[ASA Field]

This may have been posted somewhere else, but I'm having a hard time catching up on the last week of posts.

I've seen a lot of discussion here about the AG Guidelines and wanted to share ASA's perspective. Please take a look at our page on the guidelines: www.AmericansForSafeAccess.org/AGGuidelines

At this page you can find:

- A link to the guidelines
- A report on what the guidelines mean for collectives and cooperatives
- A history of how the guidelines came about and how they fit into ASA's California Campaign

Feel free to ask me any questions about this here. We're still working on more materials on the guidelines so if you have any input, it would be much appreciated.

[clinton]

I reda the guidline for coops. What if no money is exchanged for MMJ? In an organization I invision, could the members pay in opperating costs or give free labor- and not pay for the MMJ itself.

clinton

[ironchefblue]

Here's one of my personal concerns that I don't see addressed anywhere in the opinion. What about buying seeds/clones that I grow myself. Right now I have to go to one of several clubs that are hours away to get seeds or clones as for some reason Santa Cruz specifically says no to selling them here. If I can only be a member of one collective, I have to either chose a local one to obtain meds, or a distant one to get seeds/clones? I realize they're a grey area already but it's a real concern to me.

[ASA Field]

Originally Posted by clinton

I reda the guidline for coops. What if no money is exchanged for MMJ? In an organization I invision, could the members pay in opperating costs or give free labor- and not pay for the MMJ itself.

clinton

The guidelines certainly do not preclude this type of set up.

[ASA Field]

Originally Posted by ironchefblue

Here's one of my personal concerns that I don't see addressed anywhere in the opinion. What about buying seeds/clones that I grow myself. Right now I have to go to one of several clubs that are hours away to get seeds or clones as for some reason Santa Cruz specifically says no to selling them here. If I can only be a member of one collective, I have to either chose a local one to obtain meds, or a distant one to get seeds/clones? I realize they're a grey area already but it's a real concern to me.

You can be a member of multiple collectives so this shouldn't be a problem.

[SuperSkunker]

Originally Posted by ASA Field

You can be a member of multiple collectives so this shouldn't be a problem.

How come guide lines dont say u can be a member of multiple cooperative ?It says they u have to be from same city or county!And same cooperative can u explain if u can?

[ASA Field]

Originally Posted by SuperSkunker

How come guide lines dont say u can be a member of multiple cooperative ?It says they u have to be from same city or county!And same cooperative can u explain if u can?

The guidelines don't explicitly say you can be a member of several cooperatives, but they also don't say that you cannot.

I believe you're mixing up caregivers and cooperatives when talking about the county restriction. There's no county restriction for cooperatives. However, there is one for caregivers. A caregiver either can serve patients that reside within his/her county OR s/he can provide for only one patient that lives out of county. So if a caregiver is providing to one out of county patient, that means that s/he can provide for no one else. I'm not saying this makes sense, but this is how the law is laid out in SB 420.

[Nailhead]

Towards the end of the guidelines in IV, C., 2 it says:

1. Storefront Dispensaries: Although medical marijuana “dispensaries”
have been operating in California for years, dispensaries, as such, are not
recognized under the law. As noted above, the only recognized group entities are
cooperatives and collectives. (§ 11362.775.) It is the opinion of this Office that a
properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical
marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law, but that
dispensaries that do not substantially comply with the guidelines set forth in
sections IV(A) and (B), above, are likely operating outside the protections of
Proposition 215 and the MMP, and that the individuals operating such entities may
be subject to arrest and criminal prosecution under California law. For example,
dispensaries that merely require patients to complete a form summarily designating
the business owner as their primary caregiver – and then offering marijuana in
exchange for cash “donations” – are likely unlawful.

Doesn't this pretty much describe the majority of medical marijuana establishments in California? This certainly described all the ones I have been to, so if these guidelines don't recognize such places as legal, how would those places closing down help myself as a patient?

Also, in the following section talking about unlawful operation, it mentions "excessive amounts of cash", but is not specific in what "excessive" is. By not stating a specific amount of cash limits, you are leaving that decision up to the arresting officers, why?

[Justonevoice]

Originally Posted by Nailhead

Towards the end of the guidelines in IV, C., 2 it says:

Doesn't this pretty much describe the majority of medical marijuana establishments in California? This certainly described all the ones I have been to, so if these guidelines don't recognize such places as legal, how would those places closing down help myself as a patient?

Also, in the following section talking about unlawful operation, it mentions "excessive amounts of cash", but is not specific in what "excessive" is. By not stating a specific amount of cash limits, you are leaving that decision up to the arresting officers, why?

All search warrants issued have stated that monies in excess of $2000 onsite is to be confiscated (of course including that first $2000). I would think that having more than that on hand in a storefront operation's would be excessive in their minds.

[Nailhead]

That's what bothers me, any legit store probably has at least $2000 on site. I'm sure a lot of Church's have well over that amount on any given Sunday afternoon, but simply having "excess" money doesn't mean they are doing something bad.

Considering the costs of medical marijuana, it would be ridiculous to expect less than such an amount to be held at a co-op. That part seems as if it could serve as a nice loop hole for the local cops in unfriendly medical marijuana counties, such as Bakersfield, San Bernardino, San Diego, etc.

[KushMeister]

Originally Posted by Nailhead

That's what bothers me, any legit store probably has at least $2000 on site. I'm sure a lot of Church's have well over that amount on any given Sunday afternoon, but simply having "excess" money doesn't mean they are doing something bad.

Considering the costs of medical marijuana, it would be ridiculous to expect less than such an amount to be held at a co-op. That part seems as if it could serve as a nice loop hole for the local cops in unfriendly medical marijuana counties, such as Bakersfield, San Bernardino, San Diego, etc.

This has been my greatest concern ever since the giudelines have been published.
There's very little clairity and so much ambiguity (sp?).

You are allowed to pay reasonable compensation to employees of the collective, and to Patient Growers for their excess grow. It does not give any kind of guideline whatsoever, as to just exactly 'what' defines reasonable compensation.

I would just hate to see, someone trying very hard to run a collective, completely within the guidelines, as he deemed within complience, only to be raided and shut down, all because LEO felt that his idea of reasonable compensation, differred from what LEO's idea of it was.

[666]

Originally Posted by ASA Field

The guidelines don't explicitly say you can be a member of several cooperatives, but they also don't say that you cannot.

I believe you're mixing up caregivers and cooperatives when talking about the county restriction. There's no county restriction for cooperatives. However, there is one for caregivers. A caregiver either can serve patients that reside within his/her county OR s/he can provide for only one patient that lives out of county. So if a caregiver is providing to one out of county patient, that means that s/he can provide for no one else. I'm not saying this makes sense, but this is how the law is laid out in SB 420.

This is something that everyone up here gets their nickers in a fit about. Eg:

"You can't go from one pharmicy to another and just buy Rx drugs all day long. How come you can belong to more then one coop/collective?"

666

[Justonevoice]

Originally Posted by 666

This is something that everyone up here gets their nickers in a fit about. Eg:

"You can't go from one pharmicy to another and just buy Rx drugs all day long. How come you can belong to more then one coop/collective?"

666

Simple answer,

Many times patients will only have two maybe three collectives they regularly go to, One by their home,one by their work and one where they may go to visit friends or family. However,many patients start out going to many different places (and therefore their names may be found on the rolls of collectives they went to just once) to find where they feel comfortable and fit in. Many collectives offer different services such as yoga classes,discussion groups,support groups etc. So the point being that every collective that a patient attends regularly has something to positively offer to that patients health and well being so why should they be limited to one?

[Will]

Originally Posted by 666

This is something that everyone up here gets their nickers in a fit about. Eg:

"You can't go from one pharmicy to another and just buy Rx drugs all day long. How come you can belong to more then one coop/collective?"

666

According to the AG we shouldn't be likening them to pharmacies anyways,
but if you want discuss it ...........granted you can't run to pharmacies all day and load up on RX's but you can legally go to different ones and fill up your whole prescription, so IMHO you should be able to go to different Coops and buy meds up to your limit 8oz shouldn't you????

And usually whenever you go to a different pharmacy they will have enough RX's to cover whoever comes in to pick up RX's, so why shouldn't you be able to belong to different coops and have them have meds on hand for you or other members whenever they may show up.

I know You already know all of this but Basically it's ALL still messed up...................Because the whole 215 wasn't specific and 420 is still iffy if it even legal and the so AG is the top Cop and something had to be done, and still is being done and Jerry Brown is finally Stepping up to the plate again to create some real life rules....with lots of flaws and uncertainties yet which makes it still a work in progress.

