Vending to clubs, what is it like for you?

[mikessong]

Yes, too bad for Dispensaries.
Try a collective instead.

unless you mean a private collective (no store), there's no difference. at least according to the LAPD.

 

[medikush13]

You have used your paperwork to gain entry into 100+ clubs? Hope you haven't vended to all of them. You do realize that with the new ordinance, clubs are going to be submitting lists of their vendors and how much they bought to the LAPD, right? Good luck dude.

By the time that happens, I'll be up and running, and it won't be in LA. I grew up in LA and I hate it! Northern Cali is the place to be.
I'm done with LA, and i'm working on gathering my own patients together now.

 

[johnnyla]

unless you mean a private collective (no store), there's no difference. at least according to the LAPD.

really? this was never addressed.

in fact, the new ordinance in LA states "4 or more associating together" is a "Collective" and hence subject to their jurisdiction.

so if you are growing and have more than 3 recs, with or without a storefront, in LA County, you are now a collective and operating illegaly.

P.S. because the retards at the city council never even talked about collective grow or non storefronts or privates. That's why i hope the whole thing gets thrown out in court. You can't amend state law at the county level. We have a constitutional right to associate collectively. LA city council tries to amend that with arbitrary numbers.

 

[mikessong]

wow. who would want to submit to voluntary inspections by LAPD?

i guess anyone who wants to stay in business, or should I say non-profit "business".

 

[medikush13]

unless you mean a private collective (no store), there's no difference. at least according to the LAPD.

Absolutely wrong!
Maybe to the common officer, but to a judge and jury and prosecutor, the difference lies in the way the Corporation is created. MOST LA clubs are opened as storefronts with seller's permits and nothing more. You need a Not For Profit status in your incorporation. Then you can be set up as a legit collective and you WILL BE protected, regardless of what some dumb LA cop says or thinks.

 

[mikessong]

really? this was never addressed.

in fact, the new ordinance in LA states "4 or more associating together" is a "Collective" and hence subject to their jurisdiction.

so if you are growing and have more than 3 recs, with or without a storefront, in LA County, you are now a collective and operating illegaly.

everyone is subject to their jurisdiction no matter what you call yourself.

 

[mikessong]

By the time that happens, I'll be up and running, and it won't be in LA. I grew up in LA and I hate it! Northern Cali is the place to be.
I'm done with LA, and i'm working on gathering my own patients together now.

Word. It looks like that may be the smart route. They've fucking ruined it here.

 

[johnnyla]

i meant to write Subject to their ordinance. sorry mang.

 

[medikush13]

really? this was never addressed.

in fact, the new ordinance in LA states "4 or more associating together" is a "Collective" and hence subject to their jurisdiction.

so if you are growing and have more than 3 recs, with or without a storefront, in LA County, you are now a collective and operating illegaly.

P.S. because the retards at the city council never even talked about collective grow or non storefronts or privates. That's why i hope the whole thing gets thrown out in court. You can't amend state law at the county level. We have a constitutional right to associate collectively. LA city council tries to amend that with arbitrary numbers.

That would be the LAPD or City Council interpreting the legal definition of a collective or trying to redefine it. I think that would be grounds for lawsuit if they tried to shut you down. They cannot interpret law or change definitions. It's tricky, but the trick is, to set it up properly, then be in a city that allows for it. LA may not be the place to have a collective afterall. The City cannot make those determinations for the state level, so it would only be their interpretation of the meaning of the law and the law itself.

I studies law on my own for the past 12 years. I am no lawyer, and no a legal expert, but I can add a few words that are well thought out. That is my opinion on it.

 

[mikessong]

Absolutely wrong!
Maybe to the common officer, but to a judge and jury and prosecutor, the difference lies in the way the Corporation is created. MOST LA clubs are opened as storefronts with seller's permits and nothing more. You need a Not For Profit status in your incorporation. Then you can be set up as a legit collective and you WILL BE protected, regardless of what some dumb LA cop says or thinks.

