Saturday, August 15, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
California: How to get a medical marijuana permit August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner The golden state offers medical marijuana...
California: How to get a medical marijuana permit
August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner
The golden state offers medical marijuana protection
and safe access to medicine for thousands of citizens
(Google Images)
If you live in California and you are interested in a medical marijuana permit, you are one of the lucky in the United States. Your state offers plenty of dispensaries and medical marijuana clinics with compassionate doctors. You also live in the one state that allows medical marijuana use for certain mental illnesses.
The state of California medical marijuana program is administered by individual counties. Recently San Diego and San Bernardino counties were ordered to begin issuing medical marijuana I.D. cards. Not all counties have I.D. programs in place yet.
To obtain a medical marijuana permit you can visit one of many clinics in the state. Once you obtain your I.D. card you can visit various dispensaries, co-ops, caregivers, or you can grow your own medicine. Often times, the dispensary will give you an I.D. card specific to their dispensary. The state offers a verification program, where dispensaries can verify a patient’s I.D. card online.
For a list of qualifying conditions in California click here.
August 9, 10:13 PM · Angela Macdonald - NORML Examiner
The golden state offers medical marijuana protection
and safe access to medicine for thousands of citizens
(Google Images)
If you live in California and you are interested in a medical marijuana permit, you are one of the lucky in the United States. Your state offers plenty of dispensaries and medical marijuana clinics with compassionate doctors. You also live in the one state that allows medical marijuana use for certain mental illnesses.
The state of California medical marijuana program is administered by individual counties. Recently San Diego and San Bernardino counties were ordered to begin issuing medical marijuana I.D. cards. Not all counties have I.D. programs in place yet.
To obtain a medical marijuana permit you can visit one of many clinics in the state. Once you obtain your I.D. card you can visit various dispensaries, co-ops, caregivers, or you can grow your own medicine. Often times, the dispensary will give you an I.D. card specific to their dispensary. The state offers a verification program, where dispensaries can verify a patient’s I.D. card online.
For a list of qualifying conditions in California click here.
Collectives and Cooperatives in SD, California Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg
IV. GUIDELINES REGARDING COLLECTIVES AND COOPERATIVES
Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician-recommended marijuana.
A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so.
1.Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “co-op”) unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. (See id. at § 12200,et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.” (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.) Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.© 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members – including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
From the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use.
Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/attorney-generals-guidelines-for-the-security-and-non-diversion-of-marijuana-grown-for-medical-use#ixzz0NrINqe76
http://www.sdnn.com/sandieg...SD Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg
Under California law, medical marijuana patients and primary caregivers may “associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes.” (§ 11362.775.) The following guidelines are meant to apply to qualified patients and primary caregivers who come together to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician-recommended marijuana.
A. Business Forms: Any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes should be organized and operated in a manner that ensures the security of the crop and safeguards against diversion for non-medical purposes. The following are guidelines to help cooperatives and collectives operate within the law, and to help law enforcement determine whether they are doing so.
1.Statutory Cooperatives: A cooperative must file articles of incorporation with the state and conduct its business for the mutual benefit of its members. (Corp. Code, § 12201, 12300.) No business may call itself a “cooperative” (or “co-op”) unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative corporations are “democratically controlled and are not organized to make a profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but primarily for their members as patrons.” (Id. at § 12201.) The earnings and savings of the business must be used for the general welfare of its members or equitably distributed to members in the form of cash, property, credits, or services. (Ibid.) Cooperatives must follow strict rules on organization, articles, elections, and distribution of earnings, and must report individual transactions from individual members each year. (See id. at § 12200,et seq.) Agricultural cooperatives are likewise nonprofit corporate entities “since they are not organized to make profit for themselves, as such, or for their members, as such, but only for their members as producers.” (Food & Agric. Code, § 54033.) Agricultural cooperatives share many characteristics with consumer cooperatives. (See, e.g., id. at § 54002, et seq.) Cooperatives should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, they should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
2. Collectives: California law does not define collectives, but the dictionary defines them as “a business, farm, etc., jointly owned and operated by the members of a group.” (Random House Unabridged Dictionary; Random House, Inc.© 2006.) Applying this definition, a collective should be an organization that merely facilitates the collaborative efforts of patient and caregiver members – including the allocation of costs and revenues. As such, a collective is not a statutory entity, but as a practical matter it might have to organize as some form of business to carry out its activities. The collective should not purchase marijuana from, or sell to, non-members; instead, it should only provide a means for facilitating or coordinating transactions between members.
From the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Security and Non-diversion of marijuana grown for medical use.
Read more: http://www.sdnn.com/attorney-generals-guidelines-for-the-security-and-non-diversion-of-marijuana-grown-for-medical-use#ixzz0NrINqe76
http://www.sdnn.com/sandieg...SD Deputy district attorney of the narcotics division, Chris Lindberg
Drug-Legalizing Cop Wins Back His Free Speech Rights Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
Drug-Legalizing Cop Wins Back His Free Speech Rights
Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2009
SEATTLE, WA -- A Mountlake Terrace police sergeant who was fired after publicly criticizing the "war on drugs" has reached an $812,500 settlement in a lawsuit he filed against the city and police department, among others. Under the settlement, Sergeant Jonathan Wender has been reinstated on the force and is eligible to receive back pay and full retirement benefits.
“In an open society, people on the front lines of the criminal justice system have an ethical duty to speak out on controversial social and legal issues that affect the public we serve," said Sgt. Wender, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a 10,000-strong organization representing police, prosecutors, judges and others who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and who now want to legalize and regulate drugs. "The public has a fundamental right to know which laws and policies are effective, and which ones aren’t; and they should expect that their police officers will speak the truth even when it isn’t popular or comfortable to do so. I hope that the outcome of this case will help reassure police and other public officials that they can speak freely on controversial topics such as the urgent need to seek better ways to deal with the crisis of drugs that plagues American society.”
Sgt. Wender joined the police force in 1990 after graduating from college and was terminated in 2005. He holds a Pd.D. from Simon Fraser University and is currently a full-time sociology professor at the University of Washington. As part of the settlement, Sgt. Wender is back on the payroll at the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, where he will serve on administrative leave until he retires from the force on November 10, 2010 and can then qualify for his full pension.
"Jonathan Wender's victory is ours, as well. As was his fight," said Norm Stamper, the retired Seattle police chief and LEAP member. "Because of this fine man's courage and perseverance, and his willingness to tell the truth about the 'drug war,' we've all moved closer to putting an end to that war. I believe police officers across the country will be moved by Jonathan's example, and will raise their voices in support of LEAP's goal of ending drug prohibition."
The lawsuit was filed against the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office, the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Lynnwood, and a handful of individual defendants.
For more information about LEAP, please contact Tom Angell at (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc www.leap.cc
Press Release Sergeant Fired After Criticizing "War on Drugs," Now Reinstated
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2009
SEATTLE, WA -- A Mountlake Terrace police sergeant who was fired after publicly criticizing the "war on drugs" has reached an $812,500 settlement in a lawsuit he filed against the city and police department, among others. Under the settlement, Sergeant Jonathan Wender has been reinstated on the force and is eligible to receive back pay and full retirement benefits.
“In an open society, people on the front lines of the criminal justice system have an ethical duty to speak out on controversial social and legal issues that affect the public we serve," said Sgt. Wender, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a 10,000-strong organization representing police, prosecutors, judges and others who fought on the front lines of the "war on drugs" and who now want to legalize and regulate drugs. "The public has a fundamental right to know which laws and policies are effective, and which ones aren’t; and they should expect that their police officers will speak the truth even when it isn’t popular or comfortable to do so. I hope that the outcome of this case will help reassure police and other public officials that they can speak freely on controversial topics such as the urgent need to seek better ways to deal with the crisis of drugs that plagues American society.”
Sgt. Wender joined the police force in 1990 after graduating from college and was terminated in 2005. He holds a Pd.D. from Simon Fraser University and is currently a full-time sociology professor at the University of Washington. As part of the settlement, Sgt. Wender is back on the payroll at the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, where he will serve on administrative leave until he retires from the force on November 10, 2010 and can then qualify for his full pension.
"Jonathan Wender's victory is ours, as well. As was his fight," said Norm Stamper, the retired Seattle police chief and LEAP member. "Because of this fine man's courage and perseverance, and his willingness to tell the truth about the 'drug war,' we've all moved closer to putting an end to that war. I believe police officers across the country will be moved by Jonathan's example, and will raise their voices in support of LEAP's goal of ending drug prohibition."
The lawsuit was filed against the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office, the Mountlake Terrace Police Department, the City of Mountlake Terrace, the City of Lynnwood, and a handful of individual defendants.
For more information about LEAP, please contact Tom Angell at (202) 557-4979 or media@leap.cc www.leap.cc
Monday, August 10, 2009
We can Do it Again: Help our economy, Keep streets safer - LEAP Central Valley
As your constituent, I'm writing to you with an important question: Would you like to know how we can boost America’s ailing economy by tens of billions of dollars every year and make our communities safer?
All we have to do is learn a lesson from 75 years ago in America's history, back in December 1933, when our leaders had the good sense to stop spending so much money on the ineffective prohibition of alcohol in the midst of the Great Depression.
Today, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year arresting, prosecuting and locking up far too many Americans under this generation's failed prohibition policy, the "war on drugs." But drugs are generally cheaper, more potent and more available than at any point in history.
But that's not the worst of it. During alcohol prohibition, gangsters like Al Capone were using illegal booze profits to run rampant in our cities. Today, in addition to dealing with violent domestic gangs, we are also under attack from international cartels and terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, who make money off of drugs only because of today’s prohibition.
Ultimately, judging the merits of our drug policy - which seems to hurt countless citizens and help only violent criminals and traffickers - requires that we first have a true accounting of all its costs.
But while we know that direct government expenditures on drug prohibition cost tens of billions of dollars every year, there are also numerous corollary costs that aren't easily tallied. For example, what about tax revenue not collected from wages of drug market employees and on properties where drugs are produced? And let's not not forget the diminished wages (and tax payments) of people who find it hard to secure gainful employment because of criminal records.
That's why I'm writing to urge you to support the creation of blue ribbon commission that can take a serious look at the real cost of continuing our ineffective approach during a time of economic crisis. The results of a comprehensive review, I believe, will make it crystal clear that under our limited budgets, prohibition is a failed drug control policy that we just can't afford any longer.
Why not take a good look at the facts before our fiscal reality forces us to cut essential services that are actually necessary for protecting public health and safety for our children and families?
This is a serious issue with real consequences that we cannot afford to ignore. I look forward to reading your thoughts on what actions you think policymakers should take to solve the problems caused by our failed drug prohibition policy. Thanks in advance for your attention to this important matter.
All we have to do is learn a lesson from 75 years ago in America's history, back in December 1933, when our leaders had the good sense to stop spending so much money on the ineffective prohibition of alcohol in the midst of the Great Depression.
Today, we spend tens of billions of dollars a year arresting, prosecuting and locking up far too many Americans under this generation's failed prohibition policy, the "war on drugs." But drugs are generally cheaper, more potent and more available than at any point in history.
But that's not the worst of it. During alcohol prohibition, gangsters like Al Capone were using illegal booze profits to run rampant in our cities. Today, in addition to dealing with violent domestic gangs, we are also under attack from international cartels and terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, who make money off of drugs only because of today’s prohibition.
Ultimately, judging the merits of our drug policy - which seems to hurt countless citizens and help only violent criminals and traffickers - requires that we first have a true accounting of all its costs.
But while we know that direct government expenditures on drug prohibition cost tens of billions of dollars every year, there are also numerous corollary costs that aren't easily tallied. For example, what about tax revenue not collected from wages of drug market employees and on properties where drugs are produced? And let's not not forget the diminished wages (and tax payments) of people who find it hard to secure gainful employment because of criminal records.
That's why I'm writing to urge you to support the creation of blue ribbon commission that can take a serious look at the real cost of continuing our ineffective approach during a time of economic crisis. The results of a comprehensive review, I believe, will make it crystal clear that under our limited budgets, prohibition is a failed drug control policy that we just can't afford any longer.
Why not take a good look at the facts before our fiscal reality forces us to cut essential services that are actually necessary for protecting public health and safety for our children and families?
This is a serious issue with real consequences that we cannot afford to ignore. I look forward to reading your thoughts on what actions you think policymakers should take to solve the problems caused by our failed drug prohibition policy. Thanks in advance for your attention to this important matter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