He is not doing this to Punish or Limit patient rights, I think our Friend is doing this to protect us and hopefully force these renegade County and local oficials TO BE FORCED TO OBEY THE LAW THEMSELVES.
He is just making MMJ even more legitimate.

Many of these Unethical people have chosen for the past 12 years AFTER the LAW was passed to ignore it and violate many many peoples rights, while thumbing their noses at YOU AND ME and arresting and jailing our friends and families.

No More......they have no excuses, the need to Obey the A.G.'s guidelines, he is considered the Top Law Enforcement Officer if I'm not mistaken.


There are considerations to both sides and lots more questions ......can a patient only have 8oz for them total between all places, ie...their house person and coop, or can they have their 8oz at home and the coop have 8oz as well and another coop have another 8oz on also.
I'm sure there will be even more clarifications to come.

[666]

Originally Posted by Will

According to the AG we shouldn't be likening them to pharmacies anyways,
but if you want discuss it ...........granted you can't run to pharmacies all day and load up on RX's but you can legally go to different ones and fill up your whole prescription, so IMHO you should be able to go to different Coops and buy meds up to your limit 8oz shouldn't you????

And usually whenever you go to a different pharmacy they will have enough RX's to cover whoever comes in to pick up RX's, so why shouldn't you be able to belong to different coops and have them have meds on hand for you or other members whenever they may show up.

I know You already know all of this but Basically it's ALL still messed up...................Because the whole 215 wasn't specific and 420 is still iffy if it even legal and the so AG is the top Cop and something had to be done, and still is being done and Jerry Brown is finally Stepping up to the plate again to create some real life rules....with lots of flaws and uncertainties yet which makes it still a work in progress.

He is not doing this to Punish or Limit patient rights, I think our Friend is doing this to protect us and hopefully force these renegade County and local oficials TO BE FORCED TO OBEY THE LAW THEMSELVES.
He is just making MMJ even more legitimate.

Many of these Unethical people have chosen for the past 12 years AFTER the LAW was passed to ignore it and violate many many peoples rights, while thumbing their noses at YOU AND ME and arresting and jailing our friends and families.

No More......they have no excuses, the need to Obey the A.G.'s guidelines, he is considered the Top Law Enforcement Officer if I'm not mistaken.


There are considerations to both sides and lots more questions ......can a patient only have 8oz for them total between all places, ie...their house person and coop, or can they have their 8oz at home and the coop have 8oz as well and another coop have another 8oz on also.
I'm sure there will be even more clarifications to come.

I toally agree, just asking because its something our PlanCo always asks and the "nay sayers" make a big deal out of it.

What WE ALWAYS do is walk in with a USofA goverment tin for 8 oz of MMJ and say "this is what the US gives out per month" --- it really takes the 'ounis' off the "8 oz is too much" 'wrap"

--- its all good - the interlocking memberships between coops./collectivies et al - are SOP in every business. Yup here there are seveal Health Food Coop's you can join, also you can donate money as a 'buy in' to comunitie farms, no one says how many of those you can belong to.

Our (I feel) often BEST BASTION of defence is looking at how other business are treated and using the same models.

NOTE: on the Pharmicy refance, it wasn't from me - its just what the nay sayers keep saying. It's sort of funny, when they want to USE the information against us from a Pharmicy - then they bring it up - if not - then they don't want us to be like them.

We're working on LAND USE CODE up here - not your standard Ord.. for personall use and coops/collectives ... we're working on incorperating it into the Land Use Code (where I think it belongs) but that brings in huge public coment from both sides ... and lots of "nay sayers" ---

thanks for the imput - can use it all!

Yours
666

[Nailhead]

Originally Posted by KushMeister

I would just hate to see, someone trying very hard to run a collective, completely within the guidelines, as he deemed within complience, only to be raided and shut down, all because LEO felt that his idea of reasonable compensation, differred from what LEO's idea of it was.

Let's not forget that these guidelines do not protect against federal raids. It doesn't matter how "compliant" a co-op is within California state law, the DEA still has the ability to raid any California co-op they please. The DEA has already set examples of their moral standings with regards to medical marijuana. They do not care how peaceful you are, they will treat you like a murderer, and raid and arrest you if you are violating federal drug laws.

Maybe these guidelines will keep some cops from working with the DEA to raid medical facilities, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Unless you can afford a well paid attorney, or are a legal expert, cops can do whatever they want. We need federal protection, we need a stronger push for rescheduling of marijuana, and reform of our ridiculously harsh drug laws.

