In your mindless world, how does the quadriplegic who is unable to grow get to be a member of a 'closed circuit' collective?
PROTECTING PATIENT CULTIVATORS
- Thread starter johnnyla
- Start date
In your mindless world, how does the quadriplegic who is unable to grow get to be a member of a 'closed circuit' collective?
Your statements would have a lot more believability if you could get this right. It's not LA County, it's all about LA City.
B
Blue Dot
He would get a caregiver. That's the problem, everyone is so focused on collectives/dispensaries/whatever they have completely forgotten that the intent was really just for one caregiver to help a few that needed it and it would have a domino effect across the state whereby thousands of caregivers would be helping a few patients each. I mean there are only so many quadriplegics out there.
Then there was the "...and for any other condition for which MJ provided relief" and now all the sudden there weren't enough caregivers to keep up to supply that demand.
So leave it to shrewd business men (I'll concide them that) to figure out a way to supply the volume by making it more efficient (aka dispensaries) at the expense of the 1% quadriplegic because instead of all the caregivers giving a crap about their original patients they realized they could make way more becoming "vendors" to a club.
And all the while the quadripeligic was left behind which was the exact opposite of the original intent!
By contributing to the purchase of collective resources and payment for overhead for collective cultivation and having their primary caregiver pick up their equal dispersion of the collective crop. The primary caregiver cannot be a member of the collective, but can pick up the MMJ for the completely immobile member. That is one idea.
You are wrong on a few different levels. For starters if the caregiver isn't a member of the collective then they can't pick up the meds from members of the collective. That would be distribution outside of it.
And more importantly primary caregivers can be members of collectives so that idea is flawed anyways.
B
Blue Dot
Mentch was pre SB 420. Doesn't matter to collectives as they were granted legal standing after that case was published. And where in mentch are you talking about anyways? Nice that you can't actually quote the fucking case.
This is a criticism and not an attack. I find your analysis and application of statutes and case law to be continuously flawed in most of your posts here. I'm turning lights out. I'll get back.
Well this is a challenge, an attack as you will. I don't sugar coat shit.
You seem to be the person who on Sunday is cramming pork rinds down their throats and slamming budweisers while yelling through the TV at the quaterback for not doing a good enough job.
On game day I am the dude on the field actually throwing the passes taking the hits.
While you find comfort in your armchair, I'm having the real fun on the field.
Touchy are we, as supported by your apparent attitude and name calling in your posts. Would you like to consider it a fight, too. My opinion is that you are incorrect for the most part in interpreting law and its application. An attack if you see it that way. I don't.
You know you've still never bothered to try to explain why you think the presence of 'profiteers' eliminates to possibility of charity work. Do those inclined to help out just throw up their hands and say fuck the needy because people out there are making a buck? It's my observation that charitable people do their thing regardless of what others are doing. So please explain how in your logically fallacious reasoning that anything that the so called 'profiteers' do comes at the 'expense' of the quadriplegic. But gosh, I've got to admit you're very good at setting up straw men and knocking them down.
...and you keep referring to 'collectives' and the 'correct' procedures for their actions as if the word has a legal definition under CA law.
Mentch says that the entities may not act as caregivers, not that caregivers can't be members.
