But it is not a Law. 215 says nothing negative about sales, so sales cannot be discounted-- SB420 is not "scrapped"...only the "Limiting" parts, ie (plant counts)--
A Senate Bill cannot "take away from"...but may "add to"--
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
But it is not a Law. 215 says nothing negative about sales, so sales cannot be discounted-- SB420 is not "scrapped"...only the "Limiting" parts, ie (plant counts)--
A Senate Bill cannot "take away from"...but may "add to"--
J
JackTheGrower
B
Blue Dot
What are you talking about?
Sales of MJ are illegal under cali's H&S law (the one before 215 even existed), so since 215 doesn't mention sales THAT STILL MEANS THEY ARE ILLEGAL.
In order for them to be legal 215 would have had to specifically authorize sales.
J
JackTheGrower
Much Respect to the People of San Diego.
J
JackTheGrower
Sorry for the Serial posting.
I can vouch for this statement. I have not seen a peep till it was posted on 420mag. That sort of notice to a website is usually much later than the actual news.
Someone sat on this one I think.
I can vouch for this statement. I have not seen a peep till it was posted on 420mag. That sort of notice to a website is usually much later than the actual news.
Someone sat on this one I think.
J
JackTheGrower
San Diego jurors find law too vague to convict dispensary operator for sale of mariju
San Diego jurors find law too vague to convict dispensary operator for sale of mariju
Well it's a start! Lets go!
San Diego jurors find law too vague to convict dispensary operator for sale of marijuana
San Diego jurors find law too vague to convict dispensary operator for sale of mariju
Well it's a start! Lets go!
San Diego jurors find law too vague to convict dispensary operator for sale of marijuana
actually you are wrong. med patients are shielded from prosecution for H&S code violations for sales, cultivation, transpo, possesion etc.
the law even says that. the jury found that the repeated parroting about "sales" being illegal didn't make it so. repeating lies doesn't make those lies true. although it may be effective at 1,500 posts, most people can see through the lies.
B
Blue Dot
Show me a link or the text to the law that shields a med patient from sales.
Otherwise it's not true.
i don't feel like reposting the links, again, but it's sb420 that removes the sales charge for med patients. med patients not subject to prosecution for medical sales, grows, etc. based solely on these factors. unless its not medical.
B
Blue Dot
Let me help you johnny
go here (it's the full unabridged text of SB420): http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/sb420-03.htm
then go to Edit: Find on this page and type in sale(s) (This will search the entire document for that word)
It's not there because it doesn't exist.
You don't know what you're talking about.
"repeating lies doesn't make those lies true"
go here (it's the full unabridged text of SB420): http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/sb420-03.htm
then go to Edit: Find on this page and type in sale(s) (This will search the entire document for that word)
It's not there because it doesn't exist.
You don't know what you're talking about.
"repeating lies doesn't make those lies true"
of course you don't,to bad for you
B
Blue Dot
The law says only "caregivers" are allowed to be "compensated".
Since dispensaries aren't by law considered caregivers that means they are selling.
Like I said, jurors make mistakes.
prop215 and SB420 protect patients from prosecution under the H&S codes that cover sales, possesion, and cultivation. im cooking chili, mabye in a few daze i'll quote the law for you so you can ignore it. regardless, you are still a douche.
Dude...why must you continually make excuses for the opposition??
Really man...if you think that Cannabis, in any form will ever be distributed with nobody making a profit...you are delusional--
It will never happen that way, so get used to it--
With your 25 years of growing experience...why are you even tripping?? Grow some pot man--
I am challenging you, right now, to lay out your plan...that includes how ppl are going to grow, trim, cure...and provide a place for you to come get your meds...without any cash sales--
Don't worry...I'll wait!!
Last edited:
B
Blue Dot
For the sake of arguement AND brevity I won't lay out my master plan, but the point is, lets say, hypothetically that no one is ever gonna be able to grow for no profit like you say, that ALONE doesn't mean that the law right now is supposed to accomodate that so jurors shouldn't aquit people because of what they think the law "should be".
Change the law to say "for profit" and I won't have a problem but obviously the framers of 215 put in "no profit" because they knew they would never be able to get the law passed with a "for profit" clause because the fact is the majority of the pop doesn't want MMJ to be distributed for profit.
So jurors shouldn't try to over-ride that by ruling on how "they" feel it should to be.
O
ocean99
B
Blue Dot
So you think "some guy's" definition of a collective is just as valid as the definition given by the attorney general?
Depends on the immunized range of conduct regarding sales. And of course, the term "sale" means many different things to each and every person. Follow the current case law below and you stay out of jail.
§ 11362.765 is the section you want. I think of it this way. The statutes provide a defense against a charge of possession for sale for having a large amount of MMJ on hand even though none was sold. That is what I believe the patients were being protected from; not the actual transaction of sales, but prosecutors bringing the charge of "possession for sale" against the MMJ patient for having an amount that would bring that charge against a person that is non MMJ. Therefore, sales were not inferred to be allowed. Instead, no charge of "possession for sale" could be brought against the MMJ patient.
CA Supreme Court opinion in Mentch
We thus agree with the Court of Appeal in People v.
Frazier (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 807, 823 [27 Cal. Rptr.
3d 336], which rejected the argument that "a 'primary
caregiver' is a person who 'consistently grows and
supplies physician approved marijuana for a medical
marijuana patient to serve the health needs of that patient'
... ." The Frazier court concluded that, while if one were
already qualified as a primary caregiver one could
consistently grow and supply medical marijuana to a
patient, the consistent growth and supply of medical
marijuana would not by itself place one in the class of
primary caregivers. (Ibid.; see also People v. Windus
(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 634, 644 [81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227]
["Case law is clear that one who merely supplies a patient
with marijuana has no defense under the [Act]."].) 6
6 Mentch directs us to the Attorney General's
Act guidelines concerning medical marijuana (see
§ 11362.81, subd. (d)) as supporting a contrary
definition of "primary caregiver," but in fact the
guidelines are wholly consistent with case law
and the statutory text and afford Mentch no
support. The guidelines note: "Although a
'primary caregiver who consistently grows and
supplies ... medicinal marijuana for a section
11362.5 patient is serving a health need of the
patient,' someone who merely maintains a source
of marijuana does not automatically become the
party 'who has consistently assumed responsibility
for the housing, health, or safety' of that
purchaser." (Cal. Atty. Gen., Guidelines for the
Security and Non-diversion of Marijuana Grown
for Medical Use (Aug. 2008) pt. II.B., p. 4.) They
do not suggest provision of medical marijuana is
alone sufficient to qualify one as a primary
caregiver, but recognize instead that the provision
of marijuana may be one part of caregiving for an
ailing patient.
The trial court accurately assessed the law when, in
denying Mentch's request for a primary caregiver
instruction, it explained: "I'm satisfied that simply
providing marijuana, in and of itself to these folks does
not--you don't bootstrap yourself to becoming the
primary caregiver because you're providing [marijuana]"
and "you have to be a caregiver before you can provide
the marijuana." (Italics added.) Later, in denying
Mentch's motion for a judgment of acquittal (Pen. Code,
§ 1118.1), the trial court reiterated the point: "There has
to be something more to be a caregiver than simply
providing marijuana. Otherwise, there would be no
reason to have the definition of a caregiver, because
anybody who would be providing marijuana and related
services would qualify as a caregiver[,] therefore giving
them a defense to the very activity that's otherwise
illegal, and I don't think that makes any sense in terms of
statutory construction, nor do I think it was intended by
the people or the Legislature."
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"
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.
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.
Having closely analyzed the text of section
11362.765, however, we conclude it does not do what
Mentch says it does. While the Program does convey
additional immunities against cultivation and possession
for sale charges to specific groups of people, it does so
only for specific actions; it does not provide globally that
the specified groups of people may never be charged with cultivation or possession for sale.
Here, this means Mentch, to the extent he assisted in
administering, or advised or counseled in the
administration or cultivation of, medical marijuana, could
not be charged with cultivation or possession for sale "on
that sole basis." (§ 11362.765, subd. (a).) It does not
mean Mentch could not be charged with cultivation or
possession for sale on any basis; to the extent he went
beyond the immunized range of conduct
