you have to remember to these people
legal cultivation, legal possession, legal use, legal giving, and a path to legal selling=not legalized
Thanks, that does clear it up!
you have to remember to these people
legal cultivation, legal possession, legal use, legal giving, and a path to legal selling=not legalized
This is about the stupidest thing that you have written, and that is saying a lot. How on earth do you prevent addiction by signing an agreement? If you take opiates for more than a very short time, you will become physically dependent on them. In my view physical dependence=addiction.
Good argument. If your against tax, let people continue to be incarcerated.
Tell me if your anti tax, why do you support that fascist 215 system? You realize mmj is taxed, right? So how is 215 good if it is taxed and 19 is bad because it is taxed.
Just because your using big words and forming complete sentances for a change, does not mean that your argument is valid or correct...
Hahahahaha - You are not paying attention:
What Is a Pain Treatment Agreement?
As pain medication addiction is possible, doctors sometimes require that patients sign a pain treatment agreement as a condition of their receiving therapy for chronic pain. Such agreements are most commonly used when narcotic pain relievers are prescribed. Narcotics can sometimes become addictive if not taken as prescribed by a doctor.
http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/guide/pain-management-pain-treatment-agreement
You want so desperately to make points against me that you post bullshit and then claim your expertise.
Ummmm, Ive been reading this daily. How can you make such a obviously flawed statement... you know what I had for breakfast?
Shows the level we are operating at here. LOL.
You can say I dont understand all day long and it will only make you look silly since you have no way of knowing my level of understanding but I would think you could at least pick up on the fact that Im quite capable of understanding anything you guiys can dish out, which at this point looks like a bunch of emotional blather to me. LOL
Sheesh. You are an unbelievable fool. This is a waste of time.
you can talk about "understanding things" all day long like you do here but you never explain why you are factually wrong about 215?
Why not explain that "misunderstanding of the Prop215" instead of ignoring and evading the point like a politician who doesn't want to answer the question?
Go ahead and make a true factual point - of any kind - about the current Prop 19 debate.
I know you have it in you.
I made my point and you guys didnt like it. Ill tell you agian. I only chimed in to let folks know , contarary to what was posted here, you do NOT need to register with the state, county or anybody else when you get a recomendation. That was my point.. Ive written plenty. Pick it apart, lets debate what I have said if you want... otherwise Im busy.. see you all later.
peace
Ummmm, Ive been reading this daily. How can you make such a obviously flawed statement... you know what I had for breakfast?
Shows the level we are operating at here. LOL.
You can say I dont understand all day long and it will only make you look silly since you have no way of knowing my level of understanding but I would think you could at least pick up on the fact that Im quite capable of understanding anything you guiys can dish out, which at this point looks like a bunch of emotional blather to me. LOL
for a first offense.Nobody is being incarcerated in California for less than an ounce. Prop 19 doesn't improve this.
except for having to hide behind patients, and register your federally illegal grow with the state for protection (we call that extortion in the private sector)The 215 system has created quite a situation in California. Anyone over the age of 18 can set up shop in their home and have a legitimate means of producing some wealth with little to no fear of government interference.
Big business is not allowed to compete in this market, the biggest cash crop in California, and the state wants to generate tax revenue to fund its corporate welfare projects, way more wasteful than any social welfare program.
This prop improves nothing for me, the average California taxpaying small time grower.
sorry i was giving you some credit..
if you HAVE read the whole thread and are still asking questions that have been answered...why????
sho nuff!!!
i didn't "say" it i posted a memo from the states AG to ALL law enforcement!
i guess that was more "emotional blather"
are you capable of understanding a recommendation alone WILL NOT PROTECT YOU FROM ARREST!
I HAVE POSTED THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR OPINION.
Nobody is being incarcerated in California for less than an ounce. Prop 19 doesn't improve this.
The 215 system has created quite a situation in California. Anyone over the age of 18 can set up shop in their home and have a legitimate means of producing some wealth with little to no fear of government interference. Big business is not allowed to compete in this market, the biggest cash crop in California, and the state wants to generate tax revenue to fund its corporate welfare projects, way more wasteful than any social welfare program.
The "black market" is quite easy to navigate safely for the individual but very difficult for big business. Prop 19 will allow big business into the market and effectively transfer wealth out of the hands of the California worker and to individuals through taxes and corporations. I know you guys all want to talk about morals and how you never told a lie but the state knows no such thing as morality. If the judge says its ok, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It is legal.
Under 215, individuals have political and economic power that is exclusionary to big business. I see this as a good thing. Giving up a position of power so you can pass a feel good law that does little to change the situation of the everyday stoner in California is naive at this point.
It is not a good prop, even the yes people agree with that. It is being called "legalization" but it is "regulate, control and tax." If you are over the age of 18 and you want to be legal you can be by tomorrow. 19 opens the floodgates for big business to compete in a market cornered by the overburdened California taxpayer without anything in return. Nobody is going to jail for an ounce or less and anyone can be legal tomorrow. This prop improves nothing for me, the average California taxpaying small time grower.
