Special exemption certificates that allow a patient to continue to cultivate.
Cost and distance make the 25 mile radius an undo burden on the poor, disabled and elderly. Special exemptions from the rule that would allow a patient to continue to cultivate regardless of a dispensary with-in 25 miles based on need due to low-income or high medical bills would allivate the problems placed on many of them and not conflict with the present program.
The 25-mile radius applies to dispensaries. At this time, there are no licensed dispensaries in the state – so anyone who asks to cultivate is allowed. A change in the law would either require another voter initiative or action by the legislature.
This is a huge copout. So if your growing and they do open then what do we do with all of our stock while trying to get an amendment?
@bonsai.. I didn't assume you were gulity. I said people would PROBABLY be non complaint with the exemption. If you felt it was a personal attack, that says allot. Your privacy is your issue, but if an exemption is approved and has rules and regulations with it that state an inspection and oversight, then do not apply for the exemption. It's that simple. IMO, the people who are not willing to comply with the lwas are usually the ones who are breaking them.
You are entitled to your opinion. If we are trying to get exemptions approved, the rules and conditions have to apply to all who get the exemption, not just what you want and feel you are entitled to.
Currently,m everyone with a card has the right to grow 12 plants for personal use. If that right gets taken away when dispensaries open, you can plead the a court if you get caught that the laws should not apply to you. See what they say. I am pretty sure they will say " you are not A sovereign individual who is exercising his inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". you are breaking a law.
This is a discussion to get exemptions approved, not a debate on what you feel is right and wrong for what you want to do.
the 25 mile rule is no unconstitutional, can you site where it breaks the constitution? Also the 12 plant limit is the law, and is not unconstitutional.
This is what you agreed to when you applied for the card.
If you do not like you, you can turn your card in.
(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Allowable amount of marijuana"
(a) With respect to a qualifying patient, the "allowable amount of marijuana" means:
(i) Two-and-one-half ounces of usable marijuana; and
(ii) If the qualifying patient's registry identification card states that the qualifying patient is authorized to cultivate marijuana, twelve marijuana plants contained in an enclosed, locked facility except that the plants are not required to be in an enclosed, locked facility if the plants are being transported because the qualifying patient is moving.
(b) With respect to a designated caregiver, the "allowable amount of marijuana" for each patient assisted by the designated caregiver under this chapter means:
(i) Two-and-one-half ounces of usable marijuana; and
(ii) If the designated caregiver's registry identification card provides that the designated caregiver is authorized to cultivate marijuana, twelve marijuana plants contained in an enclosed, locked facility except that the plants are not required to be in an enclosed, locked facility if the plants are being transported because the designated caregiver is moving.
hhhmm lets see, yearly inspection, a one time lab report, I keep an inventory journal that they can look over and I( or I should say we) get a special exemption that allows me to continue to grow. That's a deal!!! How about it Dir Humble, can you agree to something along those lines???? I really believe that this is the way to go with it and stay legal, which is what I'm all about. STAYING LEGAL!! Can we get you(Dir. Humble) to look at this now and stop ignoring my suggestion?
your right bonsai, the fence height is above the allowable height by ordinances. And I agree about the way things should be. And I hope someday it gets taken off the sch 1 and we can all stop all of this sillyness. BUT right now, this is the way the law is, all we can do is accept it and move on. Who knows if a dispensary is ever even going to open, but I don't want to be hurting and vomiting again. So the best thing to do is work within the system. If it means I get an exemption, I'm willing to let someone look a little bit closer. But there is a limit there too, as there should be. It can't be something overly intrusive or cause extra undo burden.
Magic Melvin you have things a little mixed up. To be assumed guilty because you want your privacy respected is absurd.
Who is a patient grower? A sovereign individual who is exercising his inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Why do they need to be regulated? Why do they need to be inspected? Absurd suggestions. The 25 mile rule is unconstitutional and likewise unenforceable. The 12 plant max. is also unconstitutional and likewise unenforceable. This is a new science (thank you uncle sam for keeping it from us) and who is to say how much any individual patient may need for their own use. An individual is not a corporation. As a sovereign, as long as they are not depriving another individual of their rights, is free to exercise his rights without undue restrictions. Let the corporations (dispensaries) abide by the rules of 10 foot high stone fences and the like. BTW which municipality would allow a home owner to have a 10 foot high stone fence anyways?
@Travis.. the people who would not agree to an inspection or spot check or control regulations are probably the people who would not be compliant with the exemption. You are not growing "medicine" you are growing a controlled plant designated for medicinal use. You do not have a right to grow without designation on your card. * On a side note: do you really think there are not 100's if not more illegal underground growers now that are selling their stuff for high prices? *
If there is going to be exemptions for growers , there has to be controls with it. Controls such as secure site compliance check, # of plants check, and logs of crop/strain/harvest/ quantity.
IF and when dispensaries open up, and individual growers lose their rights due to the 25 mile part, you really think the growers are not going to go underground anyway?
@Travis, I agree it is silly that we need their permission, but if the dispensaries open up, I see this as being the only way of working with-in the law that was passed as prop 203. I don't think any of us really read it close enough or realized that we would be forced to use high dollar dispensaries, but it did and we are. I wouldn't mind a "check-in". I keep an inventory log to prove my numbers are always with-in legal limits. I wouldn't want them feeling like they needed a search warrant just to see and count my plants and verify a clean water source, as long as that's all they are doing. And I think that at least one test from a reputable lab, like Touchstones, would be good too. We need to be open minded and willing to work with them, if they show that they will be open minded and work with us.:)
Travis Jones commented
@Magic Melvin, your suggestion of examining grow spaces gives the government a pipeline to enter your home if you are growing for personal use. I will not be letting any Government officials in my home without a court ordered warrant. If these inspections were part of the deal it would just push people underground. It is silly that we need government permission to grow our own medication in the first place.
I agree. Patients should be aloowed to grow thier own " IF THEY FOLLOW THE RULES". We as patients should not be forced to buy from a dispensary just because of where we live. If we grow for personal use, and do it legally and responsibly ( here a create jobs plug) where state officials examine grow spaces to confirm they are operating legally. Let the patients grow, and have safeguards in place to eliminate/control abuse. Evena small "grow op" of patiends where 1 would grow and share the meds with others. NOT SELL, just cover the costs of growing. I think 2-3 bucks a gram is about right. not the 20-30 the dispensaries charge. It doesn't cost more to grow a high end plant than it does to grow a low end plant.
25 mile rule needs to be eliminated. It is unconstitutional to make a person buy something especially a medicine from one certain entity. It creates a monopoly and the prices will stay at black market price. Not compassionate for the needy and less fortunate.
Travis Jones commented
I am a disabled veteran living on a fixed income, I had to switch to cannabis because the painkillers that the government had prescribed me for years started to eat away my digestive track. Prop 215 basically creates a monopoly for the medical marijuana industry. This will allow these dispensaries to charge black market prices, and will force me to choose between spending a large portion of my income on medication or risking my life on the same pharmaceuticals that were killing me.
I'm not sure if I would ever grow marijuana, but I find it odd that if you live in a certain area, you have to pay OUTRAGEOUS amounts of $ for medicine, but if you live outside this area, you could grow a nice crop for 10%? 20% or so of the price you'd pay at a dispensary for the same quality. Dispensaries are fine for folks like me but taking away my ability to save untold amounts of money is bad policy! I'm retired, I vote! Thank you!
Dan Donavin commented
This suggestion makes good sense to me. It's very important that the cost of this medicine be as reasonable as possible as many patients are on a fixed income. An exemption as suggested would ensure that "all" patients are able to receive their medication without undue financial stress.