zoning, licensing, and fees are
addressed in Qualified Patients Association Vs. City of Anaheim where Federal and State Laws conflict is:

“The city asserts, without explanation, “The requirement that cities, in effect, permit storefront dispensaries to
operate within their boundaries positively conflicts with the CSA.” It is true that California and the federal
government have conflicting views of the potential health benefits of marijuana. But that does not mean the
application of state and federal laws are in conflict. If state law in fact preempts the city's ordinance—a
question we have noted is not yet ripe in this proceeding, we discern nothing in the city's compliance [***46]
with state law that would require the violation of federal law. [The federal CSA does not direct local
governments to exercise their regulatory, licensing, zoning, or other power in any particular way.
Consequently, a city's compliance with state law in the exercise of its regulatory, licensing, zoning, or other
power with respect to the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries that meet state law requirements
would not violate conflicting federal law.] And we see no reason to suppose state law preemption of the
ordinance would require a city or its employees or agents to operate a medical marijuana dispensary or
otherwise engage in conduct prohibited by the CSA. The fact that some individuals or collectives or cooperatives
might choose to act in the absence of state criminal law in a way that violates federal law does not implicate the
city in any such violation. As we observed in Garden Grove, governmental entities do not incur aider and
abettor or direct liability [*760] by complying with their obligations under the state medical marijuana laws.
(Garden Grove, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 389–390; accord, County of San Diego, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p.
825, fn. 13.) Consequently, we [***47] conclude the city's positive conflict argument is without merit.

The Court had also found no grounds for Cities to use Federal Status as a basis to disrupt Safe Access of Marijuana for
Qualified Patients. “On the facts presented in County of San Diego, the court noted “the unstated predicate” of the
obstacle preemption argument was “that the federal government is entitled to conscript a state's law enforcement
officers into enforcing federal enactments, over the objection of that state, and this entitlement will be obstructed to
the extent the identification card precludes California's law enforcement officers from arresting medical marijuana
users.” (County of San Diego, supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p. 827.) [**109] The court rejected the argument, as follows:
“The argument falters on its own predicate because Congress does not have the authority to compel the states to direct
their law enforcement personnel to enforce federal laws. In Printz Vs. United States (1997) 521 U.S. 898 [138 L. Ed. 2d
914, 117 S. Ct. 2365], the federal Brady Act purported to compel local law enforcement officials to conduct background
checks on prospective handgun purchasers. The United States Supreme Court held the 10th Amendment to the United
States Constitution deprived Congress of the authority to enact that legislation, concluding that ‘in [New York Vs. United
States (1992) 505 U.S. 144 [120 L. Ed. 2d 120, 112 S. Ct. 2408] we ruled] that Congress [***51] cannot compel the States
to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by
conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to
address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or
enforce a federal regulatory program.’ [Citation.]” (County of San Diego, at pp. 827–828.)

Just as the federal government may not commandeer state officials for federal purposes, a city may not stand in for the
federal government and rely [*762] on purported federal preemption to implement federal legislative policy that differs
from corresponding, express state legislation concerning medical marijuana. Tilehkooh, supra, 113 Cal. App. 4th 1433 is
instructive. There, the court held the CUA “provides a defense to a probation revocation based on marijuana possession
or use.” (113 Cal.App.4th at p. 1445.) The People argued the defendant could not raise the CUA as a defense to
revocation of his probation based on marijuana possession, citing the probation condition that the defendant obey not
only the laws of California, but also the [***52] laws of the United States. The court, however, was not persuaded. It
explained, “The People have misunderstood the role that the federal law plays in the state system. The California courts
long ago recognized that state courts do not enforce the federal criminal statutes. ‘The State tribunals have no power to
punish crimes against the laws of the United States, as such. The same act may, in some instances, be an offense against
the laws of both, and it is only as an offense against the State laws that it can be punished by the State, in any event.’
[Citations.]” (113 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1445–1446, fn. omitted.)

Text of Prop 215 (Cal HS 11362.5)

Proposition 215 (HS 11362.5) was passed in 1996 by a 56% majority of California voters in November 1996 use.

California, 1996, 56% yes vote on Prop 215 to add 11362.5 to the Health and Safety Code, legalizing medical
marijuana for seriously ill patients. Arizona passed Prop 200 by an even higher 65% majority. That law moved
all drugs to a situation that would allow doctors to recommend them. The state legislature repealed the popular
election vote, and voters promptly put it back onto the ballot as a referendum for 1998. It won there again in
1998, and voters in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Maine also legalized medical use of marijuana
through the initiative process.

Voters in Colorado and Washington DC were both deprived of their right to be counted. In Colorado it was a
voter's registrar's administrative decision to discount voter petitions, and in Washington DC it took an act of
Congress by the Republican dominated House to forbid that the votes be counted. Exit polls in both areas
showed healthy margins of victory for medical marijuana. Colorado voters finally had their say in 2000 and
approved the reform. Apparently, the Drug War is not healthy for democracy.

The Hawaii legislature has also legalized medical marijuana. Legislatures of more than 30 states have approved
medical marijuana laws at some point during the past 30 years. Among its federal advocates was the notoriously
conservative GOP Congressman Newt Gingrich.

Section 11362.5 of the State Health and Safety Code

The text of the Prop 215 initiative follows:

Section 1. Section 11362.5 is added to the California Health and Safety Code, to read:

11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

(b) (1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate
Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
 (A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical
purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has
determined that the persons health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of Cancer,
Anorexia, AIDS, Chronic Pain, Spasticity, Glaucoma, Arthritis, Migraine or any other illness for which marijuana
provides relief.

(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical
purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.

(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan for the safe and affordable
distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.

(2) Nothing in this act shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in
conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right
or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.

(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of
marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana
for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a
physician.

(e) For the purposes of this section, Primary caregiver means the individual designated by the person
exempted under this act who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that
person.

Sec. 2. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure which can be given effect without
the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and
independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to
instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for
the common good. (b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the
people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies
shall be open to public scrutiny. (Italic mine) (2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in
effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of
access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted
after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings
demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (3) Nothing in
this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction
of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any
statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or
professional qualifications of a peace officer. (4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any
provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7. (5) This
subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to
the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this
subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and
prosecution records. (6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for
the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its
employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted
in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or
administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its
employees, committees, and caucuses.

In conclusion, we await your reply to our request to written stipulation that we would not be breaking any of the
above laws as stated. Upon receipt of your letter we will gladly pay any fees/taxes and/or apply any regulations
that are deemed lawful.

Sincerely yours,

Richard Brumfield

President, Pacific Coast Wellness and Evolution Center, Inc.

Richard@pcwec.org