[ASA Field]

Originally Posted by Justonevoice

All search warrants issued have stated that monies in excess of $2000 onsite is to be confiscated (of course including that first $2000). I would think that having more than that on hand in a storefront operation's would be excessive in their minds.

Let's not mix apples and oranges here. Those search warrants are FEDERAL search warrants. There is no established amount that is considered excessive under state law.

[ASA Field]

Originally Posted by Nailhead

Towards the end of the guidelines in IV, C., 2 it says:

Doesn't this pretty much describe the majority of medical marijuana establishments in California? This certainly described all the ones I have been to, so if these guidelines don't recognize such places as legal, how would those places closing down help myself as a patient?

I'm unclear, are you saying that most dispensaries have patients sign a form designating them as their primary caregiver? Because if that's the case, that is a problem. Dispensaries are not primary caregivers and I just don't see how they can operate legally as such. They should be operating as collectives as cooperatives and I think this should have been clear since the passage of SB 420. If dispensaries have been organizing themselves as primary caregivers, they should change their organization immediately and reorganize as a collective.

[ASA Field]

Originally Posted by Nailhead

Let's not forget that these guidelines do not protect against federal raids. It doesn't matter how "compliant" a co-op is within California state law, the DEA still has the ability to raid any California co-op they please. The DEA has already set examples of their moral standings with regards to medical marijuana. They do not care how peaceful you are, they will treat you like a murderer, and raid and arrest you if you are violating federal drug laws.

Maybe these guidelines will keep some cops from working with the DEA to raid medical facilities, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Unless you can afford a well paid attorney, or are a legal expert, cops can do whatever they want. We need federal protection, we need a stronger push for rescheduling of marijuana, and reform of our ridiculously harsh drug laws.

Of course these guidelines will not stop DEA raids, but they send a clear message to the federal government that California intends to continue implementing our medical marijuana laws, regardless of what the federal government does.

These guidelines have already been very useful in ASA's conversations with congressional staff. The top cop of the state issuing guidelines affirming our medical marijuana laws is incredibly useful at countering our opponents' claims that law enforcement do not support medical marijuana and that medical marijuana in California has run amok.

ASA of course agrees that ultimately we need to change federal law, but we do believe that the AG guidelines are a step in that direction.

[Nailhead]

Originally Posted by ASA Field

Of course these guidelines will not stop DEA raids, but they send a clear message to the federal government that California intends to continue implementing our medical marijuana laws, regardless of what the federal government does.

These guidelines have already been very useful in ASA's conversations with congressional staff. The top cop of the state issuing guidelines affirming our medical marijuana laws is incredibly useful at countering our opponents' claims that law enforcement do not support medical marijuana and that medical marijuana in California has run amok.

But if the guidelines needed to gain approval from congress make us take a few steps backwards, how is that really being useful? And why is it that we need to gain the approval of congress anyway? If we had a governor that stood up for California's rights as a state, nobody would need to be sucking up to congressman just to get federal approval, (which I don't even believe will come as a result of these guidelines).

Politicians love to claim "medical marijuana in California has run amok", but really, who are the people that are complaining? Who are the people being harmed? The only people I ever see bitching about medical marijuana are cops and politicians, nobody else gives a hoot! So by working with the cops and politicians spewing such garbage, you are only validating their deceitful arguments against our cause. That, in my opinion, is not moving forward at all!

I'd much rather see medical marijuana activist groups targeting local and statewide elections by helping to elect officials who would be more friendly to medical marijuana patients needs and concerns. Every time I see an election poster for Jerry Lewis I'm reminded of the condescending e-mail response I got when I e-mailed his office for his support with medical marijuana. Let's get these career politicians out of office, and elect fresh faces to the landscape!

[SuperSkunker]

Originally Posted by Na

I'd much rather see medical marijuana activist groups targeting local and statewide elections by helping to elect officials who would be more friendly to medical marijuana patients needs and concerns. Every time I see an election poster for Jerry Lewis I'm reminded of the condescending e-mail response I got when I e-mailed his office for his support with medical marijuana. Let's get these career politicians out of office, and elect fresh faces to the landscape!

I agree,But not enough peaple care to vote ,when your vote 80 % of the time does not cant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Justonevoice]

Originally Posted by ASA Field

I'm unclear, are you saying that most dispensaries have patients sign a form designating them as their primary caregiver? Because if that's the case, that is a problem. Dispensaries are not primary caregivers and I just don't see how they can operate legally as such. They should be operating as collectives as cooperatives and I think this should have been clear since the passage of SB 420. If dispensaries have been organizing themselves as primary caregivers, they should change their organization immediately and reorganize as a collective.

There was a time in L.A. where collectives where having patients sign a Primary caregiver form but that is outdated and anyone doing so should change to a membership form instead.

[666]

Originally Posted by Nailhead

....
The only people I ever see bitching about medical marijuana are cops and politicians, nobody else gives a hoot! So by working with the cops and politicians spewing such garbage, you are only validating their deceitful arguments against our cause. That, in my opinion, is not moving forward at all!

...

I disagree, I see people all the time complaining (bitching) about MMJ. It's a huge issue when 10%+ of a town signs Petition against grow houses and what they feel is the 'take over' by medical marijuana producers of their neighborhoods.(1.) I see church groups and citizen groups "bitching" out numbering the 'MMJ people' at city council and board of supervisors again and again. (2.)

So with church groups and other MMJ "haters" working to close down shops ... and the "only" way local law enforcment feels they have to deal with it, because of the protections that p215, sb420 put in place: 'call the feds" was the only answer. Now the AG has shown that local law enforcment can take care of any precived problems them selves and not have to "call in the Feds." I feel this is a good thing, it gives some 'guidelines' so LEO's can see what is possable right and what is not right. It also frees up more Fed money for the war on REAL DRUGS, vs. wasting money on busting sick people!

I mean just read these WT posts pro-McCain and you'll see how the chruch and state are linked and people LOVE IT. Even MMJ people are seriouly taking about putting in charge these people who are down on MMJ and have already groups in place that are working against us! Your going to see more and more of this "back lash" against MMJ from parts of the Religious sector. It's strange to me because the 'normal / main streem' relgions have come out in FAVOR of MMJ!

Citations:
(Note: These area's can be considered 'ahead of the curve' vs. LA and SoCal because they've had MMJ laws in place since the start of p215. LA and SoCal are about 10 years behind, the 'rush' that LA is going threw happened in NoCal years ago. This is the 'backlash' I perdict will happen in SoCal with in the next few years. Better having a State Law implace then bothering the Fed's with it. My 2 cents!
(1.) Nip It in the Bud - Petition to the Arcata City Council to Revise the Arcata Municipal Code, Title V. Sanitation and Health, Chapter 10—Personal Medical Marijuana Use This Petition is because it wasn't felt LEO's are doing enough to curb MMJ growing in the res. neghborhoods. it was brought on totally by non-LEO's and was signed (last count) by about 10% of the cities popualtion. http://www.arcataeye.com/index.php?m...42&format=full

(2.) Initiative aims to curb marijuana growing in Mendocino Co This won - and is going threw the courts. Which ever way it goes, the idea that its NOT just LEO's that are against MMJ! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...d=rss.business
Also: The most recent (May) San Mateo area Fed busts were brought in by church members who, with the sheriff had a petition to shut down local clubs shut down. I don't have the news citation on that but recall reading it quite well.

666

[666]

Originally Posted by ASA Field

You can be a member of multiple collectives so this shouldn't be a problem.

I have read the suggested ASA page:
ASA's perspective http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/AGGuidelines
The guidelines them selves
and also ASA’s“What the AG Guidelines Mean for Collectives and Cooperatives” http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5561

My question comes from there: ASA’s “What the AG Guidelines Mean for Collectives and Cooperatives”
Under the section:

”Acquiring Medicine”

ASA states:

“The guidelines also do not authorize collective to engage in wholesale transactions with members or other collectives.”

I’m wondering with the obvious ability to belong to more then one coop/collective. (Like one can belong to several food coops/collectives.) Why wouldn’t these Interlocking Membership (which ASA suggests are legal) wouldn’t allow the remuneration of medicine between various collectives or coops?

This type of Interlocking Memberships are really common in every business and okay according to ASA. So why would the standard activities that are covered by that ‘membership’ be allowed?

Or am I making too much of this line, given that the operative is “member” – ie patients have to be ‘members’ to remunerate.
Thanks for all you and ASA does.

666
The cow says “Thanks ASA MOOOOOO!”
The cow is a ASA member are you???

[Nailhead]

Originally Posted by SuperSkunker

I agree,But not enough peaple care to vote ,when your vote 80 % of the time does not cant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ASA sponsored voting drive, why not?