Ok...tell me...Can you sell Meds??
Can you make a personal profit, tho the Entity cannot??
The People v Mentch - an indepth look
- Thread starter richyrich
- Start date
Ok...tell me...Can you sell Meds??
Can you make a personal profit, tho the Entity cannot??
What I have been thinking is along these lines:
The non-profit collective (entity) cannot make profit. The entity will incur costs and under the law may recoup those expenses. That is where persons can possibly be paid--but not under caregiver statutes. I have to read over the case law again and figure it out.
B
Blue Dot
I don't think you really need to review case law, or even re-read AG Browns guidlines. CA's scheme is NON-PROFIT. Collective members may be reimbursed but may not "Profit".
See I remember this stuff even while stoned.
Peace,
That's not what Jovan Jackson's jurors said.
They said there was no law presented to them that requires a collective to make no profit.
I don't think you really need to review case law, or even re-read AG Browns guidlines. CA's scheme is NON-PROFIT. Collective members may be reimbursed but may not "Profit".
See I remember this stuff even while stoned.
Peace,
I know that as clear as I know the sun comes up in the morning. I want to figure out the exact legal parameters one can be reimbursed under. The exact range of conduct that would be legally sound--keep you from being prosecuted and out of the can. You can't just go off of memory and what you think. You need to back it up with infallible-logical-legal reasoning pointing to the statutes and current case law. [generally speaking]
Look up what a legal brief is in an internet search. It's basically an argument on paper for the court. It's what lawyers get paid big bucks for. It is the way to present your interpretations with legal backing.
IMO, the Jovan Jackson jurors were so confused with the laws and the lawyer's presentations at trial that they had no choice, but to find him not guilty--rightly so; they had a shit load of doubt beyond reasonable doubt. IMO, he got very lucky. Bonnie Dumanis has more ducks to shoot. Let's see how the next ones turn out.
Nobody is claiming Caregiver status-- That is dead and gone--
However, if you are running a Non-Profit Business, you are allowed to receive a Salary...so are your Employees--
They want to try and limit those to what is like other Non Profits...and I believe there is no shortage of Non Profit Management making 6 figures...prolly many times over--
They can make D's perform like other Non Profits...but when you go there, you truly open up the proverbial "Can o Worms"!!
Bottom line is...if ppl cannot make a good living, doing this...they will not do it-- Do you honestly think that things have gone this far, with all the thought going into how it can make $$ for the State...do you really think they are gonna let it slip through that easily??
They want, what we have...and they may try and bluff their way into a "Do it our way, or no way" attitude...but I know that in the end, the $$ will win-- It always does!! It is the Political way--
BTW...I am not sure if I am happy or sad about that....it just "Is"--
J
JackTheGrower
I enjoy reading these threads thanx'
B
Blue Dot
I've said it before.
Richard Lee could donate MILLIONS to San Diego to be able to move here and open up his kind of D's and the city nor the board of supes would allow it.
When you and kmk420kali finally realize that some people can't be bought off by money on this particular issue the better you'll understand what's really gonna happen.
My belief is in the end the $ will win. The time frame is open ended. It could be 5 years, 10... But, not any time soon. Possible legalization next year is going to have a huge impact on this.
You can not buy off, reason with, or educate a rock. BlueDot is the PERFECT example.
Peace,
Maybe dispensaries aren't claiming to be caregivers.. I think most of them are, but most other people are using that argument against dispensaries any chance they get. The concept of caregivers – their legal parameters and, collectives/dispensary's responsibility gets conflated in rulings and when given a casual reading, as 99% of the people do, it comes out as dispensaries have to be caregivers and they are not doing so, so lets shut 'em all down, or lets at least limit them. The two categories – "caregivers" and "collectives," even gets conflated in the AG's 2008 guidelines.
The real danger here is that anti- medical cannabis people are using this misconception to flavor their arguments in city council meetings and national opinion as well.!
The caregiver defense is a hold-over from pre SB420 that seemed to get passed down from dispensary to dispensary without anyone ever really looking into it.
The real danger here is that anti- medical cannabis people are using this misconception to flavor their arguments in city council meetings and national opinion as well.!
The caregiver defense is a hold-over from pre SB420 that seemed to get passed down from dispensary to dispensary without anyone ever really looking into it.
deejaycruise
New member
the abuse of the caregiver satus by the dispensaries was because that is the only way that cash is allowed to be exchanged for services related to medical use of marijuana. Without being a caregiver you can not exchange money. All other activity in the act is limited to personal activity for personal use. Any commercial activity whatsoever is illegal. People forget that the law is derived from 215 and all 420 did was extend some protections for actions that 215 did not address but were necessary to implement 215 and without those additional protections some might find themselves in legal jeopardy. Somehow even with those protections some feel they should foul the progress provided for in the act for their own personal financial gain. You can not profit from this, any salary indicates a commercial activity and should be accepted as proof of criminal sales. How can you get a salary for a personal use.
Read 215, again. It doesn't even mention that CAREGIVERS are protected as far as money or salary goes.
Money is only implied by our knowledge of what a caregiver does professionally.
"Compensation" is never mentioned once in 215.
It does however mentioned the word, "affordable," regarding a request that state and fed implement plans for distribution {215(C).}
In 1996, at the time of 215, the "caregiver," denomination ONLY IMPLIED at that time a "compensation" for the caregiver, in the manner consistent to our knowledge of the caregiving profession. The "compensation" side of it was not completely protected for caregivers, until SB 420.
Note that just as 215 introduces the "caregiver" concept without specifically mentioning "caregiver compensation," SB 420 introduces the concept of "collectives and cooperatives" without mentioning that they may receive compensation. Just as in 215 and the "caregiver" flash, "compensation," is only implied, by our knowledge of "collectives" – thus only vaguely suggesting compensation if several people were acting through a collective model. Is that implied common understanding of collective or co-op, enough to justify compensation?
We had to wait only five years, this time, (AG 2008) for the delicate situation of compensation to be specifically addressed as it pertains to collectives/cooperatives.
(AG 2008)4. b. 5. "A dispensing collective or cooperative may credit its members
for marijuana they provide to the collective, which it may then allocate to other
members. (§ 11362.765(c).) Members also may reimburse the collective or
cooperative for marijuana that has been allocated to them. Any monetary
reimbursement that members provide to the collective or cooperative should only
be an amount necessary to cover overhead costs and operating expenses.
"
This tells me that dispensaries "shouldn't" buy medicine for distribution. There are, however, viable models for this type of situation that legally fit.
Is a caregiver allowed a high salary, as a non-cannabis caregiver might get?
Are ANY non-profit entities allowed a high salary????
I suggest that the next concept, as it pertains to "compensation," to be detailed in the next installment of these docs. might be the term "non-profit." This one could be big, and actually be an invitation for big a big non-profit drug company spin-offs to go in, knocking out most "ma and pa operations."
I agree that salary may, ...may be signs of abuse, but I can unequivocally say that money CAN exchange hands in medical cannabis exchanges – and cannot alone be a sign of abuse, except by a very "quick – surfacy" reading of all the legal information available.
...I don't see any other non-profits being prosecuted for salary, alone. It happens, but it usually involves other evasive tax issues. Look at some of these new-age gurus that travel around in Limos and jets and eat the finest foods, etc. Most go untouched. There are plenty of non-profits that would make most of the dispensaries look like paupers.
I have "no (vested) comment," on dispensaries, but I will defend 420 and AG 2008.
Money is only implied by our knowledge of what a caregiver does professionally.
"Compensation" is never mentioned once in 215.
It does however mentioned the word, "affordable," regarding a request that state and fed implement plans for distribution {215(C).}
In 1996, at the time of 215, the "caregiver," denomination ONLY IMPLIED at that time a "compensation" for the caregiver, in the manner consistent to our knowledge of the caregiving profession. The "compensation" side of it was not completely protected for caregivers, until SB 420.
Note that just as 215 introduces the "caregiver" concept without specifically mentioning "caregiver compensation," SB 420 introduces the concept of "collectives and cooperatives" without mentioning that they may receive compensation. Just as in 215 and the "caregiver" flash, "compensation," is only implied, by our knowledge of "collectives" – thus only vaguely suggesting compensation if several people were acting through a collective model. Is that implied common understanding of collective or co-op, enough to justify compensation?
We had to wait only five years, this time, (AG 2008) for the delicate situation of compensation to be specifically addressed as it pertains to collectives/cooperatives.
(AG 2008)4. b. 5. "A dispensing collective or cooperative may credit its members
for marijuana they provide to the collective, which it may then allocate to other
members. (§ 11362.765(c).) Members also may reimburse the collective or
cooperative for marijuana that has been allocated to them. Any monetary
reimbursement that members provide to the collective or cooperative should only
be an amount necessary to cover overhead costs and operating expenses.
"
This tells me that dispensaries "shouldn't" buy medicine for distribution. There are, however, viable models for this type of situation that legally fit.
Is a caregiver allowed a high salary, as a non-cannabis caregiver might get?
Are ANY non-profit entities allowed a high salary????
I suggest that the next concept, as it pertains to "compensation," to be detailed in the next installment of these docs. might be the term "non-profit." This one could be big, and actually be an invitation for big a big non-profit drug company spin-offs to go in, knocking out most "ma and pa operations."
I agree that salary may, ...may be signs of abuse, but I can unequivocally say that money CAN exchange hands in medical cannabis exchanges – and cannot alone be a sign of abuse, except by a very "quick – surfacy" reading of all the legal information available.
...I don't see any other non-profits being prosecuted for salary, alone. It happens, but it usually involves other evasive tax issues. Look at some of these new-age gurus that travel around in Limos and jets and eat the finest foods, etc. Most go untouched. There are plenty of non-profits that would make most of the dispensaries look like paupers.
I have "no (vested) comment," on dispensaries, but I will defend 420 and AG 2008.
deejaycruise
New member
Read 420, caregivers are allowed to recieve reimbursements. Dispensaries are illegal collectives are legal. A dispensary is a secure location where a caregiver stores the medicine he uses to administer marijuana to the patient. You have to have a caregiver relationship none of the existing operations has a caregiver relationship to any of the people they sell to. The thing you think is a dispensary has changed what it calls itself to a collective and thinks it can bring the right to an exchange of cash for marijuana with it across to another section of the code. Sure why not apply that section to cocaine too. If the state wanted to allow sales they would have used that word. The word they used was give away. In order to provide give away with an affirmative defense they had to specify that section of the code where give away is made illegal. Just because that section of the code also includes sales does not allow sales, just as it does not allow importing which is also in that code section. As the act specifies "subject to the requirements of the article" you will not be subject to criminal liability under section 11360 if you administer or give away. And even that does not apply to a collective, they only thing a collective can do is cultivate. In accomplishing the goal of cultivating you are not subject to criminal liability for most actions you must perform in the process of cultivating. You can only grow for your own personal needs, you can grow with others who grow for their own personal needs, you can not grow for another unless you have an ongoing caregiver relationship determined without considering the provision of marijuana as a part of the caregiver relationship. What did you do as a caregiver for that person before you ever decided to cultivate marijuana for that person. So at least three months prior to providing marijuana to a patient (time enough to grow it) what did you do for that patient that created the caregiver relationship that allows you to recieve any reimbursement for expenses incurred directly as a result of your agreeing to add cultivating marijuana for them as a part of your caregiving relationship.
I can not see any circumstance where money does not exchange hands for atleast 90 days prior to the provision of the marijuana cultivated for the patient. I can see no circumstances where one could provide marijuana to anyone without at least a 90 day relationship. Anywhere that marijuana is provided to anyone prior to that 90 days the marijuana would be premature trash or criminal liability arises without an affirmative defense.
Just think in just 90 day you to could be self sufficient. If you have your recommendation for more than 90 days and still pay money for marijuana you are a part of the problem and are aiding and abetting an activity that is criminal.
I can not see any circumstance where money does not exchange hands for atleast 90 days prior to the provision of the marijuana cultivated for the patient. I can see no circumstances where one could provide marijuana to anyone without at least a 90 day relationship. Anywhere that marijuana is provided to anyone prior to that 90 days the marijuana would be premature trash or criminal liability arises without an affirmative defense.
Just think in just 90 day you to could be self sufficient. If you have your recommendation for more than 90 days and still pay money for marijuana you are a part of the problem and are aiding and abetting an activity that is criminal.
T
texsativa
Unjust men make unjust laws. Freedom to the people! 
DJ, I invite you to go into the question of "compensation," with an open mind, reread all the documents, CAREFULLY, 215, 420, AG 2008, Mentsch, Peron. Study the possible ways of allocation and receiving, as well as reimbursement of product in a medical cannabis collective organization, leaving aside perceived abuses and any biased opinions. Come back to the issue and then experience facts on a state of California level.
CA really needs an Initiative to define Dispensaries. The arguing is self defeating, and it's absurd to think that a distribution chain is going to be set up without people getting compensated.
Goddamn it's cold as a fucking witches teat here in DC. A foot and a half of ice covered snow on the ground, cops pulling guns on people having snowball fights, shuttle driver was a maniac, everybody on I-95 tailgating everyone else, crap it's good to be home even though I had to give back the 3 hours I gained from moving west.
Goddamn it's cold as a fucking witches teat here in DC. A foot and a half of ice covered snow on the ground, cops pulling guns on people having snowball fights, shuttle driver was a maniac, everybody on I-95 tailgating everyone else, crap it's good to be home even though I had to give back the 3 hours I gained from moving west.
