Pubdate: Thu, 07 Nov 2013
Source: Willits News (CA)
Copyright: 2013 Willits News
Contact:  http://www.willitsnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4085
Author: Linda Williams

COMPASSIONATE USE ACT NO PROTECTION FOR POT SALES

A California Appeals Court ruled Oct. 16 neither the Compassionate 
Use Act nor the Medical Marijuana Program Act allows retail sale of 
marijuana to consumers. The judges overruled a San Luis Obispo 
judge's pretrial finding which included the premise that "Providing 
money in exchange for harvested marijuana may, in itself, constitute 
'associating for the purpose of collectively cultivating marijuana.'"

The panel of three judges also stated, "The Legislature did not 
intend such immunity [under the Compassionate Use Act] to apply where 
the purchaser simply signs a paper stating she is a member of the 
seller's collective or naming the seller as her caregiver."

The appeals court ruling paves the way for the San Luis Obispo 
district attorney to again pursue charges against the six defendants 
in a pot sales case that began in 2010.

The original case involved San Luis Obispo Police Detective Amy 
Chastain going undercover and purchasing marijuana from three 
marijuana delivery services in 2010. The San Luis Obispo County Grand 
Jury found there were 40 mobile marijuana delivery groups operating 
at the time in SLO County with most unregulated and without business licenses.

Chastain obtained a medical marijuana recommendation under a false 
name, and purchased marijuana from three medical marijuana delivery 
services. In Nov. 2010 Chastain arranged for three services to 
deliver marijuana to her.

All three verified she had a medical recommendation before selling to her.

With Hopeful Remedies and Open Access Foundation Chastain signed 
forms stating she was part of their collective and she then paid $50 
for one-eighth ounce. Approximate cost equivalent to $6,400 per 
pound. She made two subsequent buys from each one.

With West Coast Caregiving and Consulting Chastain signed a statement 
attesting the owners of the service were her caregivers, Chastain 
paid $120 for one-quarter ounce of marijuana. She made also made a 
second buy. Approximate cost equivalent to $7,680 per pound.

When agents of the San Luis Obispo drug taskforce raided the three 
marijuana distributors they arrested 15 persons and seized four grams 
of cocaine, 57 pounds of marijuana, 162 pot plants, 146 grams of 
hash, 718 grams of has oil, seven firearms and about $493,000 in 
cash. There were 12 initial arrests. By the time the case went to 
trial in January 2012 only six defendants remained.

The Appeals Court emphasized a key provision of a collective or 
co-op: "When a member pays for marijuana, the defendant must show the 
member paid no more than the member's proportionate share of the 
actual cost of cultivating and distributing the marijuana, and that 
there was no profit for the collective, cooperative or any 
individual. That the sales price is limited to the member's 
proportionate share of the cost and that no person or entity profited 
from the sale, are crucial to show that the purchaser was associated 
for the purpose of collectively cultivating marijuana. This is far 
different then being associated for the purpose of collective 
cultivation and ordinary retail sales."

The court also stated "The law does not sanction sales for profit 
even between members of the same collective who each have a 
physician's marijuana."

The court also cited the case of People v. Solis where the defendant 
who received $80,000 from the marijuana collective was not eligible 
for exclusion under either the CUA or the MMPA and People v. Colvin 
which established "any monetary reimbursement the members provide to 
the collective or cooperative should only be the amount necessary to 
cover overhead costs and operating expenses."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom