Thursday, October 29, 2009

San Diego Medical Marijuana Task Force Meeting #4 - 10/29/2009

The San Diego Medical Marijuana Task force will meet Friday October 30th, 2009, for the fourth time to deliberate on regulations for medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives in the city.

One of the items presented to the task force will be a public opinion poll of City of San Diego residents conducted by Elizabeth Sheld of Competitive Edge Research and Steven Francis of after which the deliberation will begin.

Aside from the poll, the other hot item on the agenda is Action Item; Existence of dispensing cooperatives and collectives via a discretionary process or a hybrid “by right/discretionary” process or alternatives.

Many in the community plan to come out and address the task force, including members of San Diego Americans for Safe Access.

The Official Agenda for the meeting as well as minutes from previous meetings are available for download from the task force's website at:

Alex Kreit, Chair
Stephen Whitburn, Vice Chair
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2009, AT 9:00 A.M.
For information, contact Kim Nguyen, Council District Seven
202 C Street, 3rd Floor, San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 236-7042






ITEM 1 – Presentation of a public opinion poll of City of San Diego residents conducted by Elizabeth Sheld of Competitive Edge Research and Steven Francis of


ITEM 2 – Existence of dispensing cooperatives and collectives via a discretionary process or a hybrid “by right/discretionary” process or alternatives

ITEM 3 – Signage conditions to be placed on dispensing cooperatives and collectives

ITEM 4 – Distance requirements to be placed on dispensing cooperatives and collectives
a) Distance from schools, parks, recreational facilities, other similar entities
b) Distance from one another


ITEM 5 – Agenda items for next meeting

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Congressional Medical Marijuana Bill Lifts Ban on Evidence in Federal Court

For Immediate Release: October 27th, 2009
"Truth in Trials" Act corrects unfair trials, complements recent DOJ guidelines

Washington, D.C.
-- U.S. Representative Sam Farr (D-CA) and more than twenty original bipartisan co-sponsors introduced legislation today that would allow defendants in medical marijuana cases the ability to use medical evidence at trial, a right not currently afforded them. Because of a June 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, the government has the discretion to enforce federal marijuana laws even in medical marijuana states. The Raich ruling also allows federal prosecutors to exclude evidence of medical use or state law compliance in federal trials, all but guaranteeing convictions of medical marijuana patients and providers.

Last week, the U.S. Attorney General issued guidelines to federal prosecutors discouraging them from prosecuting cases in which patients and providers are "in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws." Unfortunately, the guidelines neither direct U.S. Attorneys to abandon the more than two-dozen pending federal medical marijuana cases, nor allow defendants the ability to use medical evidence to exonerate themselves. "This is a common sense bill that will help stop the waste of law enforcement and judicial resources that have been spent prosecuting individuals who are following state law," Rep. Farr said on Tuesday. "We need strict drug laws, but we also need to apply a little common sense to how they’re enforced. This legislation is about treating defendants in cases involving medical marijuana fairly, plain and simple."

During the Bush Administration, more than a hundred federal cases were prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys against medical marijuana patients and providers who were prevented from using medical evidence at trial. Because of an inability to properly defend themselves, scores of people have been convicted and have received sentences of up to 20 years in federal prison. While the Justice Department guidelines may result in fewer federal prosecutions, they are unlikely to assist defendants currently being prosecuted. Underscoring the need for the "Truth in Trials" Act, San Diego U.S. Attorney Karen Hewitt, a Bush appointee, recently responded to the guidelines by claiming she still does not have to prove a violation of state law before prosecuting someone under federal law.

"The 'Truth in Trials' Act will restore the balance of justice and bring fundamental fairness to federal medical marijuana trials," said Caren Woodson, Government Affairs Director with Americans for Safe Access, the legislation's endorser. "This legislation complements the recent Justice Department guidelines for federal prosecutors and is now more necessary than ever."

Routinely, federal prosecutors seek long prison sentences in medical marijuana cases. Charles C. Lynch, a locally licensed medical marijuana dispensary operator from Morro Bay, California who had the support of his City Council and local Chamber of Commerce, was prosecuted and convicted under the Bush Administration. Although Lynch was accused by the federal government of violating state law, he could not use evidence of his compliance with state law at trial. "I was denied an affirmative defense despite my strict adherence to local and state medical marijuana laws," said Lynch. "Passage of this bill will allow jurors to hear the entire story." Lynch is currently released on bail pending his appeal.

The "Truth in Trials" bill has been introduced by Congress in past sessions, but is especially relevant now that the Obama Administration has changed federal policy on medical marijuana. At the time of introduction, the "Truth in Trials" bill had been endorsed by a diverse group of more than three-dozen advocacy, health, and legal organizations, including Americans for Safe Access (ASA), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Association of People With AIDS (NAPWA), National Minority AIDS Council (NMAC), and AIDS Action Council. The "Truth in Trials" bill is likely to be referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. A companion bill has yet to be introduced in the U.S. Senate.

Contact ASA at 510-681-6361 to coordinate interviews with current federal defendants and those convicted without a defense

For further information:

"Truth in Trials" legislation introduced today:
Congressional cosponsors of "Truth in Trials" Act:
More information on the "Truth in Trials" Act:

San Diego Americans for Safe Access Meeting Tonight at 7pm

Come out to learn whats going on in the community, the state, and the nation.
The San Diego ASA meeting starts tonight at 7 pm at:

6070 Mt. Alifan Dr. Ste 202
San Diego, CA 92111


Sunday, October 25, 2009

Court Hearing for Joseph Malone - 9:00 AM - MONDAY OCT 26

Court Hearing for Joseph Malone - 9:00 AM - MONDAY OCT 26 - will be assigned a trial courtroom from Department 11.

San Diego Superior Court -220 W Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101

Joseph is on trial for operating a medical cannabis collective. He was arrested and charged as a part of the Operation Green Rx investigations that have been ongoing for years in San Diego, spearheaded by Bonnie Dumanis.

The harrassment and the continued destruction of innocent people's lives must stop. Joseph is the victim and need your support in court. Please come monday and show the judge and jury that the community as a whole is watching.

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Peaceful Protest / Rally Against CNOA -Thursday - October 22 – 5:30pm Doubletree Hotel

Peaceful Protest / Rally
CNOA 2009 Awards Ceremony

Thursday - October 22 – 5:30pm Doubletree Hotel
7450 Hazard Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92108

The California Narcotics Officers Association is holding their annual awards ceremony in San Diego this year. Some of the officers receiving awards are being recognized for their efforts in eradicating medical marijuana as a part of Operation Endless Summer / Green Rx earlier this year.

We as a community must tell the CNOA how we feel about their ignorance of medical cannabis laws, and their refusal to acknowledge cannabis as a legitimate medication. This organization is responsible for training all the San Diego Narcotics officers in how to eradicate medical marijuana.

As inexcusable as this award is, we are holding a Peaceful rally the night of the award dinner in front of the host hotel.

Rally starts at 5:30PM
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Doubletree Hotel
7450 Hazard Center Drive, San Diego, CA 92108

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

SDNN: Medical Marijuana; How sick do you have to be?

Eugene Davidovich: Proving My Medical Marijuana Case

(Leave your comments and read the article on SDNN)

October 20, 2009

Thanks to the compassion of California voters, Proposition 215 was passed to help the sick get access to the medicine that helps them.

But, how sick do you have to be?

Some in our community, particularly in leadership, have attempted to persuade us that Proposition 215 only authorizes the use of medical cannabis for patients suffering exclusively from the ugly three: cancer, glaucoma, or AIDS. These same people usually go on to add the old worn out argument that if we don’t happen to be suffering from one of these horrific conditions, then we must be using cannabis just to get high. There are others, like the narcotic officers training organization California Narcotics Officers Association (CNOA), arrogant enough to take it further and assert outright that marijuana is not a medicine.

I have read, re-read and read again the text of Proposition 215, and the clear reality is that voters authorized cannabis for many serious conditions. What part of the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) don’t these so called leaders understand: “Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.”

You could paper the Hall of Justice with the scientific studies and overwhelming first-hand accounts of patients whom cannabis helps. As was intended by the CUA, the use of medical cannabis improves quality of life for many.

Thanks to the compassion of California voters, Proposition 215 was passed to help the sick get access to the medicine that helps them. San Diegans voted by overwhelming majority to approve the measure. Since then, patients have been able to use cannabis legally as a medicine, but thanks to our backward leaders, with very limited access.

Already knowing that medical cannabis helps me, I decided seek out and speak with other patients in the community who would suffer without the use of medical cannabis.

Hollie, from the college area of San Diego, is one of those patients whom I spoke with over the phone this week. A 38-year-old mother of two boys, she lives with constant, daily pain. Hollie suffers from epilepsy, bipolar disorder, physical injuries, and insomnia. If it was our job to judge how sick Hollie is, her physical appearance would not be a good indicator. Hollie gives the impression of a “healthy looking” person, the sort I often hear described by the anti-compassionates, as seen walking in and out of local collectives and cooperatives.

The “healthy looking” argument is another tired and ignorant argument brought up at public meetings by the prim and stuffy crowd at the North Coastal Prevention Coalition and the San Diegito Alliance who enjoy county funds which pay representatives to speak and lobby against medical marijuana at San Diego City Council meetings as well as numerous other public events around the county.

The argument flies in the face of the unbearable pain Hollie lives with daily. At the peak of her pharmaceutical treatment, Hollie was using 13 prescribed medications daily. The medication prescribed made her very low functioning and unproductive. “I was sick all the time because of all the pills I was on,” Hollie said.

In 2005 Hollie was referred by her Sharp Hospital primary care physician, to a neurologist for treatment of her epilepsy and insomnia. “The insomnia made my life awful,” Hollie said when I spoke with her over the phone. “Worst of all was not being able to sleep at night” she said.

That same year, the neurologist suggested Hollie try medical cannabis to help with the insomnia, which was ruining her life. She did, and thanks to several compassionate use dispensaries Hollie was able to find out about the right strain to help her. She found that cannabis indica, specifically the “Kush” strains, significantly reduced her insomnia and she was finally able to sleep.

For the first time in ages Hollie got a full night’s sleep without waking up feeling groggy or in a pharmaceutical-zombie state. Since then with the supervision, care, and guidance from her doctors and pharmacist, Hollie celebrates reducing her pill regiment from thirteen down to just two.

Hollie and I discussed her use of medical cannabis extensively, she explained she prefers to use a vaporizer to administer cannabis. It was heartening to hear how Hollie’s quality of life has improved and that her family is thankful and pleased with the improvements. Even her father, a retired DEA agent, now supports her daily use of the medicine.

Hollie put it best when she said: “Medical cannabis has bettered the quality of my life, and as a result has improved my life with my children; this is hands down worth it.”

When I asked Hollie what she thought of the new Justice Department memo, she told me she was pleased to hear that the Justice Department will not target medical marijuana patients and their suppliers in the states that allow the use of medical marijuana.

The disappointment came when she read Dumanis’ convenient self-serving statement today in The Union Tribune that “The Federal Guidelines that I read today actually reflect what we have been doing in practice with the U.S. Attorney in San Diego for as long as I can remember.”

This statement combined with her track record of patient arrest and prosecution leaves us certain of her intentions to continue her fierce fight against San Diego’s compassionate use voters.

How frustrating for the hundreds of patients Dumanis has victimized for as long as I can remember.

Read More and Leave your Comments!

Monday, October 19, 2009

According to new gallup pole: Support for Legalizing Marijuana Reaches All-Time High

October 19, 2009

Support for Legalizing Marijuana Reaches All-Time High

Forty-four percent of Americans think the use of marijuana should be made legal, up from the 36% who said the same at this time last year, and the highest in Gallup's history of asking this question.

Memorandum for Selected United State Attorneys on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

Memorandum for Selected United State Attorneys on Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

Today Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Those guidelines are contained in a memo from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden which was sent to United States Attorneys this morning.

The text of this memo is provided below for reference. You may also download a PDF version of the memo by clicking, here.
October 19,2009


FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.
The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
sales to minors;
financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
ties to other criminal enterprises.

Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

cc: All United States Attorneys

AP Newsbreak: New medical marijuana policy issued

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.

Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws.

The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes.

Fourteen states allow some use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

California is unique among those for the widespread presence of dispensaries — businesses that sell marijuana and even advertise their services. Colorado also has several dispensaries, and Rhode Island and New Mexico are in the process of licensing providers, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, a group that promotes the decriminalization of marijuana use.

Attorney General Eric Holder said in March that he wanted federal law enforcement officials to pursue those who violate both federal and state law, but it has not been clear how that goal would be put into practice.

A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the legal guidance before it is issued.

"This is a major step forward," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. "This change in policy moves the federal government dramatically toward respecting scientific and practical reality."

At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.

In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.

And while the policy memo describes a change in priorities away from prosecuting medical marijuana cases, it does not rule out the possibility that the federal government could still prosecute someone whose activities are allowed under state law.

The memo, officials said, is designed to give a sense of prosecutorial priorities to U.S. Attorneys in the states that allow medical marijuana. It notes that pot sales in the United States are the largest source of money for violent Mexican drug cartels, but adds that federal law enforcement agencies have limited resources.

Medical marijuana advocates have been anxious to see exactly how the administration would implement candidate Barack Obama's repeated promises to change the policy in situations in which state laws allow the use of medical marijuana.

Shortly after Obama took office, DEA agents raided four dispensaries in Los Angeles, prompting confusion about the government's plans.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

NYT: LA Prepares For Clash Over Marijuana

Ms. Dumanis said that she approved of medical marijuana clubs where patients grow and use their own marijuana, but that none of the 60 or so dispensaries in the county operated that way.

“These guys are drug dealers,” she said of the 14 that were raided. “I said publicly, if anyone thinks we’re casting too big a net and we get a legitimate patient or a lawful collective, then show us your taxes, your business license, your incorporation papers, your filings with the Department of Corporations.”

“If they had these things, we wouldn’t prosecute,” she said.

Marijuana supporters worry that San Diego may provide a glimpse of the near future for Los Angeles if raids here become a reality. But many look to Harborside Health Center in Oakland as a model for how dispensaries could work.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Weekly party for Change in Vista Today

10/17/09 - TODAY
Raising Funds and Awareness
4:20pm - 8pm
1050 S. Sante Fe Ave. Vista, CA 92084

FREE ADMISSION! Everyone is welcome and needed!

Come join the movement for changing the status quo of our government which is fighting the will of the people.

Party for reform! Open-Mic night at MIA!!
Bring your songs, guitars, poems, & acts!
Get yourself recorded or just be a part of the crowd!!
Have fun & make a difference!
Sign-ups start at 4:20, & the mic goes on at 6!

At 5 pm we will give a formal presentation on the vision for this Cannabis Center.

Everyone is welcome and needed!

Come join the movement for changing the status quo of our government which is fighting the will of the people.

The focus of this institution will be:

-To bring justice to government violators of the law and victims of San Diego’s District Attorney Bonnie Dumunis’ reign of terror

-Focus on the upcoming June and November 2010 elections – working to pass cannabis friendly initiatives and politicians who will fight for our community

-Education – about cannabis and all its many uses

-Strengthen the community through social gatherings and actions

Movement In Action 1050 S. Sante Fe Ave. Vista, CA 92084

(760) 500-8868

On 09/09/09 the Movement In Action Collective was raided by the San Diego Sheriff’s Department and the DEA, but despite this, they have presented our community with an opportunity to make this a place to organize and focus our fight against those who persecute cannabis.

Case Law Interpreting Health & Safety Code 11362.775

Case law interpreting California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775, which provides specific
legal protections for the association of qualified persons within the State in order to collectively
or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes:

(1) People v. Hochanadel, 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 347 (filed 8/18/2009) – Court concluded that “the
MMPA’s authorization of cooperatives and collectives did not amend the CUA, but rather was a
distinct statutory scheme intended to facilitate the transfer of medical marijuana to qualified
medical marijuana patients under the CUA….” The court also concluded “that storefront
dispensaries that qualify as ‘cooperatives’ or ‘collectives’ under the CUA and MMPA, and
otherwise comply with those laws, may operate legally, and defendants may have a defense at
trial to the charges in this case based upon the CUA and MMPA.”

(2) County of Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 421 (filed 7/1/2009) –
County of Butte was sued by a member of a medical marijuana collective after being ordered by
a sheriff to destroy some of the marijuana plants in accordance with the County’s underlying
policy to allow qualified patients to grow marijuana collectively only if each member actively
participates in the actual cultivation of the marijuana by planting, watering, pruning, or
harvesting the marijuana. Trial court sustained the civil lawsuit for money damages against the
County and concluded that contrary to the policy of the County, “the [State] legislature intended
collective cultivation of medical marijuana would not require physical participation in the
gardening process by all members of the collective, but rather would permit that some patients
would be able to contribute financially, while others performed the labor and contributed the
skills and ‘know-how.’” Court of Appeal upheld the trial court ruling.

(3) People v. Newcomb et al., 2009 WL 1589574 (filed 6/9/2009) (Not Officially Published) –
Defendants appealed their convictions based upon the collective/cooperative defense under
California Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. Appellate court upheld the convictions, but
elaborated that “other than merely purchasing marijuana, not every member must contribute to
some aspect of the collective or cooperative; … Because some patients may be too ill to
contribute to the collective or cooperative, requiring them to do so, in order to be part of the
collective or cooperative, would be impractical.”

(4) People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (filed 9/12/2005) – Appellate court reversed
and remanded a trial court’s determination that a defendant was precluded from raising a
“collective, cooperative defense” under Health & Safety Code § 11362.775. The appellate court
found that the defendant had presented the trial court with sufficient evidence that: the defendant
was a qualified patient; the co-defendants were qualified patients; the procedures of the
collective, in question, verified the prescriptions and identities of the various members, making
them qualified patients, as well; members paid membership fees and reimbursed the defendant
for cost incurred in the cultivation through donations; and members volunteered and participated
at the collective, by helping with cultivation, delivery, processing of new applications, etc. The
court elaborated that Health & Safety Code § 11362.775’s “specific itemization of the marijuana
sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana
cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in
conjunction with the provision of that marijuana.”

Provided by: Marcus Boyd, San Diego ASA

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Patient Limits are Unconstitutional

The courts have already decided the issue: in People vs. Kelly

Last year, in this case the Second Appellate District Court ruled that “the CUA can only be amended with voters’ approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight ounce

limit and other caps in section 11362.77; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA.”


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 marijuana plants per qualified patient.

NOTE: This case is currently under review by the Supreme Court. It no longer is considered "good law" until they issue a ruling. They set Nov 3 as argument day, and we get a ruling within 90 days after that.

1/20 San Diego City Planning Commission Meeting

To see all the San Diego ASA News Briefs visit: