boyd8062830485064778096h

"How can we be the cause of what's perhaps the most dramatic legal disparities in medical cannabis currently? The issue of non-profit ""sale"" of medical cannabis to qualified patients via collectives and cooperatives. There's nothing else such as 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 arrived at wholly different conclusions for the answer? First the Los Angeles District Attorney claims ""all sales are illegal"". The California State Attorney General was sure enough to create in his guidelines that ""storefront collectives could possibly be legal under state guidelines"". How could this be? After all, each attorney is looking on the ditto, right?

So precisely what is the answer? What does regulations say?

COMPASSIONATE-USE ACT 1996

Proposition 215 that was approved by the most of Californians in 1996 also it became known as the Compassionate-Use Act. The statute itself won't say anything about ""sales"" nonetheless it does speak about ""possession"", ""cultivating"", obtaining medical cannabis, about affordability and ""distribution"".

It does say that qualified patients along with their primary caregivers are not victim to criminal issues:

""(B) To ensure that patients in addition to their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the advice of an physician aren't subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.""

And it also pushes governments to help ensure ""safe and affordable access"" to medical cannabis for ""all qualified patients"".

""(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a strategy for your safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all or any patients in medical demand for marijuana.""

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

Also if all ""sales"" are illegal, each and every the Compassionate-Use Act say ""affordable""? If the patients are financially responsible to the cannabis, how can Cooley expect the currency to be 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 strategy for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to any or all patients in medical need for marijuana,"" because the Compassionate-Use Act of 1996 (Prop 215) encourages the State and Federal government to do.

The MMP improves access to 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 seem to understand is non-profit storefront Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives/Cooperatives are the distribution part of ""cultivation projects"". Just like a collective cultivation farm wouldn't have customers arrive at the farm to have their tomatoes, they would have to have their collective tomatoes at the farmer's market or distribution location-- that's how medical cannabis collective cultivations occur. Grown in a single area for safety and other reasons, then distributed at another location.

The MMP procedes speak about 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 these individually:

11357: [possession],

11358: [cultivation],

11359: [possession for sale],

11360: [""transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away""- cbdforsalenearme.com or purports to or attempts to accomplish any of those],

11366: [Every individual who opens or maintains any place for that reason for unlawfully selling, giving out, or using any controlled substance]

11366.5 [Managing a place for manufacture, storage and/or the distribution of the controlled substance]

11570 [Every building or place used for that intent behind unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or offering any controlled substance, precursor, or analog per this division, each building or place wherein or where those acts happen, can be a nuisance which will probably be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and for which damages might be recovered, whether it can be a public or private nuisance.]

The Health and Safety Code section 11360 specifically says ""sells"". Not only that, it also 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, as well as the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate from the State of California to be able 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 apart from the cultivation just as the manufacturing of my vicodin is found apart from my pharmacy.

The Medical Marijuana Act also calls for the State Attorney General to offer guidelines associated with medical cannabis:

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

And that just what State Attorney General, Jerry Brown did in the 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 law enforcements do their jobs in accordance with State law and to assist patients understand those laws.

The guidelines state non-profit storefront Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives and Cooperatives could be legal under state guidelines should they followed the policies as well as the above laws.

""It is the opinion of the Office which a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medicinal marijuana via a storefront may be lawful under California law""

The State Attorney General confirms what regulations says. The Attorney General is the highest-ranking legal employee from the State of California. His office also taken care of immediately the issues raised in Los Angeles by City Attorney's office.

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

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

So so what can the courts say?

PEOPLE v. MENTCH

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

Mentch had 82 marijuana plants growing in their home and that he sold the medicine to five individuals who came to his home while using primary intent behind buying cannabis. The most of the plants in Mentch's home belonged to him while he testified. Their operations was not a collective or possibly a cooperative nor a storefront. Mentch owned Hemporium, a for-profit care giving and consultancy business, not just a non-profit collective or a cooperative.

Based from the evidence the courts concluded that Mentch's operation was primarily a for-profit commercial venture and had not been a primary caregiver for all those he supplied medical cannabis to from his home-based business. I've written relating to this detailed here.

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

Now the Los Angeles District Attorney must obey the law and also the will from the people preventing 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 statements to not have the resources to address.

"