Redwood Times - With the grow season upon us, what can patient-growers expect from law enforcement this season, after 710 marijuana arrests and 520 prosecutions (hundreds being medical) in 2008 [in Mendocino County], the worst year in memory?
What are current numerical limits on growing "for medical purposes" what is "reasonably related to one's medical needs?"
Since Measure B, is the state law limit of six mature plants/eight ounces per patient in place?
Or is it 25 plants per parcel, regardless of the number of patients, as claimed in civil nuisance ordinance 9.31, currently being enforced by the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, initiated as "courtesy calls" and "compliance checks?"
The quantity or amount of medicine a patient needs is up to the doctor to determine.
Each patient's plant or quantity limit can go up if the doctor approves a higher annual supply of medicine based on six plants/eight oz. being inadequate for the patient's reasonable medical needs.
How can we protect ourselves more fully under state law via knowledge of rights, responsibilities and good neighbor policies?
There is a snowballing trend toward court victories for medical cannabis collectives in Mendocino County. From Sutherlin (2007), a 4-person collective acquitted at trial, to Sutherland (2009), a 4-person collective with charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing, Senate Bill 420's protective clause is actually protecting patients, as intended, for those who do it right and follow the law.
The dual purpose of SB 420/Medical Marijuana Program Act is to 1) set up a voluntary medical marijuana ID card program; 2) "enhance access for patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective cooperative cultivation projects."
Since the Attorney General released 2008 Guidelines on how to be legal under the collective/cooperative clause, there is increasing preference among patients to follow reasonable guidelines and join with others in private membership associations organized for the common good as an alternative to individual profit.
What does the purely self-motivated profit engine have to offer these days? It is fading as a respected mode of operation for survival in times of scarcity, like the internal combustible engine. We're at the historic juncture of the marijuana wars in relation to society's economic collapse. The remedy is regulation.
This points to a paradigm shift from motivation for individual profit to the common good as the goal, with additional legal protections to sell and distribute medical cannabis within a "closed-circuit membership association" under First Amendment Freedom of Association protections.
By forfeiting the profit mode, medical cannabis collectives gain extra legal protections to sell and distribute medicine to the membership within a closed-loop cycle. The cycle should be a closed-circuit of marijuana cultivation and consumption with no purchases or sales to or from non-members. There are no limits on the number of patients allowed to join a collective association, causing urban areas to harbor hundreds of collectives and cooperatives, legally protected to provide their patients with "farm direct" medicine grown in the country - from the ground to the patient's hands.
The collective approach is fast becoming normal for how to organize cultivation of medical cannabis. Sheriff's local guidelines on Prop. 215 are invalid and illegal without recognition of SB420's "collective cooperative cultivation," as codified under H&S11362.775.
Here are some examples of area cases where courts found collectives were doing it right:
Matthew Sutherlin (2007) 4-person medical cannabis collective. Jury trial acquittal. Defense attorney: Ed Denson
Laura Hamburg (2008) 4-person family collective. Dismissal of all charges due to illegal search and seizure based on intentional omission of material fact. Defense attorney: Keith Faulder.
Luke Strauss and Joe Maligno (April 3, 2009). Collective membership association with two Redwood Valley patients growing 400 pounds for West Hollywood Center for Compassionate Healing, a storefront dispensary providing medicine to 1,000-plus patients. Hung jury 7-5 in favor of acquittal, based on the conclusion of the majority of jurors that defendants were following the Attorney General Guidelines on Collectives under state law. Charges were not refiled. This watershed case shows a Mendo jury will not convict based on quantity alone, without also knowing how many patients are being provided the medicine. Defense attorneys: E.D. Lerman and David Nick.
David and Cara Lampach (April 30, 2009). Collective membership organization growing 50 pounds in Willits for storefront dispensary, Harborside Collective, in Oakland. After two offers of rejected plea bargains, all charges were dismissed by DA the same day. Defense attorney: Jan Cole-Wilson.
Shelton Sutherland (July 24, 2009). 4-person patient collective. All recognized as in compliance with state and local law by the court. Dismissed at prelim based on illegal search and seizure due to medical purposes being withheld from the judge in requesting a criminal warrant. Compliance checks without warrants or with invalid warrants which omit the claim of medical purposes from the judge in order to get a warrant will not hold up in court. Defense attorneys: Tony Serra and Omar Figueroa.
Pebbles Trippet is a member of the board of the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Redwood Times
Author: Pebbles Trippet
Contact: Redwood Times
Copyright: 2009 MediaNews Group
Website: Medical Cannabis Collectives Win
What are current numerical limits on growing "for medical purposes" what is "reasonably related to one's medical needs?"
Since Measure B, is the state law limit of six mature plants/eight ounces per patient in place?
Or is it 25 plants per parcel, regardless of the number of patients, as claimed in civil nuisance ordinance 9.31, currently being enforced by the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office, initiated as "courtesy calls" and "compliance checks?"
The quantity or amount of medicine a patient needs is up to the doctor to determine.
Each patient's plant or quantity limit can go up if the doctor approves a higher annual supply of medicine based on six plants/eight oz. being inadequate for the patient's reasonable medical needs.
How can we protect ourselves more fully under state law via knowledge of rights, responsibilities and good neighbor policies?
There is a snowballing trend toward court victories for medical cannabis collectives in Mendocino County. From Sutherlin (2007), a 4-person collective acquitted at trial, to Sutherland (2009), a 4-person collective with charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing, Senate Bill 420's protective clause is actually protecting patients, as intended, for those who do it right and follow the law.
The dual purpose of SB 420/Medical Marijuana Program Act is to 1) set up a voluntary medical marijuana ID card program; 2) "enhance access for patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective cooperative cultivation projects."
Since the Attorney General released 2008 Guidelines on how to be legal under the collective/cooperative clause, there is increasing preference among patients to follow reasonable guidelines and join with others in private membership associations organized for the common good as an alternative to individual profit.
What does the purely self-motivated profit engine have to offer these days? It is fading as a respected mode of operation for survival in times of scarcity, like the internal combustible engine. We're at the historic juncture of the marijuana wars in relation to society's economic collapse. The remedy is regulation.
This points to a paradigm shift from motivation for individual profit to the common good as the goal, with additional legal protections to sell and distribute medical cannabis within a "closed-circuit membership association" under First Amendment Freedom of Association protections.
By forfeiting the profit mode, medical cannabis collectives gain extra legal protections to sell and distribute medicine to the membership within a closed-loop cycle. The cycle should be a closed-circuit of marijuana cultivation and consumption with no purchases or sales to or from non-members. There are no limits on the number of patients allowed to join a collective association, causing urban areas to harbor hundreds of collectives and cooperatives, legally protected to provide their patients with "farm direct" medicine grown in the country - from the ground to the patient's hands.
The collective approach is fast becoming normal for how to organize cultivation of medical cannabis. Sheriff's local guidelines on Prop. 215 are invalid and illegal without recognition of SB420's "collective cooperative cultivation," as codified under H&S11362.775.
Here are some examples of area cases where courts found collectives were doing it right:
Matthew Sutherlin (2007) 4-person medical cannabis collective. Jury trial acquittal. Defense attorney: Ed Denson
Laura Hamburg (2008) 4-person family collective. Dismissal of all charges due to illegal search and seizure based on intentional omission of material fact. Defense attorney: Keith Faulder.
Luke Strauss and Joe Maligno (April 3, 2009). Collective membership association with two Redwood Valley patients growing 400 pounds for West Hollywood Center for Compassionate Healing, a storefront dispensary providing medicine to 1,000-plus patients. Hung jury 7-5 in favor of acquittal, based on the conclusion of the majority of jurors that defendants were following the Attorney General Guidelines on Collectives under state law. Charges were not refiled. This watershed case shows a Mendo jury will not convict based on quantity alone, without also knowing how many patients are being provided the medicine. Defense attorneys: E.D. Lerman and David Nick.
David and Cara Lampach (April 30, 2009). Collective membership organization growing 50 pounds in Willits for storefront dispensary, Harborside Collective, in Oakland. After two offers of rejected plea bargains, all charges were dismissed by DA the same day. Defense attorney: Jan Cole-Wilson.
Shelton Sutherland (July 24, 2009). 4-person patient collective. All recognized as in compliance with state and local law by the court. Dismissed at prelim based on illegal search and seizure due to medical purposes being withheld from the judge in requesting a criminal warrant. Compliance checks without warrants or with invalid warrants which omit the claim of medical purposes from the judge in order to get a warrant will not hold up in court. Defense attorneys: Tony Serra and Omar Figueroa.
Pebbles Trippet is a member of the board of the Mendocino Medical Marijuana Advisory Board.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Redwood Times
Author: Pebbles Trippet
Contact: Redwood Times
Copyright: 2009 MediaNews Group
Website: Medical Cannabis Collectives Win
