The Hemperor, Jack Herer has Died
Bonnie King Salem-News.com
Jack Herer
June 18, 1939 – April 15, 2010
Jack Herer
The one and only Jack Herer will be missed forever
The global cannabis community mourns the loss of the great Jack Herer.
(SALEM, Ore.) - The sad news has been confirmed. Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes and renowned around the world for hemp activism, has died at 11:17 a.m. today, in Eugene, Oregon.
Jack Herer suffered a heart attack last September just after speaking on stage at the Portland HempStalk festival. The last seven months have proven to be a huge challenge to the man, with several health issues making his recovery complicated.
Jack Herer's health has been poor lately, this last week there have been reports of the severity, and an outpouring of prayers on his behalf.
"It's shocking news, even after these last seven, trying months," said Paul Stanford, THCF Executive Director.
"Jack Herer has been a good friend and associate of mine for over 30 years. I was there when he had the heart attack at our Hempstalk festival and I know he wouldn’t appreciate the quality of life he's endured these last months. Still he will be greatly missed. I honor his memory."
"No other single person has done more to educate people all across the world about industrial hemp and marijuana as Jack Herer. His book is translated into a dozen different languages, it's a bestseller in Germany," added Stanford.
"The Hempstalk stage will forever be the Jack Herer Memorial stage. And, a Memorial is planned to be built where he fell that day," Stanford said.
"His legacy will continue to inspire and encourage for generations to come."
Jack HererJune 18, 1939 – April 15, 2010
ARCHIVE of recent Salem-News.com reports about Jack Herer:
Marijuana Author Jack Herer Collapses After Stage Appearance at Portland Hempstalk (9/13/09)
Supporters of Jack Herer Say They're Focusing on the Positive (9/14/09)
Jack Herer Continues to Fight for His Life -- Donation Fund Formed (9/17/09)
Hemp Guru Jack Herer's Condition Critical But Stable (9/19/09)
Portland Media Group Releases False Report About Jack Herer's Death (9/19/09)
Dr. Phil Leveque Comments on Jack Herer's Recent Heart Attack (9/23/09)
The Hemperor Jack Herer Shows Slight Progress in Oregon Hospital (9/27/09)
Jack Herer Strives To Recover While The Fight For Hemp Goes On (10/13/09)
Jack Herer: A Man Well-Loved is Saved Again (11/2/09)
Jack Herer Benefit Event Tonight at Village Ballroom in Portland (12/3/09)
JACK, JACK: Who's Got Your Back? (12/21/09)
The Story of Jack Herer and Hempstalk VIDEO (12/24/09)
================================================
Bonnie King has been with Salem-News.com since August '04, when she became Publisher. Bonnie has served in a number of positions in the broadcast industry; TV Production Manager at KVWB (Las Vegas WB) and Producer/Director for the TV series "Hot Wheels in Las Vegas", posts as TV Promotion Director for KYMA (NBC), and KFBT (Ind.), Asst. Marketing Director (SUPERSHOPPER MAGAZINE), Director/Co-Host (Coast Entertainment Show), Radio Promotion Director (KBCH/KCRF), and Newspapers In Education/Circulation Sales Manager (STATESMAN JOURNAL NEWSPAPER). Bonnie has a depth of understanding that reaches further than just behind the scenes, and that thoroughness is demonstrated in the perseverance to correctly present each story with the wit and wisdom necessary to compel and captivate viewers.
View articles written by Bonnie King
Friday, April 16, 2010
Monday, September 21, 2009
Pot Sales Go Legit!!
pot sales go legit is the title for money.com although don't get too comfortable as they are still doing raids with federal resources and involvement in San Diego and LA area. They have targeted over 30 clubs...updates coming soon. Here is the news from the fully legit or longterm bay area club founders:) thanks Mr. Lee
Friday, September 11, 2009
MS PATIENT PUNISHED FOR MEDICAL POT
AN MS PATIENT WAS PUNISHED BELOW FOR HIS CHOICE OF MEDICAL CANNABIS....
WE WILL EDUCATE AND HELP GAIN AWARENESS TO THIS AS WELL AS MANY OTHER ISSUES SURROUNDING MEDICAL CANNABIS BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE...PLEASE EMAIL US STORIES.
THIS BRINGS TO MIND THE MANY NEEDS, DEMANDS AND NEW EXPANDED CANNABIS SERVICES WHICH CA CANNABIS CAREGIVERS SHOULD OFFER TO PATIENTS...
WE WILL EDUCATE AND HELP GAIN AWARENESS TO THIS AS WELL AS MANY OTHER ISSUES SURROUNDING MEDICAL CANNABIS BOTH NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE...PLEASE EMAIL US STORIES.
THIS BRINGS TO MIND THE MANY NEEDS, DEMANDS AND NEW EXPANDED CANNABIS SERVICES WHICH CA CANNABIS CAREGIVERS SHOULD OFFER TO PATIENTS...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
"TIME TO IGNITE" WITH THE PURPLE DANK ENERGY HEMP INFUSION THE HEALTHIEST ENERGY DRINK WITH OMEGA 3 AND 6(EFA'S)GUARANA AND YERBA MATE GREEN TEA
"TIME TO IGNITE" WITH THE PURPLE DANK ENERGY HEMP INFUSION THE HEALTHIEST ENERGY DRINK WITH OMEGA 3 AND 6(EFA'S)GUARANA AND YERBA MATE GREEN TEA ANYTIME,ANYWHERE ...ITS ALWAYS 420 SOMEWHERE
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
For Immediate Release: July 1st, 2009
Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
Appellate court protects collective cultivation and affirms civil actions by patients
Sacramento, CA -- The California Third District Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling today on the right under state law of patients to collectively cultivate. The 2-1 appellate court decision stems from the case County of Butte v. Superior Court involving a private medical marijuana collective of 7 patients in Paradise, California. The nationwide advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit in May 2006 on behalf of 56-year-old David Williams and six other collective members after a 2005 warrantless search of his home. Williams was forced by the Butte County Sheriff to uproot more than two-dozen plants or face arrest and prosecution. Contrary to state law, which allows for collective cultivation, Williams was told by the Sheriff that it was not lawful to grow collectively for multiple patients.
"This ruling by the California Courts sends yet another strong message to state law enforcement that they must abide by the medical marijuana laws of the state and not the competing federal laws," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel and the attorney that litigated the case on behalf of Williams. Today's appellate court ruling affirmed this position by concluding that, "the deputy was acting under color of California law, not federal law. Accordingly, the propriety of his conduct is measured by California law."
The appellate court also stated that to deny patients protection from warrantless intrusions and seizures by law enforcement "would surely shock the sensibilities of the voters who approved [Proposition 215]." Especially worthy of note is the appellate court's assertion that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is not simply an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions, but "...we see an opportunity for an individual to request the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals, no matter what their status, under the state Constitution. The fact that this case involves medical marijuana and a qualified medical marijuana patient does not change these fundamental constitutional rights or an individual's right to assert them."
Today's appellate court decision upholds Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts' ruling from September 2007, in which she states that seriously ill patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." Judge Roberts' ruling also rejected Butte County's policy of requiring all members to physically participate in the cultivation, thereby allowing collective members to "contribute financially."
Even in his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeal Judge James Morrison stated that, "the United States Congress should reconsider its refusal to amend the federal drug laws to make reasonable accommodation for the 13 states that have enacted some form of compassionate use exception to their penal codes."
ASA was compelled to file the Williams lawsuit after receiving repeated reports of unlawful behavior by Butte County law enforcement, as well as by other police agencies throughout the state. After uncovering Butte County's de facto ban on medical marijuana patient collectives, ASA decided to pursue the case to show that collectives and cooperatives are protected under state law. "In addition to protecting patients' right to collectively cultivate, the Court has reaffirmed that medical marijuana patients enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else, including the ability to file civil rights actions when those rights are violated," continued Elford.
Further information:
Today's ruling by the California Third District Court of Appeal: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Butte_Appellate_Decision.pdf
Information on Butte Case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Butte
Landmark Ruling Issued on Collective Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
Appellate court protects collective cultivation and affirms civil actions by patients
Sacramento, CA -- The California Third District Court of Appeal issued a landmark ruling today on the right under state law of patients to collectively cultivate. The 2-1 appellate court decision stems from the case County of Butte v. Superior Court involving a private medical marijuana collective of 7 patients in Paradise, California. The nationwide advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a lawsuit in May 2006 on behalf of 56-year-old David Williams and six other collective members after a 2005 warrantless search of his home. Williams was forced by the Butte County Sheriff to uproot more than two-dozen plants or face arrest and prosecution. Contrary to state law, which allows for collective cultivation, Williams was told by the Sheriff that it was not lawful to grow collectively for multiple patients.
"This ruling by the California Courts sends yet another strong message to state law enforcement that they must abide by the medical marijuana laws of the state and not the competing federal laws," said Joe Elford, ASA Chief Counsel and the attorney that litigated the case on behalf of Williams. Today's appellate court ruling affirmed this position by concluding that, "the deputy was acting under color of California law, not federal law. Accordingly, the propriety of his conduct is measured by California law."
The appellate court also stated that to deny patients protection from warrantless intrusions and seizures by law enforcement "would surely shock the sensibilities of the voters who approved [Proposition 215]." Especially worthy of note is the appellate court's assertion that the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 is not simply an affirmative defense to criminal sanctions, but "...we see an opportunity for an individual to request the same constitutional guarantee of due process available to all individuals, no matter what their status, under the state Constitution. The fact that this case involves medical marijuana and a qualified medical marijuana patient does not change these fundamental constitutional rights or an individual's right to assert them."
Today's appellate court decision upholds Butte County Superior Court Judge Barbara Roberts' ruling from September 2007, in which she states that seriously ill patients cultivating collectively "should not be required to risk criminal penalties and the stress and expense of a criminal trial in order to assert their rights." Judge Roberts' ruling also rejected Butte County's policy of requiring all members to physically participate in the cultivation, thereby allowing collective members to "contribute financially."
Even in his dissenting opinion, Court of Appeal Judge James Morrison stated that, "the United States Congress should reconsider its refusal to amend the federal drug laws to make reasonable accommodation for the 13 states that have enacted some form of compassionate use exception to their penal codes."
ASA was compelled to file the Williams lawsuit after receiving repeated reports of unlawful behavior by Butte County law enforcement, as well as by other police agencies throughout the state. After uncovering Butte County's de facto ban on medical marijuana patient collectives, ASA decided to pursue the case to show that collectives and cooperatives are protected under state law. "In addition to protecting patients' right to collectively cultivate, the Court has reaffirmed that medical marijuana patients enjoy the same constitutional rights as everyone else, including the ability to file civil rights actions when those rights are violated," continued Elford.
Further information:
Today's ruling by the California Third District Court of Appeal: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Butte_Appellate_Decision.pdf
Information on Butte Case: http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/Butte
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Court Strikes Down SB420 Limits
Court Strikes Down SB420 Limits
Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.
In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more. (Text of Kelly decision).
The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has been addressed by an appellate court.
In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
The full implications of the Kelly decision remain unclear. In particular, it is not clear whether it rules out the use of SB 420 numbers as guidelines to protect patients with state ID cards from arrest. The court's reasoning would seem to apply only when the SB 420 numbers are used to limit patients' rights, not when they are used to protect them. However, the court's sweeping pronouncement that this section of SB 420 is "unconstitutional" might be interpreted otherwise by police who would prefer to ignore it. Further litigation therefore seems likely.
Ironically, the court noted that the constitutional problems in SB 420 could have been avoided by enactment of Sen. Vasconcellos' proposed "SB 420 Clean-Up" bill SB 1494 in 2004. That bill made it clear that qualified patients could legally possess whatever amount of marijuana was consistent with their needs. However, SB 1494 was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on the grounds it removed "reasonable and established quantity guidelines."
One incidental casualty of the Kelly decision was Mendocino's Measure B anti-pot initiative, aimed at rolling back the county's limits for medical marijuana cultivation from 25 to 6 plants. Measure B specifically cites the clause in SB 420 that was struck down in the Kelly decision, H&SC 11362.77. Measure B therefore appears to rest on invalid law, making it vulnerable to legal and political challenge.
The Attorney General's office announced that it would appeal the Kelly ruling.
Text of the Kelly decision
UPDATE 8/14/08 - State top court to review medical pot limit
Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional.
In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned defendant's conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not have a doctor's recommendation authorizing more. (Text of Kelly decision).
The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has been addressed by an appellate court.
In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: "The prosecutor's argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters' approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA." The decision is certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court.
The full implications of the Kelly decision remain unclear. In particular, it is not clear whether it rules out the use of SB 420 numbers as guidelines to protect patients with state ID cards from arrest. The court's reasoning would seem to apply only when the SB 420 numbers are used to limit patients' rights, not when they are used to protect them. However, the court's sweeping pronouncement that this section of SB 420 is "unconstitutional" might be interpreted otherwise by police who would prefer to ignore it. Further litigation therefore seems likely.
Ironically, the court noted that the constitutional problems in SB 420 could have been avoided by enactment of Sen. Vasconcellos' proposed "SB 420 Clean-Up" bill SB 1494 in 2004. That bill made it clear that qualified patients could legally possess whatever amount of marijuana was consistent with their needs. However, SB 1494 was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger on the grounds it removed "reasonable and established quantity guidelines."
One incidental casualty of the Kelly decision was Mendocino's Measure B anti-pot initiative, aimed at rolling back the county's limits for medical marijuana cultivation from 25 to 6 plants. Measure B specifically cites the clause in SB 420 that was struck down in the Kelly decision, H&SC 11362.77. Measure B therefore appears to rest on invalid law, making it vulnerable to legal and political challenge.
The Attorney General's office announced that it would appeal the Kelly ruling.
Text of the Kelly decision
UPDATE 8/14/08 - State top court to review medical pot limit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
