Here's a link to new guidelines for dispensaries. Just curious what People think. Im particularly interested in what Califonria vendors think about the new requirements by thier local co-op's. Obviously im all for whats best for the casue, but im worried that people who grow will now have information recorded maticulously and the feds could, and will get thier hands on a lot of that information. This could mean bad news for vendors if your paranoid about that government. Is this the start of raids on individuals, or is it a step towards legalization?

New AG Guidlines Don't Substantially Conflict With Previous Guidelines | California NORML

Im particularly talking about this guidline:
(2) Recordkeeping - The guidelines say coops and collectives should document their activities and specifically, "track and record the source of their marijuana." Again, this is not required in Prop 215 or SB 420. While providers are strongly advised to keep good business records for tax purposes and to document the legitimacy of their activities, the recording of vendors poses obvious problems, due to the threat of the seizure of records by DEA and other police. Until the threat of federal prosecution of growers is eliminated, providers are obliged to take steps to safeguard the privacy of suppliers.

no California med growers?

I'm not a cali grower but I'm glad they don't do this in washington. Medical info should be kept secret and the more paperwork you have the better paper trail the feds will have.

Look, this isn't all that bad and hard to accomplish. We want legitimacy and the eventual legalization, right? Too many people that have been opening dispensaries are running them in a manner that Brown is talking about, let's be real, I don't believe it is as rampant as he states but it is obvious in the majority of 'clubs' I have been to. I am not going to say I have a problem with 'for profit' distribution, in truth just the opposite, just look at big pharma, like they are about the patients welfare over profits... LOL

But, if this is how it has to be to be legal, then by all means let's get legal. Then use the excess funds from the non-profit to support a PAC that forces the issue in the political circles that CAN change policy in favorable terms for all cannabis users. This would be VERY much within the guidelines.


Oh and privacy for growers? Not that hard to do and you could probably do a better job of it than the HI state agency that released all the HI med patients info to a reporter for a local newspaper! Also, there are income limits that do not require 1099 issuance so as long as you stay under those, it might not be all that hard to do with a tag ID system or other system that even the government uses for similar things. With some thought and sound judgement these kind of things can be workable.

I agree, but its scary nonetheless. Until the feds say they will stop raiding, Cali medical grows, then why turn names over to them. And ya, will people have to pay tax's, i bet a lot of poeple won't because of the federal law, so then they will get these people on tax evasion instead of growing if they want to. Maybe i just don't quite understand the impact of the new terms.

After reading them further and discussing them with others, it seems to me that all the AG did was finally comply with sb420 (even though this bill is being challenged) and in doing so just issued his opinion on the bill as THE state attorney. His opinion just reiterated what sb420 set out for general guidelines and said most walk-in locations are NOT following the spirit or letter of the law because they are operating a for profit business and not keeping proper records. No matter what the price is, you just can't have the dispensary making a profit, these profits or overages in budgets must be either reinvested back into the non-profit as reserves or similar or must be used to reduce the cost of the meds or benefiting the membership. He is also pretty much saying if you comply and act like a real non-profit business and you stay off the radar, then you are the Feds business not the states.

This doesn't mean every county or city has to follow his opinion but if they don't he can initiate a suit on behalf of the residents to force it. Also the cities/counties can zone these any way they want including bans, just like cities in the south have no alcohol sales in the city limits, you can posses and consume just can't find a store to sell it to you.




PS. The other thing is, the way this is set up it kinda tries to take the profits away from the dispensaries (or is supposed to) but it didn't do anything about what the growers charge. So from your stand point as a grower, you now have to belong to the collectives you sell to and you may be documented more than you like. You also have to agree to only sell to those collectives or you grow for and/or just for personal use that's it.