cliff notes on San Diego?

[movingtocally]

The city counsel and local po-po are more notorious for fucking with growers than anywhere else I've read on these boards and others. I can understand that given its Republican/Military stronghold. But SB 420, as it reads, makes San Diego a pretty decent place for cultivators:

• "City Council guidelines allow up to 1 lb of marijuana, 24 plants in 64 square feet indoors; no outdoors growing allowed except in enclosed greenhouses." http://canorml.org/prop/local215policies.html
  
  Not Humboldt, but not bad! So how the hell did that happen? Where is the disparity between the city council apparently approving guidelines far beyond that of the state vs a county with a reputation as hell for growers?

Thanks for schooling me.

 

[Cinderella99]

Whatup MTC...I did it...

You got it -- my understanding is that if you're within city limits, the number is 12...But in the rest of the county, it's 6 mature.

You're right in that the macro-environment (read DA and sheriff's dept) is pot-unfriendly and bucks the rest of the state's trend. What this means, I think, is that if you stray slightly outside of CA law, the law can (and chances are good) if you're brought to their attention, make an example out of you. So the vibe is that, yea, there's leniency, but fuck with more than guideline at your own peril-- remember, this is SOUTHERN California and there's a lot of $$ that pays to keep overpriveledged children safe from reefer madness...

Somebody else from SD area, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Blue Dot]

The city counsel and local po-po are more notorious for fucking with growers than anywhere else I've read on these boards and others. I can understand that given its Republican/Military stronghold. But SB 420, as it reads, makes San Diego a pretty decent place for cultivators:

• "City Council guidelines allow up to 1 lb of marijuana, 24 plants in 64 square feet indoors; no outdoors growing allowed except in enclosed greenhouses." http://canorml.org/prop/local215policies.html
  
  Not Humboldt, but not bad! So how the hell did that happen? Where is the disparity between the city council apparently approving guidelines far beyond that of the state vs a county with a reputation as hell for growers?

Thanks for schooling me.

What does any of this have to do with bonnie dumanis shutting down dispensaries or other illegal "delivery services"?

If you sell pot for money in SD Bonnie has a problem with you.

If you grow pot with the intention of making money Bonnie has a problem with you.

If you grow as 215 intended and outlines then bonnie doesn't even care if you exist.

So what's the problem again?

 

[movingtocally]

Whatup MTC...I did it...

You got it -- my understanding is that if you're within city limits, the number is 12...But in the rest of the county, it's 6 mature.

You're right in that the macro-environment (read DA and sheriff's dept) is pot-unfriendly and bucks the rest of the state's trend. What this means, I think, is that if you stray slightly outside of CA law, the law can (and chances are good) if you're brought to their attention, make an example out of you. So the vibe is that, yea, there's leniency, but fuck with more than guideline at your own peril-- remember, this is SOUTHERN California and there's a lot of $$ that pays to keep overpriveledged children safe from reefer madness...

Somebody else from SD area, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks man. That's how I interpreted this stuff as well.

What does any of this have to do with bonnie dumanis shutting down dispensaries or other illegal "delivery services"?

Nothing brotha, just askin.

So what's the problem again?

See below:

If you sell pot for money in SD Bonnie has a problem with you.

If you grow pot with the intention of making money Bonnie has a problem with you.

. Jail for pot is lame IMO.

If you grow as 215 intended and outlines then bonnie doesn't even care if you exist.

2 things-First, if the "climate" is such that cops on the street and making guys get lawyers and play the ring-a-round to get their meds back, that sucks man! Even if the DA has no interest. Lastly, I've read 215 a couple times and I'm not sure what 215 intended. Seems pretty vague. Maybe intentionally?


Appreciate your perspective.

 

[Blue Dot]

2 things-First, if the "climate" is such that cops on the street and making guys get lawyers and play the ring-a-round to get their meds back, that sucks man! Even if the DA has no interest. Lastly, I've read 215 a couple times and I'm not sure what 215 intended. Seems pretty vague. Maybe intentionally?:

215 was intentionally vague but fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your perspective) the courts have interpreted 215 for us with their rulings and they say you can't grow and sell for a profit.

If you want to grow 6 mature in SD go ahead, bonnie won't charge you.

Yes, the cops may come and confiscate your stuff and yes you may have to file to get it back but you won't be going to jail like you say.

So again, what's the problem?

 

[Mia]

"the courts have interpreted 215 for us with their rulings and they say you can't grow and sell for a profit."

Sure but the legislation also says that if someone is growing herb, they have a right to be compensated for the time, labor and materials that went into it.
And of course there are no guidelines that I know of that give specifics as to what constitutes fair compensation.
It is open to interpretation.
Go chew on that one for awhile.....

 

[Blue Dot]

And of course there are no guidelines that I know of that give specifics as to what constitutes fair compensation.
It is open to interpretation.
Go chew on that one for awhile.....

Why chew on it for a while when Jerry Brown actually goes into quite detail in his guidelines?

 

[Mia]

"when Jerry Brown actuallys goes into quite detail in his guidelines"


Oh really?
I just did a quick two minute scan of those guidelines and nowhere do I see specifics spelled out. Instead I see a lot of vagueness. Kind of like your reply to my post....
Can you show me where he explains how to calculate what is "reasonable"? I don't see any math anywhere.
For instance, since you are so informed, what is considered fair compensation for an ounce of marijuana for the average Joe Schmoe growing it in his closet?
Good luck.

 

[Blue Dot]

You have 3 posts. You did a "quick" 2 minute scan.

I've posted in bolded quotes the specific phrases repeatedly in many of my previous posts.

 

[Lazyman]

I would avoid SD, they clearly are a conservative-values county and want nothing to do with medical MJ. Plenty of other counties with cooler weather and more progressive DA's.

 

[Mia]

Oh I see Blue Dot.
You cannot argue intelligently so you choose to go down the ad hom path.
Impressive.....
Since you've posted them xx times it shouldn't be much trouble to post them again. Should it?
Otherwise my two minute scan apparently trumps your wealth of knowledge re. the subject.
Go figure...
And how's this for inane:
"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."
guess the gov. is going to get their money one way or another....
Of course this only applies to coops and collectives, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Does it to you? Do you think it's fair for the state to be taxing people who they mandate don't turn a profit? I'd be really curious to know your opinion. lol

 

[Blue Dot]

I would avoid SD, they clearly are a conservative-values county and want nothing to do with medical MJ. Plenty of other counties with cooler weather and more progressive DA's.

You mean "cooler" as in colder right, cause NOTHING beats SD weather!

I'm convinced if the DA wasn't such an ass and SD had massive outdoor growing like up north we could easily hold our own, and we'd be able to do it on the sativa and hybrid side better to boot.

 

[Mia]

"I'm convinced if'
Yes and if pigs had wings they could fly.
Guess you'll never get the chance and us northerners will have to remain on top.
BTW still waiting for you to point out the language in the guidelines all knowing one.........
If you don't want to I understand. It's a losing proposition for you. Why engage in intelligent debate and end up looking like a fool when you can ad hom someone for their post count and then simply state that you know more than them without backing it up thus saving face.
I'm really impressed.
not


Hey look I made it to five posts!
LOL

 

[Blue Dot]

I'm not Jerry Browns personal assistant/secretary and I'm not your's either.

If you really want to know the answer you'll research it and find it.

It's out there, waiting just for you. lol

 

[Mia]

If you really want to know the answer you'll research it and find it.

No prob Blue Dot. The doc. is only ten pages long.
Since you're obviously confused on the issue let me educate you.

Regarding caregivers:
"Primary caregivers also may receive certain compensation for their services. (§ 11362.765(c) [“A primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonable compensation incurred for services provided . . . to enable [a patient] to use marijuana under this article, or for payment for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing those services, or both, . . . shall not, on the sole basis of that fact, be subject to prosecution” for possessing or transporting marijuana].)"
http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/AG_Guidelines.pdf

Now Blue Dot you explain to me where these specifics are again?
Where is "reasonable" defined? How is "reasonable compensation incurred for services provided" defined or calculated?
Once again I'll ask you since you claim to know the answer yet have refused to provide it so far. What should primary caregiver Joe Dirt growing herb in his closet be compensated for each ounce he produces?

Regarding individuals there is no reference in the guidelines.


But hey thanks for clearing up the issue. It's now quite apparent you don't know what you're talking about.
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong but somehow I think you'll continue with the irrelevant and non substantive yet refreshingly snide remarks.
Amazing how little old me, with my measly 6 posts, have managed to provide more valuable info. than you have with all of your self proclaimed knowledge in your replies to me.
You turned an opportunity for meaningful dialogue into an opportunity to show what an ass you act like.
Also you failed to give me your opinion on the issue of taxation I brought up earlier. Can't say I'm shocked there......
Good evening.

 

[Blue Dot]

No prob Blue Dot.
Since you're obviously confused on the issue let me educate you.

Regarding caregivers:
"Primary caregivers also may receive certain compensation for their services. (§ 11362.765(c) [“A primary caregiver who receives compensation for actual expenses, including reasonable compensation incurred for services provided . . . to enable [a patient] to use marijuana under this article, or for payment for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing those services, or both, . . . shall not, on the sole basis of that fact, be subject to prosecution” for possessing or transporting marijuana].)"
http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/AG_Guidelines.pdf

Now Blue Dot you explain to me where these specifics are?
Where is "reasonable' defined?
How is it calculated?

Regarding individuals there is no reference.


But hey thanks for clearing up the issue. It's now quite apparent you don't know what you're talking about.
Feel free to point out where I'm wrong but somehow I think you'll continue with the irrelevant and non substantive yet refreshingly snide remarks.
Also you failed to give me your opinion on the issue of taxation i brought up earlier. Can't say I'm shocked there......
Good evening.

The topic here is SD and about the dispensaries being shut down by bonnie dumanis.

People vs Mentch clearly states, and actually UPHOLDS Lungren v. Peron that dispensaries cannot be considered Primary Caregivers.

This was decided way back in 1996, actaully probably the first case ever right after 215 was enacted.

So, since dispensaries cannot be considered caregivers they must consider themselves non profit corporations as laid out in jerry's guidelines.

Read the guidelins again, giving more then 2 minutes and you'll see where non-profit corporations must equitably share the profit within the corporation.

Have I held your hand enough?

 

[Mia]

Well there you go. Something half way substantive. Was it that painful?
And BTW I read the whole doc.
It took me about ten minutes. So now you can say ten minutes in your posts to me. And that's seven posts now for me since you're so concerned......

The topic here is SD and about the dispensaries being shut down by bonnie dumanis.

The topic was about Sd yes, but not about "the dispensaries being shut down by bonnie dumanis". That is something you injected into the conversation. It is nowhere in the OP's post. Op's post #4 in this thread shows that his concern doesn't seem to be about dispensaries, but about individuals. Which is exactly what I am addressing and you are not.
Therefore the rest of your post is irrelevant.
But hey thanks for playing and better luck next time.

Further you have failed to both back up your claims regarding the AG's guidelines or refute any of my arguments. You have simply tried to frame the argument in a way that suits you by talking about dispensaries only. See my original post in this thread.

If you're half as sharp as you appear to be, you know how non-profits are not really non-profits. But if you would prefer naive idealism re. those entities feel free. But just know that's not how the real world operates.

What's the deal with you and Bonnie anyways??
Can't get her off your mind or something?
LOL

 

[PharmaCan]

Bonnie Dumanis has a salary just over $200,000 per year. That is in addition to gold plated health insurance and retirement benefits and, no doubt, a plethora of expensive perks. So, she is costing the county $400,000 - $500,000 per year. Taking that as a model for "reasonable compensation for her services", dispensaries could morph to "non-profit" co-ops and not change a thing except a bit of their paperwork.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

PC

 

[MedUser420]

Jesus, mia chill out and smoke a j!! Why are you so angry??

 

[Greensub]

Jesus, mia chill out and smoke a j!! Why are you so angry??

He was just meeting Blue Dot, LOL