Obama to respond to raids?

[Blue Dot]

I don't know what the State of California writes their laws on, but I would assume it's on paper.

so you can link to me the portion of 215 that allows store-front dispensaries?

But before you decide to post, please bear in mind way back in dan lungrens days and even recently the supreme court has decided that a caregiver must be one who provides more than just cannabis to the patient so don't bother listing any dispensary that has you sign them on as a caregiver for just the distro of MJ because that isn't allowable under state law.

 

[Indica Jones]

All I know is the DEA thinks it's written on toilet paper............

 

[Bender]

I'd love to see some Cannabis legislation changes signed on Hemp paper

 

[Pirate]

But this assumes Obama can find a "Good Democrat" to take the DEA position that pays his taxes, wasn't a lobbyist, wasn't sleeping with one or didn't buy his last governmental post.

 

[Thundurkel]

Wooooo Hoooooo!! Glad to hear they are keeping their word about stopping the raids... This is a BIG step in towards better laws regarding the use of marijuana.

 

[journeyquest]

You know that the republicans will do anything they can to make this difficult like they did to Clinton. They are a relentless, ruthless bunch. They are the hawks. The supporters of the big war machine that got us into the mess were in. Im not a Democrat but side more w/them. Some good news to come out of this: i read in the paper that the county where i live wont be able to afford the flying pigs this year.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

so you can link to me the portion of 215 that allows store-front dispensaries?

But before you decide to post, please bear in mind way back in dan lungrens days and even recently the supreme court has decided that a caregiver must be one who provides more than just cannabis to the patient so don't bother listing any dispensary that has you sign them on as a caregiver for just the distro of MJ because that isn't allowable under state law.

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1601_medicalmarijuanaguidelines.pdf


There is your link. Its the guidelines provided for by the California Attorney General, who last time I checked was the head cop in California...

There is a section on taxation

D.
Taxability of Medical Marijuana Transactions.
In February 2007, the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) issued a Special
Notice confirming its policy of taxing medical marijuana transactions, as well as its
requirement that businesses engaging in such transactions hold a Seller’s Permit.
(http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdf.) According to the Notice, having a
Seller’s Permit does not allow individuals to make unlawful sales, but instead merely
provides a way to remit any sales and use taxes due. BOE further clarified its policy in a
June 2007 Special Notice that addressed several frequently asked questions concerning
taxation of medical marijuana transactions. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf.)

Now for the stuff that really matters

2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary
defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members
of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.
© 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that
merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members –
including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a
statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of
business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana
from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for
facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.

B.
Guidelines for the Lawful Operation of a Cooperative or Collective:
Collectives and cooperatives should be organized with sufficient structure to ensure
security, non-diversion of marijuana to illicit markets, and compliance with all state and
local laws. The following are some suggested guidelines and practices for operating
collective growing operations to help ensure lawful operation.
1.
Non-Profit Operation: Nothing in Proposition 215 or the MMP authorizes
collectives, cooperatives, or individuals to profit from the sale or distribution of
marijuana. (See, e.g., § 11362.765(a) [“nothing in this section shall authorize . . .
any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit”].
2.
Business Licenses, Sales Tax, and Seller’s Permits: The State Board of
Equalization has determined that medical marijuana transactions are subject to
sales tax, regardless of whether the individual or group makes a profit, and those
engaging in transactions involving medical marijuana must obtain a Seller’s
Permit. Some cities and counties also require dispensing collectives and
cooperatives to obtain business licenses.
3.
Membership Application and Verification: When a patient or primary
caregiver wishes to join a collective or cooperative, the group can help prevent the
diversion of marijuana for non-medical use by having potential members complete
a written membership application. The following application guidelines should be
followed to help ensure that marijuana grown for medical use is not diverted to
illicit markets:
a) Verify the individual’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver.
Unless he or she has a valid state medical marijuana identification card, this
should involve personal contact with the recommending physician (or his or
her agent), verification of the physician’s identity, as well as his or her state
licensing status. Verification of primary caregiver status should include
contact with the qualified patient, as well as validation of the patient’s
recommendation. Copies should be made of the physician’s
recommendation or identification card, if any;

b) Have the individual agree not to distribute marijuana to non-members;
c) Have the individual agree not to use the marijuana for other than
medical purposes;
d) Maintain membership records on-site or have them reasonably
available;
e) Track when members’ medical marijuana recommendation and/or
identification cards expire; and
f) Enforce conditions of membership by excluding members whose
identification card or physician recommendation are invalid or have
expired, or who are caught diverting marijuana for non-medical use.

