What Does California Law Say About Non-Profit Sales of Medical Cannabis to Qualified Patients?

How might we represent what is maybe a standout amongst the most sensational legitimate variations in restorative cannabis to date? The issue of non-benefit “deal” of therapeutic cannabis to qualified patients by means of assemblages and cooperatives. There’s nothing else like this debate. What do the specialists say in regards to this at any rate? Pot Shop Tacoma 

Steve Cooley, The Los Angeles District Attorney, can’t help contradicting Jerry Brown, the California State Attorney General.

How could two unmistakable state-utilized lawyers reach entirely extraordinary conclusions on the appropriate response? Initially the Los Angeles District Attorney guarantees “all deals are illicit”. The California State Attorney General was sufficiently certain to write in his rules that “retail facade aggregates might be lawful under state law”. How could this be? All things considered, every lawyer is taking a gander at a similar thing, isn’t that so?

So what is the appropriate response? What does the law say?

Empathetic USE ACT 1996

Suggestion 215 which was endorsed by a lion’s share of Californians in 1996 and it got to be distinctly known as the Compassionate-Use Act. The statute itself does not say anything in regards to “deals” but rather it talks about “ownership”, “developing”, getting medicinal cannabis, about reasonableness and “dispersion”.

It says that qualified patients and their essential parental figures won’t be casualty to criminal issues:

“(B) To guarantee that patients and their essential guardians who get and utilize maryjane for restorative purposes upon the suggestion of a doctor are not subject to criminal indictment or endorse.”

What’s more, it likewise pushes governments to help guarantee “protected and reasonable access” to medicinal cannabis for “every single qualified patient”.

“(C) To empower the elected and state governments to execute an arrangement for the sheltered and reasonable circulation of cannabis to all patients in therapeutic need of pot.”

The Los Angeles District Attorney, Steve Cooley, had State and Federal law requirement specialists assault a restorative cannabis group and capture no less than 3 individuals, the prior week Christmas. He demands “all deals are unlawful”. This is by all accounts against the letter and soul of the law, not the say the soul of the season.

Additionally if all “deals” are illicit, why does the Compassionate-Use Act say “reasonable”? In the event that the patients are monetarily in charge of the cannabis, how does Cooley anticipate that the money will be traded? What’s the matter with incremental repayments?


The Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) came into law in 2004 through the authoritative endorsement of Senate Bill 420. It was the state’s endeavor “to execute an arrangement for the protected and moderate dissemination of pot to all patients in therapeutic need of maryjane,” as the Compassionate-Use Act of 1996 (Prop 215) supports the State and Federal government to do.

The MMP enhances access to medicinal cannabis for qualified patients by endorsing groups and cooperatives.

“(3) Enhance the entrance of patients and guardians to therapeutic pot through aggregate, helpful development ventures.”

What Steve Cooley doesn’t appear to comprehend is non-benefit retail facade Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives/Cooperatives are the conveyance part of “development activities”. Much the same as an aggregate development cultivate wouldn’t have clients gone to the ranch to get their tomatoes, they would need to get their aggregate tomatoes at an agriculturist’s market or circulation area – that is the means by which therapeutic cannabis aggregate developments happen. Developed in one area for security and different reasons, then circulated at another area.

The MMP goes ahead to discuss all the criminal statutes that qualified patients and essential parental figures are excluded from. In segment 11362.765, it says: “should not be subject, on that sole premise, to criminal obligation under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.”

How about we take a gander at each of these one by one:

11357: [possession],

11358: [cultivation],

11359: [possession for sale],

11360: [“transports, imports into this state, offers, outfits, oversees, or gives away”- or offers to or endeavors to do any of those],

11366: [Every individual who opens or keeps up wherever with the end goal of unlawfully offering, giving ceaselessly, or utilizing any controlled substance]

11366.5 [Managing a place for fabricate, stockpiling and additionally the appropriation of a controlled substance]

11570 [Every building or place utilized with the end goal of unlawfully offering, serving, putting away, continuing, assembling, or giving endlessly any controlled substance, antecedent, or simple indicated in this division, and each building or place wherein or whereupon those demonstrations occur, is an aggravation which might be urged, lessened, and anticipated, and for which harms might be recouped, regardless of whether it is an open or private nuisance.]

The Health and Safety Code segment 11360 particularly says “offers”. Not just that, it likewise says: “gives away” and “outfits”. Why the LA District Attorney’s office says “all deals are unlawful” and non-benefit customer facing facade therapeutic cannabis apportioning aggregates/cooperatives are prohibited?

In that same bill,

“11362.775. Qualified patients, people with substantial recognizable proof cards, and the assigned essential guardians of qualified patients

what’s more, people with recognizable proof cards, who relate inside the State of California all together altogether or helpfully to develop pot for restorative purposes, should not exclusively on the premise of that reality be liable to state criminal endorses under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.”

Once more, it says that patients can aggregately develop cannabis and appropriate it among themselves for non-benefit. Once more, the appropriation of restorative cannabis is separate from the development simply like the assembling of my vicodin is found separate from my drug store.

The Medical Marijuana Act additionally approaches the State Attorney General to give rules identified with restorative cannabis:

“The bill would require the Attorney General to create and embrace rules to guarantee the security and non-redirection of weed developed for restorative use, as indicated.”

What’s more, that precisely what State Attorney General, Jerry Brown did in the late summer of 2008.


To satisfy his order, the State Attorney General discharge these rules to help law requirements carry out their employments as indicated by State law and to help patients comprehend those laws.

The rules state non-benefit customer facing facade Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives and Cooperatives could be legitimate under state law in the event that they took after the rules and the above laws.

“It is the feeling of this Office that a legitimately composed and worked group or helpful that administers medicinal pot through a retail facade might be legal under California law”

The State Attorney General affirms what the law says. The Attorney General is the most astounding positioning lawful worker of the State of California. His office likewise reacted to the issues brought up in Los Angeles by City Attorney’s office.

As indicated by the New York Times on October 17: Christine Gasparac, a representative for State Attorney General Jerry Brown, said that after Mr. Trutanich’s remarks in Los Angeles, law requirement authorities and backers from around the state had called looking for lucidity on medicinal pot laws.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *