Text of Prop. 215
Vote on Prop. 215
[Prop. 215 Ballot Arguments]

Update July 2017 - California passed three laws in 2015 to regulate medical marijuana, collectively called MCRSA (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act). MCRSA has now been merged with AUMA and the new law is called the Medical and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA).

Medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives can continue to operate under existing law (SB 420) until one year after the state issues notice of licensure under the new laws.

UPDATE NOVEMBER 2016 - The passage of Prop. 64 (aka the Adult Use of Marijuana Act or AUMA) to legalize adult possession and cultivation of recreational marijuana in no way impinges on the rights of medical marijuana patients under Prop. 215. Read more.

Patients with a state ID card are exempt from sales tax in dispensaries under the new law.

Also see: Do I still need a doctor's note now that Prop. 64 has passed?

PROPOSITION 215, the California Compassionate Use Act, was enacted by the voters and took effect on Nov. 6, 1996 as California Health & Safety Code 11362.5. The law makes it legal for patients and their designated primary caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana for thier personal medical use given the recommendation or approval of a California-licensed physician.

SB420, a legislative statute, went into effect on January 1, 2004 as California H&SC 11362.7-.83. This law broadens Prop. 215 to transportation and other offenses in certain circumstances; allows patients to form medical cultivation “collectives” or “cooperatives”; and establishes a voluntary state ID card system run through county health departments.

In 2015, the California Legislature passed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA or MCRSA), establishing permitting for marijuana cultivation and dispensaries, etc. at the state level (with local approval). The law went into effect on January 1, 2016; however, the state has said it will need until January 2018 to set up the necessary agencies, information systems, and regulations to actually begin issuing licenses. In the interim, local governments may choose to adopt new ordinances to permit or license local businesses in preparation for state licensing. Facilities currently operating in accordance with state and local laws may continue to do so until such time as their license applications are approved or denied. In the meantime, prospective applicants are strongly advised to apply to the state Board of Equalization for a Resale Permit, and to prepare for seeking approval from their local governments. See the state Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation website.

WHAT OFFENSES ARE COVERED?
Prop. 215 explicitly covers marijuana possession and cultivation (H&SC 11357 and 11358) for personal medical use. Hashish and concentrated cannabis, including edibles, (HSC 11357a) are also included. Transportation (HSC 11360) has also been allowed by the courts. Within the context of a bona fide collective or caregiver relationship, SB 420 provides protection against charges for possession for sale (11359); transportation, sale, giving away, furnishing, etc. (11360); providing or leasing a place for distribution of a controlled substance (11366.5, 11570).

WHAT ILLNESSES ARE COVERED? 
Prop. 215 lists “cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. Physicians have recommended marijuana for hundreds of indications, including such common complaints as insomnia, PMS, post-traumatic stress, depression, and substance abuse.

WHO QUALIFIES AS A PHYSICIAN?
Prop. 215 applies to physicians, osteopaths and surgeons who are licensed to practice in California. It does not apply to chiropractors, herbal therapists, etc. See a list of medical cannabis specialists. Prop. 215 requires physicians to state that they “approve” or “recommend” marijuana. Physicians are protected from federal prosecution for recommending marijuana by the Conant U.S. court decision.

WHO MAY CULTIVATE UNDER PROP. 215? 
Patients with a physician’s recommendation and their primary caregivers, defined as, “The individual designated by the person exempted under this act who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.” According to a state supreme court decision, People v Mentch (2008), caregivers must supply some other service to patients than just providing marijuana.

As an alternative, SB 420 allows patients to grow together in non-profit “collectives” or cooperatives. Collectives may scale the SB 420 limits to the number of members, but large gardens are always suspect to law enforcement. In particular, grows over 100 plants risk five-year mandatory minimum sentences under federal law. Many local governments have moved to ban or sharply restrict the right of patients to grow collectively. Policy varies greatly around the state (see local limits below.).

HOW MUCH CAN I POSSESS OR GROW? 
Under Prop. 215, patients are entitled to whatever amount of marijuana is necessary for their personal medical use. However, patients can be arrested if they exceed reasonable amounts and they can be cited or fined for exceeding local laws. Under MMRSA, which took effect Jan. 1, 2016, qualified patients can cultivate up to 100 square feet for personal medical use, and primary caregivers with five or fewer patients are allowed up to 500 square feet. Exemption under this section does not prevent a local government from further restricting or banning the cultivation of medical cannabis. See local cultivation limits.

CAN I STILL BE ARRESTED OR RAIDED? 
Yes, unfortunately. Many legal patients have been raided or arrested for having dubious recommendations, for growing amounts that police deem excessive, on account of neighbors’ complaints, etc. Once patients have been charged, it is up to the courts to pass judgment on their medical claim.

A landmark State Supreme Court decision, People vs. Mower, holds that patients have the same right to marijuana as to any legally prescribed drug. Under Mower, patients who have been arrested can request dismissal of charges at a pre-trial hearing. If the defendant convinces the court that the prosecution hasn’t established probable cause that it wasn’t for medical purposes, criminal charges are dismissed. If not, the patient goes on to trial, where the prosecution must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant is guilty. Those who have had their charges dropped may file to have their property returned and claim damages.

In some cases, police raid patients and take their medicine without filing criminal charges. In order to reclaim their medicine, patients must then file a court suit on their own. For legal assistance in filing suit for lost medicine, contact Americans for Safe Access).

CAN I BE CHARGED OR PENALIZED FEDERALLY?
Under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, possession of any marijuana is a misdemeanor and cultivation is a felony. A Supreme Court ruling, Gonzalez v Raich (June 2005), rejected a constitutional challenge by two patients who argued that their personal medical use cultivation should be exempt from federal law because it did not affect interstate commerce. Despite this, federal officials have stated that they will not go after individual patients.

Medical marijuana patients are not protected while on federal park land or forest land in California. CalNORML has received reports of campers and those driving through federal land who are searched, charged with federal possession statutes, and had their medicine confiscated. A California medical recommendation is not a defense in federal court to these charges.

The US Dept of Housing and Urban Development allows local housing authorities to determine their own policies regarding medical marijuana use in HUD housing. Many don’t allow it. In rare cases, users may lose food stamps or other federal benefits if they’re discovered.

SHOULD I GET A STATE I.D. CARD?
Patients are not required to get an ID card to enjoy the protection of Prop. 215, but a state card can provide an extra measure of protection against arrest. Patients and caregivers can obtain state ID cards through the health departments of the county where they live (except Sutter and Colusa). The state ID card system has safeguards to protect patient privacy. Police and employers cannot track down patients through the registry.

The Patients’ ID Center in Oakland (www.patientidcenter.org) offers ID cards for all California residents that are honored by many collectives and police. In addition, many doctors now offer ID cards that can be verified.

WHERE CAN I GET MEDICAL MARIJUANA? 
Even though Prop. 215 doesn’t explicitly legalize sales, hundreds of collectives are presently providing marijuana to patients in accordance with SB 420 and the A.G.’s guidelines. Find dispensaries and delivery services by zip code or city .

WHERE CAN MARIJUANA BE SMOKED? 
SB420 bars marijuana smoking in no smoking zones, within 1000 feet of a school or youth center except in private residences; on school buses, in a motor vehicle that is being operated, or while operating a boat. Patients are advised to be discreet or consume oral preparations in public.

WHERE CAN I GROW MEDICINE?
Although Prop. 215 allows patients to grow their own medicine, landlords are not legally obliged to allow it. Many cities and counties have passed zoning ordinances that restrict where patients can grow, in some cases outlawing cultivation altogether. See local policies.

CAN I SELL MY EXCESS MEDICINE?
In general sales of marijuana are NOT permitted under Prop 215. However, SB 420 authorizes legal caregivers and collective/cooperative members to charge for their expenses in growing for others on a “non-profit” basis. Hostile police sometimes misinterpret this to take any monetary proceeds as evidence of felony sales, regardless of whether the grower actually made a profit. Growers who provide for others must either be members of a collective or be bona fide “primary caregivers.”

HOW CAN I START A COLLECTIVE? 
The A.G. has issued guidelines for operation of cannabis collectives and coops. For details, see our collective tips page.

