[Smilodon]

Marcus Boyd is a member of ASA in San Diego and does a fine job of analysis and presentation. SD ASA distributed these answers to the threads question. More ammo for the cannons, fire away!


Case Law Interpreting Health & Safety Code 11362.775

Case law interpreting California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775, which provides specific
legal protections for the association of qualified persons within the State in order to collectively
or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes:

(1) People v. Hochanadel, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 (filed 8/18/2009) – Court concluded that “the
MMPA’s authorization of cooperatives and collectives did not amend the CUA, but rather was a
distinct statutory scheme intended to facilitate the transfer of medical marijuana to qualified
medical marijuana patients under the CUA….” The court also concluded “that storefront
dispensaries that qualify as ‘cooperatives’ or ‘collectives’ under the CUA and MMPA, and
otherwise comply with those laws, may operate legally, and defendants may have a defense at
trial to the charges in this case based upon the CUA and MMPA.”

(2) County of Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 (filed 7/1/2009) –
County of Butte was sued by a member of a medical marijuana collective after being ordered by
a sheriff to destroy some of the marijuana plants in accordance with the County’s underlying
policy to allow qualified patients to grow marijuana collectively only if each member actively
participates in the actual cultivation of the marijuana by planting, watering, pruning, or
harvesting the marijuana. Trial court sustained the civil lawsuit for money damages against the
County and concluded that contrary to the policy of the County, “the [State] legislature intended
collective cultivation of medical marijuana would not require physical participation in the
gardening process by all members of the collective, but rather would permit that some patients
would be able to contribute financially, while others performed the labor and contributed the
skills and ‘know-how.’” Court of Appeal upheld the trial court ruling.

(3) People v. Newcomb et al., 2009 WL 1589574 (filed 6/9/2009) (Not Officially Published) –
Defendants appealed their convictions based upon the collective/cooperative defense under
California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. Appellate court upheld the convictions, but
elaborated that “other than merely purchasing marijuana, not every member must contribute to
some aspect of the collective or cooperative; … Because some patients may be too ill to
contribute to the collective or cooperative, requiring them to do so, in order to be part of the
collective or cooperative, would be impractical.”

(4) People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (filed 9/12/2005) – Appellate court reversed
and remanded a trial court’s determination that a defendant was precluded from raising a
“collective, cooperative defense” under Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. The appellate court
found that the defendant had presented the trial court with sufficient evidence that: the defendant
was a qualified patient; the co-defendants were qualified patients; the procedures of the
collective, in question, verified the prescriptions and identities of the various members, making
them qualified patients, as well; members paid membership fees and reimbursed the defendant
for cost incurred in the cultivation through donations; and members volunteered and participated
at the collective, by helping with cultivation, delivery, processing of new applications, etc. The
court elaborated that Health & Safety Code § 11362.775’s “specific itemization of the marijuana
sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana
cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in
conjunction with the provision of that marijuana.”


Provided by: Marcus Boyd, San Diego ASA

[X Runner]

People vs. Hochanadel clearly states "that storefront dispensaries that qualify as 'cooperatives' or 'collectives' under the CUA and MMPA and otherwise comply with those laws, may operate legally,.......". So a storefront dispensary can be operated by a collective under certain conditions, it seems. With a 100 plant limit, it remains to be seen whether it is worth it to have a storefront.

[DreamSmoker]

I am having a real problem with the words from City Officials who say these dispensaries are illegal...
I listened to The City Attorney for L.A. say that Co-Ops and Patients growing their own is fine.. All the while Local Police Department come and Confiscate Legal home grown gardens like mine and threaten arrest on Federal grounds...
This is very clear to me that Local Officials in any city in California have lit the candle at both ends hoping that we get burned in the middle with no were to go.. In other words,,, To eliminate Pot access all together while tying up everything in Court Limbo for years...
Not one City official anywhere in this state has stepped forward and defended the rights of the Medical Marijuana Patients....
We are what this is all about.... Safe Access to our Medication...

[HolisticHealingProducts]

In Madera County the board of supervisors held an illegal meeting and voted to ban despensaires in the county. We are asking that people call or email the supervisors and tell them to follow state law. They can be reached at 559-675-7700 or email supervisors@madera-county.com. Please let us know what response you get so we can spread the work. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!!!

[MaMa Leary]

Do they want us to go back to the 70's...meeting in parking lots, dark ally's, some unknow house and wait outside. And hope the guy you gave your $$ to is coming back?? If he comes back it was always lite.Pot is not going away no matter if it's legal or not

[Juba]

Using existing law and legal precedent to justify storefront dispensaries is like trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. There are too many limitations that can't be overcome.

We should be doing everything we can to see that Assembly Bill 390 passes:
Legalize Marijuana in California
Legalizing marijuana solves everything.

If 390 fails we would have a very good shot at getting another MM bill passed that specifically addresses distribution in ways that insure easy access and competitive pricing.

[DankJews]

Originally Posted by X Runner

People vs. Hochanadel clearly states "that storefront dispensaries that qualify as 'cooperatives' or 'collectives' under the CUA and MMPA and otherwise comply with those laws, may operate legally,.......". So a storefront dispensary can be operated by a collective under certain conditions, it seems. With a 100 plant limit, it remains to be seen whether it is worth it to have a storefront.

Stacey Hochanadel Is A Good Friend, It Is Interesting To See What Happens. I Hope We Have Things Straightened Out Real Soon!

.:Stay Medicated:.

[ShiningSkull]

Hope you don't mind, Smilodon, that I re-formatted your post. I couldn't easily read it, and thought others might be in the same position. ~SS

Smilodon's Original Post:
Marcus Boyd is a member of ASA in San Diego and does a fine job of analysis and presentation. SD ASA distributed these answers to the threads question. More ammo for the cannons, fire away!


Case Law Interpreting Health & Safety Code 11362.775

Case law interpreting California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775, which provides specific legal protections for the association of qualified persons within the State in order to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes:

(1) People v. Hochanadel, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 (filed 8/18/2009) – Court concluded that “the MMPA’s authorization of cooperatives and collectives did not amend the CUA, but rather was a distinct statutory scheme intended to facilitate the transfer of medical marijuana to qualified medical marijuana patients under the CUA….” The court also concluded “that storefront dispensaries that qualify as ‘cooperatives’ or ‘collectives’ under the CUA and MMPA, and otherwise comply with those laws, may operate legally, and defendants may have a defense at trial to the charges in this case based upon the CUA and MMPA.”

(2) County of Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 (filed 7/1/2009) – County of Butte was sued by a member of a medical marijuana collective after being ordered by a sheriff to destroy some of the marijuana plants in accordance with the County’s underlying policy to allow qualified patients to grow marijuana collectively only if each member actively participates in the actual cultivation of the marijuana by planting, watering, pruning, or harvesting the marijuana. Trial court sustained the civil lawsuit for money damages against the County and concluded that contrary to the policy of the County, “the [State] legislature intended collective cultivation of medical marijuana would not require physical participation in the gardening process by all members of the collective, but rather would permit that some patients would be able to contribute financially, while others performed the labor and contributed the skills and ‘know-how.’” Court of Appeal upheld the trial court ruling.

(3) People v. Newcomb et al., 2009 WL 1589574 (filed 6/9/2009) (Not Officially Published) – Defendants appealed their convictions based upon the collective/cooperative defense under California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. Appellate court upheld the convictions, but elaborated that “other than merely purchasing marijuana, not every member must contribute to some aspect of the collective or cooperative; … Because some patients may be too ill to contribute to the collective or cooperative, requiring them to do so, in order to be part of the collective or cooperative, would be impractical.”

(4) People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (filed 9/12/2005) – Appellate court reversed and remanded a trial court’s determination that a defendant was precluded from raising a “collective, cooperative defense” under Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. The appellate court found that the defendant had presented the trial court with sufficient evidence that: the defendant was a qualified patient; the co-defendants were qualified patients; the procedures of the collective, in question, verified the prescriptions and identities of the various members, making them qualified patients, as well; members paid membership fees and reimbursed the defendant for cost incurred in the cultivation through donations; and members volunteered and participated at the collective, by helping with cultivation, delivery, processing of new applications, etc. The court elaborated that Health & Safety Code § 11362.775’s “specific itemization of the marijuana sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana.”


Provided by: Marcus Boyd, San Diego ASA