Under Prop 215 and SB 420 Californians have the legal right to use marijuana to alleviate their pain.
Stop living in pain. Please see if marijuana is right for you.
http://www.420center.com
*Compassionate Doctors
*Professional Staff
*Exceptional Service
*24/7/365 Live verification
*2 locations to serve you
Sunday, November 9, 2008
13th state to approve Marijuana
Michigan passed proposal 1. That means Michigan residents can now use marijuana legally under this proposal.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
POLL: MICHIGAN VOTERS LEAN TOWARD APPROVAL OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
A majority of Michiganians is inclined to legalize marijuana for sick people, but a second statewide ballot proposal to relax restrictions on stem cell research in Michigan is a closer contest -- and the advertising blitz has just begun on that measure. The latest Detroit News-WXYZ Action News poll found that the voters, by a 59-37 margin, favor the ballot proposal to allow terminally and seriously ill people to legally use marijuana if a doctor certified the drug could ease their suffering. The statewide poll was conducted for The News, WXYZ and three outstate television stations from Saturday to Monday by Lansing's EPIC-MRA. It showed that the biggest backers were women ( 63 percent support ), Metro Detroiters ( 60 percent ) and Democrats ( 68 percent ). Among men, the proposal garnered 51 percent support and 49 percent of Republicans favored it. If Proposal 1 is approved by voters in November, Michigan would become the 13th state to legalize medical marijuana. Supporters estimate that as many as 50,000 Michigan residents would legally qualify for medical marijuana to treat a host of "debilitating" medical problems such as cancer, HIV /AIDS, hepatitis C, Alzheimer's disease, Crohn's disease and chronic diseases or their treatments that produce wasting syndrome, severe pain, sever nausea, seizures or muscle spasms, such as those caused by multiple sclerosis. "I'm all for it," said poll participant Jeff Bergel, a 52-year-old wholesale representative and father of two from Walled Lake. "I lost a brother-in-law to brain cancer last year and I think marijuana could have helped make his more comfortable. My dad has glaucoma and I understand it could help him as well." .....snip............" Law enforcement groups are near unanimous in their opposition to medical marijuana, saying it's part of a broader agenda to legalize marijuana for everyone. But there doesn't appear to be any group ready to spend money on an ad campaign to defeat the measure. Michael Opland, a 64-year-old father of three from Harrison Township, said he supports medical marijuana, although he believes a lot of people would get the marijuana even though their medical conditions wouldn't warrant it. "A certain number of people would probably take advantage of the law," he said. "But it's worth it to get marijuana to people who really need it." .....snip.........Copyright: 2008 The Detroit News
Monday, October 6, 2008
Governor Vetoes Employment Rights Legislation
Sacramento, September 30, 2008 - Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed Assemblyman Mark Leno's bill to protect workers' right to use medical marijuana.
The bill, AB 2279, would have made it illegal for employers to discriminate against workers in non-safety-sensitive jobs for using marijuana as medicine. In his veto message, the governor said "I am concerned with interference in employment decisions as they relate to marijuana use. Employment protection was not a goal of the initiative as passed by voters in 1996."
Prop. 215 sponsors disagree. "The intent of 215 was to treat marijuana like other legal pharmaceutical drugs," says Prop 215 co-author Dale Gieringer of California NORML.
AB 2279 was intended to overturn a Cal. Supreme Court ruling, Ross v RagingWire, that found that 215 did not protect workers against arbitrary discrimination by drug urine testing. Employers failed to present any evidence that off-the-job marijuana use presented any safety risks.
Gov. Schwarzenegger, a former recreational pot smoker, has vetoed every marijuana reform bill that has come to his desk.
Release by Dale Gieringer.
The bill, AB 2279, would have made it illegal for employers to discriminate against workers in non-safety-sensitive jobs for using marijuana as medicine. In his veto message, the governor said "I am concerned with interference in employment decisions as they relate to marijuana use. Employment protection was not a goal of the initiative as passed by voters in 1996."
Prop. 215 sponsors disagree. "The intent of 215 was to treat marijuana like other legal pharmaceutical drugs," says Prop 215 co-author Dale Gieringer of California NORML.
AB 2279 was intended to overturn a Cal. Supreme Court ruling, Ross v RagingWire, that found that 215 did not protect workers against arbitrary discrimination by drug urine testing. Employers failed to present any evidence that off-the-job marijuana use presented any safety risks.
