Landmark Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ruling Prevails

  • Thread starter nebulius
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
nebulius

nebulius

457
63
citation: Americans for Safe Access​

Landmark Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ruling Prevails Denied Review by California Supreme Court

People v. Colvin affirms that dispensing collective members are not required to help cultivate their medication​
Los Angeles, CA -- In a major victory for medical marijuana patients, the California Supreme Court denied review yesterday of an important dispensary case out of Los Angeles. Rejecting calls from State Attorney General Kamala Harris and law enforcement to review the Court of Appeal ruling in People v. Colvin, the California Supreme Court upheld certain protections for medical marijuana patients and providers. The Attorney General had argued that some undefined percentage of patients were legally required to participate in the operation of the medical marijuana dispensaries in order to obtain medication from them.

The landmark ruling in Colvin held that the Attorney General's argument that member-patients must engage in unspecified "united action or participation" to qualify for protection under the state's medical marijuana law would likely "limit drastically the size of medical marijuana establishments," and provide "little direction or guidance to, among others, qualified patients, primary caregivers, law enforcement, and trial courts." Furthermore, the Colvin Court held that the Attorney General's requirement would "contravene the intent of [state law] by limiting patients' access to medical marijuana."

The Court of Appeal also held in People v. Colvin that, "collectives and cooperatives may cultivate and transport marijuana in aggregate amounts tied to its membership numbers." In addition, the Colvin decision affirmed that possession of extracted or concentrated forms of medical marijuana was legal under state law.

"The decision not to review People v. Colvin should now put to rest this unfounded notion that patients must 'till the soil' or somehow participate in the production of the medicine they purchase at a dispensary," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy organization. "This landmark case also affirms the right of patients to purchase extracted or concentrated forms of medical marijuana and the right to transport medication from an off-site cultivate site."

A number of medical marijuana dispensary cases were granted review by the California Supreme Court earlier this year, including Pack v. City of Long Beach, Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient’s Health and Wellness Center, and City of Lake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective. The Pack case addresses issues of federal preemption, which have already come before the High Court, whereas the Riverside and Lake Forest cases address the issue of whether localities have a right to permanently ban dispensaries.

"The Colvin decision has far-reaching, positive implications for medical marijuana patients and providers," continued Elford. ASA is currently appealing the conviction of Jovan Jackson, a San Diego dispensary operator who was tried in September 2010 and denied a medical marijuana defense. "The Colvin decision is bad news for the Attorney General, who was relying on the same argument in the Jackson case." There are also other trial court cases that will invariably be affected by the Supreme Court's decision not to review the Colvin case.

Further information:
Landmark Court of Appeal decision in People v. Colvin:
 
outwest

outwest

Premium Gardener
Supporter
4,629
263
Thanks for sharing. Sharing is caring.

outwest
 
Mississip Hip

Mississip Hip

976
143
Now if only these po-dunk fucking counties would act like they had a clue.

They bust people regardless of the law....just to glean 'fine' money from those who dont know any better. Who the fuck has money to take stuff to the damn Supreme Court anyway?.......not me.

Awesome post.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,856
313
It seems the California Supreme Court isn't bowing to pressure to make MMJ harder to get for legitimate uses, unlike so many out there- the AG apparently included- who just want to make it illegal as possible so they can continue raking in money from fining those who use it.
 
Mississip Hip

Mississip Hip

976
143
seems like the crux of it , huh Ty?

A bunch of Buford T Pusser motherfuckers interpreting the law "their way".

If you got the coin....you will prolly get a pass. Makes those fancy Frisco lawyers $5000.00 retainer look more and more affordable, doesn't it?.....lol...but fo real...
 
fishwhistle

fishwhistle

4,686
263
I think the biggest progress that could be made right now is to take all these counties to court that ban outdoor growing,that is bullshit.Outdoor growing brings access to alot more people who cant afford indoor growing AND is like 1000 times better for the environment.It is all about taking access away from the people,that is their goal.In my county i can grow 6 and 6 indoor alli want but outdoor is banned?What sense does that make.
 
nebulius

nebulius

457
63
I never have been very politically active but think I am going to start, but start small. o_O

I'm going to write my local congressmen and ask that he/she supports medical marijuana patients.

We need to let our local politicians know there is a large group of registered voters that care about cannabis issues and that we do vote. There is too many of us for them to not hear our voice.
http://t0.invalid.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcoLLm0X7rdkCsySp913nerZnDhD9osbkgWiIbbBFn7pOrGu3D
If you want to get politically active too, there is lots of info on Americans for Safe Access website.
 
outwest

outwest

Premium Gardener
Supporter
4,629
263
None of these laws, in any of these states, make any sense. 6 plants, 3 in flower, 3 in veg, but you can only possess up to 2 ounces? But if you are more sick you can grow more weed. So people grow 3 monster plants?!?! Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to do that math on that one. Wait. What?! Huh?!

outwest
 
nebulius

nebulius

457
63
None of these laws, in any of these states, make any sense. 6 plants, 3 in flower, 3 in veg, but you can only possess up to 2 ounces? But if you are more sick you can grow more weed. So people grow 3 monster plants?!?! Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to do that math on that one. Wait. What?! Huh?!outwest
All I know is SB420 has 420 in it. And 420=weed and weed is cool. so by way of Rocket Surgeon math SB420 is good.
http://t1.invalid.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSSskaeIcPqqRzED38x9oGg3XtFuMxBI8-ZAguqKvAhMkSnYTVnqg
 
nebulius

nebulius

457
63
Cup o soup is soooo goooood when high. add a egg yoke while cooking in pan and a little sriracha after. perfecto. best 20cent meal.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,856
313
Cup o soup is soooo goooood when high. add a egg yoke while cooking in pan and a little sriracha after. perfecto. best 20cent meal.

Damn, bro- now you're makin' me hungry! It's an easy hot lunch at work, too.
 
sky high

sky high

4,796
313
None of these laws, in any of these states, make any sense. 6 plants, 3 in flower, 3 in veg, but you can only possess up to 2 ounces? But if you are more sick you can grow more weed. So people grow 3 monster plants?!?! Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to do that math on that one. Wait. What?! Huh?!

outwest

Here in CO....folks automatically think "2 ounces" means 2 ounces of weed..... but the law actually allows for 2 ounces of cannabis or any cannabis preparation...such as hash.....

3 plants might make 2 ounces of hash if they were big, big plants.... but a dozen or so will surely do it.... :) Heck...it might even take 2 dozen..... LOL. Who's to say?

in the end, as long as they don't come it doesn't matter how many plants ya have....LOL.

be safe, all

s h
 
215 User

215 User

861
243
This ruling affirmed possesion of extracted or cocentrated forms of mmj LEGAL!
Supreme court decision also gives the right to transport medication from off site cultivate site.

Good News for Bad times....
 
nebulius

nebulius

457
63
Here in CO....folks automatically think "2 ounces" means 2 ounces of weed..... but the law actually allows for 2 ounces of cannabis or any cannabis preparation...such as hash.....

3 plants might make 2 ounces of hash if they were big, big plants.... but a dozen or so will surely do it.... :) Heck...it might even take 2 dozen..... LOL. Who's to say?

in the end, as long as they don't come it doesn't matter how many plants ya have....LOL.

be safe, all

s h

But on the downside I heard they count all the trimmings as weight too. So when they pop you, you might only have 2 oz in herb but the other 5oz of trim and twigs you got they count too.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom