Well there is that xcop in LA :0
Not a bad idea. Get your doctors recommendation to protect yourself in court, but fuck the renewal process with the state.
The manager/owner can only have up to 5 patients.This doesn't mean no more dispensarys this just means no more multiple memberships to dispensarys all the manger or owner would have to do is become your caregiver (still a bunch of bullshit). dont know about you but i dont smoke in public anyway i can go back underground my grow would have to go away tho...
Exactly brother! This decision by the Supreme Court will clearly force dispensary (and alike) patients to seek medication underground and without a doubt benefit the black market and the criminal world running it.
That's my thinking, I will use their form to have my doctor sign and say I would benifit from it's use and keep it tucked away. Should I get arrested for possession or growing I believe I can still constitute a medical defense as long as the doctor has OK'd my use prior to arrest. This could cost me more in the long run as without a card I have to go to court but if the justices will be so brazen as to re-write law from the bench I feel it's my duty to be just as brazen and take my chances. I'm only 100$ but 100 of us is 10K and 1000....you get the point. I may also send out letters stating my intent to do so to my reps and the LARA. contemplating if that would be worth it or not-risk vs reward is tough to gauge on that one.
Time to vote out Justices Young, Kelly, Markman, and Zahra
Justice CAVANAGH, dissenting, disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the MMMA and would have held that when a qualified patient transfers marijuana to another qualified patient, both individuals have the right to assert immunity under § 4 of the act. The presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marijuana may be rebutted with evidence that the conduct related to marijuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s medical condition. The majority reasoned that the reference to “the” qualified patient requires the conclusion that only the recipient of marijuana is entitled to § 4 immunity for a patient-to-patient transfer of marijuana. The majority’s interpretation was inconsistent with the rules of statutory interpretation and with the purpose of the MMMA. The reference in § 4(d)(2) of the act to “the” qualifying patient simply requires that one of the two qualified patients involved in the transfer of marijuana have a debilitating medical condition that the transfer of marijuana is intended to alleviate. The majority’s erroneous interpretation of § 4(d) further led it to an incorrect conclusion that any facilitation of a patientto-patient transfer of marijuana was enjoinable as a public nuisance.
So we got one literate justice, a no-show and a 4 clowns who do what they want and write law from the bench? GREAT!