Once again...a Senate Bill cannot "take away from" a Prop...but it may "add" to it, as long as it is not limiting--
LA pot law draft would set no limits
- Thread starter richyrich
- Start date
Once again...a Senate Bill cannot "take away from" a Prop...but it may "add" to it, as long as it is not limiting--
J
JackTheGrower
The one that tosses out the limits for medical people.
My bad I spaced out on this thread.
True that it is yet to be worked out but, some sort of "dispensary" is allowed. Some sales are legal and there are no limits to stock on hand for those dispensaries.
Now that sounds to me like finding a 2010 Strain aged say two years for a good price, very possible.
But what was the question? LOL
J
JackTheGrower
I don't think it will fly. Since is discriminates against the disabled who may not be able to grow their own. No one is required to grow at their cost for someone else.
B
Blue Dot
Actually the law does specifically say "costs".
It says a caregiver can be reasonably compensated for "costs".
Profit is above and beyond cost so yeah, the law does say exactly what you don't think it does.
Your time is a "Cost"-- If you think that you are ever going to have ppl just grow quality weed, and give it all away for nothing...you are wrong--
I help several ppl out, and give them their meds for free...but I could not do this without selling it to others--
B
Blue Dot
Why do you and the others keep acting like this is MY "idea".
I didn't write the law, all I'm doing is stating fact.
Bullshit!! The "Facts" were stated long ago...we all know what the fucking Law says...you are trying your best, or at least it is looking like that...to keep harping in everyone's ear about how we are defenseless to change or challenge those Laws--
Just because it is written, does not make it true--
Everything is open for interpretation...that is how they have kept us down for decades...by insisting that their Interpretation is indeed, Fact--
And some of you sheeple believe them--
Ocean Grown
Member
Facts? Yes, you are stating them (over and over). But it's the creative application of those facts that allows your legal joint in the first place.
How about this fact: California State Law will never meet the needs of legitimate patients and must be "reinterpreted" by court opinions. It these "new" court opinions that make the poorly written CUA usable by testing the limits of the law.
I mean how do you think it became legal? It wasn't a bunch of scared people who said "we can't do this, we would have to bend the law to make the law usable. So let's go hide in the corner, not rock the boat and never make medical use legal".
I get where you are from BD but isn't it time to update your broken record to those new fangled CD thingys?
If I could harness the effort you put into your sunday school nun preaching of "facts", it would be legal in all 50.
I hear you BD, I do. But I live in the real world with it's real problems. How about a solution for a change? I'd honestly like to hear your views on how to fix the issue, instead of the constant repetition of written rules.
I'm a stickler for rules. Why? Because I have to in order to avoid jail and to keep providing "at cost" and free meds to the ill.
So, my ears are open. Give me the "short list" Blue Dot version of what changes you would make and why. And how to feed the seriously ill who got stuck with this mess.
Thanks,
OG
How about this fact: California State Law will never meet the needs of legitimate patients and must be "reinterpreted" by court opinions. It these "new" court opinions that make the poorly written CUA usable by testing the limits of the law.
I mean how do you think it became legal? It wasn't a bunch of scared people who said "we can't do this, we would have to bend the law to make the law usable. So let's go hide in the corner, not rock the boat and never make medical use legal".
I get where you are from BD but isn't it time to update your broken record to those new fangled CD thingys?
If I could harness the effort you put into your sunday school nun preaching of "facts", it would be legal in all 50.
I hear you BD, I do. But I live in the real world with it's real problems. How about a solution for a change? I'd honestly like to hear your views on how to fix the issue, instead of the constant repetition of written rules.
I'm a stickler for rules. Why? Because I have to in order to avoid jail and to keep providing "at cost" and free meds to the ill.
So, my ears are open. Give me the "short list" Blue Dot version of what changes you would make and why. And how to feed the seriously ill who got stuck with this mess.
Thanks,
OG
Go pee on someone else's leg and say it's raining.
By your definition, if I was paralyzed from the neck down and could only blow through a tube to steer my wheelchair, I would have NO way to join a collective? Fuck off. That's not the way the law is written.
B
Blue Dot
You know damn well most of these ill patients can do SOMETHING to help with the collective.
They could even work at home on the collectives website if they can't travel, etc.
For you to pull the "paralyzed" card is unfair. I have the utmost sympathy for a paralyzed victim but we both know that's less then 1% of cali patients and that is documented. look up the county database card records if you don't believe me.
deejaycruise was 100% correct.
J
JackTheGrower
So let's find the cheats? And send them to jail? How about we just legalize and be done?
So Blue Dot you want to spend more on the war on cannabis then?
B
Blue Dot
I'm for 100% legalization. Have been all along.
I wanna see fields besides the roadside.
Ok...here is a question I have for you and deejay (BTW, I know DJ personally, so I am kind of looking forward to his answer)
If there are 1000 Dispensaries in LA, and they all have hundreds, some even thousands of members--
Now how are all those ppl going to be able to be part of a Collective, and do physical work for them?? Do you really think that that many ppl knowing the location of the grow is a good thing?? Do you think a grow has that many job slots??
I think it is crazy to think that every person should have a "hands on" job with them??
For it to work the way you are proposing, there would have to be 10 to 20 thousand Collectives for each 100,000 Patients, since realistically there would only be room for 15 or 20 ppl to do hands-on there--
I would personally never let that many ppl know where my grow was at--
That is just it with a collective or cooperative, it is not your grow. It is everyone's who is a member. It is reasonable for the person who starts and takes all the financial risk to want to claim ownership and control, but it is not so.
Maybe allow the dispensaries to contract with private growers for the supply. If allowing only on site grows there will be violent robberies at each one. Better to have inconspicuous contractors supplying the product.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROGER WILLIAM MENTCH,
Defendant and Appellant.
S148204
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
45 Cal. 4th 274; 195 P.3d 1061; 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 480; 2008 Cal. LEXIS 13630
November 24, 2008, Filed
DISCUSSION
Nothing in the text or in the supporting ballot
arguments suggests this is what the voters intended. The
words the statute uses--housing, health, safety--imply a
caretaking relationship directed at the core survival needs
of a seriously ill patient, not just one single
pharmaceutical need. The ballot arguments in support
suggest a patient is generally personally responsible for
noncommercially supplying his or her own marijuana:
?Proposition 215 allows patients to cultivate their own
marijuana simply because federal laws prevent the sale of
marijuana, and a state initiative cannot overrule those
laws." (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996) argument
in favor of Prop. 215, p. 60.) But as the focus is on the
"seriously and terminally ill" (ibid.), logically the Act
must offer some alternative for those unable to act in their
own behalf; accordingly, the Act allows "'primary
caregiver
too ill or bedridden to do so" (People ex rel. Lungren v.
Peron, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 1394). To exercise
that authority, however, one must be a
"primary"--principal, lead, central--"caregiver"--one
responsible for rendering assistance in the provision of
daily life necessities--for a qualifying seriously or
terminally ill patient. 7
7 The Act is a narrow measure with narrow ends.
As we acknowledged only months ago, "'the
proponents' ballot arguments reveal a delicate
tightrope walk designed to induce voter approval,
which we would upset were we to stretch the
proposition's limited immunity to cover that
which its language does not.' " (Ross v.
RagingWire Telecommunications, Inc. (2008) 42
Cal.4th 920, 930 [70 Cal. Rptr. 3d 382, 174 P.3d
200], quoting People v. Galambos (2002) 104
Cal.App.4th 1147, 1152 [128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 844].)
The Act's drafters took pains to note that "neither
relaxation much less evisceration of the state's
marijuana laws was envisioned." (People v.
Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1546 [66
Cal. Rptr. 2d 559]; see also People v. Urziceanu,
supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 772-773 [the Act
"is a narrowly drafted statute," not an attempt to
"decriminalize marijuana on a wholesale basis"].)
We must interpret the text with those constraints
in mind.
We have no doubt our interpretation of the statute
will pose no obstacle for those bona fide primary
caregivers whose ministrations to their patients the Act
was actually intended to shield from prosecution. The
spouse or domestic partner caring for his or her ailing
companion, the child caring for his or her ailing parent,
the hospice nurse caring for his or her ailing patient--each
can point to the many ways in which they, medical
marijuana aside, attend to and assume responsibility for
the core survival needs of their dependents. The Act
allows them, insofar as state criminal law is concerned, to
add the provision of marijuana, where medically
recommended or approved, as one more arrow in their
caregiving quiver. It simply does not provide similar
protection where the provision of marijuana is itself the
substance of the relationship
You are right about that, I understand that bro...my bad for choice of words--
So, you really think that it is a good idea to have all the patients knowing where the grow is, what security it has...etc...
You are really missing my whole point--
How can you accommodate the number of Patients in Calif, and have them all work hands-on at the Collective? There are just not enough things for hundreds of Patients to be able to physically work at a single Collective....and if it calls for smaller Collectives, then there would be thousands, if not tens of thousands in So Cal alone-- And we all know them numbers will not fly, with the current Political attitude--
I never implied I was a Caretaker-- I am simply the Founder of my Collective-- My Patients are physically unable to tend a garden--
I completely understand about the security issue. There is no immediate answer to provide enough supply to all the med users. But, that does not justify the rubbing against the intention of the law. But, of course people will, as we see in these cases and things will change, hopefully for the better. Because there is no immediate answer, also, does not justify an argument premised on doom and no supply to the other med users. Sometimes there are no quick answers and this is where folks bring in their ideological views. I understand the view points, but the perspective I like to try to keep is one of the courtroom. What really matters is if you get caught up in court. That is why I started the thread in my signature. I think folks here really need to know these cases just in case shit goes down on them. So, I keep my perspective for the most part, completely legal.
Gotcha, not trying to start an argument with you. I believe if your patients are unable to participate in the collective, then they would need to assign a caregiver for their role or you could be their caregiver; then what I posted would apply. It's an issue of a caregiver doing the part of the incapacitated in the collective. So, it's an intertwined issue.
