State Won't Certify Organic MJ

(This story also ran on California NPR radio stations)
http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050303/NEWS/503030302/1033/NEWS01
State: Pot can't be certified organic

Mendocino County can advise on pesticide use

Thursday, March 3, 2005

By Glenda Anderson
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT (SANTA ROSA, CA)
ganderson [at] pressdemocrat.com

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.