CA Attorney General releases new Guidelines

[quadracer]

http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/AG_Guidelines.pdf



Americans for Safe Access
For Immediate Release: August 25, 2008

CA Attorney General Directs Law Enforcement on Medical Marijuana
Comprehensive recommendations include protection of dispensaries

Sacramento, CA -- California Attorney General Jerry Brown issued long-awaited guidelines on medical marijuana today with support from advocates and law enforcement alike. The guidelines direct law enforcement on how to approach encounters with medical marijuana patients and establish a road map for local police policies. However, more significantly, the guidelines provide recommendations for operating medical marijuana dispensaries in accordance with state law. Specifically, the Attorney General states that, "a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law."

The guidelines are the culmination of years of work by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and other advocates to educate and urge action from the Attorney General and other state officials. "Today we stand beside the Attorney General of California in his effort to fully implement the state's medical marijuana law," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford. "We welcome this leadership and expect that compliance with these guidelines will result in fewer unnecessary arrests, citations and seizures of medicine from qualified patients and their primary caregivers." The guidelines not only provide direction for patients and police, but also for lawyers, judges and public officials to better understand their rights, responsibilities, and obligations under state law.

The guidelines firmly establish that as long as patients and caregivers are abiding by local and state laws, they "should be released" from police custody and "the marijuana should not be seized." In the event that medical marijuana is wrongfully seized from a patient or caregiver, and the court orders its return, the guidelines state that police "must return the property." Affirming that California's medical marijuana law is not preempted by federal law, the Attorney General further directs "state and local law enforcement officers [to] not arrest individuals or seize marijuana under federal law" when an individual's conduct is legal under state law.

Contained within the guidelines is a controversial provision requiring medical marijuana dispensaries to operate on a not-for-profit basis. This interpretation of the law comes from California's Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420), passed by the legislature in 2003. However, while the voter-approved initiative Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, references the need for a distribution system, no mention is made of for-profit status. In prior discussions with the Attorney General's office, ASA had strenuously objected to this provision of the guidelines.

The guidelines come at a time of escalating interference by the federal government. The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Department of Justice continue in their attempts to undermine state law through ongoing investigations, raids, seizures, prosecutions, and imprisonment of medical marijuana patients and providers. In response, several California mayors, including Gavin Newsom and Ron Dellums, have voiced their opposition to House Judiciary Chair John Conyers (D-MI) and have called for oversight hearings. "It is now up to Congress and the new President to align federal policy with California and other medical cannabis states," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "It is time to resolve the federal-state conflict that serves only to undermine California and other states' sovereignty and inflict harm on seriously ill patients and their care providers."

For further information:
Guidelines issued today by the California Attorney General: http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/AG_Guidelines.pdf
Attorney General bulletin issued to all law enforcement after the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich: http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/AG_Raich_Bulletin2.pdf

# # #

 

[est1977]

Good to Hear !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[quadracer]

This part concerns me:

5. Non-Cardholders: When a person claims protection under Proposition
215 or the MMP and only has a locally-issued (i.e., non-state) patient identification
card, or a written (or verbal) recommendation from a licensed physician, officers
should use their sound professional judgment to assess the validity of the person’s
medical-use claim:
a) Officers need not abandon their search or investigation. The standard
search and seizure rules apply to the enforcement of marijuana-related
violations. Reasonable suspicion is required for detention, while probable
cause is required for search, seizure, and arrest.
b) Officers should review any written documentation for validity. It may
contain the physician’s name, telephone number, address, and license
number.
c) If the officer reasonably believes that the medical-use claim is valid
based upon the totality of the circumstances (including the quantity of
marijuana, packaging for sale, the presence of weapons, illicit drugs, or
large amounts of cash), and the person is within the state or local possession
guidelines or has an amount consistent with their current medical needs, the
person should be released and the marijuana should not be seized.
d) Alternatively, if the officer has probable cause to doubt the validity of a
person’s medical marijuana claim based upon the facts and circumstances,
the person may be arrested and the marijuana may be seized. It will then be
up to the person to establish his or her medical marijuana defense in court.
e) Officers are not obligated to accept a person’s claim of having a verbal
physician’s recommendation that cannot be readily verified with the
physician at the time of detention.

Wow! Now cops get to play cop AND doctor! I wonder how much this is going to be abused...

 

[MF Grimm]

This part concerns me:





Wow! Now cops get to play cop AND doctor! I wonder how much this is going to be abused...

Yeah, that ain't too cool, man.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

This part concerns me:

5. Non-Cardholders: When a person claims protection under Proposition
215 or the MMP and only has a locally-issued (i.e., non-state) patient identification
card, or a written (or verbal) recommendation from a licensed physician, officers
should use their sound professional judgment to assess the validity of the person’s
medical-use claim:
a) Officers need not abandon their search or investigation. The standard
search and seizure rules apply to the enforcement of marijuana-related
violations. Reasonable suspicion is required for detention, while probable
cause is required for search, seizure, and arrest.
b) Officers should review any written documentation for validity. It may
contain the physician’s name, telephone number, address, and license
number.
c) If the officer reasonably believes that the medical-use claim is valid
based upon the totality of the circumstances (including the quantity of
marijuana, packaging for sale, the presence of weapons, illicit drugs, or
large amounts of cash), and the person is within the state or local possession
guidelines or has an amount consistent with their current medical needs, the
person should be released and the marijuana should not be seized.
d) Alternatively, if the officer has probable cause to doubt the validity of a
person’s medical marijuana claim based upon the facts and circumstances,
the person may be arrested and the marijuana may be seized. It will then be
up to the person to establish his or her medical marijuana defense in court.
e) Officers are not obligated to accept a person’s claim of having a verbal
physician’s recommendation that cannot be readily verified with the
physician at the time of detention.

Well,,, that all depends on how the counties decide to handle DOH ID's.

Basically >>>that is only saying that anyone whos not holding state issued doh card is conditioned to those rules

problem is <<< i live in a county that WILL NOT issue state cards,,, and i cannot get one from the neighbering county

how will they get ALL CA COUNTIES to issue cards???

sounds like more needless middleman......

 

[KillerDemo]

This part concerns me:





Wow! Now cops get to play cop AND doctor! I wonder how much this is going to be abused...

damn that is SAD....what is this country coming to...

 

[quadracer]

Well,,, that all depends on how the counties decide to handle DOH ID's.

Basically >>>that is only saying that anyone whos not holding state issued doh card is conditioned to those rules

problem is <<< i live in a county that WILL NOT issue state cards,,, and i cannot get one from the neighbering county

how will they get ALL CA COUNTIES to issue cards???

sounds like more needless middleman......

Well, there's a part in the beginning that requires ALL counties to issue I.D. cards, which means that patients have to spend additional money if they want to be protected by buying an I.D. card.

I for one will not be getting a DOH card and save my money for food, which I'm sure thousands of other patients will also do.

Cops have a hard enough time enforcing existing law, they don't need to be given the power to scrutinize someone's DR. recommendation. This is just outrageous.


Edit: here it is:

It is mandatory that all counties participate in the identification card program by (a) providing applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program; (b) processing completed applications; (c) maintaining certain records; (d) following state implementation protocols; and (e) issuing DPH identification cards to approved applicants and designated primary caregivers.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Well, there's a part in the beginning that requires ALL counties to issue I.D. cards, which means that patients have to spend additional money if they want to be protected by buying an I.D. card.

I for one will not be getting a DOH card and save my money for food, which I'm sure thousands of other patients will also do.

Cops have a hard enough time enforcing existing law, they don't need to be given the power to scrutinize someone's DR. recommendation. This is just outrageous.

from what i understand::::if you DONT have the DOH card,,,than your liable to cops scrutinizing your condition (i.e. confiscation&court) ill pay whatever fee i have to:::::much cheaper than a lawyer

 

[quadracer]

from what i understand::::if you DONT have the DOH card,,,than your liable to cops scrutinizing your condition (i.e. confiscation&court) ill pay whatever fee i have to:::::much cheaper than a lawyer

Which is the biggest bunch of B.S.

Under SB420:

(f) It shall not be necessary for a person to obtain an
identification card in order to claim the protections of Section
11362.5.

