Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-05-2014, 9:41 AM
lifeofduty lifeofduty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 160
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default DELETED

DELETED

Last edited by lifeofduty; 09-02-2014 at 2:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-05-2014, 11:20 AM
Socaliente's Avatar
Socaliente Socaliente is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Jacinto, SoCal
Posts: 188
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Its still a illegal to transport pot in a vehicle. Card or not. But its generally not known/enforced due to pot without a card only being an infraction. More than an ounce in a car is a felony. As far as driving under the influence, there are ways to tell that will not be mentioned on here.

Regarding his work, I'm sure he can do whatever he wants, but dont be surprised if he is fired on the spot regardless if he has a card or not. Idiots in Colorado are finding out they are not exempt to drug testing just because they can smoke recreationally. If hes high at work and not able to care for himself he can be hit with public intox
__________________
"I swear I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

US Army Combat Engineer 03'-08' 1st Cav
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-05-2014, 12:22 PM
NuGunner NuGunner is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SGV/LA
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Recommendations are not get out jail free cards. The person can only use/smoke when they need to medicate (People vs Trippett (1997)), they cant just use whenever the hell they want. He can also still get a DUI for being under the influence of marijuana.

Use this example. If on a bottle of hydrocodone (aka vicodin) it says do not operate heavy machinery (and you can get a DUI for this as well) what makes him think marijuana is any different. Impaired driving is impaired driving.

Also if he really wants to medicate, tell him about the Rx Marinol. Does the same thing marijuana does, EXCEPT get you high.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-05-2014, 12:34 PM
Socaliente's Avatar
Socaliente Socaliente is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Jacinto, SoCal
Posts: 188
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NuGunner View Post

Also if he really wants to medicate, tell him about the Rx Marinol. Does the same thing marijuana does, EXCEPT get you high.

But then he wouldnt be "Cool" and part of the revolt against oppression. Its amazing how many 18 year old's have back pain now a days.
__________________
"I swear I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

US Army Combat Engineer 03'-08' 1st Cav
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-05-2014, 12:44 PM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,471
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There are a whole host of penal codes that having a 215 reccomendation does not exempt you from. Just giving someone else marijuana can get you cited or arrested for furnishing. In addition, you can still be cited for simple possession if you are carrying more than the amount of marijuana listed on your reccomendation.

Cultivating without a reccomendation that specifically allows you to grow or possess plants is still a felony as well. (11358 H&S)

Something we are seeing a lot in my jurisdiction is 215 card holders making concentrated cannabis, namely honey oil, under the assumption that it is protected under their reccomendation, which it is not. Possession of concentrated cannabis, 11357(a) H&S is a felony. Being in possion of the materials to make honey oil is a violation of 11379.6 H&S, also a felony. It's also the same code for operating a meth lab.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-05-2014, 12:51 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,870
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

If you read the law closely, marijuana remains illegal both federally, and in the state.

California's medical marijuana statute was very carefully written to avoid unnecessary conflict with federal law. While marijuana remains illegal under state law, Health and Safety Code section 11362.765 provides that there is no state law criminal liability, for specified sections of law (primarily dealing with simple possession) for users who possess a medical recommendation. Please note the "weasel wording" in the law. It doesn't make medical marijuana legal, it only removes the sanction. That's the strategy to avoid a conflict with federal law.

As a practical matter, if the amount of marijuana is for personal use and the subject has the card, I'm going to wish them a nice day and send them, and their marijuana, on their way. The voters of the state have made their desires on the issue known, and I have a duty to carry out the spirit of the law.

Driving under the influence is a separate crime, not affected by the medical marijuana statute. A driver under the influence of marijuana is arrestable. There is a chemical test for THC, but California does not have a presumptive level like we do for alcohol. What that means is that we have to prove impairment at trial. When we arrest for driving with a BAC above .08, we don't have to prove impairment.

An employer has the right to fire a worker for using medical marijuana. The question was tested before the California State Supreme Court in Ross v Ragingwire Communications.

Last edited by RickD427; 02-05-2014 at 1:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-05-2014, 3:00 PM
corrections corrections is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq View Post
Possession of concentrated cannabis, 11357(a) H&S is a felony.
Hi omgwtfbbq,

You are correct that possession of concentrated cannabis without a recommendation is indeed illegal, but you're wrong about it being exempt from the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The California DOJ has issued statements to that effect, specifically stating that concentrated cannabis is considered cannabis and accordingly that it is legal for individuals with a valid recommendation to possess:

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/03-411.pdf

This has been borne out over the past decade in at least hundreds of cases despite many in the law enforcement community being unaware of it; although many officers still believe concentrated cannabis is not covered under the Compassionate Use Act, the cases they generate under this misconception do not make it to prosecution due to the DOJ's position.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-05-2014, 3:11 PM
CHIEFone's Avatar
CHIEFone CHIEFone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 938
iTrader: 5 / 78%
Default

concentrated cannabis in CA is a felony wobbler depending on how much you are caught with in your possession. if caught with this you have two options, DEJ (deferred entry of judgement) http://www.shouselaw.com/drug-diversion.html

or prop 36 http://www.shouselaw.com/proposition-36.html

not sure how this applies with a card or not. most cops would prolly haul you in and let the court and your attorney figure it out.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-05-2014, 3:21 PM
NuGunner NuGunner is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SGV/LA
Posts: 1,005
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socaliente View Post
But then he wouldnt be "Cool" and part of the revolt against oppression. Its amazing how many 18 year old's have back pain now a days.
Haha seriously. My favorite ones are the people that suffer from "insomnia."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-05-2014, 3:49 PM
lifeofduty lifeofduty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 160
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

///

Last edited by lifeofduty; 09-02-2014 at 1:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-06-2014, 2:37 PM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 2,471
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrections View Post
Hi omgwtfbbq,

You are correct that possession of concentrated cannabis without a recommendation is indeed illegal, but you're wrong about it being exempt from the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The California DOJ has issued statements to that effect, specifically stating that concentrated cannabis is considered cannabis and accordingly that it is legal for individuals with a valid recommendation to possess:

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/03-411.pdf

This has been borne out over the past decade in at least hundreds of cases despite many in the law enforcement community being unaware of it; although many officers still believe concentrated cannabis is not covered under the Compassionate Use Act, the cases they generate under this misconception do not make it to prosecution due to the DOJ's position.

I will admit to being unaware of this AG opinioin. However an AG opinion doesn't necessarily mean a person can't be convicted for possessing concentrated cannabis while having a 215 card. It would certainly be something that the defense would use though.

That being said, I have first hand knowledge of people who have been convicted in my jurisdiction for possessing honey oil with a reccomendation that did not explicitedly allow its use.

Last edited by omgwtfbbq; 02-06-2014 at 2:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-06-2014, 2:45 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,870
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq View Post
I will admit to being unaware of this AG opinioin. However an AG opinion doesn't necessarily mean a personal can't be convicted for possessing concentrated cannabis while having a 215 card. It would certainly be something that the defense would use though.

That being said, I have first hand knowledge of people who have been convicted in my jurisdiction for possessing honey oil with a reccomendation that did not explicitedly allow its use.
You're correct, an AG Opinion does not state the law. It only communicates the AG's opinion as to what the law is (that's why they call it an opinion). Courts are free to rule contrary to an AG opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-06-2014, 8:38 PM
tyrist tyrist is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,551
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The recommendation is only an affirmative defense in court. You can still be cited and arrested in the field.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-12-2014, 7:21 PM
AR15Man AR15Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 116
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Patients forget that, at the time of issuance of their medical marijuana card, they automatically become a "Prohibited Possessor," and can no longer legally buy, possess or own a firearm under federal law.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-14-2014, 10:03 PM
lifeofduty lifeofduty is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 160
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

---

Last edited by lifeofduty; 09-02-2014 at 2:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-15-2014, 3:52 PM
autox42's Avatar
autox42 autox42 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 122
iTrader: 6 / 88%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeofduty View Post
Is that true? I've never heard of this, as I had thought that people with cards didn't get any of their info given to the government. Hence Hipaa and information privacy act or something along those lines
U are correct No info gets saved in any database unless you apply for a county card if u don't the only ones who have the info is u and ur prescribing doctor


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-15-2014, 6:02 PM
RickD427's Avatar
RickD427 RickD427 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: King County
Posts: 3,870
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeofduty View Post
Is that true? I've never heard of this, as I had thought that people with cards didn't get any of their info given to the government. Hence Hipaa and information privacy act or something along those lines
It is quite true that a user of marijuana (and I would have to think that possession of a card would establish a person as a user) is a prohibited person under federal law (refer to 18 USC 922). There are no provisions in federal law recognizing "medical" marijuana (excepting a previous test program that only had around thirty folks involved, and only four remaining as of 2012). Possession of a firearm by such a person is a felony.

There is no central database of persons who possess marijuana "recommendations" from their physicians. Please note that California law refers to "recommendations" rather than "prescriptions" because the net effect of many laws is that physicians are precluded from "prescribing" an illegal substance for their patients (remember that marijuana remains illegal, all that California did was to remove the sanctions for medical users). For a federal prosecution to proceed, the government would have to prove the element of being a user.

California law does provide a mechanism for counties to issue cards identifying persons as medical users. That information may be centralized and made available to law enforcement without regard to HIPAA. HIPAA imposes privacy requirements on medical service providers. It doesn't impose restrictions on data possessed by non-service providers like the county. Additionally, HIPAA contains numerous exceptions to its confidentiality provisions to permit medical service providers to communicate appropriate medical information to the government (like 5150 commitments).

Last edited by RickD427; 02-15-2014 at 6:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-19-2014, 1:10 PM
SNCaliber's Avatar
SNCaliber SNCaliber is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 3,257
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Default

driving high regardless is still a DUI
__________________
-Sang

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-25-2014, 6:52 AM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Live in AZ, 2nd Home in So. CA
Posts: 7,760
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeofduty View Post
Is that true? I've never heard of this, as I had thought that people with cards didn't get any of their info given to the government. Hence Hipaa and information privacy act or something along those lines
And that's the problem with not transmitting data to the government. Those entities are not covered by HIPPA.

But even if they were, it doesn't matter, HIPPA provides for release of the info without the patients consent for law enforcement purposes.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa...ary/index.html

Quote:
(5) Public Interest and Benefit Activities. The Privacy Rule permits use and disclosure of protected health information, without an individual’s authorization or permission, for 12 national priority purposes.28 These disclosures are permitted, although not required, by the Rule in recognition of the important uses made of health information outside of the health care context. Specific conditions or limitations apply to each public interest purpose, striking the balance between the individual privacy interest and the public interest need for this information.
Quote:
Law Enforcement Purposes. Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.34
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-26-2014, 2:26 AM
kermit315's Avatar
kermit315 kermit315 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Where the truth is valued
Posts: 5,922
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

And..........here we go.

First, as noted, the OP was asking about legality vice morality. If you want to talk about morality, start a thread (not in the LE forum) that can join the hundreds of other threads already here on the subject. The LE members here do not come into this forum so we can continue to see typical OT posts, we come in here to answer legitimate questions as well as chat amongst ourselves without all the bashing that usually happens in OT.

Second, while it is nice you can read your posts, they are a headache to follow for anybody that has taken a typing class. The space bar is your friend.

Third, if you are CA_Patriot, I hope Kes bans you again soon....your posting style doesn't fit exactly, but the high points are there.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leok20 View Post
To me Law Enforcement are guilty until proven innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barrage View Post
Over reaction to non-crimes by State loyalists. If they keep up their heavy handed crap, soon it'll be a better gamble to shoot at cops before they even start bothering you considering the amount of time they're willing to put you in prison for if you cooperate.

Seems like that pendulum is about to shift.
Is this your Calguns?

Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-02-2014, 10:59 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 9,156
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeofduty View Post
Is that true? I've never heard of this, as I had thought that people with cards didn't get any of their info given to the government. Hence Hipaa and information privacy act or something along those lines


When you fill out the 4473 in the gun store, you certify (under penalty of perjury) that you're not a user of marijuana. The issue is breaking federal law.

-hanko
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

I never once felt out of place or that people were intolerant...but then again, I didn't ask any dumbass questions ...saxman

“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:15 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.