4.
Collectives Should Acquire, Possess, and Distribute Only Lawfully
Cultivated Marijuana: Collectives and cooperatives should acquire marijuana
only from their constituent members, because only marijuana grown by a qualified
patient or his or her primary caregiver may lawfully be transported by, or
distributed to, other members of a collective or cooperative. (§§ 11362.765,
11362.775.) The collective or cooperative may then allocate it to other members of
the group. Nothing allows marijuana to be purchased from outside the collective or
cooperative for distribution to its members. Instead, the cycle should be a closed-
circuit of marijuana cultivation and consumption with no purchases or sales to or
from non-members. To help prevent diversion of medical marijuana to non-
medical markets, collectives and cooperatives should document each member’s
contribution of labor, resources, or money to the enterprise. They also should track
and record the source of their marijuana.
5.
Distribution and Sales to Non-Members are Prohibited: State law
allows primary caregivers to be reimbursed for certain services (including
marijuana cultivation), but nothing allows individuals or groups to sell or distribute
marijuana to non-members. Accordingly, a collective or cooperative may not
distribute medical marijuana to any person who is not a member in good standing
of the organization. A dispensing collective or cooperative may credit its members
for marijuana they provide to the collective, which it may then allocate to other
members. (§ 11362.765(c).) Members also may reimburse the collective or
cooperative for marijuana that has been allocated to them. Any monetary
reimbursement that members provide to the collective or cooperative should only
be an amount necessary to cover overhead costs and operating expenses.

6.
Permissible Reimbursements and Allocations: Marijuana grown at a
collective or cooperative for medical purposes may be:
a) Provided free to qualified patients and primary caregivers who are
members of the collective or cooperative;
b) Provided in exchange for services rendered to the entity;
c) Allocated based on fees that are reasonably calculated to cover
overhead costs and operating expenses; or
d) Any combination of the above.
7.
Possession and Cultivation Guidelines: If a person is acting as primary
caregiver to more than one patient under section 11362.7(d)(2), he or she may
aggregate the possession and cultivation limits for each patient. For example,
applying the MMP’s basic possession guidelines, if a caregiver is responsible for
three patients, he or she may possess up to 24 oz. of marijuana (8 oz. per patient)
and may grow 18 mature or 36 immature plants. Similarly, collectives and
cooperatives may cultivate and transport marijuana in aggregate amounts tied to its
membership numbers. Any patient or primary caregiver exceeding individual
possession guidelines should have supporting records readily available when:
a) Operating a location for cultivation;
b) Transporting the group’s medical marijuana; and
c) Operating a location for distribution to members of the collective or
cooperative.
8.
Security: Collectives and cooperatives should provide adequate security to
ensure that patients are safe and that the surrounding homes or businesses are not
negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime. Further, to
maintain security, prevent fraud, and deter robberies, collectives and cooperatives
should keep accurate records and follow accepted cash handling practices,
including regular bank runs and cash drops, and maintain a general ledger of cash
transactions.
C.
Enforcement Guidelines: Depending upon the facts and circumstances,
deviations from the guidelines outlined above, or other indicia that marijuana is not for
medical use, may give rise to probable cause for arrest and seizure. The following are
additional guidelines to help identify medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives that
are operating outside of state law.
1.
Storefront Dispensaries: Although medical marijuana “dispensaries”
have been operating in California for years, dispensaries, as such, are not
recognized under the law. As noted above, the only recognized group entities are
cooperatives and collectives. (§ 11362.775.) It is the opinion of this Office that a
properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical
marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law, but that
dispensaries that do not substantially comply with the guidelines set forth in
sections IV(A) and (B), above, are likely operating outside the protections of
Proposition 215 and the MMP, and that the individuals operating such entities may
be subject to arrest and criminal prosecution under California law. For example,
dispensaries that merely require patients to complete a form summarily designating
the business owner as their primary caregiver – and then offering marijuana in
exchange for cash “donations” – are likely unlawful. (Peron, supra, 59
Cal.App.4th at p. 1400 [cannabis club owner was not the primary caregiver to
thousands of patients where he did not consistently assume responsibility for their
housing, health, or safety].)

2.
Indicia of Unlawful Operation: When investigating collectives or
cooperatives, law enforcement officers should be alert for signs of mass production
or illegal sales, including (a) excessive amounts of marijuana, (b) excessive
amounts of cash, (c) failure to follow local and state laws applicable to similar
businesses, such as maintenance of any required licenses and payment of any
required taxes, including sales taxes, (d) weapons, (e) illicit drugs, (f) purchases
from, or sales or distribution to, non-members, or (g) distribution outside of
California.

 

[kaotic]

Guess you cant argue there.

 

[Danknuggler]

Hey Blue Dot, go be sympathetic on the DEA website or go post somewhere where people care what your negative ass has to say as every post of yours is straight up backwards dude. sincerely yours, Danknuggler
PS thanx storm for the heads up as this affects my family.

 

[Blue Dot]

Guess you cant argue there.

So why isn't san diego following the AG's opinion if the AG is the "head cop"?

Is opinion law?

 

[Blue Dot]

There is a section on taxation

D.
Taxability of Medical Marijuana Transactions.
In February 2007, the California State Board of Equalization (BOE) issued a Special
Notice confirming its policy of taxing medical marijuana transactions, as well as its
requirement that businesses engaging in such transactions hold a Seller’s Permit.
(http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdf.) According to the Notice, having a
Seller’s Permit does not allow individuals to make unlawful sales, but instead merely
provides a way to remit any sales and use taxes due. BOE further clarified its policy in a
June 2007 Special Notice that addressed several frequently asked questions concerning
taxation of medical marijuana transactions. (http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf.)

So is there on a 1040 under "illegal income" ("ill gotten gains"). Don't mean that incomes legal, just taxable.

 

[Blue Dot]

Now for the stuff that really matters

2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives

Yet obama said he would stop the justice dept from circumventing state law:

But since ca law doesn't actually define collectives then obama didn't actually say he would stop raids on collectives.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Yet obama said he would stop the justice dept from circumventing state law:

But since ca law doesn't actually define collectives then obama didn't actually say he would stop raids on collectives.

thats fine with me,, at $400-600 per ounce its obvious what their incentives are.. close them all day. we need CO-OPs, not dispensaries. i dont need the money, i just want to legally provide patients with the best cannabis possible. let me set up state and federal sanctioned solar powered green houses to supply 20k patients with higher quality cannabis for a fifth of what it is currently being sold for in cannabis dispensaries...

 

[Blue Dot]

thats fine with me,, at $400-600 per ounce its obvious what their incentives are.. close them all day. we need CO-OPs, not dispensaries. i dont need the money, i just want to legally provide patients with the best cannabis possible. let me set up state and federal sanctioned solar powered green houses to supply 20k patients with higher quality cannabis for a fifth of what it is currently being sold for in cannabis dispensaries...

That's all I'm sayin Big Herb

 

[IE2KS_KUSH]

Yet obama said he would stop the justice dept from circumventing state law:

But since ca law doesn't actually define collectives then obama didn't actually say he would stop raids on collectives.

Hey howdy there.
First,
I understand what you are saying.
Second,
Folks! He is not being negative. He's not, I think you are mistaking, (or I am), his tone.
Please someone stop the madness!
AWWWWW

I think you are raising some compelling questions, that really haven't been directly answered. You can post the AG guidelines, they really don't mean shit. Those are not new laws.
The supreme law of the land, is the U.S. Supreme Court last I checked. As it stands today, federal law trumps state law. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe cannabis is a schedule 1 controlled substance which means that the federal government has exclusive authority to regulate it. They say (I hear wink wink) that it's illegal.
That's it, shows over go home folks. That's the bottom line.
The states can do whatever the hell they want, such as California, but they will have to face the consequences for their actions. And federal enforcement will continue, and like flies attracted to shit, the feds will flock to the most prosperous, easiest environment they can find to gain as much in assests, security, money, as possible. Hence they are here.
Passing 215 and 420 had unintended consequences.
Now.
They can just shoot fish in a barrel, instead of an ocean. Not good. Before things change folks, we first must admit we have a problem.
Ahem.
Just my opinion.
We are all supposed to be very open minded and reasonable eh. So far to this point, I have only seen 1 real perspective on MMJ, and judging from where we are now, I am going out on a limb, all by myself I don't care, and saying that it ain't working folks.
You think that they will resched based on MMJ, whether they do or don't is irrelevant. It would not change anything for 99% of the people that currently use cannabis. Promise. Again, just my opinion, I have heard many compelling arguments for the other side of the coin no doubt, but at the end of the day I have to go with my gut. And so far, the other side of the debate hasn't been right yet. There is no victory, until there is 0 zip nada legal penalties for cannabis use/possesion period. As long as ANY PERSON, has to be prosecuted for using cannabis, not any of us are safe, regardless of how many magic pieces of paper you have.
Right now,
my gut is telling me to vape a nice hot ass bag, maybe on like 6.5, hell, maybe 7.
So I am out,
but for crying out loud, let's all be nice to each other, we are all in this together whether you like it or not, we may not all agree all the time, but I bet we all can agree on some things! LOL

 

[IE2KS_KUSH]

None of this is gonna matter soon enough. We just handed an unknown getto punk 1,000,000,000,000.00 dollars to blow on frisbee golf courses, butterfly preserves and mobster museums. You know......the kinds of things that stimulate economies.

He might make pot legal but he's gonna sink our boat and take away your right to bear arms at the same time.

Greeeeeeeeeeeat! Now we are all gonna be ahem, "medicated" and unable to defend ourselves. LOL
You never know, anything is possible.

 

[IE2KS_KUSH]

thats fine with me,, at $400-600 per ounce its obvious what their incentives are.. close them all day. we need CO-OPs, not dispensaries. i dont need the money, i just want to legally provide patients with the best cannabis possible. let me set up state and federal sanctioned solar powered green houses to supply 20k patients with higher quality cannabis for a fifth of what it is currently being sold for in cannabis dispensaries...

At this point, I would say that elements are turning into a major racket. That's human nature though, no matter what happens, dishonest folks will always try to take advantage of people if they think they can. Just the way it's always been.
But yeah, there has to be a better way, I am not getting on board this train, don't like where it's heading.

 

[Pythagllio]

So why isn't san diego following the AG's opinion if the AG is the "head cop"?

Is opinion law?

The AG's opinion isn't binding

Your 'logic' is that if it were the law SD would follow it is blown out of the water just by observing the history of their court case against issuing ID cards. Can you argue that Prop 215 ID cards aren't on paper? Is there any argument that the CA constitution says that state officials comply with state law unless there's been a federal court ruling saying otherwise? If SD thinks they can choose whether or not to issue ID cards, what in the world makes it reasonable to say they'd follow a law if it's actually a law?

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

BlueDot, the feds are still disregarding state-law whether dispensaries are selling at black-market prices or not. your argument is all semantics.

I do agree that dispensaries should NOT sell at the same high prices as set by the black market, which is ridiculous to do indeed.

but even if the feds were actually looking out for the good of the community (which they are not), instead of raiding the dispensaries and simply putting to an end the supply to patients, they should regulate prices and thus not end the supply of medicine to patients.

the patient is always the one who gets screwed in the end, not the dispensaries nor anyone else, so the way the feds are acting cannot be excused under any circunstance, for there are tons of better ways to deal with the details of dispensaries besides raiding them like they do, it is as simple as that.

Paz.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Blue Dot what your retarded ass doesn't seem to get is that when there is a criminal case in the state of california its title People of the State of California Vs. John Q. Public (Insert Defendant name here). When shit goes to appeal or supreme court it then becomes the attorney generals office responsibility in a lot of cases. Why San Deigo is being dicks??? Cause there is a lot of federal money down there with the Military and border patrol. The politicians there don't want to lose their bases, simple economy, so they have to follow along with whatever Washington dictates. Plus now when Sherrifs and local cops go busting medical collectives and coops guess what... The patients can take their ass to civil court in the State of California and sure their asses. Governments are broke, the last thing they need is a lawsuit from someone that will take their money when they could otherwise profit. Watch San Diego will change in 2 years...

Also as far as black market prices being lower than coop/collective prices. Do you realize that for a grower and provider to be truely legit they have to provide reciepts for equipment, ferts, soil, labor, electric bills ect... plus then the collectives have to pay their people that work there... which has to be declared for tax purposes, which adds to the non profit price of growing. The fact is that when doing it legal and documented with a legitimate source takes overhead. The coop I belong to has an armed guard. While I think pot and guns don't belong together, he is clearly a rent a cop with a gun, and is not medicated. I feel safe with him there knowing I am not getting jacked. I don't mind paying for that. Plus Bubblegum Kush @ $45 an 1/8th is cheaper than street price. So you actually don't even know what the fuck you are talking about...