User Profile
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.
Did you find this post helpful?
|

User Profile
replied June 23rd, 2007
Active User, very eHealthy
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!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied June 23rd, 2007
Extremely eHealthy
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.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied September 26th, 2008
Community Volunteer
Amen to that!!! I don't know how I missed this before today but I am glad they got off..people are such...I don't know.they should mind there own beezz wax!!! Busy bodies and people who have axes to grind really get my goat!
|
Did you find this post helpful?