My guess (and it is a guess) is that Cooley is referring to People vs. Mentch.
That was not a decision which turned upon the meaning of collective or cooperative, but instead the meaning of who a "Primary Caregiver" is and, more to the point, who is not a "primary caregiver".
Never mind the collective or cooperative and non-profit debate under SB420 or otherwise. A non-patient, to take advantage of that, has to be a Primary Caregiver. If they are not, they cannot shelter under the CUA or SB420.
Mentch was dealt with as if it interpeted the meaning of Primary Caregiver under both the CUA and SB420. To my eye, it appears that the Supreme Court went too far and essentially applied a definition created by SB420 retroactively to apply the same meaning to the term as it was used in the CUA. This would appear to be judicially dishonest, but...even so, even if the Supreme Court went too far in Mentch, the reality is that the State Supreme Court has the last say on the matter until the legislation (SB420) or the CUA itself is changed.
In other words: even if they are wrong, they are still right in law.
In particular, Mentch held that in order for a someone to be a "primary caregiver" who is able to shelter under the defenses provided by the CUA or SB420,:
"We conclude a defendant asserting primary caregiver status must prove at a minimum that he or she (1) consistently provided caregiving, (2) independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, (3) at or before the time he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana."
The relationship is one of close proximity. A spouse, nurse or close family member, generally.
What a Primary Caregiver isn't? It isn't a shopkeeper you walk into and apply to on the spot with a card. Never mind the discussion about collectives, cooperatives or profit not-for-profit. That's wholly secondary to the standpoint of dispensaries. Whether the patient can participate in such a dispensary or not, the owners and bud-tenders cannot claim to be primary caregivers under Mentch. If the defense is not available to them, it does not matter if the patients got together singing Cumbaya every night before having group meetings to discuss how more equitable their Maoist collective could be.
While that might protect the patients, either way, the shopkeeper has no defense under the law as a "primary caregiver".
In short, Mentch means the people running dispensaries who seek to rely upon being a "primary caregiver" as a defense, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are unable to do so.
Spoken from the depths where sun never shines.
Thank you for that, really made the thread there.
from statement above I guess they dont have any kind of self regulating organization that makes sure dispensaries are following the law to the letter. so where does the sun shine?The L.A. co-op and dispensary owners need to get their shit together and unite to influence the political climate in which they are operating. If they fail to do that, they are just being stupid and greedy in a manner that will ultimately lead to their downfall.
PC
yea well we are talking about something already reversed right? the people that wrote that bill did not forsee this? the dispensaries from what i hear are making bookoo money, they cant spend it to create order and legitimacy ? they deserve to go down......and a buck a month per pothead would generate $180 million per year to finally reverse the idiotic war on some drugs. Money talks, bullshit walks.
from statement above I guess they dont have any kind of self regulating organization that makes sure dispensaries are following the law to the letter. so where does the sun shine?
yea well we are talking about something already reversed right? the people that wrote that bill did not forsee this? the dispensaries from what i hear are making bookoo money, they cant spend it to create order and legitimacy ? they deserve to go down...
No one deserves to go to prison for marijuana - NO ONE!!!
Maybe you need to qualify that statement.
NO ONE who grows for their own personal use should ever go to jail.
NO ONE who uses for their own personal use should ever go to jail.
NO ONE who provides others in need at no profit should ever go to jail.
ANYONE who grows in National Parks should go to jail.
ANYONE who sells for a greedy profit to the less fortunate should go to jail.
Just because it's marijuana doesn't mean all the normal rules of society don't apply.
How bout people should be able to grow for profit if they want to. MJ is a plant that we have been able to grow since the dawn of time! So it SHOULD BE illegal to grow it Blue Dot? Under what justification should it be illegal? If someone doesn't conform to your warped sense of right and wrong their actions should be illegal? Of course growing on other people's property and in national or state parks should be illegal just like growing anything on other people's property or in state or national parks IS illegal. It isn't your land, you don't own it so growing on it is a no no.
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. You actually just proved my case for me though.
Just as it's illegal to grow in National Parks means people should go to jail if they choose to grow there because I respect our national parks so people who sell for profit under 215 should also.
Look, I think people should be able to grow pot for profit but that would only happen with full legalization AND THATS NOT WHERE WE ARE AT. 215 DID NOT fully legalize pot, like it or not.
When the law is changed I'll change my tune.