Hash Penalties?

[deltronZER0]

My buddy recently got busted by the cops for having some hash from the clubs. (he's medical)
and instead if him telling them to get fucked, hes in serious trouble, i.e. felony drug charges.
are there laws that I'm not aware of that would allow a med user to be arrested for having hash?

 

[kinger]

I heard hash=felony.,because it is manufactured?
I dont know the whole story but that is what I know
kinger

 

[PAGreen]

There's been a recent court decision Bergen v CA I beleive that held that Butane or ISO hash are illegal because of the potential danger in their manufacture. LEO have been arresting patients all over the state for having even small amounts of hash. Be careful if you are transporting hash.
Peace.

 

[deltronZER0]

so whatre the rules on keef catching grinders though?
I'd consider that manufacture of hash even though, keef is just hash before it's been processed

 

[theBluntedOne]

i was convicted of felony possesion of hashish ( concentrated cannabis ) even though i was an am still a medical user. They fucked me though b/c it was my first time in the sytem Aand i didnt know what was up. After i was down i realized that they will fuck you know matter what the public pretender, im sorry defender says.

 

[HairlessCaveApe]

The way the law seems, you'd have to say you found the Hash. They say you cant make it but they dont say you cant have it. Smater o fact, acordin to them you can have as many pounds of Hash as you can of herb. They make no distinction. Your allowed 8 oz per patient, of Hash or Herb.

 

[Jalisco Kid]

I may be passing around another urban myth but I am almost sure that it is againest federal law to posess concentrates. Having pounds of it could get you a long vacation. Suerte JK

 

[meduser180056]

Here's from canorml.org. In the attorney generals clarifications to prop 215 hash is considered to fall under prop 215.

WHAT OFFENSES HAVE A MEDICAL EXCEPTION?
Prop. 215 explicitly covers marijuana possession and cultivation (Health and Safety Code Sections 11357 and 11358) for personal medical use. Hashish and concentrated cannabis, including edibles, (HSC 11357a) are also included..


A.G. Rules Hashish Included under Prop 215



October 21, 2003. In a written opinion, Attorney General Lockyer ruled that Prop 215 protects use of hashish and concentrated cannabis.



The opinion, No. 03-411, was prepared for Lockyer by Deputy Attorney General Gregory L. Gonot.



Full text of opinion.

Official Summary: 03-411


Concentrated cannabis or hashish is included within the meaning of „marijuana¾ as that term is used in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

The above is information from canorml.org.

Basically it's legal, but I know people have gotten in trouble for making BHO. I think it's cuz they add butane so they consider it different somehow. Waterhash has nothing added though.

Anyhow it seems like hash is intended to fall under 215.

 

[Whatever]

From what I understand something like bubble or sifted is OK but when you start to get into BHO or alcohol extracts you start to get into trouble but problem there is how can LEO determine which is which sometimes? I know something like BHO is easy to identify but they're actually pretty clueless about how to tell the difference sometimes.

 

[HairlessCaveApe]

Aint that just fukkin nuts tho? I can have 8 oz's of Herb in my piknik basket or 8 oz's of Hash. Hash for me please!

 

[kmk420kali]

Here's from canorml.org. In the attorney generals clarifications to prop 215 hash is considered to fall under prop 215.

WHAT OFFENSES HAVE A MEDICAL EXCEPTION?
Prop. 215 explicitly covers marijuana possession and cultivation (Health and Safety Code Sections 11357 and 11358) for personal medical use. Hashish and concentrated cannabis, including edibles, (HSC 11357a) are also included..


A.G. Rules Hashish Included under Prop 215



October 21, 2003. In a written opinion, Attorney General Lockyer ruled that Prop 215 protects use of hashish and concentrated cannabis.



The opinion, No. 03-411, was prepared for Lockyer by Deputy Attorney General Gregory L. Gonot.



Full text of opinion.

Official Summary: 03-411


Concentrated cannabis or hashish is included within the meaning of „marijuana¾ as that term is used in the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

The above is information from canorml.org.

Basically it's legal, but I know people have gotten in trouble for making BHO. I think it's cuz they add butane so they consider it different somehow. Waterhash has nothing added though.

Anyhow it seems like hash is intended to fall under 215.

Thank you...that is directly on-point--
My son just recently got arrested for an eighth of weed, and a gram of hash-- They used the hash to file as a felony--
He had a Med Card (expired), so they said it was no good--
I showed up at his arraignment, and showed his PD his Original Recommendation...which the cops said in the police report...was "Apparently Fraudulent--", and he said it was expried...so I handed him this....

Medical Marijuana:
People v. Windus (July 30, 2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 634
Rule: A physician's recommendation for a patient to use medical marijuana does not expire even if the doctor's recommendation includes a requirement that the patient return periodically for reevaluation. It is also not necessary that the physician's recommendation include permission to possess more marijuana than the statutorily set limits when the doctor later testifies that the patient does in fact require more. A person who does no more than supply another with marijuana and occasionally visit him does not qualify as a "caregiver," per H&S § 11352.5(e).
Facts: Redondo Beach police officers executed a search warrant on defendant's room at the Palos Verdes Inn. The search resulted in the recovery of a total of 1.6 pounds (735.2 grams) of marijuana, almost all of which was in three separate plastic bags. Defendant told officers that he used the marijuana for medical purposes; i.e., chronic back pain. A narcotics expert, however, was of the opinion that defendant possessed the marijuana for purposes of sale, per H&S § 11359. Charged in state court with this offense, defendant proposed to present the testimony of a physician, Dr. William Eidleman, that he had in fact consulted with the doctor for back pain in 1999 and 2001, and that the doctor had authorized him to use marijuana to ease the discomfort of this ailment. However, the doctor did not recommend any specific amount of marijuana. Also, defendant was instructed to return annually for reevaluation. When defendant was arrested in this case in December, 2004, he hadn't seen the doctor for over three years, although he revisited the doctor after his arrest in 2005. At that time, Dr. Eidleman opined that defendant's condition was the same as it had been in 2004. Defendant further proposed to present evidence that he ate marijuana, instead of smoking it, and that eating marijuana requires four to eight times as much of the stuff to achieve the same results as smoking it. In Dr. Eidleman's opinion, it would be reasonable for defendant to possess from three to six pounds at any one time. Defendant also proposed to present evidence that he qualified as the "caregiver" for another individual who used marijuana for neuropathy and AIDS. This individual, however, indicated that defendant was but one of five caregivers who assisted him. Defendant provided this individual with a pound of marijuana once a month, giving it to him for free, and occasionally gave him money. Defendant's only job was to make sure this person had his medicine and to occasionally drive him to his aunt's or his mother's house. Defendant would provide these services to him whenever defendant was in San Francisco, where the individual lived. This person thought defendant himself lived in either Oregon or Los Angeles. The trial court refused to allow defendant to present this evidence to a jury. Defendant therefore entered a plea of "no contest" and appealed.
Held: The Second District Court of Appeal (Div. 4) reversed, remanding the case back to the trial court to allow defendant to withdraw his plea. The "Compassionate Use Act" (CUA), H&S § 11362.5, enacted by popular vote in 1996 (Proposition 215), does not limit the amount of marijuana one may possess or cultivate in order to come within the statute. The later legislatively-enacted "Medical Marijuana Program" (MMP), passed in 2003, set a presumptive limit on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient or primary caregiver could possess; i.e., not more than eight ounces of dried marijuana or more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants. (H&S § 11362.77) However, the statute also provides that a person may possess more marijuana with a doctor's recommendation if this quantity does not meet the patient's medical needs. (H&S § 11362.77(a) & (b)). Defendant argued on appeal that there was no requirement that the doctor's recommendation to use marijuana, as described in section 11362.5, include permission to possess more than eight ounces, and the fact that the doctor was ready to testify that defendant himself needed more was sufficient to allow defendant to present this defense to a jury. The Court agreed. The statutes only require that defendant have a physician's recommendation to use marijuana for a specified ailment. It does not contain a requirement that the doctor also include a specific amount that may be possessed. With the doctor ready to testify that the amount of marijuana defendant possessed in this case was reasonable, the defendant should have been allowed to present this evidence to a jury. The trial court erred by not allowing him to do so. The Attorney General also argued that because defendant was supposed to see Dr. Eidleman once a year, but didn't, the authorization had expired. The Court also rejected this argument, noting that nothing in the statutes requires a patient to periodically renew a doctor's recommendation regarding the use of medical marijuana, or that such a recommendation ever "expires." Defendant's failure to be reevaluated once a year by Dr. Eidleman at the doctor's suggestion does not serve to invalidate a prior recommendation for marijuana use. The Court did agree, however, that defendant did not qualify as a caregiver, as that term is defined in H&S § 11362.5(e); i.e., "(T)he individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the house, health, or safety of that person." Merely providing a person with marijuana and occasionally visiting him does not meet this requirement.

Both charges were dropped--

 

[Blue Dot]

kmk420kali, but wouldn't that put places like medicann outta business?

I mean if their whole biz revolved around first-timers and not follow-ups?

Meaning there's gonna be a point where most of the people in CA who need it are gonna already have been to the doc at least once and there just won't be that many new recruits.

Last time I walked into costco to get a new pair of specs (glasses) they said my eye exam had to be within the last year (state law, I guess).

That's why they have that convienient little booth, next to the specs, to get a current eye examine and extract money from you, just like medicann.

Bye bye medicann, but I still don't believe what you posted is gonna hold up because I assume the rec you sign with a doc is like a contract and has it's own wording and even though 215 or sb420 don't mention re-evalualtion, I bet there's some clause in the medicann's (for example) wording of the rec that says the rec is null and void after 1 year. I've even heard of 6 month recs by medicann which I assume is just another way for them to bilk more money from the "patient" by requiring them to pay twice a year.

Medicanns justification of this is that the medical condition can progress and change, thus the need for re-eval, but a lot of us know our condition better than the docs and know that we have a condition that will stay with us for life.

 

[IE2KS_KUSH]

Thank you...that is directly on-point--
My son just recently got arrested for an eighth of weed, and a gram of hash-- They used the hash to file as a felony--
He had a Med Card (expired), so they said it was no good--
I showed up at his arraignment, and showed his PD his Original Recommendation...which the cops said in the police report...was "Apparently Fraudulent--", and he said it was expried...so I handed him this....
Both charges were dropped--

Are you fucking kidding me! For christ sakes, this whole post needs it's own thread, I am off to read more about this case for myself, I suggest everyone take a few minutes to and then swing back by if we find out any additional information. Can't wait to hear from some folks in the "buziness" of handing out recs to see what they have to say. I hope that what you said was true! Hell I have 2 now, I am fucking double covered.
But just like always, you are guilty until proven innocent in the socialist republic of california, so the local LEO can and will I suspect continue to harass and unjustly burden mmj users now, and make them prove it later in court.
And all of this in a state where how many people get away with no DL or Ins CONSTANTLY!!!!
What if they just started pulling everyone over, arresting them, and making them go to court to prove that their DL is valid, only after sincerely fucking with you.
That's basically the jist of what they do to many many patients in this state. Guess it's their way of saying, "Thanks for the sales tax revenue!"
Is it fucked up that we are paying people to fuck with us?

 

[deltronZER0]

anyone have a link to specific laws or cases?
I've googled and can't find anything besides sources that say hash and buds are interchangeable in terms of possession. My buddy IS in a lot of trouble, and wondering what specific laws are, so as to keep in mind for my self.

 

[kmk420kali]

anyone have a link to specific laws or cases?
I've googled and can't find anything besides sources that say hash and buds are interchangeable in terms of possession. My buddy IS in a lot of trouble, and wondering what specific laws are, so as to keep in mind for my self.

Prop. 215 explicitly covers marijuana possession and cultivation (Health and Safety Code Sections 11357 and 11358) for personal medical use. Hashish and concentrated cannabis, including edibles, (HSC 11357a) are also included.

http://www.canorml.org/prop/patientsguide.htm

It is also in the AG Guidelines-- If it is a State other than Calif...then I don't know--

Keep in mind, what he is charged with, and what is really going to happen in Court...are 2 different things--

 

[theLION]

so easy a cave man can do it

 

[deltronZER0]

hmmm curious, i wonder if theres more to the story, since the words "felony drug charges" have been flying around regarding it

 

[meduser180056]

Yeah well if he has a recommendation and he got caught with some hash he bought from a club he should be ok unless he said something stupid to the cop. There may be more to the story, but maybe not.

I could see a cop trying to get a charge on that, but if your friend doesn't self incriminate himself and there isn't more to the story that we don't know about a charge like that should get dropped no problem.

 

[kmk420kali]

I was amazed and somewhat amused, to find out that most cops, and even the Courts...are not aware that concentrates are covered by 215--
This will be dropped in Court...but tell your friend to make sure he takes in his rec, and a printed out copy of 215, highlighting the part about concentrates--

 

[B. Self Reliant]

As we all know, the LEO's in CA still arrest people with Dr recommendations, and the DA's still charge them. It's all a matter of what they feel like doing at the time. Don't get me wrong, I'd feel better knowing it was covered by Prop 2154 as well, but as we've seen in the past, that isn't always good enough.

I know two people with legit Dr prescriptions, both who live in Ventura, who were charged with possession of concentrates. Granted, Ventura is not exactly a cannabis-friendly county or city, but it still happened.

I don't think anyone would consider you paranoid if you exercised extra caution when transporting extracts/concentrates.