It’s not illegal for Plumas patients to use unlicensed dispensaries

patient

We recently spoke with the California Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) about patient access to medicine. Here’s what we learned:

Unlicensed dispensaries

It is NOT illegal for Plumas patients to have their medicine delivered from unlicensed dispensaries in Truckee or Chester—or from any other nearby source. It’s simply a patient choice and an acceptance that the state has not certified the products.

So what? Didn’t Plumas “caregivers” donate cannabis to patients for decades since 1996. No testing was required—or needed—then. Why the sudden concern for state certification?

Do we accept fresh eggs from a neighbor who raises chickens? How about honey from a neighbor who’s a beekeeper? Do either need regulation to taste just as good or to be safe?

The truth is that the vast majority of California cannabis cultivators are NOT licensed and likely won’t be for months or years—or ever. In light of this, ask yourself this question:

Why are Measure B authors and backers suddenly so concerned with legality?

Answer: They’re not. Many prove this daily by continuing to break the county’s moratorium. They don’t care about legality. They care about votes.

They’re using patients and our sense of compassion to make us think we need commercial cannabis and Measure B. We don’t—and patients on our supporter list know it.

Why does it matter?

Because right now, under our moratorium, and without a cannabis ordinance in place, any Plumas patient can have medicine delivered right to his or her door affordably. In doing so, a patient isn’t breaking any laws and will not be hassled by the BCC or any other state agency.

Right now, every Plumas patient has access to CBD oils and gummies, pastes, sativa and indica—virtually any product he or she needs—PLUS delivery without driving anywhere.

Right now, any adult Plumas resident can grow up to six plants and share an ounce of bud as many times as he or she wishes. There’s no shortage of medicine in Plumas.

No need for B.

Here’s the truth Measure B backers don’t want you to know:

Plumas patients are having zero trouble getting their medicine and DO NOT need Measure B, which is why many are voting against it.

Patients don’t need Measure B and neither does Plumas. It’s a bad deal. Measure B backers: Stop hiding behind patients to get your mess of a measure passed.

Fellow voters: Don’t be blinded by the patient access smokescreen. VOTE NO on B, and send our supervisors this message: Get to work on safe and reasonable cannabis ordinance.

12 comments on “It’s not illegal for Plumas patients to use unlicensed dispensaries

  1. Taurin Wilson says:

    It is not illegal for Plumas patients to have their medicine delivered from unlicensed dispensaries, but it is illegal for them to sell cannabis to you and it’s illegal for the delivery person to deliver it to you.

    Supporting an unlicensed dispensary is supporting illegal cannabis sales. I do not approve of supporting illegal unregulated cannabis sales. I don’t feel it is in Plumas County resident’s best interest to support the black market.

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      I think our only disagreement may be whether to consider an unlicensed dispensary “the black market.” If one chooses to do so, then logically one must also consider medical growers who from 1996 to 2016 did NOT fulfill the legal obligations or meet the legal definition for their roles as “caregivers.” Yet many Measure B proponents consider non-caregiver growers’ medical operations as a “gray area.”

      If unlicensed dispensaries are part of the black market, so are the vast majority of reputable unlicensed cannabis growers in California. As you say, the state doesn’t place the onus of legality on patients. Just as it doesn’t consider it an illegal act on the part of a patient to see an unlicensed medical provider.

      To state facts about the non-illegal choices of Plumas patients to safely and affordably access their medicine from unlicensed sources is neither condoning nor supporting the black market. And neither is telling voters in a Voter’s Guide about a supporter who gets his medicine delivered.

      Measure B backers seized on this, twisted it, and slandered our argument’s signers. This post simply sets the record straight while offering the reality that Plumas patients do in fact have access to their medicine and do not need the problematic and unworkable Measure B. This is one of the reasons why many of them are voting against it.

      It’s time Measure B backers stop trying to use patients and scare tactics to get their commercial cannabis ordinance passed.

  2. Taurin Wilson says:

    “To state facts about the non-illegal choices of Plumas patients to safely and affordably access their medicine from unlicensed sources is neither condoning nor supporting the black market. And neither is telling voters in a Voter’s Guide about a supporter who gets his medicine delivered.”

    Paying someone to deliver cannabis illegally supports an illegal act, plain and simple.
    Your supporter who gets cannabis delivered illegally is supporting an illegal act. Do you feel that supporting an illegal act is advisable?

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Paying an unlicensed dispensary for one’s medicine is not illegal, as we both agree. If the dispensary also delivers, the onus of legality is still on the dispensary, not on the patient. Since the onus is on the dispensary and not on the patient, issue of supporting illegality is a non-issue.

      Plus, California has chosen not to offer any resistance to patients getting the medicine they need—just as they chose to look the other way when “caregivers” who weren’t legal caregivers provided medicine to patients for decades.

      It’s a non-issue, and the only reason I can imagine for why Measure B proponents are suddenly interested in legality in this context is to continue using patients and scare tactics to get their commercial cannabis ordinance passed. I don’t think this is your motivation, necessarily.

      The point of the post was to expose a faux argument offered by Measure B authors and backers. Mission accomplished. Plumas patients do in fact have safe and affordable access to their medicine—WITHOUT Measure B and commercial cannabis and inside and outside the county.

  3. Taurin Wilson says:

    “Since the onus is on the dispensary and not on the patient, issue of supporting illegality is a non-issue.”
    If you pay someone to commit a crime, you are lending monetary support for a crime to be committed. I disagree with monetarily supporting an illegal industry.

    “The point of the post was to expose a faux argument offered by Measure B authors and backers. Mission accomplished. Plumas patients do in fact have safe and affordable access to their medicine.”

    I have no idea as to the affordability part, but, do Plumas patents have access to “safe” medicine? With licensing comes testing for harmful chemicals, if a product is untested you cannot say that access to said product is “safe”. Prop 215 was a good start as far as providing access, however, I was not satisfied by the lack of oversight over how the cannabis was grown, this is due to lack of legal infrastructure to accomplish this task.
    Prop 64 addresses the issue of safety by mandating testing; this is a huge victory towards providing for the public’s safety. It is, however, unfortunate that some saw the implementation of Prop 64 as an opportunity to limit access.
    One of the best examples I can think of as to why testing for harmful chemicals is important from a public safety standpoint involves a non-organic anti-fungicide by the name of Myclobutanil. Myclobutanil is used on commercial food crops such as grapes, almonds, and strawberries, and is generally considered safe for these proposes. Because it was considered a safe anti-fungicide some growers, who don’t grow using organic methods, started using it for cannabis.

    Myclobutanil is considered benign when used on food crops, however, the specific compounds in Myclobutanil have a nitrile group which is a nitrogen atom triple bonded to a carbon atom, when combusted (i.e. smoked) that group breaks off, joins with a free hydrogen atom, and becomes hydrogen cyanide, a Schedule 3 substance under the Chemical Weapons Convention! It is important to note that there are many safe and effective organic anti-fungicides that are used by cannabis growers, which accomplish the same goal. And it is not at all necessary to use any chemicals to grow cannabis.
    All of this has come to light because of testing for harmful chemicals. Would you honestly contend that we don’t benefit as a society from preventing citizens from consuming hydrogen cyanide? Is this “safe” medicine?

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Good thing the vast majority of Plumas patients are getting their medicine safely and affordably in-county. I contend that the out-of-county delivery Measure B backer brouhaha is just another smokescreen. As to the safety issue and your last loaded and obvious question. I don’t contend anything about hydrogen cyanide or any other harmful substance.

      Here’s an effective counter to the Plumas-needs-B-and-commercial-cannabis-for-its-patients-and-veterans scary sales pitch—from a Plumas veteran AND patient. Enjoy: https://www.facebook.com/notes/plumas-people-opposed-to-commercial-cannabis/as-a-newbie-pot-grower-heres-what-ive-learned-it-aint-rocket-science/327190154506204/

  4. Taurin Wilson says:

    The bottom line is people do buy cannabis illegally in Plumas and as long as that is the case it is our responsibility to address this issue in a quantifiable way. I don’t quite understand taking the position that everything is fine and know one needs to buy cannabis here, when the obvious truth is that people do buy cannabis here.
    What is the most responsible way to deal with the fact that people do buy cannabis in Plumas County, and is it better for our community for these people to buy from the black market or a legal tested source?

    “As to the safety issue and your last loaded and obvious question. I don’t contend anything about hydrogen cyanide or any other harmful substance.”
    It was more of a rhetorical question, I assumed that you don’t endorse hydrogen cyanide consumption. I brought it up to highlight that testing has value from a public safety standpoint. What is your view?
    And thank you for taking time to explain your position.

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Do you believe that if Measure B passes and we have up to 26 licensed dispensaries that product will be tested per Prop. 64 and Measure B? And that if B licensees have to send it for testing to the nearest facility in San Jose, they will?

  5. Taurin Wilson says:

    Do you believe that the fruits and vegetables you buy at the store have gone through the proper testing? It’s essentially the same oversight process but with more checks and balances than are applied to your food, such as seed to sale tracking.

    Can you show me where in the MAUCO ordinance it says that 26 dispensary licences would be available?

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      I would like to believe it, but I know human nature. People cut corners unless they choose to follow ethical guidelines and/or are guided by moral standards greater than themselves.

      Our legal expert can show you where MAUCO allows for up to 26 licensed dispensaries. Truthfully, I don’t have the time or energy as our Webmaster and social media admin. I apologize. He’s analyzed MAUCO frontwards and backwards and is confident he’s correct.

      By the way, the state is poised to allow cannabis delivery services to counties with commercial cannabis bans. By law, product must be tested before delivery. The source that one of our supporters uses guarantees that their product is tested. We’re confident that this new provision will encourage unlicensed dispensaries that provide delivery to become licensed as the new guidelines will open their markets further.

  6. Taurin Wilson says:

    Patrick,
    The first two sentences of your reply perfectly explain the reason laws and regulations are of benefit to the common good of society. Certainly corruption happens in a legal system, but I don’t think many would argue that we would be safer without regulations on the things we put in our body. If we were to eliminate the USDA, would you feel as confident buying meat or eggs, would you advocate that we don’t benefit from the FDA or USDA (rhetorical)? I would look at the meat aisle at the grocery store a little differently, I think you might too.
    You have time to make the claim that Measure B will allow 26 dispensaries, but you don’t have time or “energy” to confirm if that is a true statement. Does that seem reasonable, would you accept a statement from me as true if I had no source and no info to back it up?
    No one should educate the public about anything unless they are willing to take the time to confirm if it is true. Do you disagree?

    The last parts of your post are all things that might or might not happen, if any of these things actually come to fruition we can discuss them then. Also, how do I confirm that an unlicensed dispensary is selling tested product? Their word is as equally verifiable as the word of the dealer on the corner without a third party to verify.

    I feel like the focus has become too myopic somewhere along the way. You have expressed no solutions for the black market; these are the people who are actively commandeering our public land, and patrolling our land with guns as if it were theirs. These are places that we pay for with our taxes so that we can teach our children how to fish, to hike, and to appreciate the gift we have been given. These are the places that make Plumas County what it is.

    When you suggest to the citizens of my community to monetarily support people selling cannabis illegally, you are part of the problem. I believe society benefits from laws and regulations, and that supporting criminal acts is counterproductive to our collective interests. As a father, and as a citizen, I’m asking you kindly to please discontinue.
    .
    Thank you for your time, I’m done commenting.
    Taurin.

    1. Patrick Luscri says:

      Taurin, I’m weary. Bone weary. Do I think it’s reasonable to invite you or anyone else to prove or disprove what my group and I have written about Measure B and the number of dispensaries it allows? Yes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *