gina7032638425061738299t

"How can we take into account what exactly is perhaps probably the most dramatic legal disparities in medical cannabis up to now? 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 experts say concerning this anyway?

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

How could two prominent state-employed attorneys come to 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 create as part of his guidelines that ""storefront collectives could possibly be legal under state guiidelines"". How could this be? After all, each attorney is looking at the ditto, right?

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

COMPASSIONATE-USE ACT 1996

Proposition 215 that was approved by a tastes Californians in 1996 also it became known as the Compassionate-Use Act. The statute itself will not say anything about ""sales"" however it does discuss ""possession"", ""cultivating"", obtaining medical cannabis, about affordability and ""distribution"".

It does say that qualified patients as well as their primary caregivers will not be victim to criminal issues:

""(B) To ensure that patients in addition to their primary caregivers who obtain and employ marijuana for medical purposes upon counsel of the physician are certainly not be subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.""

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

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

The Los Angeles District Attorney, Steve Cooley, had State and Federal police officers agents raid a medical cannabis collective and arrest at least 3 people, the week before Christmas. He insists ""all sales are illegal"". This seems to be from the letter and spirit of legislation, 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 that cannabis, how does 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 an idea for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to any or all patients in medical need of marijuana,"" as the Compassionate-Use Act of 1996 (Prop 215) encourages the State and Federal government to do.

The MMP improves entry to medical cannabis for qualified patients by approving collectives and cooperatives.

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

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

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

Let's take a look at each of these one by one:

11357: [possession],

11358: [cultivation],

11359: [possession for sale],

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

11366: [Every individual who opens or maintains any where to the reason for unlawfully selling, handing out, or using any controlled substance]

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

11570 [Every building or place used to the reason for unlawfully selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away any controlled substance, precursor, or analog specified by this division, and every building or place wherein or on which those acts occur, is a nuisance which should be enjoined, abated, and prevented, and then for which damages could possibly be recovered, whether it is really a public or private nuisance.]

The Health and Safety Code section 11360 specifically says ""sells"". Not only that, in addition, 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, and also 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 cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely for 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 as the manufacturing of my vicodin can be found separate from my pharmacy.

The Medical Marijuana Act also calls on the State Attorney General to provide guidelines linked to 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 what exactly 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 the following tips to help you law enforcements do their jobs in accordance with State law and to help patients understand those laws.

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

""It may be the opinion of this Office that the properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical cannabis through a storefront could be lawful under California law""

The State Attorney General confirms what regulations says. The Attorney General could be the highest-ranking legal employee with the State of California. His office also taken care of immediately 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, law enforcement officials officials and advocates from throughout the state had called seeking clarity on medical cannabis laws.

Mr. Brown has issued legal guidelines which facilitate nonprofit sales cbdforsalenearme.com of medicinal marijuana, she said. But, she added, with laws being interpreted differently, ""the final answer will ultimately come from the courts.""

So so what can the courts say?

PEOPLE v. MENTCH

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

Mentch had 82 marijuana plants growing as part of his home and the man sold the medicine to five people that came to his home using the primary intent behind buying cannabis. The tastes the plants in Mentch's home belonged to him because he testified. Their operations was not a collective or even a cooperative nor a store. Mentch owned Hemporium, a for-profit care giving and consultancy business, not just a non-profit collective or perhaps a cooperative.

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

So there you have what the courts say, just what the State Attorney says, and exactly what 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 along with the will of the people and prevent wasting time and resources to hurt medical cannabis patients especially just before Christmas. Especially when you'll find over 7,000 untested rape kits that the District Attorney claims to not have access to the resources to handle.

"