Laserfiche WebLink
The CUA permits a "patient" or a "patient's primary caregiver" to possess or cultivate marijuana <br />for personal medical purposes with the recommendation of a physician. (Cal. Health & Safety <br />Code sec. 11362.5 (d).) Similarly, the MMPA provides that "patients" or designated "primary <br />caregivers" who have voluntarily obtained a valid medical marijuana identification card shall not <br />be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana in <br />specified quantities. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.71 (d) & (e).) A "storefront <br />dispensary" would not fit within either of these categories. <br />However, the MMPA also provides that "[q]ualified patients, persons with valid identification <br />cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification <br />cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to <br />cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to <br />state criminal sanctions under section 11357 [possession], 11358 [planting, harvesting or <br />processing], 11359 [possession for sale], 11360 [unlawful transportation, importation, sale or <br />gift], 11366 [opening or maintaining place for trafficking in controlled substances], 11366.5 <br />[providing place for manufacture or distribution of controlled substance; Fortifying building to <br />suppress law enforcement entry], or 11570 [Buildings or places deemed nuisances subject to <br />abatement]." (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.775.) (Emphasis added).) <br />Since medical marijuana cooperatives are permitted pursuant to the MMPA, a "storefront <br />dispensary" that would qualify as a cooperative would be permissible under the MMPA. (Cal. <br />Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.775. See also People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th <br />747 (finding criminal defendant was entitled to present defense relating to operation of medical <br />marijuana cooperative).) In granting a re-trial, the appellate court in Urziceanu found that the <br />defendant could present evidence which might entitle him to a defense under the MMPA as to <br />the operation of a medical marijuana cooperative, including the fact that the "cooperative" <br />verified physician recommendations and identities of individuals seeking medical marijuana and <br />individuals obtaining medical marijuana paid membership fees, reimbursed defendant for his <br />costs in cultivating the medical marijuana by way of donations, and volunteered at the <br />"cooperative." (Id. at p. 785.) <br />Whether or not "sales" are permitted under Urziceanu and the MMPA is unclear. The <br />Urziceanu Court did note that the incorporation of section 11359, relating to marijuana "sales," <br />in section 11362.775, allowing the operation of cooperatives, "contemplates the formation and <br />operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana <br />and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana." Whether <br />"reimbursement" may be in the form only of donations, as were the facts presented in Urziceanu, <br />or whether "purchases" could be made for medical marijuana, it does seem clear that a medical <br />marijuana "cooperative" may not make a "profit," but may be restricted to being reimbursed for <br />actual costs in providing the marijuana to its members and, if there are any "profits," these may <br />have to be reinvested in the "cooperative" or shared by its members in order for a dispensary to <br />© 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 32 All Rights Reserved <br />65A-93