Articles Tagged: ca gov

Patient Rights vs. Affirmative Defense in California

January 26th, 2012 | By Pirate

What is the difference between patient’s rights and affirmative defense, and how has medical marijuana affected patients and cannabis consumers in California?

 

  • Under medical marijuana in California, there has been a 3 fold increase in arrests.
  • Under medical marijuana laws in California (Prop215) no one has more “rights” only an affirmative defense that usually gets thrown out by the judge.
  • Under medical marijuana laws in California, the Board of Equalization is clear that state law says marijuana IS taxable. All marijuana is taxable and that is at whatever the municipality requires as well as the state sales tax.
  • Under medical marijuana laws in California, no one is safer.
  • Under medical marijuana laws in California, hemp is still illegal.

Ref for the tax issue: http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf

Ref for how MMJ laws are NOT protecting anyone (except the monopolies)
http://xcannabis.com/2011/05/how-are-medical-laws-protecting-patients/

Reference to two initiatives that give patients RIGHTS (rather than an affirmative defense)

http://xcannabis.com/2011/07/regulate-cannabis-like-wine-2012-initiatives-to-legalize-cannabis-in-california/#ixzz1kVqttPEz

 

Sound familiar:

Alcohol was smuggled over the Canadian border and medicinal whiskey prescriptions (which were allowed for certain patients) increased 400%. The scarceness of alcoholic beverages led to a dramatic increase in price, for example, a beer typically cost about 80 cents – the equivalent of $8 in today’s money. “Near Beer” became popular because it was legal (under 0.5% alcohol) and could be easily spiked with spirits to create a full strength beer.
Reference:

http://www.beertutor.com/articles/prohibition.shtml


Medical alcohol, extremely high prices? Yah, that is prohibition for ya. It ain’t good for the sick and dieing either, even with a doctor’s recommend.

Video that compares medical whiskey vs. medical marijuana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbkQsC4Mk4

For most of the 1920s, a patient could get a prescription for one pint every 10 days about as easily as California patients can now get “recommendations” for medical marijuana. All it took to acquire a liquor prescription was cash — generally about $3, the equivalent of about $40 today — placed in the hand of an agreeable doctor. It cost $3 to $4 more to have it filled by the local pharmacist.

Then as now, the adaptability of the medical profession was impressive. In 1917, as the 18th Amendment establishing Prohibition was working its way through the ratification process, the American Medical Association ousted alcohol from its approved pharmacopoeia, adopting a unanimous resolution asserting that its “use in therapeutics … has no scientific value.”

But the Volstead Act, which spelled out the enforcement and regulation of Prohibition, nonetheless made an exception for medicinal use, and in 1922, just two years into the dry era, the AMA demonstrated how open minds can be changed — or, perhaps, how capitalism abhors a missed opportunity.

The results of a national survey of its members — a “Referendum on the Use of Alcohol in the Medical Profession” — revealed an extraordinary coincidence: The booming prescription trade had been accompanied by the dawning realization among America’s doctors that alcoholic beverages were in fact useful in treating 27 separate conditions, including diabetes, cancer, asthma, dyspepsia, snake bite, lactation problems and old age. In a word, the assertion that medicinal alcohol had “no scientific value,” from the AMA’s 1917 resolution, no longer had any scientific value.

Pharmacists who wanted a piece of this highly profitable new business devised practices appropriate to their clientele. Those with high-end customers, mindful of the power (and profit) in brand names, dispensed the prescribed “medicine” in the distillers’ own bottles, which looked exactly as they had before 1920 except for the addition of a sober qualifying phrase on their newly printed labels: A 100-proof pint of Old Grand-Dad, for instance, still announced that it was “Bottled in Bond,” but just beneath that familiar legend appeared the improbable phrase, “Unexcelled for Medicinal Purposes.”

http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/marijuana.htm

http://www.1920-30.com/prohibition/

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/medicinal-alcohol-made-mockery-of-pro…

http://www.beertutor.com/articles/prohibition.shtml

Taxing medicine is immoral.

November 4th, 2010 | By Pirate

This is a point that I hear from the opposing side of Prop19.


A no on 19er said this to me in a conversation about why he opposes Prop19 today.


“”Taxing medicine is immoral. Why are you trying to take the ‘medical’ out of ‘marijuana’? Why do you want to punish the sick and dying?”

There was a lot more to it, and I have a PDF of the whole conversation.  But that is a point not only voiced by him, but Dragonfly and others have voiced that opinion as well.



My response is:



But Prop19 wasn’t responsible for taxing marijuana. What I am saying is Prop 215 is not going to do th…ese to things for you EITHER:

1. Prop215 does not save you from capitalism, or large scale grow ops.

2. Prop215 does not exclude you from paying any taxes.

Everyone is complaining because Prop19 talked about taxes, and regulation.

Well millions and millions of dollars have been paid on marijuana in California. Thats a fact. And there are tax laws that do govern marijuana in California.   Check this:   http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/173.pdf
To this day there is not a single law that excludes marijuana from being taxed in California, with exception to the non-profit laws.
Prop 19 did not change the non-profit (501c) laws in any way shape for form.
So these non-profit collectives that have not been paying taxes on marijuana, that would continue to be the case. Non-profits would still maintain their rights as non-profits.

What I am saying is not that I want to cause ANY malice to patients.
What I am saying is that Prop 19 did not effect Prop215. And Prop19 gave rights, it did not take any away.

The hysteria that you are stirring up is what concerns me.

If you think Prop 215 alone is better than both Prop 215 + Prop 19.. Then I can not understand your point of view.
Its almost like the difference between freedom and fascism to me.

Why reduce rights instead of giving more rights to more people?

If Prop 19 would have passed, millions of marijuana consumers would have had rights to grow, possess, transport and sell marijuana.
Yes I know, it covers sales and leaves it up to the municipalities.

Hmm. Its ALREADY up to the municipalities. Oakland is proof of that.


And patients do not stop getting the right to be patients.  Its not like Prop19 passes and the government finally deems all of these people well and good.