THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STACY ROBERT HOCHANADEL et al.

[Danknuggler]

dispensaries, collectives, co-ops, whatever they want to call themselves don't want to have equal holdings and equal distribution of profit because these are businessmen who got into the game to make money off of loopholes then get out and retire while the sick suffer.

This isn't rocket science.

Then those were never real coops or collectives to begin with.And of course those that set out to make all the cash don't want to have to share now.But if they want to continue at all legally they must change how they are organized and operate it's as simple as that.But I keep hearing that a coop must share its earnings equally but thats not completely true either if you check out this link and read how coops are democratically controlled and how they can be a "one member/one vote" OR they vote in proportion to the degree each member uses the services of the cooperative.Also it states that the difference between income earned and the cost of doing business can either be distibuted equally amongst the members OR in proportion to their use of the coops services. http://cooperatives.ucdavis.edu/reports/ag_mktg_startup.pdf

 

[johnnyla]

Then those were never real coops or collectives to begin with.And of course those that set out to make all the cash don't want to have to share now.But if they want to continue at all legally they must change how they are organized and operate it's as simple as that.But I keep hearing that a coop must share its earnings equally but thats not completely true either if you check out this link and read how coops are democratically controlled and how they can be a "one member/one vote" OR they vote in proportion to the degree each member uses the services of the cooperative.Also it states that the difference between income earned and the cost of doing business can either be distibuted equally amongst the members OR in proportion to their use of the coops services. http://cooperatives.ucdavis.edu/reports/ag_mktg_startup.pdf

I don't see why anyone who isn't running a business would start a business aka incorporate, for profit or not. No law says that patients have to start a business to collectivelly associate in a closed circuit cultivation garden. To do so would be crazy. Every place with a Seller's permit is likely going to get closed down unless they restructure which is going to be difficult for them to do. Seems like a whole lot of hassle in order to "appear" legitimate.

 

[Danknuggler]

nevedrmind

 

[Blue Dot]

Then those were never real coops or collectives to begin with.And of course those that set out to make all the cash don't want to have to share now.But if they want to continue at all legally they must change how they are organized and operate it's as simple as that.But I keep hearing that a coop must share its earnings equally but thats not completely true either if you check out this link and read how coops are democratically controlled and how they can be a "one member/one vote" OR they vote in proportion to the degree each member uses the services of the cooperative.Also it states that the difference between income earned and the cost of doing business can either be distibuted equally amongst the members OR in proportion to their use of the coops services. http://cooperatives.ucdavis.edu/reports/ag_mktg_startup.pdf

I like how you link to the ucdavis definition of a cooperative and not to Jerry Brown's.

If you were a judge in court who do you think you would refer to?

1. Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation
with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members.
(Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “coop”)
unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the
Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative
corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit
for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their
members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business
must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to
members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives
must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of
earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each
year. (See id. at § 12200, et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit
corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as
such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.”
(Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many
characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.)
Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members;
instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating
transactions between members.

 

[Pythagllio]

So then don't go outside the membership I guess right?It looks like it deffinitely has to be structured as a non profit no matter what.I like the Ag coop model myself.I live in an area of socal that has no real coop or collectives at all.We really need one bad.There is a huge demand for good meds right here but everyone has to drive at the least 30min to 2 hours to a dispensary that is over priced BS anyways.All of my energy is going into this now.I am driven.

Yeah, you can't go outside the membership because otherwise the corporation can be found criminally liable is this guys theory and it seems to make sense at first reading. I'm still trying to pick it apart in my mind though. The corporation can't get a doctor's rec as it can't suffer from a medical condition. Since only patient to patient transfers are protected the corporation is not, no protection under 215. The new CA Supreme court ruling seems to make it pretty clear that the corporation can hire professionals to tend to the nuts and bolts of running the corporation and still maintain its protected status, and I presume that protection would extend to the professionals hired.

I still think it could be formed as a for profit entity but am willing to concede this as a moot point in pragmatic application. The thought of 'drug dealers' being heinous individuals is just too ingrained in the common psyche to not be taken into account. 'For profit' = 'drug dealer' to too many people so it's sheer idiocy to set it up as for profit regardless.

 

[Danknuggler]

I have posted Jerrys guidlines on this in another post bro I probably should have but the UC Davis pdf is a more detailed explaination of coops and it details how everything is suppose to be structured and operate.And another thing is look up the word "equitably".

 

[Blue Dot]

equitably means fairly. What's your point?

The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to
members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services.

The savings (ie profit) is certainly not used for my general welfare as a patient and those savings aren't passed onto me fairly in the form of cash (lol), property, credit or services.

 

[Danknuggler]

My point is it doesnt mean "equally" and I know you didn't say that but I think that some are thinking that everything needs to be divided up evenly to the members in order to follow what Jerry was saying there.Some people are going to be very involved in the coop/collective while others may not.Thats were the savings and earnings are "equitably" distributed part comes in.Those members that run a coop or collectives day to day operations may be working 40+ hours a week while other members simply are giving cash,services etc in exchange for meds so when it comes time to distribute the earnings and savings it will be done equitably so some will obviuosly get more than others but it was done fairly and everybody does get something.At least thats what I understand.Am I f'd up on this??

Blue Dot Quotes:
"The savings (ie profit) is certainly not used for my general welfare as a patient and those savings aren't passed onto me fairly in the form of cash (lol), property, credit or services."


This is NOT being done anywhere that I am a member of or anybody I know either but this is the way it should be done you are right about that Blue Dot.

 

[richyrich]

Thank you for sharing that. Your observation is correct. That is because they were dispensaries; not collectives or co-ops; no matter what they may call themselves. There would be no profit sharing as you stated. That would be illegal. There would be equal harvest sharing or equal to the amount of work and cost reimbursement given as a member to the collective or co-op.

I already hit on this point on the first page, post #12. So, quickly forgotten or overlooked.