215 Law Not What Voters Wanted

[Smokin Moose]

I was reading the classified section, and there was an ad that I found very interesting: "215 CAREGIVER seeks patients. Quality, affordable . . . Must have 215." What it should have said is, "Doper wants someone with a 215 card in order to be able grow marijuana legally."

This is what is wrong with the 215 law. The law is very clear. Section 11362.5 sub-section ( 2 ) ( d ), Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.

And ( e ) For the purposes of this section, "primary caregiver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that person.

When the voters of this state passed the 215 laws, they wanted people who it was determined by a physician would benefit from the use of marijuana, therefore they could grow it for their personal use. Not so they could grow and sell it. I don't read anything in the law that makes it legal to grow and sell it.

That is not what the voters wanted, even though that what has happened. It made the growing and selling of marijuana legal and is making some people rich. It's about the money.

Donny Carroll

Eureka

Source: Times-Standard (Eureka, CA)
Copyright: 2007 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact: letters@times-standard.com
Website: Times-Standard Online - Home

 

[J842P]

It can hardly be said that the credibility of medical marijuana hinges on the way California - having the most liberal of policies - decides to deal with the issue. People who take advantage of the system are hurting people who really need it. However, it's hard to say what i would do if I lived in California. I would like to think that I wouldn't take advantage of it, but it is hard to say for sure that I wouldn't (I could probably rationalize it based on the fact that prohibition is an unjust law).

 

[Smokin Moose]

^I fully agree

 

[Boss]

They really have just two choices, prohibition (again) or legalization, regulation, and taxation. Get rid of the need to buy illegally, and you get rid of the organised crime element.

From what I hear, they want to use the Wine industry model, which would actually work. Even the Feds know prohibition wont last much longer.