top
Central Valley
Central Valley
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Of Profit and Hysteria: Copyright Chemicals for Fresno

by Nicholas J. DeGraff (ndegraff [at] riseup.net)
A look at recent developments influencing medicine and food in Fresno county which will be appearing in Fresno's Community Alliance, Jan 2005.
1_organicallygrownmedicine.jpg

Of Profit and Hysteria: More Copyright Chemicals For Fresno
By Nicholas J. DeGraff

Chemicals and copyrights made two big wins in Fresno in late November. As the Fresno City Council decided to take no action on challenges that a recent order all but banning medical cannabis in Fresno violates state Proposition 215, two blocks away the Fresno County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a pro-biotechnology resolution brought forward by the Fresno County Farm Bureau. To many the two issues may seem somewhat unrelated, but to those concerned with the increasing influence of corporations and government officials looking to protect their guns and butter at the cost of our health, the issue is one and the same. Both actions by elected officials came in reaction to increasing attempts to provide medicine and ban dangerous products. While this might not necessarily mean that you should worry about genetically engineered pot being sold on the street, you should still be concerned—especially if you have a box of cornflakes in your kitchen cupboard or aging loved ones.

Reefer 'Emergency'!

Years after passage with overwhelming support of voters in 1996, California Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act, still remains unclear both to the public and, as shown by the irregular application throughout the state, law enforcement and elected officials. While polling data regularly show that 66% to 75% of people polled in the United States and California, respectively, support the medical use of marijuana, patients and doctors still face numerous challenges. When set into the California Health and Safety Codes, Proposition 215 set in place many important protections for what can be prescribed and who can use medical cannabis, as well as who can provide it and prescribe its use. Possibly more important, though, is what was left out.

The Compassionate Use Act: Pot for Patients

Now just 389 words in the Health and Safety Code, Proposition 215 protects the rights of "seriously ill Californians"; "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 person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana." This gives doctors the ability to prescribe medical cannabis to patients suffering from cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasms, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."

In addition, 215 grants patients the right to designate care providers who can legally grow and provide marijuana for patients along with putting in place protections for doctors from prosecution for prescribing cannabis to patients. What are not outlined are the minimum or maximum amount that a doctor can prescribe to patients and likewise the amount that is reasonable for a patient to obtain. While this has created a great deal of pressure on legislators to establish maximum and minimum dosages that doctors can prescribe for patients, it has also led to advances in the courts for patient rights. No matter the political pressures, the protections that are outlined under Proposition 215 constitute strong law as a ballot initiative, which can only be amended by another initiative or the courts. Not that this means that legislators from the local level to the state legislature haven't tried, especially when it comes to the question of dosage.

Marijuana Ice Cream Trucks

Dosage was not the issue, however, in Fresno, California. In late October, the Fresno City Council passed an "emergency ordinance" that was deemed to be necessary, "as an emergency measure for preserving the public peace, health, and safety." Established by the ordinance is a change to the municipal code, which limits care providers to three patients. Since then, neighboring Clovis, California, passed a similar ordinance, saying that it feared dispensaries and cooperatives moving to Clovis in the wake of the Fresno ordinance. The Fresno County Board of Supervisors then took the ban to a new level, limiting care providers to two patients and completely banning dispensaries in the rural areas of the county. There is no safe haven left for the terminally ill (much less for state law) in Fresno County. According to a Fresno care provider speaking under the condition of anonymity, "This is a hard blow. Right now, we can barely keep up with the number of patients in need; the last thing we need to [provide care] is to have a limit that lets us have fewer patients than we already do. Our neighbors are suffering. Now it may be a crime, and we have no choice."

Cited in the ordinance were concerns that cities in California "report adverse impacts in and around" medical marijuana facilities, such as "smoking of marijuana in and around the facility, patients congregating and smoking in nearby parks," increased crime, and adverse effects to business around facilities. Sensationalizing the issue, Chief Dyer commented on the approval of the ordinance, saying, "This would prevent someone from loading up an ice cream truck with marijuana and delivering it throughout the city."

Terminal Illness: A Crime Epidemic?

However, there have yet to be reports from local residents of marijuana-laden ice cream trucks cruising the streets of Fresno. In fact, since the passage of Proposition 215 and the subsequent eight years of active work by local care providers and doctors, no reports have been made of adverse effects on crime or public safety, leading many to question how much of an emergency actually exists. "We've had no problems of any kind over the years, we try to avoid them and stay out of the spotlight. We have a professional attitude toward what we do. This isn't slanging drugs on the corner, this is helping those in need," according to local care providers.

Included in the evidence to support the new restrictions, which for all intents and purposes shut down care providers, were problems reported in and around dispensaries in the City of Oakland. This, however, comes in contrast to a 2004 resolution passed by the Oakland City Council making the enforcement of laws surrounding even the illegal distribution and possession of marijuana the "lowest possible priority of the Oakland Police Department." According to the resolution passed last February, "The Oakland Police Department shall make investigation, citation, and arrest for private adult cannabis offenses Oakland's lowest law enforcement priority." Cited by Oakland is the amazing cost that goes into the enforcement of cannabis-related laws, which not only fuels the politicization of the medical marijuana issue but also budget deficits in the face of a growing rash of hard drugs such as methamphetamine and opiates. Included in the reasoning was a need for the overall legalization of marijuana use so that it can be taxed, and so the criminal enterprise surrounding the sale of marijuana, which relies on marijuana remaining illegal, can be undermined. A strange opinion for a city cited as evidence of an emergency threat from medical marijuana dispensaries.

Pot House Paranoia

Shaver Lake attorney Bill McPike has expressed a belief that an ordinance passed by the Fresno City Council limiting care providers of medical marijuana had less to do with safety concerns, and more to do with his plans to license a medical marijuana dispensary in Fresno's Tower District, expected to provide services for up to 5000 patients.

Statements by Fresno City Council members seemed to support this assertion. According to Councilmember Jerry Duncan in an interview with the Fresno Bee, the reason he voted in favor of the ordinance wasn't safety concerns but rather that he doesn't "support the idea of anybody selling marijuana in the city of Fresno." This sentiment seemed to be supported by other members of city leadership. A confused Councilmember Dages also stated to the Fresno Bee that he disagreed with the 1996 law and commented that "I have a real tough time with people with greenhouses growing marijuana for their neighbor next door because, golly gee, they don't feel good." In effect: “Quit whining, terminal cancer and AIDS patients.”

Care providers and patients didn't stand still. Walking into city hall carrying a four-foot marijuana plant, his attorney at his side and patients surrounding him, James Mitchell walked into the Fresno City Council chambers and with the Chief of Police looking on, stood before the city council and challenged the ordinance under the law. Said Mitchell, "This violates my rights." According to Mitchell's attorney, Richard Runcie, "The city council doesn't have the power to trim the rights that were created under Proposition 215." According to Runcie, the ordinance creates a new "unlawful class." By trimming the rights of care providers provided by 215, anyone providing care to more than three patients would fall into a class of offense not provided for under 215—a class of crime that may cause those covered by the stronger law of 215 to face local charges that are in conflict with state law.

The Council Held Strong

Courts Define the Rule

The position taken by the Fresno City Council may seem to be on solid legal ground from their perspective, but in the context of law and recent advances in patient rights, the confidence of city council members who have gone on record seems hasty at best. While little to no case law seems to have been created that regulates the number of patients a care provider can have other than protections, argued by Runcie, to be implied in 215; California courts have shown a steady stream of rulings that have defined the tender issue of dosages, and have shown a tendency to favor patients over law enforcement in some important decisions. According to Chris Conrad, a well-known, court-recognized expert in medical marijuana matters with Americans for Safe Access, "One of the strengths of Proposition 215 is its ambiguity."

According to Conrad, this ambiguity, while allowing for local problems, such as the Fresno ordinance and state legislative bodies, has allowed medical marijuana advocates moving their struggle out of the political spectacle where decisions are based on lobby power and self-interested influence, and into the courts where science and justice still at times count.

In the years since the passage of 215, California courts have made a number of important rulings defining the law, often in favor of patient rights. The Trippett decision in 1997 established some guidelines on amounts that patients and care providers are allowed to posses. According to this decision, the amount is not set by local legislative bodies, but is linked to current medical need, implying that doctors and medical researchers were the better judges of dosages for patients. This, however, led to more controversy as law enforcement agencies determined amount based not on actual amount, but on the number of plants which can vary in yield from a few grams to a few pounds.

The Arbacascus decision settled this dispute, ruling that yield per plant is variable and therefore is linked more closely to amount produced rather than the number of plants. In addition, the ruling set another precedent and ruled that prosecutors could not keep refiling charges once a case had been dismissed. According to Conrad, "Prosecutors could re-file three times and at the cost to patients of $10,000 each time in legal costs. They would end up bankrupting people, often without ever getting a conviction, or possibly adding additional fines if convicted." While under this ruling, charges could not be refiled, many patients protected under 215 found themselves charged with intent to sell as continued pressure was put on patients by law enforcement. District Attorneys argued that patients had to prove that they didn't have an amount greater than their need for the purpose of illegal distribution.

The Mower decision advanced protections from unjust prosecution or conviction, by putting the burden of proof on District Attorneys and not patients: forcing DAs to prove that the amount that patients have on hand is greater than their need. Overall, decisions by the courts subsequent to the passing of 215 have put the burden of proof on law enforcement and prosecutors, protected patients from forms of oppressive prosecution, and have protected the transportation of marijuana within the state so that patients are free to move around the state and still have access to medicine.

Not All Roses

Seen in the actions taken by the Fresno City Council, while the courts have made some important decisions to expand rights, patients have had mixed results with their elected officials.

As Fresno and Clovis pass emergency ordinances to tie the hands of local care providers, the California Legislature has been hard at work on SB420, which is now waiting for approval by the governor. While the bill creates an ID card system, which will help patients avoid the legal hassle of arrest and which, among other benefits, provides reimbursement for care providers and a 50% Medi-cal discount, it also creates some serious issues for patients. The legislature cannot make an ID card system mandatory because it would overrule 215, which it doesn't have the power to do. It also creates a distinction between patients: those with cards and those who live in counties that don't provide ID cards or don't have them—will face arrest and greater suspicion.

Even more serious, SB420 also creates a default limit for municipalities of six ounces of dried marijuana, or six mature plants. These guidelines, while allowing municipalities to increase, but not decrease this limit, is not based on any scientific research. According to Conrad, "The guideline was based on public opinion polling. They wanted to know what was the amount that people felt comfortable with." This information was combined with guidelines set by other states with more, according to Conrad, "archaic" law to produce the guideline found in SB420. What wasn't considered was medical research, which suggests higher guidelines may be necessary.

But why ignore medical research when establishing dosage guidelines?


'Frankenfood' Invasion

As medicine found itself in the media spotlight, nearby, the Fresno County Board of Supervisors were discussing a resolution advocating an increase in the amount of bioengineered food into the 60% of the nation's fruits and vegetables that are grown in the San Joaquin Valley. The pro-biotechnology resolution was hailed as an achievement for farmers and the valley's economy, as well as a step toward providing “food to feed the world.” According to Fresno County Agriculture Commissioner, Jerry Prieto, who co-introduced the resolution with the Fresno County Farm Bureau, "It's important for farmers to have the tools to be competitive. Biotechnology holds great promise." Prieto cites countries in South America and Asia, many of them Third World countries, which regularly use biotechnology with even less restriction than the few restrictions currently in place in the United States. In fact, use in the Third World has been a driving mantra behind the promotion of bioengineered foods, promising rice which not only nourishes but improves eyesight, crops that resist disease and pests, and greater yields of higher quality product. But does biotechnology really live up to the promise? Who profits even if it doesn't?

PSA for DNA?

Biotechnology is not new to California or the Valley. "The ordinance is a PR statement," commented Ron Cummins, National Director of the Organic Consumers Association. "There are already large amounts of GE crops in California. Six hundred thousand acres of cotton in Southern California is genetically modified." This fact seemed to be acknowledged by the Fresno County Farm Bureau. A memo to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors from the Fresno County Farm Bureau, released by Prieto, aired concern toward a growing anti-GE food voice when discussing the resolution: "Currently the counties of Sonoma, Alameda, Lake, Santa Cruz, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Placer, and Santa Barbara have anti-biotechnology activities under way and may have anti-biotechnology ballot initiatives on the March 2005 ballot."

Prieto seemed to want to downplay the threat of anti-biotechnology resolutions—which have increased in number with each election cycle—saying, "Of the three initiatives that went to voters in the last election, only one passed," but Peggy Miars of the California Certified Organic Farmers Foundation disagrees. While nobody can dispute the numbers, "Of the three counties that had initiatives on the ballot, one lost funding before it got started, one passed, and the other in San Luis Obispo was defeated by a large amount of financial backing by the biotechnology industry. It wasn't an overwhelming voice for biotechnology."

You're in Tuskegee Now

According to Cummins, Bioengineered foods are facing a PR crisis and rightly so. While there are few products made without genetically engineered (GE) ingredients, 90% of people say that they want products made with GE foods to be labeled. When asked why, 90% say it is so they can avoid buying products with Bioengineered food. This concern isn't misplaced, as there have been documented incidents involving GE food that cause concern about the healthiness and safeness of products in the marketplace.

With no labeling to notify the consumer, GE food has flooded the marketplace, finding its way into almost every product, especially those using corn or soy. But this flood has not come without cost. In 1996, scientists nearly averted a public health disaster. Millions of acres of soybeans, which were genetically modified with transferred DNA from brazil nuts also introduced a common allergen found in brazil nuts. The product was pulled from markets before it could be consumed; however, if the Ssoybeans had reached the market, many may have become ill and died from allergic reactions that consumers would not expect.

This doesn't mean that legislators, public safety officials, and those entrusted to protect food safety put safeguards in place to protect the public from another incident. In 1998, Starlink corn was approved only for use as animal feed after researchers were unable to determine if the gene-spliced corn would cause affects on humans such as rashes, diarrhea, and respiratory problems. However, after the genetic sequences migrated into nearby fields of corn intended for human consumption, DNA from Starlink corn, which is illegal for human use was found in products both in the United States and internationally. Unlike in 1996, the hazardous corn was consumed, and allergic reactions, some serious, were reported. According to Cummins, "people reported cases of anaphylactic shock, which can be life threatening."

Fresno County Agriculture Commissioner, Jerry Prieto isn't swayed, "If there is a case of human death that we can document, we will document that and try to prevent that in the future." According to Prieto, the evolution of biotechnology is a necessary evil akin to the development of vaccines. "When we developed vaccines, people died. Even though people had to die to perfect the science, in the end we ended up with something safe that saves lives." This may be of little comfort to consumers who, with no labeling of GE food products, are more like the unwilling subjects of modern Tuskegee experiments than willing lab rats.

Jonas Salk Frowns?

While the Fresno County AG Commissioner may liken the development of biotechnology to the evolution of modern vaccines, biologists with the Salk Institute, named for Jonas Salk, creator of the polio vaccine; raise caution. David Schubert, a cell biologist with the Salk Institute, reported that "GM [genetically modified] food is not a safe option, given our current lack of understanding of the consequences of recombinant technology." According to Schubert, the unpredictability of genetic engineering techniques could lead to "the biosynthesis of molecules that are toxic, allergenic, or carcinogenic." While vaccines have increased life expectancy and living conditions around the world, the effects seen suggest that biotechnology may not hold the same promise.

Supporters of GE crops have lauded the positive benefits that can be obtained by the recombination of genes that defies evolution itself, but these “benefits” can be a mixed bag. One major benefit cited by ordinance proponents in Fresno was the reduction of the use of pesticides. "Sure, you use less [pesticides] at first," commented Peggy Miars, "but studies have shown that GE crops build a resistance [forcing farmers to use more pesticide] . Research needed isn't being done, we don't know the answer to most questions." Critics also fear genetic material being incorporated into existing diseases, to produce super viruses, a possibility researchers have acknowledged.

In this way and many others, farmers are finding that GE crops cost more than they are worth. In addition to the possible increased cost in pesticides, adjacent farmers have had to pay for inspection fees and costly planting processes to avoid GE crops migrating to their fields, which can contaminate their crop. In addition to crop contamination, with copyrights on genetically modified crops put in place by the corporations that develop new varieties of plants, farmers that experience GE crop strains drifting into their fields from neighboring farms can find themselves in legal trouble for copyright infringement. "Freedom of choice is being taken away," says Cummins, "the rights of farmers and consumers are being taken away," by current biotechnology policies. Not only are consumers losing the right to choose at the checkout counter, farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to choose not to grow GE crops, if not impossible in some areas.

The global marketplace hasn't been any kinder to farmers, even those attempting not to use bioengineering. The Fresno County Farm Bureau and the Fresno County AG Commissioner contend that other places using biotechnology without any restrictions are beating out US product in the market. Indeed, the resolution passed by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors cited that,"[the] ability to use biotechnology in agriculture is a key factor by which farmers and ranchers can stay competitive in the global marketplace." However, in the wake of incidents like the Starlink corn contamination in 1998, foreign markets have started to refuse US products because of a lack of control and oversight. Many countries around the world have banned biotech crops, closing markets completely to mystery US products, creating a yearly loss to farmers and the economy.

Yet alternatives do exist. "Gene splicing is outdated," says Cummins. Instead, there are options such as Genetic Marker Assisted Breeding. In this process, scientists map but do not manipulate genetic sequences and naturally breed organically occurring positive qualities into plants. Geneticists identify and map the gene that produces the positive quality so that it can be bred into other varieties naturally. "Say you have a variety of tomato that resists disease well; you can breed those qualities with other tomato varieties," producing a better tomato. With nature doing the process of recombining genetic sequences, "it's a lot safer, and just as effective." Organic farmers have shown over time that new technology is often not as necessary as good farming techniques. "Organic farming techniques are viable on a large and small scale and people can make a living doing it. We don't need biotechnology," says Miars.

But if biotechnology is so dangerous, why isn't it banned altogether?

Representative Democracy?

Recent events and controversy created by FDA whistleblowers have drawn a lot of attention to the possibility that the interest of corporations and their subsequent seat at the decision-making table have created a flawed system that may jeopardize public health. But to many, this revelation is seen as nothing new.

Research: Bought, Ignored, and Suppressed

While many conceptualize the prescription of marijuana ending in the days of reefer madness during the 1930s, medical cannabis didn't come under attack until the "Marihuana Tax Act" of 1941. Not ruled illegal, the medical use of cannabis was so heavily taxed that doctors were unable to prescribe its use—the intended purpose of the law. Testimony by the American Medical Association at the time advocated for the use of marijuana and against the tax that was thinly veiled as a prohibition on medical marijuana. However, the outcry of the medical community had little effect on the legislature.

This has also been the case in subsequent years. Statements by respected medical research organizations such as the New England Journal of Medicine, which stated in 1977, "Federal authorities should rescind their prohibition of the medical use of marijuana for seriously ill patients and allow physicians to decide which patients to treat," as well as the medical research that has been compiled, which overwhelmingly supports the medical use of marijuana, have fallen on deaf ears.

Physicians at the California Medical Research Center agree with the New England Journal of Medicine and research institutes around the world. According to one physician's assistant, "We have seen great results with the prescription of medical marijuana, especially for patients where other treatments won't work." Patients with hepatitis C have had especially good results, as cannabis is easier on their weaker livers than alternative treatments. Physicians at the California Medical Research Center have also seen positive results for diabetes patients, for patients with psychological disorders such as bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress syndrome, as well as for patients with many other medical disorders. "Marijuana is cheaper, it's non-addicting, there is no tolerance built up because a patient can simply switch strains, and there are many delivery methods that can be used," says a Research Center physician’s assistant to Dr. Mollie Fry. However, despite their research and experience, the medical community has not received the credence they deserve; instead, they face persecution on witness stands and they face professional repercussions as a consequence of prescribing medical marijuana.

Biotechnology research has seen a different but no less disturbing problem. According to Ron Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association, "95% of biotechnology research is funded by the industry; it's hard to get data that is independent." According to Cummins, industry funding has created a system where researchers have an interest in producing results that are favorable to the industry. Even internal warnings have gone unheeded. Dr. E. J. Matthews of the FDA Toxicology Group reported, "Genetically modified plants could . . . contain unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants." According to Dr Suzanne Wuerthele of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "This technology is being promoted in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences."

Legislative Response Lukewarm

Advocates for both issues have not only had difficulty getting a response from federal policy makers, but have also seen a lukewarm legislative response to both scientific data and to popular opinion expressed at the ballot box. Grassroots efforts in counties around California represent the infancy of a growing movement for national reforms. According to Cummins, initiatives put forward in counties are intended to build momentum to eventual statewide referendums that would lead national reforms on the regulation of biotechnology, most likely through congressional action. In a true representative democracy, this would not be an unreasonable expectation.

This was the expectation of medical marijuana advocates, who in 1996 passed a wave of initiatives decriminalizing medical marijuana on a state level. In all, 10 states, comprising a portion of not only the population but the electorate, opted to allow patients access to medical marijuana. But, unlike the expected legislative response that should be seen, according to Chris Conrad of Americans for Safe Access, "nothing has happened." Even in the face of a US Supreme Court ruling, saying that the issue of medical marijuana is best handled by the courts, the legislature to date has yet to react.

However, legislators may be slow to react against organizations and lobby groups that comprise the drug enforcement industry. Police chiefs, prosecutors, and prison guard unions, spend millions each election cycle on political campaigns; a great incentive for government not to threaten the nearly 80% of drug enforcement budgets that are spent on enforcement of cannabis- related laws instead of hard drugs. The influence shown recently by law enforcement officials over municipal medical marijuana policy in the Fresno area marks an even greater advance in a legislative monkey wrench, bringing chilling action to the local level. As recent outpourings of money into elections in San Luis Obispo have shown, the biotechnology industry has the funds to influence campaigns and candidates. Advocates of organic farming have taken notice that the biotechnology industry is willing to spend funds against consumer freedom, as grim a prospect for anti-GMO advocates as it is for the terminally ill.

Cure in the Courts?

Progress on medical marijuana issues through the courts has been seen in California largely "due to active challenge," according to Conrad; the same cannot be said for the status of medical marijuana in other states and in the eyes of the Supreme Court. Pacific Northwest states have not fared as well since passage of initiatives that decriminalized medical marijuana in 1996. Experts note that in large part this has to do with the amount of resources available to activists and with challenges that have been made to the law. However, this does not mean that other courts, especially the Supreme Court, have been as quick to react as those in California.

What may be more interesting is the inconsistent enforcement of the law shown by the Supreme Court. While the Court has yet to make a definitive ruling to stop the DEA from enforcing federal law over state law (such as law resulting from Proposition 215), homemade machine guns and pornography have found protection under the Supreme Court. Protecting constituencies important to the conservative court, citizens can now make homemade machine guns, pack them with porn, and are free to roam. However, patients and doctors have not seen the same protections from the nation's highest court. According to Conrad, the problem with the court lies less in legal ambiguity than it does with justice taking a second seat to ideology.

Biotechnology corporations have had similar good fortune in the courts, even internationally. The Canadian Supreme Court in 1999 ruled against Percy Schmeiser, a small farmer and former mayor of Bruno, Saskatchewan. Schmeiser was sued for copyright infringement by Monsanto after nearby GE canola crops produced by Monsanto migrated onto his nearby canola fields. While Schmeiser had proof that he had not planted the GE crops and that they had migrated from nearby GE crop fields, the court relied only on information obtained from tests performed by Monsanto, and ruled against Schmeiser.

Debate Over Valley Future

Optimism spurred by FDA scientists breaking silence to expose problems within the administration of assessing risk to food and drug safety has been moderated by many. Since Congress is expected to return to session and rush to protect corporations from private citizens bringing suit while increasing protections and privileges corporations receive from the courts and legislative bodies, for consumer and patient advocates, the battle seems to be uphill. For Fresno County, this seems to be especially so as national debates over food and drug regulation settle home in local life

What will become of James Mitchell and Richard Runcie now that they have challenged this machine? What will become of farmers in the Valley a decade from now? These are daunting questions about issues that will influence the future of the Valley.


About the Author:
Nicholas DeGraff is a Fresno based activist who has worked on both environmental and drug policy issues and was arrested protesting a biotechnology convention held in San Francisco, June 2004. Nicholas also comes from a five-generation farming family in Upstate NY.
§Corporate Chemical Anti-Christ
by Nicholas J. DeGraff (ndegraff [at] riseup.net)
2_organitech.jpg
Medical marijuana providers in Fresno use organic and hydroponic techniques to produce medicine for Patients without chemicals ... or soil. "If we can raise the potency and lower negative chemicals in the product, we can give relief for our patients with less side effects." Energy efficient lighting systems combined with organic methods also help reduce the environmental footprint of this group.(Photo:NjD)
§Biotech Isn't Cheaper When It Comes To This Crop
by Nicholas J. DeGraff (ndegraff [at] riseup.net)
3_growroom.jpg
Once mature, these plants will be harvested and given to patients for relief from serious and even terminal illness. Grow rooms like these help lower the cost for patients, who often times have to pay prices as high as those on the streets.(Photo:NjD)]
§Regulation Not Incarceration
by Nicholas J. DeGraff (ndegraff [at] riseup.net)
4_documents.jpg
Without identification cards or licenses through Fresno County, local growers have to work through the Bay Area to be legit. "It's hard on us and our patients."(Photo:NjD)
§Compassion Is Not A Crime
by Nicholas J. DeGraff (ndegraff [at] riseup.net)
5_card.jpg
While these Fresno care providers do everything they can to comply with the law, they have to keep in the shadows now that Fresno, Clovis, and Fresno County have passed ordinances aimed at ending their work.(Photo:NjD)
Add Your Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
karl roenfanz ( rosey )
Fri, Mar 11, 2005 11:16PM
Kurt Brown, Saint Ram Bone
Sun, Jan 2, 2005 3:25PM
NjD
Thu, Dec 23, 2004 1:20PM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network