One more time: I was just correcting wrong information that was in this thread about registering and I get dragged kicking and screaming through the mud by a bunch of over revved people.
peace
B. Patient Questions
1. What is the nature of your serious illness? How long ago was it diagnosed and by whom?
2. Do you use marijuana to provide relief from this illness? Have you tried other drugs? If so, what drugs? Have you tried Marinol?
3. How many marijuana cigarettes do you smoke per day because of your condition?
4. Do you have written recommendation from a licensed California physician in your possession? May I see it? Do I have your permission to contact the physician to verify this recommendation?
---- [1] Obviously, the number of plants will depend on the circumstances. Typically, , a controlled, indoor grow will result in fewer plants lost as well as better, more uniform quality plants. The other extreme would be an infrequently tended outdoor grow.
5. Have you received an oral recommendation from a physician? Who? When did you obtain permission and what exactly did the doctor say? What is his/her address and telephone number? Do I have your permission to contact him/her to verify this recommendation?
6. Did the physician conduct an examination and make a determination that marijuana would be beneficial?
7. How long have you been seeing the doctor? Has he/she done any follow-up examination to monitor your condition? How often are you examined by the physician?
8. Are you willing to sign an authorization allowing an examination of your medical records? Will you give permission to examine your medical records?
C. Caregiver Qualifications
1. The primary caregiver must be an individual specifically designated by the patient. [Section 11362.5 H&S reads ". . primary caregiver means the individual designates by the person exempt under this act.."(emphasis added).]
2. The primary caregiver's role must have been established prior to the designation to be valid. [Section 11362.5 H&S reads, "... primary caregiver . . . who has consistently assumed responsibility..." (emphasis added).]
3. The primary caregiver must have prior and consistent responsibility for the patient's housing, health, or safety. Since the act uses the words "primary" and "consistent," it assumes that the patient is unable to be responsible for or has not been responsible for his/her own housing, health, or safety and that no other person, institution, or government agency is the primary provider for these needs.
4. The primary caregiver is the only individual who can qualify for the specific patient. Secondary or general caregivers may not assert the affirmative defense. (Section 11362.5 is very specific in using the term " primary".]
5. The primary caregiver must have personal knowledge of the doctor's recommendation. [Section 11362.5 reads, "... patient and their primary caregiver who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician . . . " The law continues. " . . . a patient or a patient's primary caregiver who possesses: or cultivates marijuana for personal medical purposes of the patient upon a written or oral recommendation or approval of physician (emphasis added.)
6. The primary caregiver cannot engage in any conduct that endangers others. The primary caregiver cannot use marijuana unless he/she is also a patient.
7 The primary caregiver cannot be involved in diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes.
8. The primary caregiver cannot possess marijuana for sale or sell marijuana and can only assert an affirmative defense to charges of cultivation or possession for medical use of a specific patient.
D. Caregiver Questions
1. The name, address, and telephone number of the person for whom the individual is a caregiver and how the so-called patient can be contacted. 2. what is the caregiver's relationship to the patient? How long has this relationship existed? What has been the frequency of contact between the caregiver and the patient?
3. What specific conditions qualify the individual as a caregiver? When did the patient request that the caregiver act as caregiver?
4. How long has the individual assumed the caregiver role?
S. What is the patient's serious illness?
6. What is the name of the doctor who made the recommendation? what is his/her address and telephone number? Does the caregiver have personal knowledge of the specific recommendation from the physician?
7. How much marijuana does the patient use and under what conditions?
8. Is the caregiver receiving any remuneration for the service? If so, how much?
9. Who designated the individual as a caregiver, how was designation given, and is the specific physician aware of the individual's status as caregiver?
10. Describe the conditions that exist with the patient that make him or her unable to assume primary responsibility for his/her own housing, health, or safety.
III. Peace Officers‚ Response
A. If, considering the guidelines and questions set out in section II, the officer still thinks, based on the amount, packaging, circumstances, and the answers to the questions, that he/she has probable cause to believe that the individual has cultivated, possessed, or used marijuana for other than medical purposes, the officer may arrest and book the suspect (or, if appropriate, cite and confiscate).
I grew my first outdoor crop in 1973 and havent missed to many seasons since then and guess what? Never busted, never even close as far as I know.
...My cannabis doc has my medical records which I supplied to them unbeknownst to my primary. You can do that ya know.
what do you think you were correcting?
if you want 215 protection YOU MUST REGISTER.
otherwise you are at the mercy of leo.
it looks like YOU ARE WRONG!
look at pg 4 regarding Cannabis and it #5 that i want you to look at.
"5. A physician who is not the primary treating physician
may still recommend medical marijuana for a patient’s
symptoms. However, it is incumbent upon that physician
to consult with the patient’s primary treating physician or
obtain the appropriate patient records to confirm the
patient’s underlying diagnosis and prior
treatment history."
http://www.mbc.ca.gov/publications/action_report_2004_07.pdf
you really should educate yourself before you post.
it looks like YOU ARE WRONG!