SB420 awards the same protections to non-card holders as card-holders. The recommendation is what protects you under state law, NOT the I.D. card. These guidelines will force people to get I.D. cards now, which will:

1) Give the state a list of patients in California (bad)
2) Cost patients additional money (bad)
3) Give law enforcement the power to play Doctor (bad)

 

[kmk420kali]

SB420 awards the same protections to non-card holders as card-holders. The recommendation is what protects you under state law, NOT the I.D. card. These guidelines will force people to get I.D. cards now, which will:

1) Give the state a list of patients in California (bad)
2) Cost patients additional money (bad)
3) Give law enforcement the power to play Doctor (bad)

But the Rec has to be called in and authenticated...which means if they don't get an answer when they call, you may get your shit took-- With a State Card, it will be instantly verified, leaving LEO no reason to pursue it--
I have had CPS out here at my house, who seen my weed and my plants...I am within my limits, and they had no further interest, and left--
Attitudes are changing bro-- Cops are cops...and want to be dicks...but things are really coming around now-- I myself am not worried about them knowing I am a Patient....that is sorta the point to this-- This Movement has gone forward enough, that I don't think you will ever see a reversal of the flow-- I think that the Feds are going to have to stand-down...sooner than later--

 

[quadracer]

But the Rec has to be called in and authenticated...which means if they don't get an answer when they call, you may get your shit took-- With a State Card, it will be instantly verified, leaving LEO no reason to pursue it--
I have had CPS out here at my house, who seen my weed and my plants...I am within my limits, and they had no further interest, and left--
Attitudes are changing bro-- Cops are cops...and want to be dicks...but things are really coming around now-- I myself am not worried about them knowing I am a Patient....that is sorta the point to this-- This Movement has gone forward enough, that I don't think you will ever see a reversal of the flow-- I think that the Feds are going to have to stand-down...sooner than later--

Sure, that's the way it is now. Even still, there are some Dr. offices that have 24 hour hotlines for patient verification. Instant verification.

What these guidelines do is shift the burden of proof onto the patient, despite protections granted under SB420. It makes patients get an I.D. card (despite the fact that the program is voluntary under SB420) or the patient could potentially face arrest.

It's BS because SB420 clearly states:

(2) With respect to individuals, the identification system
established pursuant to this act must be wholly voluntary, and a
patient entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5 of the Health
and Safety Code need not possess an identification card in order to
claim the protections afforded by that section.

Now, it's not so voluntary, unless you want to face arrest and medicine confiscation. See the difference?


But I definitely agree that the movement is moving forward, and there is no stopping it!

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

my doctors office claims 24 hour verifcation,,,yet i have called during off peak hours (10 pm, 2am, 5am) all to find no answer...

last thing i want to happend is get hasseld by LEO only to find my DRs office cannot verify

i agree its completly bulshit we got to pay coksucker officials $$$ to justify someones needless salary,,,so we can have 2 forms of verifcation,,, shit last time i was stopped with painkills they lookd at the name,,,looked at my I.D. and said "OK,,checks out" ,,,,<<<<soon cannabis will be the same

much respect for tha activists we gettn closer and closer

 

[inflorescence]

Contained within the guidelines is a controversial provision requiring medical marijuana dispensaries to operate on a not-for-profit basis. This interpretation of the law comes from California's Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420), passed by the legislature in 2003. However, while the voter-approved initiative Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, references the need for a distribution system, no mention is made of for-profit status. In prior discussions with the Attorney General's office, ASA had strenuously objected to this provision of the guidelines.

Controversial to WHOM? Certainly not poor sick people.
What's with the ASA strenuously objecting to this. Don't tell me the ASA is in bed with profiteering dispensaries.
I guess that's where the ASA gets all their funding, from the profits from the dispensaries. (not to mention all the "kickback" primo buds they get to smoke). Then the ASA goes and tries to protect those profiteers (can't bite the hand that feeds you know)
Hey, isn't Don Duncan (LAPCG) like the head of the ASA? LOL it all makes sense now.

 

[GoldenCloud]

I have to say I think it is great to have guidelines, and it's just another step in the right direction. I think there are many helpful ideas in these that will hopefully clarify a lot of the grey area that goes on with medical marijuana. With that said, I believe there is some seriously skewed sentences in these guidelines. Mainly the one quadracer pointed out. Basically, if a police officer doesn't think your sick because you wear baggy pants or have long hair he has the right to throw you in prison? For those who don't know what I am talking about...... Here it is

d) Alternatively, if the officer has probable cause to doubt the validity of a
person’s medical marijuana claim based upon the facts and circumstances,
the person may be arrested and the marijuana may be seized. It will then be
up to the person to establish his or her medical marijuana defense in court.

I mean, that right there pretty much gives the officer the right to be prejudice and take your meds and freedom. Hopefully this can be revised or I believe these guidelines could end up being detrimental to a lot of patients.

 

[kmk420kali]

Controversial to WHOM? Certainly not poor sick people.
What's with the ASA strenuously objecting to this. Don't tell me the ASA is in bed with profiteering dispensaries.
I guess that's where the ASA gets all their funding, from the profits from the dispensaries. (not to mention all the "kickback" primo buds they get to smoke). Then the ASA goes and tries to protect those profiteers (can't bite the hand that feeds you know)
Hey, isn't Don Duncan (LAPCG) like the head of the ASA? LOL it all makes sense now.

Dude-- Why are you so against ppl making $$?? You are legal to either grow it yourself...or pay the price for someone else to do it-- I know, on a very personal level...that most Dispensaries will give mad discounts to serious/terminal Patients--
Maybe after the laws shift a bit, it will be worth it to sell the meds you grow for peanuts...but til you don't have to worry about getting busted, and all the expense that goes into trying not to...I don't think the price is so "That Much" out of the ball-park--
Remember, it is not the Dispensary Owners, or Patients that is the focus of LEO, or they at least are not the ones going to jail...it is the Growers--

 

[zingablack]

That does give him the right to be predjudice UNLESS you have a DOH card which they cant argue with so i would just spend the extra cash to not be hassled by dickhead cops. on the other side tho if the cards are extremely expensive it would be absurd to pay out the ass for it.

 

[inflorescence]

Dude-- Why are you so against ppl making $$??

Why are you asking ME if I'm against it? 215 says NO PROFIT and Jerry Brown agrees with this, as do I. You act like I'm the only one.
I'm saying, there are way more people who agree with the No Profit part than there are those who disagree with it.
I'm just one of many.

 

[inflorescence]

That does give him the right to be predjudice UNLESS you have a DOH card which they cant argue with so i would just spend the extra cash to not be hassled by dickhead cops. on the other side tho if the cards are extremely expensive it would be absurd to pay out the ass for it.

The problem is, it HAS BEEN mandatory for each county to issue the DOH cards since SB 420 but the a-holes in SD fought this in court.
Even though Jerry NOW says it's mandatory the SD supes will just say it's "on appeal" and "until the appeal is resolved we'll just keep disobeying the law. Why, because we can because we are assholes AND PROUD OF IT. LOL"

 

[kmk420kali]

Why are you asking ME if I'm against it? 215 says NO PROFIT and Jerry Brown agrees with this, as do I. You act like I'm the only one.
I'm saying, there are way more people who agree with the No Profit part than there are those who disagree with it.
I'm just one of many.

You do realize that "No Profit" still means you can charge for it, right? No, you cannot build a Company, in the traditional sense, from profits brought forward-- But you ARE entitled to recoup $$ for overhead, material, and time-spent--
Which means you are entitled to pay yourself...Non-Profit Orgs have been using this for decades--
You want the letter of the law followed, but you want the security of knowing someone is regulating you--
I personally believe it should be a wide open market...it has the same end, bro--

 

[rsteeb]

STFU, Gov Moonbeam!

STFU, Gov Moonbeam!

Unless and until this nation makes a formal transition to communism, enterprise and profits are THE American way.

If you can find a better price buy it. Condemning a profitable vendor is a deluded and bizarre concept.

Condemn prohibition, which is the cause of Cannabis' black-market price. Everybody on the supply-side is doing us all a FAVOR.

Oy.