Sunday, November 30, 2008

Old news by now

but important nonetheless... "Caregiver" is not another name for "Dope Dealer."
☛ TS CA Supreme Court: Caregiver must do more than provide marijuana
A recent California Supreme Court ... unanimous ruling ... determined that, in order to qualify as a primary caregiver, one must do more for a patient than provide them with marijuana.... the Supreme Court ruled that in order to qualify as a primary caregiver under California's Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215, Mentch would have had to assume the responsibility for a patient's housing, health, or safety, or some combination of the three, in addition to providing them with marijuana.

”There has to be something more to be a caregiver than simply providing marijuana,” the Supreme Court ruling quotes the trial judge as saying. “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, therefor giving them a defense to the very activity that's otherwise illegal, and I don't think that makes any sense in terms of the statutory construction, nor do I think it was intended by the people or the Legislature.”

...What this all means for the hordes of Humboldt County grow houses with 215 recommendations on the walls remains to be seen.

...Deputy District Attorney Maggie Fleming, who handles the bulk of the district attorney's drug cases, and a spokesperson for the Humboldt County Drug Task Force were not available to discuss the court ruling by the Times-Standard's deadline....


⦁ Eric's post Primary Care Giver needs to give more than marijuana
⦁ SF Chron Court ruling will limit solo pot providers 11-24
The decision pdf

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

It does seem as if the 215 ballon is deflating. Mendocino County, then Trinity County! Humboldt could (and should) be next.

It'about time!!!!!

Anonymous said...

U.S. Supreme Court: State Medical Marijuana Laws Not Preempted by Federal Law
Medical marijuana case appealed by the City of Garden Grove was denied review today
December 1, 2008 - Americans for Safe Access

Washington, DC -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to review a landmark decision today in which California state courts found that its medical marijuana law was not preempted by federal law. The state appellate court decision from November 28, 2007, ruled that "it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws." The case, involving Felix Kha, a medical marijuana patient from Garden Grove, was the result of a wrongful seizure of medical marijuana by local police in June 2005. Medical marijuana advocates hailed today's decision as a huge victory in clarifying law enforcement's obligation to uphold state law. Advocates assert that better adherence to state medical marijuana laws by local police will result in fewer needless arrests and seizures. In turn, this will allow for better implementation of medical marijuana laws not only in California, but in all states that have adopted such laws.

"It's now settled that state law enforcement officers cannot arrest medical marijuana patients or seize their medicine simply because they prefer the contrary federal law," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the medical marijuana advocacy organization that represented the defendant Felix Kha in a case that the City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Perhaps, in the future local government will think twice about expending significant time and resources to defy a law that is overwhelmingly supported by the people of our state."

California medical marijuana patient Felix Kha was pulled over by the Garden Grove Police Department and cited for possession of marijuana, despite Kha showing the officers proper documentation. The charge against Kha was subsequently dismissed, with the Superior Court of Orange County issuing an order to return Kha's wrongfully seized 8 grams of medical marijuana. The police, backed by the City of Garden Grove, refused to return Kha's medicine and the city appealed. Before the 41-page decision was issued a year ago by California's Fourth District Court of Appeal, the California Attorney General filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of Kha's right to possess his medicine. The California Supreme Court then denied review in March.

"The source of local law enforcement's resistance to upholding state law is an outdated, harmful federal policy with regard to medical marijuana," said ASA spokesperson Kris Hermes. "This should send a message to the federal government that it's time to establish a compassionate policy more consistent with the 13 states that have adopted medical marijuana laws."

Further information:
Today's U.S. Supreme Court Order denying review
http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/Kha_USSC.pdf
Decision by the California Fourth Appellate District Court:
http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/GardenGroveDecision.pdf
Felix Kha's return of property case:
http://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/article.php?id=4412

DT

Anonymous said...

As for 'caregivers' no other object is alowed to be produced at home with out permits and business lic. Home based business permits, why the heck do the 'MMJ caregivers' think they 'skate' on this issue?

You can't legally grow Roses (Rose) at home and sell that at the market if you live in a Res. neghborhood, you can't do 'AG production' there for sale to the public. So what's with 'caregivers' how do they 'skate' on the Zoning laws everyother type of growing or production fall under.

Here's Acrcata's for instance:
Arcata Land Use and Development Guide
Section 3-0201 Home Occupation
http://www.cityofarcata.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=78#home

How many of these 'caregivers' appliied for a permit? Same in every city and county.

Someone will prob. point to fruit stands, and I got to tell you 'read the zoning codes' Fruit stands (produce stands) are again a permited use, with codes governing them!

The can only be put in in AG zones with proper perimts. You can't sell items you produce in a Res. with out a "home business permit." This guy made 11K in two months 'selling' out of his home, this is illegal if it was pot or tomattos or anything. A res_ is a res is a res - its not for business ventures with out permits.

DT

Rose said...

It's true, DT, even a kid can't have a lemonade stand anymore. Anything related to food is regulated. Sometime back in the seventies they said you couldn't hold bake sales anymore (people ignore that all the time now)...

I do think zoning it an AG use would solve the growhouse problem.

It's just a shame because we really need LESS laws/rules/regulations and permits. Or we do in an ideal world. But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where people think nothing of destroying another persons home, a home they've been lent (or rented), they think nothing of it and make no effort to repay the person they hurt.

I definitely would rather have a 'leave well enough alone' society, as do most people who voted for 215 - but the reality is Mexican drug Cartels, armed home invasion robberies, 215 fires, diesel spills and environmental degradation that makes Palco look like a piker.

So, what's the answer? It's a weed.

Anonymous said...

The answer is to treat it like ANY OTHER "WEED" (or herb) exactly like anyother one.

a.) can you grow roses at your RES. home and resell them? (NO! RES_ is NOT ZONED FOR AG.)

b.) can you grow roses at your home and enjoy them your self? (YES! totally legal)

------
Same with all other growing items, bake sale, kintting sweaters, et al.

If you have a "home business lic." you CAN do somethings. My talor has a 'home based business' she has a business lic. and permits and retail sales permit and also the home does NOT share the same air as the rest of her home.

This is the LEAGAL way to do "at home business."

MMJ growers do NOT fit any of these cirtira, they all chant "Oh its not in p215!"

problem is that its the other CODES and ZONING that we all live under.

FYI / BTW - for "fun" speak with the local DOL (dept of Labor & Industral Relations) and ask them if the growing of items is legal at home. As if you can do ANYTHING that serves the public at home with out a permit.

If its illegal to bake a cake for a bake sale, then how the heck do the MMJ people think they can grow and sell MMJ to 'clubs.'

The way to stop this is by the IRS making sure that EVERYONE that the clubs buy from gets 1090'ed. This leaves a trail as to whom grew the "med_s" and they can be checked by the DOL et al if they paid their taxes, and are ADA and OSHA complaint, pay their state and fed taxes et al.

I *KNOW* that by simply telling the clubs (apx 1,000 in the state) that they can't withhold or use as a deduction any monies paid out with out a 1090 to prove where that money went.

A few clubs do that, make everyone get a 1090 but very few. If every club was foced (to obay the same laws you or I would have to: take the MMJ 'stigma' out of it - just what every other retailer has to do, if they want to claim a deduction they have to show a 1090!)

Why / How can shops claim deductions on monies that don't have 1090's to prove (paper trail, SS# address et al) where it was spent?

Everyone else has to do it, why don't the clubs.

(BTW - many/most clubs asign a "vendor number" and keep records on that 'vendor' say number vendor 123, and ELLEDIDLY everytime vendor 123 comes in that pay out is put on the clubs computer.

Now NO ONE ELSE CAN DO THAT! Peirsons, Walmart, please name ANY retail business that doesn't have to 1090'ed their whole sale vendors. (If the vendor is large enough and full disclousre on the recipt, then that can be used. But a number 123? for a pay out is a ligitmate deduction. I'm stuned, and I hope you are too.

What this allows is for the vendors to NOT have to claim that income, it also allows the shop to CLAIM any pay outs (deductions) they want. its just wrong.

All the MMJ people want MMJ to be 'legal' yet none (few) treat it as a legal business, and the goverment is going along with it.

I hope your as amazed as I was!

DT

Rose said...

I can't say I disagree with a single point you've made there, DT. I hope people are listening to you.

Business licenses, fees and taxes for anyone selling.

No penalties for those who legitimately grow for themselves/their family, for NO money.

I do think we may see a (badly needed) tax revolt if all those people suddenly find out what paying taxes is really like! they aren't gonna want to give up half their proceeds.

I hope you are doing well, DT. It's good to hear from you again.