Recently a couple in colorado were
arrested for growing and distribution of
mj. ( I posted a synapsis from
"reasonable colorado.org below)They claim
that it was for medical use and that they
were caregivers for several patients.
However, they violated almost every one of
the statutes set forth for the medical use
of mj. By colorado law, caregivers can be
designated to grow for patients, but there
is a limit to the number of plants and
mature mj they can have on hand for their
patients. Furthermore, "patients" must be
registered with the colorado medical mj
registry, and a good portion of the
couple's clients were inded not
registered. I submit that this "test
case" is invalid and should not constitute
a statute by which future charges are
compared. I think a "test case" shold be
one in which all parties were subscribing
to the guidelines set forth by the
colorado medical mj registry. I think
this case makes the case for medical mj
use look bad. What do you think?
A Fort Collins couple will be the first in
Colorado to seek to use the state's
medical marijuana law as a defense to
marijuana cultivation and distribution
charges. James and Lisa Masters pleaded
not guilty to the charges last Friday and
face a March trial.
The couple was arrested last August when
police arrived at their home to check on
the welfare of their two children, girls
aged four and six. According to a police
affidavit, a police officer smelled
marijuana in the house, and the couple
told officers they had doctors'
recommendations to use marijuana, which
they were growing for that purpose.
The Masters and their attorneys filed a
motion last fall to have the charges
dismissed, arguing that they were
protected by the state's medical marijuana
law. The couple, both registered medical
marijuana patients, said they grew the pot
solely for themselves and other patients
on the state registry. But in October,
District Judge Jolene Blair rejected that
motion, saying the couple did not have
proper documentation showing they are
caregivers for registered patients.
According to the Colorado criminal code,
the state Department of Public Health and
Environment is charged with creating "a
confidential registry of patients," not
patients and caregivers. But the code also
charges the department with creating an
application form for would-be patients,
and on that form, patients are required to
fill in information about caregivers.
Last fall, when the Masters were first
arraigned, their attorney, Rob Corry,
argued they were within the bounds of the
state medical marijuana law. While there
is no state registry card for caregivers,
he said, the Masters were designated as
such by properly registered patients. "The
majority of voters in this state said
medical marijuana should be available. My
hope here is the jury will follow the law
and show some compassion for patients who
need help," Corry said.
But at least one Colorado official argued
that in order for someone to have
protection as a caregiver, patients must
list that person on their applications. It
appears that the Masters case will resolve
that apparent ambiguity in the law. If the
Masters lose, they face up to six years in
state prison and the loss of their
children, whom police seized after their
arrest despite the lack of any evidence of
abuse or neglect. It took the couple eight
weeks to win the return of their
children.
"The Masters are being targeted for
helping sick people. This test case has
the potential to increase vital access to
medical marijuana by expanding the legal
definition of 'caregiver' to allow those
with significant responsibility for the
care of seriously-ill individuals to
cultivate and provide them with medical
marijuana," said co-counsel Brian Vicente.
|
yogahoneybunny
Supporter
Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 880 Location: Strumica, Macedonia
Thanks: 4
Thanked:0
Posted: 06-23-07 11:21am
I agree with your submission. Of
course...this is such a loaded example
that it doesn't even give the statute a
chance to work correctly...as if everyone
would go so much overboard.
Baloney!
|
sillyakchick
Supporter
Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 2688
Thanks: 5
Thanked:0
Posted: 06-23-07 21:27pm
They actually got let off based on the
faulty warrant issue. Next time I hope
they use a case where people are actually
doing what they are supposed to be doing.