Truth Seeker
New Member
California's medical marijuana laws have been on the books for years, but quite a bit of dissension – and perhaps, confusion – persists among the respective groups who interpret and enforce them.
Recent filings in a San Diego appellate court case show that the county's district attorney and the state's attorney general have a somewhat different understanding of the statutes.
Both agree that the law allows qualified patients to obtain and use medical marijuana through "collective, cooperative cultivation projects," not retail businesses.
But the District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted Jovan Jackson, manager of a now-defunct storefront dispensary in Kearny Mesa, adheres to a more literal interpretation of that language.
In short: To use medical marijuana, a patient (or primary caregiver) has to grow it.
"We see the word 'cultivation' and we say that's the activity that's protected," said Deputy District Attorney Chris Lindberg, who submitted a friend of the court brief to the state 4th District Court of Appeal in the Jackson case.
The attorney general takes a more expansive point of view, Lindberg said. That office argues not every patient or caregiver involved in a collective or cooperative cultivation project has to personally participate in marijuana farming.
Although the laws don't specifically refer to storefront dispensaries, they aren't necessarily prohibited, according to court documents. They could be legal if they operate on a nonprofit basis and don't distribute marijuana outside of a specified group, among other requirements.
But dispensaries that merely require patients to complete a form designating the business owner as their primary caregiver and then offer marijuana in exchange for cash "donations" are likely illegal, according to attorney general guidelines.
In 2010, Jackson was convicted in San Diego Superior Court of illegally possessing and selling marijuana through the Answerdam Alternative Care collective. The case is now under appeal.
Jackson went to trial once before on charges stemming from a 2008 undercover buy at the Answerdam storefront but was acquitted. His lawyer argued in that case that Jackson's conduct was protected under the state's medical marijuana laws.
A second trial focused on a raid at Answerdam in September 2009. But before that trial began, Judge Howard Shore ruled that Jackson could not use the medical marijuana defense, saying those laws were meant to protect members of a collective whose primary purpose was cultivation of the drug, not distribution.
Attorney Joseph Elford of Americans for Safe Access argued in the appeal that the trial judge made a mistake by prohibiting Jackson from using his only viable defense.
Court documents show Jackson testified previously that participants in the collective signed a membership agreement stating they would contribute a gardening fee and later receive a portion of the marijuana harvest at no additional charge.
The appeals court heard oral arguments last week but has not announced a ruling.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: utsandiego.com
Author: Dana Littlefield
Contact: Contact Us | UTSanDiego.com
Website: Lawyers debate what
Recent filings in a San Diego appellate court case show that the county's district attorney and the state's attorney general have a somewhat different understanding of the statutes.
Both agree that the law allows qualified patients to obtain and use medical marijuana through "collective, cooperative cultivation projects," not retail businesses.
But the District Attorney's Office, which prosecuted Jovan Jackson, manager of a now-defunct storefront dispensary in Kearny Mesa, adheres to a more literal interpretation of that language.
In short: To use medical marijuana, a patient (or primary caregiver) has to grow it.
"We see the word 'cultivation' and we say that's the activity that's protected," said Deputy District Attorney Chris Lindberg, who submitted a friend of the court brief to the state 4th District Court of Appeal in the Jackson case.
The attorney general takes a more expansive point of view, Lindberg said. That office argues not every patient or caregiver involved in a collective or cooperative cultivation project has to personally participate in marijuana farming.
Although the laws don't specifically refer to storefront dispensaries, they aren't necessarily prohibited, according to court documents. They could be legal if they operate on a nonprofit basis and don't distribute marijuana outside of a specified group, among other requirements.
But dispensaries that merely require patients to complete a form designating the business owner as their primary caregiver and then offer marijuana in exchange for cash "donations" are likely illegal, according to attorney general guidelines.
In 2010, Jackson was convicted in San Diego Superior Court of illegally possessing and selling marijuana through the Answerdam Alternative Care collective. The case is now under appeal.
Jackson went to trial once before on charges stemming from a 2008 undercover buy at the Answerdam storefront but was acquitted. His lawyer argued in that case that Jackson's conduct was protected under the state's medical marijuana laws.
A second trial focused on a raid at Answerdam in September 2009. But before that trial began, Judge Howard Shore ruled that Jackson could not use the medical marijuana defense, saying those laws were meant to protect members of a collective whose primary purpose was cultivation of the drug, not distribution.
Attorney Joseph Elford of Americans for Safe Access argued in the appeal that the trial judge made a mistake by prohibiting Jackson from using his only viable defense.
Court documents show Jackson testified previously that participants in the collective signed a membership agreement stating they would contribute a gardening fee and later receive a portion of the marijuana harvest at no additional charge.
The appeals court heard oral arguments last week but has not announced a ruling.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: utsandiego.com
Author: Dana Littlefield
Contact: Contact Us | UTSanDiego.com
Website: Lawyers debate what