CAN PRISONERS AND PROBATIONERS USE MEDICAL MARIJUANA?
SB420 allows probationers, parolees, and prisoners to use medical marijuana and to ask a judge to verify their rights. However, medical marijuana is regularly disallowed in jails and prisons.

CAN PATIENTS BE DRUG TESTED AT WORK?
The California Supreme Court has ruled that employers have a right to drug test and fire patients who test positive for marijuana, regardless of their medical use (Ross v RagingWire, 2008). Some employers will excuse patients if they present a valid 215 recommendation. Others won’t. Marijuana use is never permitted in jobs with federal drug testing regulations, such as the transportation industry.

CAN I TAKE MY MEDICAL MARIJUANA ON A PLANE?
Some airports, like Los Angeles and Oakland, are respectful of patients’ rights, but others like Burbank aren’t. If TSA security screeners find marijuana in your luggage, the standard procedure is to turn you over to local law enforcement, who follow state, not federal, law. To avoid hassles, patients are strongly advised NOT to declare their medicine to TSA, but to carry it discreetly like other medicines along with proof of their 215 eligibility.

HOW LONG ARE RECOMMENDATIONS VALID?
Under Prop. 215, a recommendation is valid so long as the doctor says it is. However, SB420 requires ID cards to be renewed annually, and many police refuse to recognize recommendations that are older than a year or so. Courts have ruled that patients must have a valid approval at the time of their arrest, though this can have been oral.

WHAT ABOUT OUT-OF-STATERS? 
Prop. 215 arguably applies to anyone with a recommendation from a California physician, regardless of whether they’re a resident, although this has never been tested in court. However, most California physicians and dispensaries refuse to serve out-of-staters. Some other states, such as Arizona, recognize out-of-state patients. Oregon allows out-of-state patients provided they have an Oregon physician’s recommendation. Read more about other states' laws.

WHAT ABOUT MINORS? 
Patients under 18 should have parental consent.

CAN I GROW OR USE MEDICAL MARIJUANA WITH CHILDREN IN THE HOUSE?
There is nothing in state law against this. However it's advised to keep your medical marijuana away from children. Make sure that you don't leave edibles around where kids can get them, and keep gardens away from where they play.

In rare cases Child Protective Services has become involved, mostly in cases with large plant numbers, evidence of sales, neglect, or messy divorce proceedings. In such cases, CPS tends not to be understanding about medical marijuana and can always allege child endangerment.

CAN I OWN OR BUY A GUN WITH A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD?
The federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms sent warning letters to gun dealers in 2011 warning them they could not sell to known medical marijuana users. When buying a gun, you may be asked whether you are a user of illegal drugs and/or medical marijuana.

Answering yes makes you ineligible to purchase; falsely answering no is in principle punishable as perjury. This should not affect current gun owners. Although California law does not prohibit medical marijuana users from having guns, using a gun in connection with an offense such as cultivation or possession for sale can result in additional criminal charges. Users are advised to keep their guns in a location that is separate from their marijuana.

HOW CAN I GET LEGAL HELP?
Contact a CalNORML Legal Committee Attorney.

Also see our FAQ.

Text of Prop. 215Compassionate Use Act of 1996

Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5

  Sec. (1) a-b The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows: 

      (A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where the medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. 

     (B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction. 

      (C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.


      (2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes. 

      (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any rights or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes. 

      (d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to the patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. 

      (e) For the purposes of this section, "primary caregiver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this act who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person. 

      Sec. 2. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

There has been a lot of speculation, questioning, and just plain paranoia regarding the relationship between the 1996 Proposition 215 voter initiative, the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), and this new voter initiative on the November 2016 ballot. Prop.64 will, however, have no impact on patient rights under Prop.215 while it will grant new protections to medical cannabis users who find themselves in family or juvenile court.

To analyze how these two Propositions will interact, assuming Prop.64 passes, one must first understand the actual scope of Prop.215. Many people confuse the parameters of the CUA with those of the SB420 Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA). The CUA is fairly basic and easy to read, as compared to many other laws, including the 62-page Prop.64.

Proposition 215 added §11362.5 to the Health & Safety Code and is printed below in its entirety:

Health & Safety Code §11362.5

(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

(b) (1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:

(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.

(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.

(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.

(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.

(e) For the purposes of this section, “primary caregiver” means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.

(Added November 5, 1996, by initiative Proposition 215, Sec. 1.)

The CUA/Prop.215 protects three groups of people: physicians, patients and caregivers.

Physicians cannot be punished for recommend or approving the medical use of cannabis to patients.

Caregivers and patients are specifically exempted from two Health & Safety Code Sections, §11357, which covers possession, and §11358, which covers cultivation and processing. In addition, courts have found that the CUA infers a limited defense to §11360, (transportation and distribution) in that a patient or caregiver may transport an amount reasonably related to the patient’s current medical needs.

Those are the only protections afforded by Prop. 215. The CUA does not allow for collectives, co-operatives, sales or commercial cultivation. All of those activities are governed by SB420, the MMPA, and will soon be governed by MCRSA, the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, once it is fully implemented (anticipated by January, 2018), which requires state and local licenses for all state collectives.

Essentially, the CUA allows a patients and their primary caregiver to possess, cultivate and transport an amount that is reasonably related to the patient’s current medical need.

With this understanding, we now look at the areas where Prop. 64 might potentially impact on the provisions of Prop. 215.

1. Would Prop.64 change the requirements to qualify as a patient?
2. Would Prop.64 change the exemptions to the Health & Safety Code afforded by the CUA?
3. Would Prop.64 change the rules regarding the amounts of cannabis a patient could lawfully possess, cultivate and/or transport?

Considerations such as the cost of medical cannabis and accessibility are under the purview of MMPA and MCRSA, and are not legally the province of the CUA. So, let’s look at the potential impact of Prop.64 on these three areas of concern.

1. Would Prop.64 change the requirements to qualify as a patient?

Under the CUA, a person qualifies as a patient authorized to use medical cannabis by obtaining a recommendation or approval from a licensed physician. Prop.64 doesn’t change this. Some critics of Prop.64 argue that it requires a patient to obtain their recommendation only from their primary care physician. In Section 5, entitled Use of Marijuana for Medical Purposes, Prop.64 states,

§11362.712 (a) Commencing on January 1, 2018, a qualified patient must possess a physician’s recommendation that complies with Article 25 (commencing with Section 2525) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code. Failure to comply with this requirement shall not, however, affect any of the protections provided to patients or their primary caregivers by Section 11362.5 [the CUA/215], AND

(b) A county health department or the county’s designee shall develop protocols to ensure that, commencing upon January 1, 2018, all identification cards issued pursuant to Section 11362.71 are supported by a physician’s recommendation that complies with Article 25 (commencing with Section 2525) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of the Business and Profession Code.”

I know what you’re thinking — “legalese gobbledygook.” But what does this mean to 215 patients in the real world? The section of the Business & Professions Code to which Prop.64 refers is already on the books. This section of the Code provides that doctors cannot get kickbacks from MCRSA licensed dispensaries if the physician has an ownership interest in the MCRSA dispensary. It does nothing to change already existing law. Next, Prop.64 authorizes the state Medical Board to consult with the California Marijuana Research Program to develop medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of medical cannabis.

It further provides that a physician recommending the use of medical cannabis must be the patient’s “attending physician”. For purposes of this section, “Attending physician means an individual who possesses a license in good standing to practice medicine or osteopathy issued by the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California and who has taken responsibility for an aspect of the medical care, treatment, diagnosis, counseling, or referral of a patient and who has conducted a medical examination of that patient before recording in the patient’s medical record the physician’s assessment of whether the patient has a serious medical condition and whether the medical use of marijuana is appropriate.”

In the next section, The B&P Code provides that a physician cannot be employed by a dispensary. The last part of this Code section puts certain restrictions on the manner in which a physician can advertise medical cannabis recommendation services.

While this section of the B&P Code may have a negative impact on medical cannabis recommendation mills from the physician’s standpoint, it does not impede on the basic CUA rights outlined above. One must also remember, these restrictions on physicians are already the law in California. Prop.64 does nothing to change this. In fact, as quoted above, Prop.64 specifically states that, even if a physician is not compliant, “Failure [by the physician] to comply with the requirement shall not, however, affect any of the protections provided to patients or their primary caregivers by Section 11362.5.”

So Prop.64 does not change the requirements to qualify as a lawful patient under the Prop.215.

2. Would Prop.64 change the exemptions to the Health & Safety Code afforded by the CUA?

As noted above, the CUA/Prop.215 affords patients exemptions from three statutes found in the Health & Safety Code, §11357 (possession); §11358 (cultivation and processing); and, by inference, transportation under §11360. Nothing in Prop.64 removes or impacts in any manner upon these exemptions. Patients may still possess, cultivate, and transport an amount reasonably related to their current medical need. Of note, though is that Prop.64 amends these three Health & Safety Code sections to significantly reduce the penalties for violation of these sections.

Under §11357, possession of less than an ounce is legalized, while possession of over an ounce remains unchanged as a misdemeanor with a maximum six month sentence. Violations of §11358 and §11360 are reduced from felonies to misdemeanors for the first two convictions.

However, since Prop.64 has no affect on the exemptions provided to patients under the CUA, patients enjoy the same protections as they have always had under the CUA. Prop.64 does not expose patients or caregivers to any additional threats from these sections of the Health & Safety Code.

3. Would Prop.64 change the rules regarding the amounts of cannabis a patient could lawfully possess, cultivate, and/or transport?

In Section 4, Personal Use, Prop.64 adds §11362.1 to make it legal for adults 21 years of age and older to possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, or give away without any compensation whatsoever, not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana not in the form of concentrated cannabis and to grow up to six plants and possess the entire harvest produced by those plants. Several opponents of Prop.64 argue that this restricts 215 patients to six plants. Such an argument, however, is not supported by the language of Prop.64 which also adds §11362.45 to the Health & Safety Code. This new section provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“Nothing in section 11362.1 shall be construed or interpreted to amend, repeal, affect, restrict or preempt: (i) Laws pertaining to the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.”

Thus, the six plant limit on nonmedical cannabis cultivation would not apply to patients. Patients would be subject to the same restrictions they are currently, that is a patient may cultivate, possess, and/or transports an amount reasonably related to current medical need. Nothing in AUMA/Prop.64 changes this legal standard.

What does Prop.64 say about patients and medical cannabis?

Prop.64 includes Section 5, Use of Marijuana for Medical Purposes, which adds five new statutes to the Health & Safety Code.

The first of these new sections pertaining to medical cannabis is §11362.712, the section regarding physicians that is discussed above.

Next, Prop.64 adds §11362.713. This section provides for privacy rights of patients, insuring that any patient information from the voluntary Identification Card Program established by MMPA, is officially deemed “medical information” within the meaning of California’s “Confidentiality of Medical Information Act,” similar to the federal HIPPA.

Prop.64 then amends §11362.755 of the MMPA, which establishes the voluntary state identification card. It limits the fee a county can charge to $100. It further establishes a complete waiver of the fee for indigent patients.

In the next section, §11362.84, AUMA/Prop.64 imbues patients with a new protection, providing that: “The status and conduct of a qualified patient who acts in accordance with the Compassionate Use Act shall not, by itself, be used to restrict or abridge custodial or parental rights to minor children in any action or proceeding under the jurisdiction of family or juvenile court.”

Lastly, in §11362.85, AUMA/Prop.64 provides that if the federal government reclassifies or declassifies cannabis, the Legislature may similarly reclassify or declassify cannabis to conform with federal law.

In summary, Prop.64 will have no impact on patient rights under Prop.215 but it will grant new protections to medical cannabis users who find themselves in family or juvenile court.

MARIJUANA LAWS

Hundreds of medical cannabis Collectives, Dispensaries, Co-ops, and Delivery services are currently operating in California. Although many are operating in legal accordance with state and local law, the sale of medical cannabis remains strictly illegal under federal law, and the D.E.A. has conducted scores of raids against medical cannabis businesses in the last 15 years.

On Aug. 25, 2005 the California Attorney General’s office issued new guidelines for medical marijuana enforcement explaining its interpretation of SB 420 and Proposition 215. Although not strictly binding as law, they provide a good indication of how the AG wants to proceed with state enforcement.

