The People v Mentch - an indepth look

[Blue Dot]

Is it any of your business if there are tomatoes, weed or both?

Yes, if you are growing a room full of lipotrol or vioxx, etc then the public has every right to inspect that grow to make sure it complies with health and saftey standards.


You think big pharma produces drugs behind closed doors and when the state comes to inspect them they say "why you trying to jack boot my front door and inspect my garden?" lol

 

[statusquo]

It is not a drug

I don't want to see any dead MMJ patients because people like you can't tell the difference between a no pest strip vs a non toxic alternative.

two gems.

 

[Surrender]

Richy what do you make of this analysis? I am reading up on People v. Urziceanu currently.

 

[Hazelnuts]

How bout the valid contra arguement that neither strawberries nor tomatoes are DRUGS but rather FOOD.

Get over it, MJ is a drug and needs to be regulated as such.

Otherwise idiots like michael jackson will be injured due to reckless growing by people who don't understand that pesticides are DRUGS.

(most pesticides act on the CNS, central nervous system)

Yes, MJ is a drug but it's inherently different from all other drugs in being harmless to humans unless the grower (or, in this case, caregiver) fucks up bad by applying poisonous pesticides or letting it mold and then giving it to the patient. The same applies to strawberries and tomatoes, if they're contaminated in any way, they can potentially kill you. And while professional scale grows, should they once legally exist, will definitely have to be regulated, it doesn't make any sense to regulate personal level and smaller medicinal grows since there's no synthesis to fuck up or any other difficulties you mentioned that apply to synthetic drugs. In that respect, it's the same as tomatoes and strawberries, if I wanna grow those for a friend of mine, I can and the government has no right and also doesn't consider it necessary to fuck with me for doing it one way or another.

 

[deejaycruise]

Being designated a caregiver for purposes of providing marijuana in exchange for cash is illegal. Wouldn't it be wrong to allow any of those pre ICO 187 (now less than 140) to continue in business if they had in fact provided marijuana in exchange for cash at any time while they were at their current address if the basis was soley upon their improper use of a caregiver designation. Those pre ICOs sometimes like to act like they followed the laws and those after ICOs did not. In fact some of the post ICOs never used the caregiver form to justify their exchange of marijuana for cash, they used the phony collective form instead. (collectives do not have that section C ) True caregivers get the section C (for cash) (find cash anywhere in .775, I can't) All dispensaries and any collective that take cash in exchange for marijuana are illegal, some are currently tolerated by some areas, they are still illegal. It would take another ballot initiative to change that. Or the legislature could try (GOV WILL VETO IT) to change it.
Get over it and overgrow thats where the law protects you and those you caregive for. Stop this nonsense of profiteering.

 

[Hazelnuts]

I think the problem with being a caregiver without earning money for it is that most people can't afford to take care of those patients full-time, as it is required by the definition of a caregiver set by People v Mentch (as I understand it) without earning any money... I mean, you still have to live off something, right?

 

[Hydrosun]

Yes, if you are growing a room full of lipotrol or vioxx, etc then the public has every right to inspect that grow to make sure it complies with health and saftey standards.


You think big pharma produces drugs behind closed doors and when the state comes to inspect them they say "why you trying to jack boot my front door and inspect my garden?" lol

As another great ICmager mentioned MJ is not toxic or synthesized, there is no public health or safety issue; therefore any infringement on an ICmager's freedom to grow is immoral and unethical.

On a good note BlueDot you are a great +K creator for me personally so I thank you. My first +K about you said "You have to realize BlueDot has his own dictionary." The recent gems are:

fuck blue dot. we need an official blue dot haters club.

I hate that guy ty! lol

Good one!I cannot stand Blue Dot and his negative self righteous bullshit!!

Awesome, I can't believe they haven't banned that douche! This sites mods suck!

That is five different members of ICmag that have taken the time to thank me for standing up to you. I know you are old, infrimed, and stuborn beyond belief; but just maybe you might consider changing your style of interacting with this community?

Peace,

 

[richyrich]

Richy what do you make of this analysis? I am reading up on People v. Urziceanu currently.

I'll print that case out and put it in line right after People v. Hochanadel. Hochanadel is about dispensaries. Urziceanu will be a good one regarding collectives and co-operatives. I think I need to go back to another one too, Peron.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Wow and i thought I had a lot of info to type.

So Let me add to the thread that I worked as a primary care giver for my first wife for over 9 years.

You couldn't get more primary than I. I always understood that part of 215 was about the rights of the loved one to administer to your care with cannabis since AIDS was a concern of the time and still is I'm sure. There weren't a lot of protections for gay partners to have rights to care for their gay partners nor are there today actually.
That's how I saw it come to be in 215. Just my point of view but it's a valid one.

That's all I ever thought it meant. That may place me on the conservative side but we are talking about Medical Cannabis.
The best way to solve most of the medical problems is to legalize cannabis for everyone so we can let the poor medical people be medical people with our love and best wishes for a speedy recovery.

So .. Wow that's not light reading. I will try again..

So out is the care provider and in is the coop with proper paper work.

 

[Hydrosun]

Wow and i thought I had a lot of info to type.

So Let me add to the thread that I worked as a primary care giver for my first wife for over 9 years.

You couldn't get more primary than I. I always understood that part of 215 was about the rights of the loved one to administer to your care with cannabis since AIDS was a concern of the time and still is I'm sure. There weren't a lot of protections for gay partners to have rights to care for their gay partners nor are there today actually.
That's how I saw it come to be in 215. Just my point of view but it's a valid one.

That's all I ever thought it meant. That may place me on the conservative side but we are talking about Medical Cannabis.
The best way to solve most of the medical problems is to legalize cannabis for everyone so we can let the poor medical people be medical people with our love and best wishes for a speedy recovery.

So .. Wow that's not light reading. I will try again..

So out is the care provider and in is the coop with proper paper work.

Well I agree with the big stuff above and that will solve my objection with the last sentence

Peace,

 

[JackTheGrower]

So where are we?? I am disoriented on what is legal and what is not.

1. I assume we can have a group of medical people and share responsibility and produce.

2. We cannot outright sell cannabis to qualified cannabis patients unless they are members of the group.

Is that correct then? Is there more or are we a fragmented state as to what is or isn't allowed?

Is it true that some areas don't allow any distribution, some allow some distribution within a club and some areas let you just sell to whoever walks up with proper medical ID.

Does that cover it for California?

 

[JackTheGrower]

Well I agree with the big stuff above and that will solve my objection with the last sentence

Peace,

I'm trying to connect the dots. Cannabis has to be grown. Not everyone has the time or skill to grow cannabis and also they may need to try different strains till they find one that works best for the symptoms being treated.

It has to come from some place and it should be clean and chemical free.

So caregiver is the one by your side in times of illness, the coop is a place you work with others to supply cannabis to a group.

Is that what is supposed to be our law?

 

[Surrender]

I found reference on Bruce Margolin's excellent website to People v. Windus (2008) which also has some interesting language.

 

[kmk420kali]

I found reference on Bruce Margolin's excellent website to People v. Windus (2008) which also has some interesting language.

I know Bruce, and he knows me...we don't see eye to eye on a few things....however...People vs Windus does let us know that our Recs do not expire...very good info for folks who can't afford to renew their Recs yearly--

 

[Hydrosun]

I'm trying to connect the dots. Cannabis has to be grown. Not everyone has the time or skill to grow cannabis and also they may need to try different strains till they find one that works best for the symptoms being treated.

It has to come from some place and it should be clean and chemical free.

So caregiver is the one by your side in times of illness, the coop is a place you work with others to supply cannabis to a group.

Is that what is supposed to be our law?

The big stuff I agreed with was your perfectly constructed sentence that cannabis should be legal for everyone and that would solve the medical marijuana problem.

If we take your suggestion then there is NO NEED for MMJ laws, just as there are not laws for or against growing tomatoes at your house if you want. When MJ is treated like a tomato the price will drop and the selection will expand exponentially. Because not everyone has the time or skill as you mentioned it would be best to leave those who can produce free to do it as they see fit.

I personally grow great MJ that is harvested with the system at 150ppm or less, as a comparison the shitty tap water here is 580ppm of toxic who knows. Lucky for me my ladies drink reverse osmosis water instead of tap

Peace,

 

[Blue Dot]

If we take your suggestion then there is NO NEED for MMJ laws,

I think i figured it out.

1. You're really not sick and can't get a rec and are jealous of those who can.

(Which, BTW would be insane because any of us sick people would give and arm and a leg to not be ill.)

2. Somehow you can't make as much selling now that MMJ is legal as before.

Honestly, what the problem with sick people having access to meds?

The rec users still have no access so NOTHING really changed with the enactment of the med laws so why so bitter about 215?

 

[Hydrosun]

I think i figured it out.

1. You're really not sick and can't get a rec and are jealous of those who can.

(Which, BTW would be insane because any of us sick people would give and arm and a leg to not be ill.)

2. Somehow you can't make as much selling now that MMJ is legal as before.

Honestly, what the problem with sick people having access to meds?

The rec users still have no access so NOTHING really changed with the enactment of the med laws so why so bitter about 215?

You are wrong as usual, I have no problems with anyone smoking MJ or anyone holding a card. I have no problems with those who don't hold cards and want to smoke. I think everyone should smoke and grow as they see fit. As far as the economics of weed go that is a really long discussion that you ran away from in the Why is MMJ so expensive thread.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=2863824#post2863824

If you re-read that thread you will see what I have said about my personal production and the economics of MJ. You can also check out my thread which shows what the second half of 2009 has been like, but MJ is a hobby for me not a job.

So again you are obfuscating by saying that I don't want sick people to smoke or get meds. I want everyone to have high quality MJ if they want it and I have never said differently. 215 and other crazy laws are making it A LOT easier for A LOT more high quality MJ to be produced in the USA, but broken record time "No law that restricts a free born person's right to grow, posess, smoke, eat, or distribute MJ is moral or ethical." Therefore my problem with 215 is that it is immoral and unethical, MJ should be treated no differently than tomatoes grown at home.

Peace,

 

[JackTheGrower]

The big stuff I agreed with was your perfectly constructed sentence that cannabis should be legal for everyone and that would solve the medical marijuana problem.

If we take your suggestion then there is NO NEED for MMJ laws, just as there are not laws for or against growing tomatoes at your house if you want. When MJ is treated like a tomato the price will drop and the selection will expand exponentially. Because not everyone has the time or skill as you mentioned it would be best to leave those who can produce free to do it as they see fit.

I personally grow great MJ that is harvested with the system at 150ppm or less, as a comparison the shitty tap water here is 580ppm of toxic who knows. Lucky for me my ladies drink reverse osmosis water instead of tap

Peace,

yeah Nationally is the best way to do this.. Since freedom is something all the States will want if California gets it.

Oh I really think the real green rush will happen in 2011 when tax2010 kicks in.

 

[richyrich]

yeah Nationally is the best way to do this.. Since freedom is something all the States will want if California gets it.

Oh I really think the real green rush will happen in 2011 when tax2010 kicks in.

^^^ That is going to be something to see when the time comes. If LEO thinks they hate it now with MMJ laws, just wait, haha.

 

[richyrich]

Working on the other cases guys and gals.