Part two of a series
The LA City Attorney is contradicting the state concerning medical cannabis, says Don Duncan, of Americans for Safe Access. California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s guidelines, published in August of 2008 (and in yesterday’s article here at LA City Buzz Examiner), state: “It is the opinion of this Office that a properly organized and operated collective or cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a storefront may be lawful under California law,” Americans for Safe Access in Los Angeles.
Duncan says, “The latest draft of the ordinance bans edible preparations and concentrates of cannabis outright. The city ordinance requires patients who join collectives or grow medicine to register with the City Clerk’s office, and requires that hundreds of existing collectives in the city close until they are in compliance with the proposed regulations, “ Americans for Safe Access announced last Tuesday.
Strong and sometimes emotional opposition from the public
At a hearing Tuesday “strong, and sometimes emotional, opposition from the public” caused the Los Angeles Plannind and Land Use management Committee (PLUS) to delay consideration of a draft ordinance that would regulate medical marijuana collectives, Duncan said.
Frst of its kind meeting
“Chairman Reyes will convene a first of its kind meeting of stakeholders at his office in one week to discuss the ordinance,” Duncan said.
Then, the City Attorney will have 30 days to return comments or a new draft ordinance to the committee.
“Then, the City Attorney will have 30 days to return comments or a new draft ordinance to the committee,” Duncan said.
Changes the Planning Commission and City Attorney are considering are “based on the faulty assumption that storefront facilities maintained by patients’ collectives are unlawful and cannot be regulated.” Duncan said. “The City Attorney’s opinion is in direct conflict with California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s guidelines for medical cannabis published in August of 2008.”
**********************
We published segments of that opinion here at LA City Buzz Examiner yesterday
Here, concerning cannabis outlets in Los Angeles,is a portion of:
GUIDELINES FOR THE SECURITY AND NON-DIVERSION OF MARIJUANA GROWN FOR MEDICAL USE
(Published by California State Attorney General Jerry Brown, August 2008)
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 “coop”) unless it is properly organized and registered as such a corporation under the Corporations or Food and Agricultural Code. (Id. at § 12311(b).) Cooperative orporations 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.
B. Guidelines for the Lawful Operation of a Cooperative or Collective:
Collectives and cooperatives should be organized with sufficient structure to ensure security, non-diversion of marijuana to illicit markets, and compliance with all state and local laws. The following are some suggested guidelines and practices for operating collective growing operations to help ensure lawful operation.
1. Non-Profit Operation:
Nothing in Proposition 215 or the MMP authorizes collectives, cooperatives, or individuals to profit from the sale or distribution of marijuana. (See, e.g., § 11362.765(a) [“nothing in this section shall authorize . . . any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit”].
2. Business Licenses, Sales Tax, and Seller’s Permits:
The State Board of Equalization has determined that medical marijuana transactions are subject to sales tax, regardless of whether the individual or group makes a profit, and those engaging in transactions involving medical marijuana must obtain a Seller’s Permit. Some cities and counties also require dispensing collectives and cooperatives to obtain business licenses.
3. Membership Application and Verification:
When a patient or primary caregiver wishes to join a collective or cooperative, the group can help prevent the diversion of marijuana for non-medical use by having potential members complete a written membership application. The following application guidelines should be followed to help ensure that marijuana grown for medical use is not diverted to illicit markets:
a) Verify the individual’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver. Unless he or she has a valid state medical marijuana identification card, this should involve personal contact with the recommending physician (or his or her agent), verification of the physician’s identity, as well as his or her state licensing status. Verification of primary caregiver status should include contact with the qualified patient, as well as validation of the patient’s recommendation. Copies should be made of the physician’s recommendation or identification card, if any;
b) Have the individual agree not to distribute marijuana to non-members;
c) Have the individual agree not to use the marijuana for other than medical purposes;
d) Maintain membership records on-site or have them reasonably available;
e) Track when members’ medical marijuana recommendation and/or identification cards expire; and
f) Enforce conditions of membership by excluding members whose identification card or physician recommendation are invalid or have expired, or who are caught diverting marijuana for non-medical use.
4. Collectives Should Acquire, Possess, and Distribute Only Lawfully Cultivated Marijuana: . . . .
. . . , , , , , , , , , ,
Read the entire document here:
Activists say City Attorney Rocky Delgaldillo
and
The LA Planning and Land Use Management Committee (PLUM) :
hold the future of med mj distribution in LA in their hands.
Read LA City Buzz Examiner for ongoing coverage of the developing marijuana industry in California.
Comments
Alcohol prohibition was so successful at making matters worse, that it had to be ended. Marijuana prohibiton has been so successful at making matters worse, that it must be ended. It's not me repeating myself. It's the prohibitionists repeating themselves & their tire old failed policies.
We are proving in CA that providing a legal outlet solves the marijuana problem - gets the drug off the streets out of the criminal market. Thanks for your comments, Dale.
We are proving in CA that providing a legal outlet solves the marijuana problem - gets the drug off the streets out of the criminal market. Thanks for your comments, Dale.
Sorry, Richard, I can't figure out what happened to your comment. Richard said, we should not be taxing a medicine. good point. . .
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!