“COLLECTIVES MUST SERVE ONLY VERIFIED LEGAL PATIENTS, AND DISTRIBUTE ONLY TO THEIR OWN MEMBERS”.

Beyond this, the guidelines specify that collectives should use only marijuana legally grown or obtained by their own members, with no purchases from outside their membership. This requirement is questionable, since there is nothing in state or federal law banning the purchase of marijuana, medical or otherwise, from any source (the law bans possession, not purchase, and possession is protected under Prop. 215). However, this problem can be avoided by including all growers and suppliers as members.

The guidelines also state that dispensaries should document their activities, and specifically “track and record” the source of their marijuana. This too is outside the requirements of Prop 215 and SB 420. While good record-keeping is always advisable as a business practice, keeping records on growers and vendors poses obvious problems given the threat of federal prosecution. Until federal law is reformed to protect medical marijuana suppliers, collectives need to be careful to not incriminate themselves or members of the collective. Just one of the many issues Start Your Collective, Inc will handle for you.

California state law explicitly allows distribution of medical marijuana through non-profit “collectives” or “cooperatives.” This is the way storefront dispensaries should be organized. While some dispensaries are currently organized otherwise, as sole proprietorships, partnerships, or for-profit businesses, such arrangements are not advisable, since they are not permitted under SB 420 or the Attorney General’s guidelines.

“Cooperatives” are explicitly defined in California law. Cooperatives must file articles of incorporation with the state and be organized in accordance with provisions spelled out in the state Corporations or Food and Agriculture code.

“COLLECTIVES” ARE VAGUELY DEFINED IN STATUTORY LAW.

According to the Attorney General’s guidelines:

“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.”

One might infer that “collective” refers to any organization of multiple patients. Unfortunately, the guidelines provide no explanation as to how these should operate. Presumably, the basic model is a group of patients and caregivers who plant a garden together and share the crop among themselves. The cultivation collective model does not necessarily envision walk-in clients, nor retail sales of medicine to members. Collectives may be supported by participation in work, donations or membership fees. Under one model, patients pay a set gardening fee for a certain part of the crop, and receive the harvest at no further charge.  Similar to a golf membership.

Although state law has no explicit provision for delivery services, they can be justified on the grounds that many patients lack transportation and cannot grow for themselves.

Prop 215 allows individual patients and their caregivers to possess & cultivate as much as required for the patient’s own medical use. Because this criteria is vague and open to differing interpretations, it is difficult for patients and police to judge beforehand whether a particular garden is legal. All too frequently, police take a stingy interpretation of the law and bust patients or caregivers for gardens they deem excessive, thus leaving the matter to be settled in court at the defendant’s expense.

The question remains as to how much medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives are allowed to grow or possess. Due to a recently appealed limitation on amounts of patient medication, currently there are no set patient limits. Rather showing a consistent relationship with the patient will allow higher amounts per caregiver. However, some counties and cities have established a maximum cap on the size of collective gardens: for example, San Francisco does not allow more than 99 plants in any case.  Federal mandatory minimums begin at 100 plants or more.

New federal recommendations have been released as of October 19, 2009. The Obama Administration has not authorized the medical use of Marijuana, but is merely tolerating it, not legalizing it’s use. It simply states that IF patients and their caregivers abide by all state laws that they should not be targets for investigation or prosecution.

The Memorandum states in part as follows:

“No State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.”

The guidelines note that storefront “dispensaries” are not explicitly recognized in state law, but that a “properly organized collective or cooperative” may legally dispense medical marijuana through a storefront provided it complies with certain conditions. The guidelines do not envision dispensaries operating as patient “caregivers,” nor as for-profit businesses.

CALIFORNIA CANNABIS REGULATIONS

AB266– Part 1 or MCRSA-Bulk of legislation
AB243– Part 2 of MCRSA-
SB643– Part 3 of MCRSA-
AB2679– Allows volatile extraction with city/county permit
AB 2516 – Added type 1C cultivation license. ‘Specialty Cottage” cultivation license- 2500 sqft outdoor or 500 sqft indoor.