DA Compliments AG for Clearing The Haze Around 215

DA Compliments AG for Clearing The Haze Around 215
Posted by CN Staff on August 28, 2008 at 07:06:23 PT
By Donna Tam, The Times-Standard 
Source: Times-Standard
California -- The state's new medical marijuana guidelines will help bring more clarity to Proposition 215 cases, giving the county more tools in its struggle to curb abuse of the law, Humboldt County's district attorney said. ”There's some good stuff in there for us to efficiently punish people who are abusing the law,” District Attorney Paul Gallegos said. “There are members of this community that are making money, that are benefiting from the laws and the people of this community, that are giving nothing back.”
The Office of the Attorney General's guidelines, released Monday, include regulations on the amount of medical marijuana a patient or caregiver can possess as well as how law enforcement should proceed. Gallegos said he is planning on meeting with his staff to decide how his office will interpret the new guidelines, but he is pleased with the AG's decision to clear up Proposition 215's ambiguity. Gallegos said the guidelines shouldn't have much of an impact for legitimate 215 patients. ”It sort of mirrors what we've been saying,” he said, adding that Humboldt already will not prohibit criminal defendants and probationers from using medical marijuana if they are 215 patients. However, state and county guidelines do prohibit any use at a jail, correctional facility, or other penal institution. Other issues, such as the seizure of excess marijuana, are different. While Gallegos said he favors taking only excess medical marijuana from qualified patients, the state guidelines allow law enforcement to seize all marijuana if it is over the limit, even if the patient's status is verified. According to the guidelines, patients and caregivers may possess up to 8 ounces of dried marijuana, and may maintain no more than six mature plants or 12 immature plants, unless a doctor recommends more. The guidelines also allow counties to designate higher limits. Humboldt County guidelines allow patients or caregivers to cultivate, grow and consume up to 3 pounds of medical marijuana per year, while also allowing for a 100-square-foot canopy of mature female plants to be grown. The AG guidelines state law enforcement must honor a state-issued identification card, but a person carrying only a local identification card or a recommendation from a licensed physician is subject to more scrutiny and seizure. According to the Humboldt County Department of Health and Human Services, there have been 222 cards issued in the county since January. The cards must be renewed each year. The guidelines also clarify that medical marijuana transactions are taxable. ”Taxation -- that is very important to us. We've modified our investigation to do financial investigations,” he said. By comparing assets and income, the county can weed out illegal growers from legitimate ones, he said. ”It gives us a weapon, I think, that we didn't have,” Gallegos said. On the Web: To view the state guidelines visit: Times-Standard (Eureka, CA)Author: Donna Tam, The Times-Standard Published: August 28, 2008Copyright: 2008 MediaNews Group, Inc. Contact: editor times-standard.comWebsite: Medical Marijuana Archives
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #6 posted by user123 on August 30, 2008 at 10:12:56 PT:
They'll never get over it. Because then they would have to admit they're wrong & humans HATE ever being wrong.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by FoM on August 28, 2008 at 10:22:55 PT
Related Article From The Times-Standard 
Arcata Waits on Dispensary Codes in Light of AG GuidelinesAugust 28, 2008
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Lucas on August 28, 2008 at 09:20:49 PT
SB420 plant limits violate 215, so do guidelines
prop 215 says
"(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana."yet sb420 adds
"Nothing in prop 215 or sb420 authorizes individuals to profit"I believe the nonprofit requirement is absent in Prop215, hence unconstitutional in a legislative act, AND in an attorney general's guidelines.California courts recently ruled that the plant limits, quantity limits, and annual renewal of physician recommendations in SB420 are invalid changes by legislature to an initiativeI would venture that the nonprofit requirement, is also invalid.California courts have struck down the use of SB420 limits, Jerry Brown has simply issued the same limits as "guidelines" to enforcement..Seems to me the guidelines are equally unconstitutional, because they are a modification of an initiative, which can only legally be done by another initiative.Lucas Disgusted with Jerry
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by duzt on August 28, 2008 at 08:49:48 PT
what are they thinking???
So SB420 with it's 8 ounce limit and 6/12 plant limit was ruled unconstitutional, so they come out with the exact same limits? How is this a good thing? I have 12 outside, which is what I need (at least) to last me a year. This morning I had a helicopter hovering 50 feet above my house for 10 minutes. I'm sure I will be testing this new rule too as they seem to be flying around me a lot. They don't seem to get that they can't change 215 without voter approval and this new rule changes 215. I guess they will have to prove I don't need what I am growing. 215 passed 12 years ago and these guys still can't get over it. Oh, and no way in hell am am paying $120 extra for a county card. That is extortion, they can't force me to pay for protection. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by runruff on August 28, 2008 at 08:22:25 PT
Keeping society safe!
"There's some good stuff in there for us to efficiently punish people who are abusing the law,” District Attorney Paul Gallegos said."You just can't punish those herb gardeners severely enough. Oh, the carnage and mayhem they create! Thank you for being there for us Paul. Your Job depends on stricter prohibition laws and we depend on you!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on August 28, 2008 at 07:42:52 PT
News Article From KFMB AM
Lawsuit Claims Agencies Violate Medical Marijuana LawAugust 28, 2008A lawsuit claims that the San Diego District Attorney's Office and other agencies are violating California's medical marijuana law by investigating
doctors who treat medical marijuana patients.The suit, filed by Dr. Alfonso Jimenez in San Diego Superior Court, names as defendants the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and one of her deputies, as well as the San Diego Police Department, its chief, William Lansdowne, and several individual officers, along with the Laguna Beach Police Department, its chief of police and a detective.Dumanis was said to be out of town and unavailable to comment immediately on the lawsuit.The suit alleges that the defendants have conspired with the Drug Enforcement Administration to violate a federal injunction against initiating an investigation of a physician solely on the ground that a doctor makes a recommendation for medical marijuana based on his or her medical judgment. Federal laws bar the use and possession of marijuana.According to the lawsuit, while California's Legislature and courts have authorized and enforced California's medical marijuana laws since 1996, the defendants still disapprove of the state law.The Compassionate Use Act provides for the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes when recommended by a physician.According to the lawsuit, the District Attorney and San Diego police defendants conducted an undercover "patient entrapment" operation on the plaintiff's medical office on or about May 20, 2006, and May 23, 2006, with the specific intent of disrupting Jimenez's medical practice.The suit alleges that the Laguna Beach Police Department has conspired with some of the other defendants to continue their illegal undercover patient operation against Jimenez, who also has an office in Orange County.The suit also claims that the Osteopathic Medical Board of California has pursued, without independent investigation, the charges leveled by the District Attorney and police defendants.Copyright: 2008 KFMB Stations
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment