THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STACY ROBERT HOCHANADEL et al.

[FreedomFGHTR]

The challenge facing dispensaries is one of complying with the laws that apply to them and only them (in some cases).

Thing is that the same can be said for just about any business in the day and age of Regulate and Tax.

Freedom Fighter is a very smart guy,

Thanks for the compliment, much appreciated.

so I am not sure why he believes this Appellate ruling is positive for us. I assure you that Mr. Hochanadel was not happy about this decision because one of the possible (likely) outcomes of this ruling was that he may be hauled back into court to face charges that were initially thrown out by the original trial judge.

Double Jeopardy will prevent him from being dragged into court and retried. The reason it is a positive because it's the courts yet again reinforcing that we can legally "sell" weed to other patients, and provides direction into how to stay out of trouble. Also by acknowledging the "guidelines" and giving them legal weight it gives greater strength to the ballot arguements presented with 215.

The bottom is that this decision is bad news for the defendants, and gives our side nothing more than what has already been given in the AG Guidelines.

No it has no effect on the defendents at this point. It does help our side. If your name is Eugene Davidovich or Donna Lambert and Bonnie Dumanis is trying to rape you with a strap on w/o lube this is great news as they complied with the AG's guidelines. Especially helpful because this is the same court that would hear their cases on appeal.

 

[Danknuggler]

So follow what exactly?The AG guidlines and what else?I have them all printed out just want to know what to go by.So are the plant numbers still 6/12?Did any of this clear that up too?

 

[Hydro-Soil]

I would hazard a guess that the number of true co-ops or collectives operating as mmj dispensaries is somewhere close to zero.

You guessed wrong. There are actually quite a few true co-ops and collectives, you just don't hear about them because they're "Closed-Loop" collectives. All traffic and information is kept between them. When I finish setting up my own collective, I'll definitely not be advertising. Why would you hear about it??

 

[Vespatian]

FF- Double jeopardy prevents a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense(s). How does that apply here where the defendants were never tried?

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Double jeopardy prevents a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense(s). How does that apply here where the defendants were never tried?

Good point as the original case was dismissed on a motion.

 

[Vespatian]

FF - I am glad you agree that the AG's guidelines are the template upon which future court decisions will be based. I have no first hand knowledge about how the SD clubs were structured or operated. You claim they were in compliance, so that's good.

However, the AG's guidelines and the Hochanadel decision present a very high standard for co-op's and collectives to meet in order to be in compliance. Those standards would be a good subject for further discussion.

 

[Vespatian]

Good point as the original case was dismissed on a motion.

Yes, I would be very surprised if the prosecutor prevailed on Appeal, as he has, yet failed to re-file charges against the original defendants.

 

[Jbonham]

I read this from the first post to the last and enjoyed the heated debate about the ability to provided MMJ to patients whom need their medications!

I don't know lot about the CA MMJ bill but have been dealing with the CO MMJ movement. Sad thing is the patient pays for everything out of pocket none is covered by insurance at all unless in the form of mariniol. And I hope in my life time that will all change.

What bothers me and makes me sad is that even though we are afforded by law to have 3 flowering plants and 3 non-flowering plants growing it is strongly discouraged in the state of Colorado.


Jbonham

 

[Blue Dot]

Not to mention, I believe the AG Guidelines is the only place that mentions "Non-Profit"...and it is not a Law...just Jerry's thoughts--

Huh? You think Jerry just invented that on his own?

It came from SB420:

11362.765. (a) Subject to the requirements of this article, the individuals specified in subdivision (b) shall not be subject, on that sole basis, to criminal liability under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570. However, nothing in this section shall authorize the individual to smoke or otherwise consume marijuana unless otherwise authorized by this article, nor shall anything in this section authorize any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit.

 

[Blue Dot]

If your name is Eugene Davidovich or Donna Lambert and Bonnie Dumanis is trying to rape you with a strap on w/o lube this is great news as they complied with the AG's guidelines..

No they didn't, they were a delivery service. There is no law authorizing delivery services.

 

[Blue Dot]

You guessed wrong. There are actually quite a few true co-ops and collectives, you just don't hear about them because they're "Closed-Loop" collectives. All traffic and information is kept between them. When I finish setting up my own collective, I'll definitely not be advertising. Why would you hear about it??

Then how did YOU hear about all these you speak of? nonsense.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

No they didn't, they were a delivery service. There is no law authorizing delivery services.

H&S 11362.775 includes transportation and distribution.

Blue Dot you are retarded. You would think someone thats been hanging around this board as long as you would have actually read that.

 

[kmk420kali]

Huh? You think Jerry just invented that on his own?

It came from SB420:

Ok...so...help me out a bit here...which Election was this AG Guidelines voted on again??
SB420?? Oh wait...that was never voted on either--

 

[Blue Dot]

H&S 11362.775 includes transportation and distribution.

Blue Dot you are retarded. You would think someone thats been hanging around this board as long as you would have actually read that.

http://blog.norml.org/2008/11/24/ca...ruling-limits-medical-marijuana-distribution/

The Court concluded, ” a defendant asserting primary caregiver status must prove at a minimum that he or she (1) consistently provided care-giving, (2) independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, (3) at or before the time he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana. ”

The Court’s ruling effectively limits the caregiver defense to relatives, personal friends and attendants, nurses, etc. In particular, it excludes its use by medical marijuana “buyers’ clubs,” retail dispensaries and delivery services.

Merely having someone sign you on as a caregiver the moment you meet them to do a "hand to hand" transaction is not sufficient to meet the criteria of a caregiver.

In an important legal case decided today that cannabis reform advocates have been waiting on for nearly two years, the California Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendants are not entitled to a defense as Proposition 215 (Prop 215) caregivers if their primary role is only to supply marijuana to patients.

This was upheld somewhere else, I can't find the link.

 

[johnnyla]

http://blog.norml.org/2008/11/24/ca...ruling-limits-medical-marijuana-distribution/



Merely having someone sign you on as a caregiver the moment you meet them to do a "hand to hand" tansaction is not sufficient to meet the criteria of a caregiver.

This was upheld somewhere else, I can't find the link.

why are you all so uptight down in SD?

 

[Blue Dot]

why are you all so uptight down in SD?

Fear of becoming the next LA? I dunno. lol

 

[johnnyla]

don't be afraid. it's just a plant.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

This was upheld somewhere else, I can't find the link.

Dude that's old news. That's my friends case.

 

[Blue Dot]

Dude that's old news. That's my friends case.

then clue me in. Mentch was the cali supreme court so unless the SCOTUS over-rid it wouldn't it still stand?

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

The other case you spoke of... the Peron decision.