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

[kmk420kali]

Again, on point. My opinion would be that the majority of those raided were dispensaries, and maybe a few true collectives and/or co-ops, unfortunately, were taken down, too.

Bro... honestly, the difference between Dispensaries and Collectives...is simply in the wording on the paperwork--

 

[Pythagllio]

Finding myself curious, I looked up the definition of the word dispensary at dictionary.com.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispensary

1. a place where something is dispensed, esp. medicines.
2. a charitable or public facility where medicines are furnished and free or inexpensive medical advice is available.

I almost wet myself laughing when I read #2.

The above cited from from the Random House Dictionary, the below from the American Heritage Dictionary:

dis·pen·sa·ry (dĭ-spěn'sə-rē)
n. pl. dis·pen·sa·ries

1. An office in a hospital, school, or other institution from which medical supplies, preparations, and treatments are dispensed.
2. A public institution that dispenses medicines or medical aid.

 

[richyrich]

Bro... honestly, the difference between Dispensaries and Collectives...is simply in the wording on the paperwork--

Finding myself curious, I looked up the definition of the word dispensary at dictionary.com.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dispensary

1. a place where something is dispensed, esp. medicines.
2. a charitable or public facility where medicines are furnished and free or inexpensive medical advice is available.

I almost wet myself laughing when I read #2.

The above cited from from the Random House Dictionary, the below from the American Heritage Dictionary:

dis·pen·sa·ry (dĭ-spěn'sə-rē)
n. pl. dis·pen·sa·ries

1. An office in a hospital, school, or other institution from which medical supplies, preparations, and treatments are dispensed.
2. A public institution that dispenses medicines or medical aid.

I get your points. But, they are simply semantics. The court interprets statutes when they are ambiguous in application. Basically, my point has always been that the court will clarify the semantics in the way I have constantly been bringing forth. I am not LEO, nor anti-movement. I keep to reality when interpreting the law and current circumstances. Opinions aside and no red herrings.

 

[johnnyla]

I get your points. But, they are simply semantics. The court interprets statutes when they are ambiguous in application. Basically, my point has always been that the court will clarify the semantics in the way I have constantly been bringing forth. I am not LEO, nor anti-movement. I keep to reality when interpreting the law and current circumstances. Opinions aside and no red herrings.

how will the recent CA Supreme Court decision affect this decision? seems like a clusterfuck if you are a pig or politician. mahahahahahaha.

 

[Blue Dot]

You don't get it richy. These guys USE semantics in their favor (as do most lawyers).

They think the public is too stupid to realize what the words compassion, dispensary, etc mean when the public knows all to well what these words mean.

The law is not on their side so they try to manipulate words to make it seem like it's on their side.

it's like pythagllio and his incessant "does not authorize a profit" nonsense.

Everyone and their brother knows they MEAN NO profit but they like to try and twist it to fit their buisness model.

thank god for sober judges who see thru their bull. lol

 

[richyrich]

You don't get it richy. These guys USE semantics in their favor (as do most lawyers).

They think the public is too stupid to realize what the words compassion, dispensary, etc mean when the public knows all to well what these words mean.

The law is not on their side so they try to manipulate words to make it seem like it's on their side.

it's like pythagllio and his incessant "does not authorize a profit" nonsense.

Everyone and their brother knows they MEAN NO profit but they like to try and twist it to fit their buisness model.

thank god for sober judges who see thru their bull. lol

Oh, I get it. But, I did not want to put in their faces to keep this civil. I would of been accused of attacking and being treated like you, lol. That is why I said I get their points, but did not agree. Yes, using semantics to justify the current structure of the majority of dispensaries. We all know, deep down, that the majority are straight retail. It's reality no matter which way it is twisted.

 

[richyrich]

how will the recent CA Supreme Court decision affect this decision? seems like a clusterfuck if you are a pig or politician. mahahahahahaha.

It was actually denial for review by the CA Supreme Court. They did not issue an opinion. Yes, it is going to be a major cluster f**k, especially, in LA. And Bonnie Dumanis can stuff it now, regarding real collectives in store fronts.

 

[Pythagllio]

I'm not the one redefining words to suit my agenda. That's the dictionary definition above . The meaning of words is important, not nonsense. Blue iDiot is from the Humpty Dumpty School of words*. No, everybody and their brother does not know that 'does not authorize' means 'no profit'. I am certainly a member of 'everybody' and I have sisters too. I disagree with your fantasy, agenda driven, illogical arguments. It is not semantical quibbling. The assembly argues which words to put in a statute and often specifically defines words in laws. The assembly could have chosen to say, 'the making of a profit is prohibited', but they chose the more meaningless phrase 'does not authorize'. Blue Dot loves his straw men arguments. Calvina Fay blushes with envy when she sees Blue iDiot argue.

Let's examine some of Blue iDiot's 'logic' from above. He claims:

dispensaries are illegal
delivery services are illegal
caregivers can't join collectives

I'm hard pressed how the members of the collective in his fantasy world would be able to do anything except grow in their own homes, possibly in a central garden, but that they'd have to go pick it up themselves. Our quadriplegic mentioned above is certainly grateful for these restrictions on access I'm sure.

The true fact of the matter is that WAMM is a dispensary and fits the dictionary definition of dispensary. Blue iDiot's fantasy world agenda would have them shut down. Blue iDiot's agenda is clear, and the result is inevitable. The result if his idiotic agenda actually were implemented that supply will go offline, and patients will suffer. Blue iDiot would rather patients suffer, than someone somewhere might actually get compensated for providing a needed commodity. In my mind that's the very essence of a totally self-serving asshole.

BTW, the profit is going to be made whether legal or not. Your argument is equal to the mindless prohibitionists that throw out 'you just want it legal so you can smoke'. No, I'm going to smoke it anyway, and I'm going to make my profits regardless. Something your addled brain hasn't grasped....you can't make us go away. no matter how you fantasize that your agenda is on the side of the angels. I certainly disagree with that. I think your philosophy is a menace to the community.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

 

[richyrich]

I'm not the one redefining words to suit my agenda. That's the dictionary definition above . The meaning of words is important, not nonsense. Blue iDiot is from the Humpty Dumpty School of words*. No, everybody and their brother does not know that 'does not authorize' means 'no profit'. I am certainly a member of 'everybody' and I have sisters too. I disagree with your fantasy, agenda driven, illogical arguments. It is not semantical quibbling. The assembly argues which words to put in a statute and often specifically defines words in laws. The assembly could have chosen to say, 'the making of a profit is prohibited', but they chose the more meaningless phrase 'does not authorize'. Blue Dot loves his straw men arguments. Calvina Fay blushes with envy when she sees Blue iDiot argue.

Let's examine some of Blue iDiot's 'logic' from above. He claims:

dispensaries are illegal
delivery services are illegal
caregivers can't join collectives

I will only make one point. The dictionary definition of dispensary is not important at this time. It is what the meaning of dispensary has become to be, as seen in application; the real world (reality). Sure, a collective could be called a dispensary. My belief, as emphasized above, is that the assembly did define a collective, etc., in SB420. This does seem like semantics to me. Descriptive words at this time to define our MMJ store fronts does not matter. It is what they are in application; their structure. We know what the majority of them are -- retail! Under current case law that is illegal. Yes, the MMJ movement is going to roll forward regardless and I want that. This could of moved quicker if it was not for people loopholing it. That is why I have no sympathy for the dispensaries/collectives skirting the law and souring the bunch of grapes. I rest my case. I will agree to disagree with anything further. Good day.

 

[Pythagllio]

OK, so you are saying that WAMM can't set up a central location with a counter to distribute medicine to their members.

If you add the word 'for profit' in front of the word 'dispensary' you would be accurately conveying your thoughts. I'd still disagree with your notion that 215 doesn't protect such an operation, but would agree with your assessment that in pragmatic reality the courts are going to enforce the non-profit fantasy with a legal fiction like the SCOTUS wheat case that was used to decide that Angel Raich's cannabis was subject to the laws of interstate commerce. It's too bad, the only thing this restriction accomplishes is diminishing supply. You may now resume crying about the high price of cannabis.

I'm not sure how you can keep insisting that you're right, in the face of black and white evidence that shows that you're wrong. A dispensary is a place where people go to get medicine. The monetary consideration doesn't matter. A cash register isn't required for a place to be a dispensary.

Umm, did you know there have been a number of people in the past who have set up bogus charities in order to line their own pockets? Does that redefine the word 'charity' to mean fraud? I sure don't think so.

Anyway, have it your way. Words mean whatever you want them to mean, regardless of whether it accurately communicates your message because other people use a different meaning.

 

[Danknuggler]

OK, so you are saying that WAMM can't set up a central location with a counter to distribute medicine to their members.

If you add the word 'for profit' in front of the word 'dispensary' you would be accurately conveying your thoughts. I'd still disagree with your notion that 215 doesn't protect such an operation, but would agree with your assessment that in pragmatic reality the courts are going to enforce the non-profit fantasy with a legal fiction like the SCOTUS wheat case that was used to decide that Angel Raich's cannabis was subject to the laws of interstate commerce. It's too bad, the only thing this restriction accomplishes is diminishing supply. You may now resume crying about the high price of cannabis.

I'm not sure how you can keep insisting that you're right, in the face of black and white evidence that shows that you're wrong. A dispensary is a place where people go to get medicine. The monetary consideration doesn't matter. A cash register isn't required for a place to be a dispensary.

Umm, did you know there have been a number of people in the past who have set up bogus charities in order to line their own pockets? Does that redefine the word 'charity' to mean fraud? I sure don't think so.

Anyway, have it your way. Words mean whatever you want them to mean, regardless of whether it accurately communicates your message because other people use a different meaning.

This sums it up pretty good.What I want to know is what are we suppose to be following exactly?AG Guidlines or SB420?The AG Guidlines are the most recent and it's what the most recent court decisions went off of so if you were to go by the AG Guidlines than what does all this mean exactly especially the parts about the Ag Coop where members as producers can make a profit.And the part about collectives operating as a business.Everything I've read about coops says people CAN GET PAID an income.Is an income considered profit?I mean the general welfare of the members who run the coop would be to reimburse them for their time and such in the form of Meds,Money,Sevices etc. according to Ag Guidlines.So this could mean a PAYCHECK to those who its been democratically voted on correct?I posted this already but this is what it says.Maybe somebody who know legal jargon can tear this apart and tell us exactly what this means.

Statutory Cooperatives:​

​

A cooperative must file articles of incorporation
with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members.
(Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “coop”)
unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the
Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative
corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit
for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their
members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business
must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to
members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives
must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of
earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each
year. (See id. at § 12200, et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit
corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as
such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.”
(Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many
characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.)
Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members;
instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating
transactions between members.
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

 

[johnnyla]

This sums it up pretty good.What I want to know is what are we suppose to be following exactly?AG Guidlines or SB420?The AG Guidlines are the most recent and it's what the most recent court decisions went off of so if you were to go by the AG Guidlines than what does all this mean exactly especially the parts about the Ag Coop where members as producers can make a profit.And the part about collectives operating as a business.Everything I've read about coops says people CAN GET PAID an income.Is an income considered profit?I mean the general welfare of the members who run the coop would be to reimburse them for their time and such in the form of Meds,Money,Sevices etc. according to Ag Guidlines.So this could mean a PAYCHECK to those who its been democratically voted on correct?I posted this already but this is what it says.Maybe somebody who know legal jargon can tear this apart and tell us exactly what this means.

Statutory Cooperatives:​

A cooperative must file articles of incorporation
with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members.
(Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “coop”)
unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the
Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative
corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit
for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their
members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business
must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to
members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives
must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of
earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each
year. (See id. at § 12200, et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit
corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as
such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.”
(Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many
characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.)
Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members;
instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating
transactions between members.
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

if you look at the mmp page for CA it states that the AG is in charge of regulation. this is only in regards to state charges. local laws limiting prop 215 and SB 420 don't seem to be legal but it is being played out in court.

 

[Danknuggler]

Hey, it's my interpretation. 215 specifically says co-operatives, and CA legally defines them. But even non-profit ag coops are set up for their members to make a profit on goods and services provided. You've probably bought food at the grocery store that was sold to them by agricultural co-ops, probably in the last month. Got any Land o' Lakes cheese or butter in the 'fridge?

"Starting an Agricultural Marketing Cooperative" http://cooperatives.ucdavis.edu/reports/ag_mktg_startup.pdf Lots of reading here.



The link above explains that you can do a co-op, and also finally explains to me the missing link in any assessment of why a cannabis cooperative would have to be 'closed circuit', mainly because the protections of 215 only apply to natural human beings, so if the co-op goes outside its membership to hire a professional grower for example the entity could be prosecuted under state law. Perhaps this also makes impractical the idea of forming a for profit collective.

If you want to look up the specific laws you can find them on the CA State website.

So then don't go outside the membership I guess right?It looks like it deffinitely has to be structured as a non profit no matter what.I like the Ag coop model myself.I live in an area of socal that has no real coop or collectives at all.We really need one bad.There is a huge demand for good meds right here but everyone has to drive at the least 30min to 2 hours to a dispensary that is over priced BS anyways.All of my energy is going into this now.I am driven.

 

[johnnyla]

So then don't go outside the membership I guess right?It looks like it deffinitely has to be structured as a non profit no matter what.I like the Ag coop model myself.I live in an area of socal that has no real coop or collectives at all.We really need one bad.There is a huge demand for good meds right here but everyone has to drive at the least 30min to 2 hours to a dispensary that is over priced BS anyways.All of my energy is going into this now.I am driven.

if your county doesn't have one then start one!!! you shouldn't have to drive out of your county for medicine. i would be weary of storefront types as they are sitting ducks and put you on the radar. just do a collective garden with limited membership like a community garden of which there are thousands in the country just not herb gardens but same principle.

 

[richyrich]

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

Medical Marijuana dispensaries will be judged in court strictly on their compliance with the laws and guidelines that have been created specifically for them. The HOCHANADEL decision is a perfect example of this, and I encourage everyone to take 15 minutes and read the document FreedomFighter has linked to.

Freedom Fighter is a very smart guy, and he and I are after the same result, 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.

In HOCHANADEL, the Fourth District Court of Appeal was faced with two questions:

“First, did the MMPA unconstitutionally amend the CUA when it authorized "cooperatives" and "collectives" to cultivate and distribute medical marijuana?

Second, did the court err in quashing a search warrant for a storefront medical marijuana dispensary called CannaHelp located in the City of Palm Desert, California, and dismissing the criminal charges against the defendants Stacy Robert Hochanadel, James Thomas Campbell and John Reynold Bednar (collectively, defendants), who operated CannaHelp, based on its findings that (1) CannaHelp was a legal "primary caregiver" under the CUA and MMPA; and (2) the detective that authored the search warrant affidavit was not qualified to opine as to the legality of CannaHelp?”

Their ruling:

“ We conclude the MMPA's authorization of cooperatives and collectives did not amend the CUA, but rather was a distinct statutory scheme intended to facilitate the transfer of medical marijuana to qualified medical marijuana patients under the CUA that the CUA did not specifically authorize or prohibit. We also conclude that storefront dispensaries that qualify as "cooperatives" or "collectives" under the CUA and MMPA, and otherwise comply with those laws, may operate legally, and defendants may have a defense at trial to the charges in this case based upon the CUA and MMPA. We further conclude, however, that the court erred in finding that CannaHelp qualified as a primary caregiver under the CUA and MMPA and in finding that the detective who authored the search warrant affidavit was not qualified to opine as to the legality of CannaHelp's activities. We conclude the facts stated in the search warrant affidavit provided probable cause the defendants were engaged in criminal activity, and, even if the search warrant lacked probable cause, the author of the search warrant affidavit acted in reasonable reliance on its validity. Accordingly, the court erred in quashing the search warrant and dismissing the charges against defendants. Finally, we conclude that, contrary to the People's contention, defendants Campbell and Bednar had standing to challenge the validity of the search warrant.”

The original trial judge in this case ruled that the search warrant was invalid and that all of the evidence obtained from it was inadmissible, so the defendants walked. The 4th District has now ruled that the warrant was valid, thereby putting them all at risk of being re-charged and tried. Right back where they started.

The 4th District also concluded that MMPA’s authorization of co-ops and collectives was valid, which IS good but it is also somewhat of a given in that the AG’s Guidelines already accepted and “legitimized” them, even provided a rough outline of how they must be structured and operated.

The Court in its decision relied upon and quoted extensively from the AG’s Aug. ’08 Guidelines, which is significant for those who believe they are nothing more than “Jerry’s opinion”. Among other instances, the decision directly quotes the Guidelines in ruling that dispensaries that merely make a new customer sign a form designating them as the customers Primary Caregiver and then immediately sell them weed are clearly out of compliance – illegal. Unfortunately for the defendants in HOCHANADEL, this is precisely how they were operating.

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.

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice. This is simply my reasoned opinion, and I welcome all dissent, slander, and death threats.

Because of this^^^^^^^^^. I have not read a rebuttal against it. I have witnessed selective rebuttal only. I merely came here to point out law and how it wil play. I have left my opinion aside. How did this start out? FF saying selling weed is legal? Whoa, not yet, so let's not give others here the wrong message. That was a complete misinterpretation of reading the Hochanadel Opinion. By the way, every dispensary I have been to surely wasn't a WAMM. Sure WAMM could have a register and counter for dispersement day and still be a true collective. Assumptions for my word will not make your argument. And, constant immature comments "go back to crying" only injure your own credibility and argument. That makes you look weak and that you can only resort to that. Putting words in ones mouth makes for weak argument too. Good day now.

 

[Danknuggler]

This is what I have to say about that.Don't make the membership application with a document for signing anybody as a caregiver.No need for that.By becoming a member and contributing to the coop/collective in the many ways the AG has outlined you are in reality cooperatively/collectively caring for yourselves get it?And it has already been established that members do not have to physically tend to the gardens but can contribute in other ways so really there is no need to assign a cargiver to anybody.Am I looking at this right?So if a new member signs on and pays for a membership fee why shouldn't they leave with some meds that day?You are now a member and are contributing here is your meds.Just keep track of everything.Pay operating costs, all extra goes back to coop/collective patrons as members in many ways the Ag outlined again.....Freedomfghtr is correct you can "sell" weed in california but only to your members and not for a "profit".

 

[richyrich]

You may want to expand on interpreting that Opinion. Your statement is vague and most likely is going to give the wrong impression.

Dispensaries in their current form are still illegal. Read the rest of the opinion. The Court held that proper collectives or co-ops (closed circuit, which dispensaries are not) are legal and it is legal for them to operate in a store front. Do not get confused with the fact that most current dispensaries operate in store fronts, so this applies to them. That is severely incorrect.

The selling of weed: Only what is allowed by SB420. Not for profits and reasonable compensations to caregivers. Collectives and co-ops do not have patient caregiver relationships. A collective and a co-op are people working together for a common purpose with equal say and equal holdings in the collective or co-op. Even if current dispensaries attempt to change to a collective or co-op; I'm not sure the previous owners are going to want to give the collective and/or co-op members equal say and holdings. Going to be interesting to see how things evolve now.

This may have slipped past you^^^. It was my first post in this thread. It is more correct and jives with your post.

 

[richyrich]

Thank you for sharing that. Your observation is correct. That is because they were dispensaries; not collectives or co-ops; no matter what they may call themselves. There would be no profit sharing as you stated. That would be illegal. There would be equal harvest sharing or equal to the amount of work and cost reimbursement given as a member to the collective or co-op.[

And this ^^^.

 

[Blue Dot]

dispensaries, collectives, co-ops, whatever they want to call themselves don't want to have equal holdings and equal distribution of profit because these are businessmen who got into the game to make money off of loopholes then get out and retire while the sick suffer.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[nephilthim]

dispensaries, collectives, co-ops, whatever they want to call themselves don't want to have equal holdings and equal distribution of profit because these are businessmen who got into the game to make money off of loopholes then get out and retire while the sick suffer.

This isn't rocket science.

well poo dot your not a rocket scientist for that matter,and you of all people should learn the fallacy of absolutes in an argument.especially when they are one sided and constructed to suit your convoluted logic.just grow your own and you can be florence fucken nightengale with your extra,so make money?
is your head so far up your ass that it's hard for you to have an epiphany of all the things people make money off of other people dying or are going to die?
the hmo ppo dismissing your claim,how about war?iran or afghanistan ?day after day its nonstop naive drivel about your romanticized conjecture.I think you should post you address just see how many people might send you some medicine
so you would be medicated and post less.