Jump to content



                        Please Visit Our Paid Sponsors



Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Lawyers Debate What’S A Med Pot Collective..

medical cannabis

7 replies to this topic

#1 DoobieDuck

DoobieDuck

    Medicine Maker

  • Seasoned Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • LocationThe Real Nothern Cal..

Posted 21 October 2012 - 08:10 AM

A little tid bit I came across yesterday. Always a bit of mis-understanding here in Cali..hope we get some clarification on this one..peace..DD

Lawyers debate what’s a med pot collective
From U-T San Diego News
http://www.utsandieg....cal-marijuana/
Oct. 20th
SAN DIEGO — California’s medical marijuana laws have been on the books for years, but quite a bit of dissension — and perhaps, confusion — persists among the respective groups who interpret and enforce them.
Recent filings in a San Diego appellate court case show that the county’s district attorney and the state’s attorney general have a somewhat different understanding of the statutes.
Both agree that the law allows qualified patients to obtain and use medical marijuana through “collective, cooperative cultivation projects,” not retail businesses.
But the District Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted Jovan Jackson, manager of a now-defunct storefront dispensary in Kearny Mesa, adheres to a more literal interpretation of that language.
In short: To use medical marijuana, a patient (or primary caregiver) has to grow it.
“We see the word ‘cultivation’ and we say that’s the activity that’s protected,” said Deputy District Attorney Chris Lindberg, who submitted a friend of the court brief to the state 4th District Court of Appeal in the Jackson case.
The attorney general takes a more expansive point of view, Lindberg said. That office argues not every patient or caregiver involved in a collective or cooperative cultivation project has to personally participate in marijuana farming.
Although the laws don’t specifically refer to storefront dispensaries, they aren’t necessarily prohibited, according to court documents. They could be legal if they operate on a nonprofit basis and don’t distribute marijuana outside of a specified group, among other requirements.
But dispensaries that merely require patients to complete a form designating the business owner as their primary caregiver and then offer marijuana in exchange for cash “donations” are likely illegal, according to attorney general guidelines.
In 2010, Jackson was convicted in San Diego Superior Court of illegally possessing and selling marijuana through the Answerdam Alternative Care collective. The case is now under appeal.

Jackson went to trial once before on charges stemming from a 2008 undercover buy at the Answerdam storefront but was acquitted. His lawyer argued in that case that Jackson’s conduct was protected under the state’s medical marijuana laws.
A second trial focused on a raid at Answerdam in September 2009. But before that trial began, Judge Howard Shore ruled that Jackson could not use the medical marijuana defense, saying those laws were meant to protect members of a collective whose primary purpose was cultivation of the drug, not distribution.
Attorney Joseph Elford of Americans for Safe Access argued in the appeal that the trial judge made a mistake by prohibiting Jackson from using his only viable defense.
Court documents show Jackson testified previously that participants in the collective signed a membership agreement stating they would contribute a gardening fee and later receive a portion of the marijuana harvest at no additional charge.
The appeals court heard oral arguments last week but has not announced a ruling.
  • Tokecrazy, bongbonghi, Desiderata and 3 others like this


                        Please Visit Our Paid Sponsors



#2 KnuckleDragger

KnuckleDragger

    Destroyer of Worlds

  • Super Administrators
  • 21381 posts
  • LocationTexas, The one and only

Posted 21 October 2012 - 08:19 AM

Yeah, that's what we need... more lawyers.
  • Tokecrazy, bongbonghi, teddys head and 1 other like this

#3 Papaw49

Papaw49

    Master Gardener

  • Seasoned Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5641 posts

Posted 25 October 2012 - 01:05 AM

WooHoo another case goes our way http://safeaccessnow...a-in-san-diego/
  • bongbonghi and teddys head like this

#4 teddys head

teddys head

    International turf cutter ,Deanta in Eirinn

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11501 posts
  • Locationsan Eireann

Posted 26 October 2012 - 04:13 AM

WooHoo another case goes our way

http://safeaccessnow...a-in-san-diego/


:super:


Health and happiness
  • bongbonghi likes this

#5 BigPapa

BigPapa

    Teaching to grow

  • Seasoned Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 973 posts
  • LocationNevada

Posted 26 October 2012 - 07:59 AM

the AG of California described what a collective is..... it was to be a NON-PROFIT, NON STORE FRONT place where patients could gather together and grow their medicine and share their overages (cost cannot go above cost of the grow). Here is a copy of the guideline. And NOT ONE of the dispensaries formed followed the letter of the law. EVERY dispensary made profit and the powers that be didn't get their full cut. That's is what really irked them.
i do not feel sorry for the store front that chose to take advantage of the sick and poor. The ones who needed the MEDICINE the most were ignored and then they begged the ones they took advantage of to vote in their favor and help them stay open.... now why should we do that? Here is a copy of the AG guidelines/ WAMM was one of the best collective running and they shut them down too. i'm still scratchin my head over that one.
website showing the new 2011 AG guidelines...
http://www.tokeofthe...leaked_read.php
  • bongbonghi and teddys head like this

#6 DoobieDuck

DoobieDuck

    Medicine Maker

  • Seasoned Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • LocationThe Real Nothern Cal..

Posted 27 October 2012 - 07:53 AM

Papaw good find, that story is also here at GP: Landmark Decision Big P I'm in agreement on some of that ^ ^...I see a lot of dispensaries and collectives that are being shut down because they are clearly in violation. Yet the laws are still not clearly defined so I'm sympathetic, The case Papaw mentions will help with that. There are some good things happening now and those of us supporting people like ASA see our donations making an impact. Cheers..DD
  • bongbonghi and teddys head like this

#7 KnuckleDragger

KnuckleDragger

    Destroyer of Worlds

  • Super Administrators
  • 21381 posts
  • LocationTexas, The one and only

Posted 28 October 2012 - 05:18 PM

Cali's law really does need to be rewritten except for the small problem of it likely being rewritten by the same idiots who messed it up the first time.
  • bongbonghi likes this

#8 DoobieDuck

DoobieDuck

    Medicine Maker

  • Seasoned Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 436 posts
  • LocationThe Real Nothern Cal..

Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:50 AM

Cali's law really does need to be rewritten except for the small problem of it likely being rewritten by the same idiots who messed it up the first time.

Despite its issues the law has helped to thousands of patients including me. I think the Peeps that drafted the original had good intentions and those have provided a tremendous relief to the suffering. I'll take the good over the bad when I know it takes time to get legislation right. I've rarely seen a law done right the first time.Peace..DD.

Edited by DoobieDuck, 29 October 2012 - 08:51 AM.

  • Blue61 likes this



Reply to this topic



  



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: medical cannabis

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users