Gov. Schwarzenegger, a former recreational pot smoker, has vetoed every marijuana reform bill that has come to his desk.
Release by Dale Gieringer.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
MEDICAL MARIJUANA, PROP 215 AND SENATE BILL 420
Medical cannabis may be legally used & cultivated by qualifed patients in California under Prop. 215, provided they have a recommendation from a licensed physician .
State law (SB 420) establishes voluntary ID card program plus Prop. 215 guidelines for possession and cultivation effective Jan 1, 2004. State limit set at 6 mature or 12 immature plants and 8 ounces marijuana, except where physician declares more is needed, or where local governments authorize more.
State ID card program for medical marijuana patients starts up in certain counties. For current info, contact state Dept of Health Medical Marijuana Program .
Certain cities and counties have their own local Prop 215 guidelines. Medical cannabis supporters are pressing for the adoption of higher guidelines (such as the Sonoma guidelines, advocated by Safe Access Now).
So you want to start a cannabis club? Facts you should be aware of.
Local ordinances regulate, ban, or license medical cannabis dispensaries in many cities or counties.
Cal NORML estimates over 150,000 medical marijuana patients in California (2005).
Medical uses of marijuana: California law allows use for any serious condition for which marijuana provides relief. Over 250 different illnesses reported.
Hashish is covered by Prop. 215 according to Attorney General ruling.
Cal state surveys show decline in student marijuana use since passage of Prop. 215.
US Supreme Court Conant decision protects physicians who recommend marijuana for medicine (Oct 15, 2003).
US Supreme Court overturns 9th Circuit Raich-Monson decision, upholds federal ban on personal use & cultivation of cannabis for medical purposes (Jun 2005).
State Supreme Court Mower decision protects medical marijuana patients (Jul 18, 2002).
Major medical marijuana cultivation cases in California include many acquittals for 100 plants and more.
Survey of Prop 215 patients shows chronic pain the top use for medical marijuana.
Human studies on medical marijuana
State law (SB 420) establishes voluntary ID card program plus Prop. 215 guidelines for possession and cultivation effective Jan 1, 2004. State limit set at 6 mature or 12 immature plants and 8 ounces marijuana, except where physician declares more is needed, or where local governments authorize more.
State ID card program for medical marijuana patients starts up in certain counties. For current info, contact state Dept of Health Medical Marijuana Program .
Certain cities and counties have their own local Prop 215 guidelines. Medical cannabis supporters are pressing for the adoption of higher guidelines (such as the Sonoma guidelines, advocated by Safe Access Now).
So you want to start a cannabis club? Facts you should be aware of.
Local ordinances regulate, ban, or license medical cannabis dispensaries in many cities or counties.
Cal NORML estimates over 150,000 medical marijuana patients in California (2005).
Medical uses of marijuana: California law allows use for any serious condition for which marijuana provides relief. Over 250 different illnesses reported.
Hashish is covered by Prop. 215 according to Attorney General ruling.
Cal state surveys show decline in student marijuana use since passage of Prop. 215.
US Supreme Court Conant decision protects physicians who recommend marijuana for medicine (Oct 15, 2003).
US Supreme Court overturns 9th Circuit Raich-Monson decision, upholds federal ban on personal use & cultivation of cannabis for medical purposes (Jun 2005).
State Supreme Court Mower decision protects medical marijuana patients (Jul 18, 2002).
Major medical marijuana cultivation cases in California include many acquittals for 100 plants and more.
Survey of Prop 215 patients shows chronic pain the top use for medical marijuana.
Human studies on medical marijuana
ATTORNEY GENERAL JERRY BROWN'S OFFICE ISSUED GUIDELINES ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA
August 27, 2008 - Attorney General Jerry Brown's office issued long-awaited guidelines on medical marijuana enforcement this week: Read the guidelines.
For the most part, the AG's guidelines are consistent with the opinion of California NORML's attorneys and with the advice to providers previously posted at our website. However, there are certain respects in which we believe they restrict medical marijuana excessively beyond the requirements of California law.
The guidelines recognize two alternative ways for medical marijuana to be distributed: through legally defined non-profit "cooperatives" or "collectives." Note that they do not envision storefront dispensaries operating as "primary caregivers," nor as for-profit businesses. The guidelines also specify that coops and collectives pay sales tax on MMJ transactions; distribute only to members, and that they acquire, possess and distribute only lawfully cultivated marijuana. Dispensaries and caregivers are strongly advised to consult with a knowledgeable attorney on how to organize consistently with these requirements.
Beyond this, the AG's guidelines specify certain requirements that California NORML regards as questionable and beyond the legal requirements of Prop 215 and SB 420:
(1) Restriction On Purchase - The guidelines disallow purchases from outside vendors: "Cooperatives [or collectives ] should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members." There is no basis for this restriction in Prop 215 or SB 420. No provision in state or federal law prohibits purchase of marijuana, medical or otherwise ( the law only restricts possession, distribution, transportation and manufacture). In practice, this restriction can be easily avoided by simply enrolling all outside vendors as members of the collective.
(2) Recordkeeping - The guidelines say coops and collectives should document their activities and specifically, "track and record the source of their marijuana." Again, this is not required in Prop 215 or SB 420. While providers are strongly advised to keep good business records for tax purposes and to document the legitimacy of their activities, the recording of vendors poses obvious problems, due to the threat of the seizure of records by DEA and other police. Until the threat of federal prosecution of growers is eliminated, providers are obliged to take steps to safeguard the privacy of suppliers.
(3) Restriction on smoking - The AG states. "Medical marijuana may not be smoked (a) where smoking is prohibited by law, (b) at or within 1000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth center (unless the medical use occurs within a residence), (c) on a school bus, or (d) in a moving motor vehicle or boat. (§ 11362.79.)" In particular, (b) disallows on-site smoking in dispensaries and other non-residential facilities within 1000 feet of schools. In fact, the relevant statute (§ 11362.79) does not explicitly prohibit smoking in these locations, but rather states that it does "not authorize" it. The purpose of this section was to ensure that the ID card program did not override other anti-smoking regulations and thereby allow smoking in all situations. It would appear to remain within the power of local communities to permit medical marijuana smoking wherever they choose.
(4) SB 420 Limits: The AG guidelines refer to the statewide SB 420 limits of 6 plants and 8 ounces per patient. In a footnote, they remark that the legality of these limits was rejected in the recent Kelly and Phomphakdy appellate decisions, which are now under review. While the legality of the SB420 limits remains debatable, providers are well advised to abide by them in order to reduce their risk of arrest.
(5) Geographical restriction on caregivers: The AG repeats the restriction in SB 420 that "a person may serve as primary caregiver to 'more than one' patient, provided that the patients and caregiver all reside in the same city or county." This would make it illegal for a caregiver to take care of two parents who happen to live over the city line. Cal NORML regards this provision to be an unconstitutional restriction on Prop. 215, like the SB420 quantity limits struck down in the Kelly decision. We are aware of at least one lower court case in which the "one city" rule has been rejected.
Legal Force of the AG's Guidelines
The guidelines by themselves do not constitute legally binding law, but are merely the AG's legal opinion. However, they do give guidance as to how the AG wants to enforce state law. This is important, because the AG's office also announced a raid by the state Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement on a Northridge dispensary for supposedly flouting the intent of the Compassionate Use Act. This was a significant development, because the state BNE had previously been under orders NOT to conduct medical marijuana raids during the eight years of Brown's predecessor, AG Lockyer. The fact that the BNE is now getting involved in MMJ enforcement may be a helpful development, insofar as it could signal that the AG's office would like to replace the DEA as the lead agency for medical marijuana enforcement.
Obviously, it's preferable for medical marijuana to be regulated by the state than the feds. The AG's guidelines include some very helpful provisions, for example requiring the return of seized medical marijuana and telling state law enforcement not to turn legal providers over to the feds. However, the legal framework of the guidelines and the existing SB 420 legislation remain inadequate in many respects - for example, the lack of allowance for commercial producers, the limitation to non-profit coops, and lack of quality control and pure food & drug standards for agricultural producers. These problems can only be solved by further changes in state and federal law.
-D. Gieringer, director, California NORML/ co-author, Prop. 215
For the most part, the AG's guidelines are consistent with the opinion of California NORML's attorneys and with the advice to providers previously posted at our website. However, there are certain respects in which we believe they restrict medical marijuana excessively beyond the requirements of California law.
The guidelines recognize two alternative ways for medical marijuana to be distributed: through legally defined non-profit "cooperatives" or "collectives." Note that they do not envision storefront dispensaries operating as "primary caregivers," nor as for-profit businesses. The guidelines also specify that coops and collectives pay sales tax on MMJ transactions; distribute only to members, and that they acquire, possess and distribute only lawfully cultivated marijuana. Dispensaries and caregivers are strongly advised to consult with a knowledgeable attorney on how to organize consistently with these requirements.
Beyond this, the AG's guidelines specify certain requirements that California NORML regards as questionable and beyond the legal requirements of Prop 215 and SB 420:
(1) Restriction On Purchase - The guidelines disallow purchases from outside vendors: "Cooperatives [or collectives ] should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members." There is no basis for this restriction in Prop 215 or SB 420. No provision in state or federal law prohibits purchase of marijuana, medical or otherwise ( the law only restricts possession, distribution, transportation and manufacture). In practice, this restriction can be easily avoided by simply enrolling all outside vendors as members of the collective.
(2) Recordkeeping - The guidelines say coops and collectives should document their activities and specifically, "track and record the source of their marijuana." Again, this is not required in Prop 215 or SB 420. While providers are strongly advised to keep good business records for tax purposes and to document the legitimacy of their activities, the recording of vendors poses obvious problems, due to the threat of the seizure of records by DEA and other police. Until the threat of federal prosecution of growers is eliminated, providers are obliged to take steps to safeguard the privacy of suppliers.
(3) Restriction on smoking - The AG states. "Medical marijuana may not be smoked (a) where smoking is prohibited by law, (b) at or within 1000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth center (unless the medical use occurs within a residence), (c) on a school bus, or (d) in a moving motor vehicle or boat. (§ 11362.79.)" In particular, (b) disallows on-site smoking in dispensaries and other non-residential facilities within 1000 feet of schools. In fact, the relevant statute (§ 11362.79) does not explicitly prohibit smoking in these locations, but rather states that it does "not authorize" it. The purpose of this section was to ensure that the ID card program did not override other anti-smoking regulations and thereby allow smoking in all situations. It would appear to remain within the power of local communities to permit medical marijuana smoking wherever they choose.
(4) SB 420 Limits: The AG guidelines refer to the statewide SB 420 limits of 6 plants and 8 ounces per patient. In a footnote, they remark that the legality of these limits was rejected in the recent Kelly and Phomphakdy appellate decisions, which are now under review. While the legality of the SB420 limits remains debatable, providers are well advised to abide by them in order to reduce their risk of arrest.
(5) Geographical restriction on caregivers: The AG repeats the restriction in SB 420 that "a person may serve as primary caregiver to 'more than one' patient, provided that the patients and caregiver all reside in the same city or county." This would make it illegal for a caregiver to take care of two parents who happen to live over the city line. Cal NORML regards this provision to be an unconstitutional restriction on Prop. 215, like the SB420 quantity limits struck down in the Kelly decision. We are aware of at least one lower court case in which the "one city" rule has been rejected.
Legal Force of the AG's Guidelines
The guidelines by themselves do not constitute legally binding law, but are merely the AG's legal opinion. However, they do give guidance as to how the AG wants to enforce state law. This is important, because the AG's office also announced a raid by the state Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement on a Northridge dispensary for supposedly flouting the intent of the Compassionate Use Act. This was a significant development, because the state BNE had previously been under orders NOT to conduct medical marijuana raids during the eight years of Brown's predecessor, AG Lockyer. The fact that the BNE is now getting involved in MMJ enforcement may be a helpful development, insofar as it could signal that the AG's office would like to replace the DEA as the lead agency for medical marijuana enforcement.
Obviously, it's preferable for medical marijuana to be regulated by the state than the feds. The AG's guidelines include some very helpful provisions, for example requiring the return of seized medical marijuana and telling state law enforcement not to turn legal providers over to the feds. However, the legal framework of the guidelines and the existing SB 420 legislation remain inadequate in many respects - for example, the lack of allowance for commercial producers, the limitation to non-profit coops, and lack of quality control and pure food & drug standards for agricultural producers. These problems can only be solved by further changes in state and federal law.
-D. Gieringer, director, California NORML/ co-author, Prop. 215
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