Setting your club up as a not-for-profit collective is just the minimum barrier to not getting shut down tomorrow, and most clubs have already taken that step. That merely entitles you to do battle against LA's draconian new regime. Hopefully some lucky club will be the one that wins in court and gets the whole thing thrown out.

 

[medikush13]

Setting your club up as a not-for-profit collective is just the minimum barrier to not getting shut down tomorrow, and most clubs have already taken that step. That merely entitles you to do battle against LA's draconian new regime. Hopefully some lucky club will be the one that wins and gets the whole thing thrown out in court.

I beg to differ with your opinion on that. I think most clubs are set up as storefronts and have no Not For Profit status, and that's why the LAPD claims that most are operating illegally. I think about 200 statewide may be set up as Not For Profits but that leaves about 600 that are not. That's just a guess though. What makes you think so many are set up this way? Do you know this for a fact?

 

[Zeinth]

?

?

BECAUSE THER PRICES WERE TO LOW...CAP 45 AN 1/8.


Guess what..l.a.pd. raided a collective that is non-profit..501 paperwork an all..wed..they were pre ico as well..its over..here they come im moving to new mexico..




Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:41 AM

received a report from another LA dispensary that was raided in last Wednesday's round of busts, Sunland Organic. Police made an undercover purchase of one gram for $15, then arrested the director, Aram Damirjian, and his manager for sales.

According to Damirjian, police complained that his prices were too LOW, causing "too much footwork" - i.e., clients who might possibly resell. Damirjian says his policy was to cap prices at $45 per eighth and to give away medicine in hardship cases. He says Sunland was legally organized as a non-profit, that it paid taxes, and was legally located in accordance with the new ordinance.

In other cases, LAPD has charged that dispensaries were marking up prices too high and making an illegal profit. Now they are claiming that low prices are objectionable because they encourage foot traffic. Clearly, the cops are making it up as they go along. Clearly too, every dispensary in LA is at risk until the courts and city authorities sort this out.

 

[mikessong]

I beg to differ with your opinion on that. I think most clubs are set up as storefronts and have no Not For Profit status, and that's why the LAPD claims that most are operating illegally. I think about 200 statewide may be set up as Not For Profits but that leaves about 600 that are not. That's just a guess though. What makes you think so many are set up this way? Do you know this for a fact?

I know a lot more about this than you. LAPD is making claims about their actual profits, not their status. Most clubs at least have enough brains to register as not-profits, even the shittiest lawyer or even consultant would tell them that.

 

[medikush13]

I know a lot more about this than you. LAPD is making claims about their actual profits, not their status. Most clubs at least have enough brains to register as not-profits, even the shittiest lawyer or even consultant would tell them that.

They can make "claims" all day, if they wish.
Also, i'm not going to argue with you about anything, but please don't assume you know much more than me about this. You might be slightly more informed on certain matters, but don't jump to conclusions.

If a club sells pot, they are a dispensary, regardless of how they are set up, legally. The business model is flawed. Pot clubs are being run like businesses, and they need to restructure into a collective model. The reason they are set up like businesses and not collectives, is because they are mostly crooked, criminal infested little holes in the ground and crackholes in alleyways. Even saying you are taking in "donations" instead of sales, is not enough, in itself. The structure has to be changed, the entire business model.

 

[mikessong]

They can make "claims" all day, if they wish.
Also, i'm not going to argue with you about anything, but please don't assume you know much more than me about this. You might be slightly more informed on certain matters, but don't jump to conclusions.

If a club sells pot, they are a dispensary, regardless of how they are set up, legally. The business model is flawed. Pot clubs are being run like businesses, and they need to restructure into a collective model. The reason they are set up like businesses and not collectives, is because they are mostly crooked, criminal infested little holes in the ground and crackholes in alleyways. Even saying you are taking in "donations" instead of sales, is not enough, in itself. The structure has to be changed, the entire business model.

You're wrong, don't know what you're talking about, and obviously have an agenda. Most of them aren't crackheads any more than the counterperson at a CVS pharmacy.

