maci0022038445866788497l

"How can we are the cause of precisely what is perhaps just about the most dramatic legal disparities in medical cannabis thus far? The issue of non-profit ""sale"" of medical cannabis to qualified patients via collectives and cooperatives. There's nothing else similar to this dispute. What do the pros say about it anyway?

Steve Cooley, The Los Angeles District Attorney, disagrees with Jerry Brown, the California State Attorney General.

How could two prominent state-employed attorneys visit wholly different conclusions about the answer? First the Los Angeles District Attorney claims ""all sales are illegal"". The California State Attorney General was sure enough to write down in his guidelines that ""storefront collectives could possibly be legal under state guiidelines"". How could this be? After all, each attorney is looking at the same thing, right?

So what's the answer? What does legislation say?

COMPASSIONATE-USE ACT 1996

Proposition 215 which was approved by way of a most Californians in 1996 and yes it became referred to as the Compassionate-Use Act. The statute itself won't say anything about ""sales"" however it does mention ""possession"", ""cultivating"", obtaining medical cannabis, about affordability and ""distribution"".

It does claim that qualified patients and their primary caregivers will never be victim to criminal issues:

""(B) To ensure that patients as well as their primary caregivers who obtain and employ marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendations of an physician usually are not susceptible to criminal prosecution or sanction.""

And additionally, it pushes governments to aid ensure ""safe and affordable access"" to medical cannabis for ""all qualified patients"".

""(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement an idea to the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to everyone patients in medical demand for marijuana.""

The Los Angeles District Attorney, Steve Cooley, had State and Federal law enforcement agents raid a medical cannabis collective and arrest a minimum of 3 people, the week before Christmas. He insists ""all sales are illegal"". This appears to be up against the letter and spirit of the law, not the mention the spirit of the season.

Also if all ""sales"" are illegal, how does the Compassionate-Use Act say ""affordable""? If the patients are financially responsible for the cannabis, how does Cooley expect the currency being exchanged? What's wrong with incremental reimbursements?

MEDICAL MARIJUANA PROGRAM OF 2004

The Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) arrived to law in 2004 from the legislative approval of Senate Bill 420. It was the state's attempt ""to implement a plan for that safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all or any patients in medical demand for marijuana,"" as the Compassionate-Use Act of 1996 (Prop 215) encourages the State and Federal government to complete.

The MMP improves usage of medical cannabis for qualified patients by approving collectives and cooperatives.

""(3) Enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects.""

What Steve Cooley doesn't apparently understand is non-profit storefront Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives/Cooperatives would be the distribution part of ""cultivation projects"". Just like a collective cultivation farm wouldn't have customers come to the farm to have their tomatoes, they would have to get their collective tomatoes at a farmer's market or distribution location-- that's how medical cannabis collective cultivations occur. Grown in a place for safety as well as other reasons, then distributed at another location.

The MMP goes on to discuss all the criminal statutes that qualified patients and primary caregivers are exempt from. In section 11362.765, it says: ""shall not subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.""

Let's examine each one of these individually:

11357: [possession],

11358: [cultivation],

11359: [possession for sale],

11360: [""transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away""- or offers to or attempts to perform any of those],

11366: [Every individual that opens or maintains any where for that intent behind unlawfully selling, handing out, or using any controlled substance]

11366.5 [Managing an area for manufacture, storage and/or the distribution of your controlled substance]

11570 [Every building or place used for the function of unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or handing out any controlled substance, precursor, or analog specified by this division, each building or place wherein or upon which those acts happen, can cbdforsalenearme.com be a nuisance which should be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and then for which damages may be recovered, whether it is really a public or private nuisance.]

The Health and Safety Code section 11360 specifically says ""sells"". Not only that, what's more, it says: ""gives away"" and ""furnishes"". How come the LA District Attorney's office says ""all sales are illegal"" and non-profit storefront medical cannabis dispensing collectives/cooperatives are banned?

In that same bill,

""11362.775. Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, along with the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate inside the State of California so as collectively or cooperatively to grow marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be at the mercy of state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.""

Again, it says that patients can collectively cultivate cannabis and distribute it amongst themselves for non-profit. Again, the distribution of medical cannabis is separate from the cultivation just like the manufacturing of my vicodin can be found apart from my pharmacy.

The Medical Marijuana Act also calls for the State Attorney General to supply guidelines related to medical cannabis:

""The bill would need the Attorney General to build up and adopt guidelines to be sure the security and non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use, as specified.""

And that what exactly State Attorney General, Jerry Brown did inside late summer of 2008.

GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE August 2008

To fulfill his mandate, the State Attorney General release these guidelines to help you law enforcements do their jobs based on State law and to help you patients understand those laws.

The guidelines state non-profit storefront Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives and Cooperatives might be legal under state guidelines if they followed the principles and the above laws.

""It will be the opinion of the Office which a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical cannabis via a storefront might be lawful under California law""

The State Attorney General confirms what what the law states says. The Attorney General could be the highest-ranking legal employee from the State of California. His office also replied to the problems raised in Los Angeles by City Attorney's office.

According for the New York Times on October 17: Christine Gasparac, a spokeswoman for State Attorney General Jerry Brown, asserted after Mr. Trutanich's comments in Los Angeles, police force officials and advocates from across the state had called seeking clarity on medicinal marijuana laws.

Mr. Brown has issued regulations which facilitate nonprofit sales of medical marijuana, she said. But, she added, with laws being interpreted differently, ""the final answer could eventually come from the courts.""

So what do the courts say?

PEOPLE v. MENTCH

The District Attorney's office would have you believe that the Mentch decision outlaws non-profit storefront Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives/Cooperatives and makes ""all sales illegal"" but that decision has to perform while using definition of ""primary caregiver"" not sales.

Mentch had 82 marijuana plants growing as part of his home anf the husband sold the medicine to five those who located his home with the primary intent behind buying cannabis. The most the plants in Mentch's home belonged to him as he testified. Their operations wasn't a collective or even a cooperative nor an outlet. Mentch owned Hemporium, a for-profit care giving and consultancy business, not a non-profit collective or a cooperative.

Based from the evidence the courts figured that Mentch's operation was primarily a for-profit commercial venture anf the husband has not been a primary caregiver for those he supplied medical cannabis to from his home based business. I've written relating to this in depth here.

So there you might have what are the courts say, just what the State Attorney says, and what are the laws say; all confirm non-profit storefront dispensing of medical cannabis may be legal under State law.

Now the Los Angeles District Attorney must obey legislation along with the will from the people which will help prevent wasting time and resources to hurt medical cannabis patients especially right before Christmas. Especially when you can find over 7,000 untested rape kits that this District Attorney claims to not need the resources to address.

"