CNOA Bent On Increasing Arrests For Under An Ounce Of Medical Marijuana

[DRM Ranch]

DRM Ranch:

I'm a very curious person, so when I read your posts, I have to wonder why your views are so... shall we say, elitist? Sure, I could have come to that conclusion just with your attorney-on-retainer remarks, as the only people I've known who have an attorney on retainer are... other attorneys (a rather elitist group). And I'm sure anyone who's been a victim of stop-and-frisk doesn't have an attorney on retainer either.

Your views of the police could be explained by your middle-class (or higher) position, but are rather confusing considering the militarized state of America's police forces. Police don't get away with stealing and murder? Huh? It's almost like you don't read the news.

But I also have to wonder if your view of the police has to do with where you're originally from -- as I noticed you used the British spelling of the word "defense." Perhaps, then, your view of the police is also based on law enforcement in other countries?

Don't mean to be intrusive or anything, just trying to satisfy my curiosity.

You aren't being intrusive at all, and I'd very much like to explain and maybe satisfy your curiosity.

I believe very strongly in self preservation and the protection of family ahead of all else. I was raised in a family where my income was pooled with that of my mother's to stave off the threat of being homeless which at that time was always dangerously close. My first full time job used to keep us from being homeless was attained when I was 14.

I held that job for 5 years, after which I joined the army for a variety of reasons of which I will not go into here, suffice it to say I maintained my contribution to the family by sending home as much or more than I had while I was home. I stayed in the army for 13 years until an injury prevented me from continuing and I was honorably discharged, this make me a disabled veteran.

My military experience and training was not particularly useful for attaining much by way of civilian employment, I took a job for a local detective agency, was promoted several times, attained a final position in that company that was by law a police officer (I was sworn in among a slew of other police by the police chief at the time).

I moved on from that job to work in a maximum security prison and later took employment at a local hospital.

Each job was left on good terms and each new job was taken because pay was better.

Today I am self employed, I make less than I have in the past but I am doing something I very much love. I live with no savings, no retirement fund, no disability check (my disability is rated at 10% and thus is not high enough to get a monthly payment), so I'm not what I would call overly well off. I make end meet.

I have a number of things going on in my life that have kept me involved in as an observer of an ongoing legal battle, namely family court issues with my wife's ex husband and family.

I carry a firearm for self defense (defence as the rest of the English speaking world spells it). In any case I have since owning a weapon of my own had an attorney on retainer, the cost of which I funded by saving for some time. I believe I put down around fourteen hundred dollars at the time, which was twice what I paid for my first handgun, that pushed my cost of owning a weapon up to the twenty one hundred dollar range.

To date I have not had to use the services of my attorney for anything serious, however I have from time to time consulted with her, thus kept abreast of my rights and responsibilities. I replenish the money used out of my retainer as soon as I can.

I keep the attorney on retainer simply because I am not always in possession of enough money to get an attorney when I might need one. The money I spent does not go away and I am effectively lawyered up at all times. It is something like insurance to me, if I shoot someone, or run them over with my vehicle, or whatever legal troubles I find myself in I will certainly need my attorney to speak for me or I am very likely to lose everything I have worked my entire life for.

I am not particularly fond of taking on risks that my income can't support, I therefore do only what I can afford. Right now I can't comfortably afford a speeding ticket so I don't speed, when I can afford it I tend to drive faster than I should because I enjoy driving fast cars and we have a few fun roads around here.

So when I do take risks, they are calculated, and they are risks I can comfortably afford the consequences of.

So that's me in a nutshell, I'm American born and bred by the way, my spelling tends to drift between thank god for spell check and who is this retard, sorry about that.

My thoughts on police (and politicians for that matter), they are pretty much the same I had about enemy combatants, we each have our own jobs, individual perspectives, and values. I am not a hateful person and don't enjoy the feeling hate leaves me with, I find it contaminates my ability to reason through a situation. I realize that our jobs, individual perspectives, and values are highly unlikely to mesh, and that is fine with me. I expect that people in general are always looking to further their own interests, I think it would be sad if people didn't in fact. It is unfortunate that sometimes the dissimilarity of our aims results in one or the other not reaching our goals, and even more unfortunate when neither do.

On the very direct subject of police stealing and murdering people, there is a clear distinction between lawfully taking things and lives from people and unlawfully doing so. Police that take your stuff or life in accordance with the laws and due processes by which they are subject to have stolen nothing and/or murdered no one. Laws and due process take into weighted account many factors of the situation to determine the legality of a persons or officers actions. The outcome is one that tends to be legally right if not morally right or even ethically acceptable.

I will grant you that not every situation that has been tried is correctly deemed legal or illegal for that matter, cases are often enough reviewed on appeal and decisions overturned. Our legal system and laws are not perfect by a long shot. Neither are the people who administer the workings of the system in which we live. I think this is nearly a universal issue.

With that said, people are people no matter their vocation, and so long as we reside among each other we must learn to deal with and anticipate the actions of those around us. All the while being cognizant of how our actions will prompt others to react. We essentially live in a giant cluster **** that is society.

As for people not having an attorney on retainer, I suppose it mainly depends on a persons particular situation. I wouldn't prefer to be without a weapon in a firefight any more than I would prefer to be in police custody without a lawyer at my disposal.

As for your stop-and-frisk victim comment, I don't believe it is a fair or just policing procedure. While I am generally safe from the stop-and-frisk thing because of where I reside in the country, that is not practiced here, I am regularly profiled as a person who is suspected of trafficking. The last time was very well executed textbook profiling stop, I look the part of someone who officers profile for trafficking, so I expect it every time I travel our wonderful country. I am not interested in changing my look or travel plans in such a way as to avoid the interest of officers, so I take care not to give them a legal foundation to take my stuff or life.

So we come to the topic of policing for profit, it happens. That is something a person who is breaking the law should be ready to accept. It is an associated risk one takes and should account for in their decision making process ahead of time. I am not siding with the police here, I am simply stating that police do what they do because it is in their best interest.

A person who decides that cannabis is an effective medicine or recreational substance and decides to act on that is doing so at some risk, it is not looked on well at the federal level, and all states regulate it to some extent or another. For the value of some 4 oz. you can have yourself an attorney on retainer that may well save you from the loss of everything.

I look at things from a risk benefit ratio perspective, that coupled with my low tolerance for high risk keeps me only willing to take risks I know I can afford and avoiding those I can't like the plague.

So there you go, I do hope that serves to quell your curiosity to some extent, I really do appreciate the level headed way you addressed your comment. +Reps to you.

DRM Ranch

 

[righteoustric]

This is madness, just part of the for profit prison industry. Only way to change this stuff is by voting.. Remember that people!

 

[painkills2]

Wow, DRM Ranch, thanks so much for the detailed answer. I'm not used to people satisfying my unending curiosity, so I really appreciate it.

I'd just like to add that, yes, everyone who consumes cannabis should first analyze the risks, which would include being knowledgeable about the laws in their city and state. One should also research the plant itself. And because laws are always changing, and new information about cannabis is constantly being revealed, consumers should also keep up-to-date on the medical and industry news.

And yet, many medical (and now recreational) users just walk into the nearest dispensary... or access the nearest underground market.

You can't expect most people to adequately research and analyze the risk/benefit ratio of cannabis consumption -- cops know this. Cops also know that most people don't have an attorney on retainer. They know a lot of cannabis users don't worry about the police until they are pulled over that first time. By then it's too late -- the criminal injustice system has tagged that person for life. (Especially if they are a person of color.)

Police don't protect the public -- they take advantage of the public. And like it or not, a lot of them are seen as bullies... bullies with guns.

I've lost count of the number of stories I've read about cops shooting unarmed suspects -- and yet, no cops go to jail. Can't buy that type of protection for average folks (although Florida's stand-your-ground law comes close). Of course, all a cop has to say is that he feared for his life, which gives him the right to kill a suspect (and face little, if any, repercussions).

It's not hard for anyone to understand the risk of being a police officer, so if you take that job, you should be prepared. Why become a cop if you can't handle fear? Because I don't consider shooting first and asking questions later to be all that legal. (Along with asset forfeiture, of course.)

 

[DRM Ranch]

It would be helpful for California cannabis users to at the very least print off and read "Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7-11362.83" as well as other state laws mentioned within the span of that document.

The text of the document is written in plain English as is the modorn style, yet it is important to note that one can't expect to extrapolate rights and/or privileges beyond the letter of the text.

In order for a person to protect themselves they must know what is and is not acceptable under the laws where they are at any time. It is true that ignorance of the law is not a defense. To this end I would caution that, while the law itself is often clear, case law is good to know (often more so) as well. Case law is in very general terms a collection of cases where lawyers on both sides of a case argue their position and judges have determined the outcome. This is where president comes from, and where one can look to see exactly how situations have been dealt with regarding laws in the past. Case law is very valuable to anyone wanting to navigate a situation with extreme care, simply follow the path of others who have blazed a path resulting in whatever you find acceptable and avoid following those whose path has ended in an unsavory manner.

The advantage of having a lawyer do much of this research for you is that of experience. It accelerates your ability to locate the path you can travel safely, at a price of course.

You are correct that most people don't worry about police until the situation is upon them. In most cases people don't need to worry about police interaction at all. Yet, those of us who wish to enjoy freedoms or privileges that are by their very nature are niche practices that are highly polarizing amongst the people we live with do need to take more care.

I agree that police don't directly protect the people, that's why I keep and maintain a high degree of skill with a firearm. Police are for the most part reactive to criminal activity. Our legal system is predominantly set up to support catching criminals rather than preventing crime. This is a good thing in my opinion. Nobody wants to go to jail for thinking about doing something illegal. Police protection is mainly in the form of reducing the number of free criminals. I don't know how effective that is, but the concept is solid.

I do not agree that police take any more advantage than anyone else, we all take advantage where we can. Police are professionals at finding a way to put people in jail, people should realize that becoming a professional at remaining out of jail is necessary if that is your aim.

While you may have lost count of how many officers have killed unarmed civilians, have you any idea just how many contacts officers made with the public in the same time period? You are more likely to be killed by another motorist than by an officer. Have you any idea how many officers complete their entire career without having ever drawn their weapon let alone discharged it at a person? Let's be fair and look at the whole picture before condemning an entire profession as bullies, murderers, and thieves.

In reality there are no more bad cops as there are bad people.

As for all an officer has to say is that they feared for their life, the same applies for a civillian. The law provides us the ability to defend our own life using up to deadly force if necessary when we fear our life is under eminent threat.

Officers are jailed for murder and theft, I've closed the door on at least one myself while working as a corrections officer.

DRM Ranch

 

[painkills2]

"The text of the document is written in plain English..."

I don't think I'm the only one who has trouble processing this kind of "plain English." Not only when it comes to laws and legal jargon, but also in regards to medical information.

This week, Wired published an article about a system called the "number needed to treat," a different way of looking at health information: "...the NNT describes how many people would need to take a drug for one person to benefit."

An additional quote from that article: “All of us have trouble clearly distinguishing degrees of risk, and that is compounded by the enormous noise that accompanies health information. The signal is lost.”

 

[DRM Ranch]

The NNT, Explained | theNNT

That link is a pretty basic explanation of NNT.

DRM Ranch

 

[DRM Ranch]

I don't work for these folk or anyone for that matter, but found the link contains a bunch of good information regarding risks that a cannabis user might want to avoid. It sort of blends the law and real talk, so just about everyone can gain something from reading it.
Possession of a Controlled Substance; CA Health & Safety Code 11350 HS

It should be obvious that the text on that page is not complete, or inclusive enough to be considered legal advice, but it should give you an idea of how the other side works and how completely you need to assess the risk you may or may not wish to take on.

Simply looking at the OP's article does little to protect the individual, in fact it more to the point inflates the situation for all of us.

If you are a legal user of cannabis in the state of California, you are protected.

The article should point out more clearly that while many people that are using cannabis are doing so in a manner they think is legal the fact is that enough are not following the letter of the law closely enough to maintain the protections afforded by California law.

Let's try to focus on how to correct that, how to educate the good folks in California on what is legal and what is not.

It may well need a line by line explanation, I don't know. It would be pretty dull work, and expensive.

For example: 11362.77. (a) A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature plants per qualified patient.

Remember every word has meaning in laws.

"A qualified patient ...", has a definite meaning, so to really reduce your risk you need to become one by the letter of the law and attain that title in a legal manner. That means no doctor shopping as per California's law, and you need to have the medical records and conditions detailed in those medical records. You may not want to risk falsifying symptoms to a doctor to attain a recommendation for an otherwise controlled substance. Also, the duration of qualification is limited. You are at risk losing protections in California if you allow your status as a qualified patient lapse.

Ok, that's the first three words.

Add three more and it gets fun.

"A qualified patient or primary caregiver ...", the primary caregiver is also well defined by California law, and it is equally important to attain that title in the manner described. As either a patient or primary care giver it is important to know who you are dealing with is legitimate. We will address the "or" later, it is important.

Let's add to more words.

"A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess ..." now we are getting down and dirty. The "may possess" in California criminal law, can refer to three distinct legal ideas. It could refer to "actual" possession, "constructive" possession or "joint" possession. Each of these are defined in and of themselves I'm not going to go into great detail here except to say that you do want to understand what each means because you may find yourself in possession of a great deal more than you bargained for in some cases.

Lets add the next five words shall we.

"A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces..." The "no more than eight ounces" sounds mighty clear and concise but do you know your scale is accurate? Let's not risk jail time on a 1/10th of an ounce, have your scale calibrated and buy a verifiable accurate calibration weight if you feel this is a risk you can not afford. It might be prudent to keep a somewhat lower figure so there is little to no way to assume your in possession a quantity is larger than legal. Don't worry, we will get to that "or" just not yet.

Three more words this time.

"A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana ..." The "of dried marijuana" is important because dried marijuana is not industry standardized yet it is defined loosely in the California law. How this pertains to the home grower is of great importance, and how one will deal with this issue is up to the individual grower. I personally have a system of weight at harvest to acceptable dry weight method planned as protection here. The purchaser of already dried marijuana has some measure of additional protection here in that their product is not likely to gain weight if maintained properly.

Oh good God the last three words.

"A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient." The "per qualified patient" part is for primary caregiver use, have two qualified patients? Then you can have 16 ounces of dried marijuana, have 10 qualified patients, then you can have 80 ounces of dried marijuana. But what about that pesky "or"? This means that no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana can exist between the primary caregiver and qualified patient. For example if the primary caregiver has one qualified patient and eight ounces of dried marijuana the qualified patient can have none. Each could have any quantity of dried marijuana so long as the total between them adds up to eight ounces. Thanks to the "or".

DRM Ranch

 

[DRM Ranch]

SB 420 / HS 11362.7

There is a metric boat load of information here, and if you live in California you should read this.

DRM Ranch