 

[Zeinth]

I know a lot more about this than you. LAPD is making claims about their actual profits, not their status. Most clubs at least have enough brains to register as not-profits, even the shittiest lawyer or even consultant would tell them that.

did u read what i posted...it doesnt matter the collective was busted because there price was to low...i.e no profit!

 

[medikush13]

You're wrong, don't know what you're talking about, and obviously have an agenda. Most of them aren't crackheads any more than the counterperson at a CVS pharmacy.

Please don't start a flame war with me, i'm not interested. I have no agenda. I hate the clubs, and I speak about it openly. I never said they are crackheads. They are cracks in the walls of alleyways. It was meant to be descriptive, that's all. They are fly by nighters, set up one day, gone the next....in the short term, fast quick buck, and get out go somewhere else, change their name, partners, etc. Most are shady, and have no compassion.

I KNOW THIS!
Don't try to BS me or anyone else who has vended to clubs, or any patients that may be naive. The club owners, for the most part are pieces of crap. Many who are not pieces of crap, are nice people who are just profiteers. Then a small few are nice people with a good heart, good motives and a good agenda. The scene is rife with fast buck scam artists and hustlers and gangsters. I know because I have dealt with most of them.

I will give props to the people who are long gone, from Karma on Vanowen. Those were good people with a good heart. Still financially centered, but with much more compassion than I have seen in most other places. I could name a couple more, like the old NNCC group. Those guys too. Pretty cool and tried their best to please everyone. High quality people and meds. Old Kind Meds on Ventura a while back, those guys rocked pretty good energy. But that's about it, and I visited over a hundred clubs up and down the state. There are good people at Harborside too. Debby in Berkeley in very kind hearted and compassionate. The people at WAMM are awesome, of course, a true collective, and probably the only true collective in the state, to this day, maybe.

That's all the good stuff I can say. Most of the rest i think about makes me want to vomit.

 

[zenoonez]

Nothing wrong with people making a profit.

 

[medikush13]

Nothing wrong with people making a profit.

Nothing wrong with people making a profit, agreed. In the rest of the world of business. But the people who circulated the petitions for prop 215 did not write it up to intend to create a proliferation of "for profit" pot clubs on every corner. It also says nothing about making profits of any kind anywhere in prop 215, or anything about storefront clubs. Re-Read the initiative.

You can be for profits all day long, but you don't come into someone else's home and rearrange stuff and you can't take legislation and twist it to your liking either.

You should also look up the definition of "Profit" in law and financial dictionaries. Money can be made, but not in the way it's currently being made and not as excessively as it is.

 

[medmaker420]

I agree the lines are pretty wavy at the moment. If they set up a non profit collective correctly that should fall into the correct guidelines right? I mean non profits can and are one of the largest profit generating business models around. You can make a ton but you just claim and redirect differently to follow specific non profit guidelines.

I don't get the storefront ability myself as far as the bill was written but also don't see how patients can access the meds without that being possible. I doubt it was to allow patients to go meet other patients through craigslist and hope they don't get scammed or jacked and hopefully was written to allow patients safe access to their medication through a reputable collective or club.

I like how open ended the bill is because it allows wiggle room on our end BUT that also leaves room for those trying to close down these bills wiggle room as well.

What bugs me most is that it will end up being something else regulated by the federal government that ends up costing even more and patients NOT being allowed to grow their own.

Nothing wrong with people making a profit, agreed. In the rest of the world of business. But the people who circulated the petitions for prop 215 did not write it up to intend to create a proliferation of "for profit" pot clubs on every corner. It also says nothing about making profits of any kind anywhere in prop 215, or anything about storefront clubs. Re-Read the initiative.

You can be for profits all day long, but you don't come into someone else's home and rearrange stuff and you can't take legislation and twist it to your liking either.

You should also look up the definition of "Profit" in law and financial dictionaries. Money can be made, but not in the way it's currently being made and not as excessively as it is.