cannabisnews.com: Activist Can Sell Pot for Medicinal Use Activist Can Sell Pot for Medicinal Use Posted by FoM on February 15, 2000 at 06:18:25 PT By Tracy Wilson, Times Staff Writer Source: Los Angeles Times Ventura County prosecutors reached a settlement Monday with the former owner of a Thousand Oaks cannabis club that allows limited distribution of medicinal marijuana to qualified patients. Under terms of the agreement, activist Andrea Nagy is prohibited from selling marijuana or distributing the substance from her former office. But the agreement does allow Nagy to possess or cultivate marijuana for other people under certain strict circumstances. Specifically, a patient must be seriously ill and have a doctor's recommendation. And Nagy must have assumed responsibility for the patient's health, housing or safety--as set out in the state health code--prior to the start of any marijuana cultivation on the person's behalf. Under terms of the settlement, Nagy cannot accept money in exchange for cultivating marijuana for a patient unless it constitutes "bona fide reimbursement" for her actual expenses, which she must account for in written records. Although Nagy has no plans to reopen her distribution center, her San Francisco-based attorney called the settlement a victory. "We really believe that this is a vindication," attorney J. David Nick said. "It allows for a form of distribution and it allows for this substance to be used like any other medicine." Nagy opened her Rainbow Country Ventura County Medical Cannabis Center in Thousand Oaks about a year after California voters approved a medical marijuana initiative, Proposition 215, in November 1996. But the center's operation was shut down four months later after the district attorney filed a civil suit contending that the business was a threat to public health. Prosecutors also alleged Nagy engaged in "anti-competitive, unfair, fraudulent and unlawful business practices." A restraining order was issued against the center, preventing Nagy and business partner Robert Carson from serving the center's nearly 60 patients suffering from AIDS, cancer and other serious ailments. Superior Court Judge William Peck later expanded the order with a preliminary injunction that forbade Nagy and Carson from selling or distributing marijuana until the issue was settled at trial. Nagy appealed the decision, but it was denied. She has been allowed to continue cultivating marijuana for her own personal medicinal use. She uses marijuana to treat chronic migraine headaches. The settlement reached Monday averts a trial and establishes a permanent injunction against Nagy and Carson from unlawful distribution of marijuana. Her lawyers were also ordered to pay $825 in sanctions for not providing documents in a timely manner. Deputy Dist. Atty. Mitch Disney said the agreement meets the prosecution's ultimate goal: compliance with the law. "We didn't feel the need to tie up a courtroom for four days over [sanctions]," Disney said. "This case has never been about money. It's always been about an injunction." Disney said the language of the settlement "follows this emerging law as we understand it today. It recognizes what the law permits for legitimate, seriously ill patients but enforces the illegality of marijuana sales and distribution." Published: February 15, 2000 Copyright 2000 Los Angeles Times Related Article & Medical Marijuana Search & Archives: Pair Facing Drug Charges Claim Medicinal Need http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3423.shtmlhttp://www.cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtmlhttp://www.alltheweb.com/cgi-bin/asearch?type=all&query=cannabisnews+Medical END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #14 posted by Doc-Hawk on February 17, 2000 at 03:53:52 PT: Dick Cowan (for Jules) By the way Jules,On occasion I have been pleased to see analysis of an article posted at http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews on Dick's site that was originally posted by Doc-Hawk....complete with my editor's note. He has always responded when I have needed help with a story. One does not necessarily have to agree with ones allies on ALL points to still be an asset and an ally. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on February 16, 2000 at 23:32:57 PT Me Again This is very interesting to read. If the personal attacks don't occur and the issues get discussed that's is great.I believe that we all perceive life differently. Our age, sex, background, race etc. make each person what they are. I have learned that I never have the absolute answer and am open to being told to look at something another way and I'll sure try. I was a very self righteous church going person and I don't like remembering the person I was. I didn't know nor understand half of the things I felt but I learned to reach outside my little world and learn and I hope that is what we all will do!Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Doc-Hawk on February 16, 2000 at 23:00:03 PT: Back on track & a couple short comments for Jules First, thanks for letting us know that Dick's latest was on-line. Usually I must wait until morning to read them. Of course he is right on track (and has provided my favorite analysis of the drug war and drug policy since I first found his site.)My first thought when I read the article was "HOORAY" and a feeling of astonished disbelief. I have followed Ms. Nagy's saga to the extent that it makes news that is posted to cannabisnews or mapinc. Never did I dream that she would succeed so well (or that her persecutors would ever abide by the will of the voters.)As to Mr. Tide's comments concerning JUST THIS ARTICLE, his insistence that there MIGHT have been an even better outcome is also true, but you and I will never know EXACTLY what happened to get to the point where we are today. A less determined person would certainly gotten less. Certainly some later decisions will further modify the conditions under which a cannabis club can operate. We can only hope that they are as favorable.As stated by Kaptinemo: "As to Libertarians being perfectionists; well, all I can say is that, just as with every organization, there are those who can live and let live, and then there are the anal types. If you've met the latter, please don't think that they represent us all." He has a gift for communication that serves him well in this forum.As for your excoriation of "purist Libertarians", you probably went a little overboard, but it is painfully obvious that the Libertarian party has little chance of making any major changes in social policy, except peripherally. Still, their's is another opinion to be heard (as is yours), and some of the message is very positive.And finally, as for: "If you question their ethics, their commitment, their concern", I plead Not Guilty. I admire Kevin Zeese and his efforts. I have followed the efforts of the ACLU for some time, and while I occasionally wonder why they picked one fight and not another, they provide an invaluable resource for the First Amendment. My comments concerning AMR did not qestion their ethics, commitment, or concern. They HAVE accomplished a great deal....but theirs surely is not the ONLY possible way....just smoothest. You are welcome to send any follow-up directly to me. Get a throw-away account if you wish from Yahoo or one of those guys. Perhaps our views are not as far apart as you perceive. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Jules on February 16, 2000 at 21:48:14 PT My final words, until the next attack. Now, would the addicts of absolute liberty take the time to read the words of one of the great patriots opposed to marijuana prohibition? Hmmm?http://www.marijuananews.com/news.php3?sid=99(MarijuanaNews note: Andrea Nagy is a remarkably dedicatedperson, who has been very persistent. It is great to see her win this. And law enforcement is having to obey the law.)I believe, purist libertarians are in need of psychoanalysis, to learn to balance competing values within a pragmatic framework to reach a belief system that is not so "out there". Out where? Way out there. So out there thatyou question the integrity of our closest allies, in your misunderstanding of their behavior. You are no different than paranoid right wingers who believe the media is always against them. A year ago, the evil media was coronating GWB Jr. before any competition had occured. Now, the evil media is undermining GWB Jr. by covering McCain... There is no reason to question the ethics of the ACLU, or of AMR, or of Kevin, nor the lawyers and plaintiff in this case. It is your own subjectivity that makes you sosuspicious of their motives. Purist libertarians are one weird bunch.I suggest, if you disagree, do what you can do, and stop attacking the leadership that is making strides. Of course, you know how ineffective you are, so you will continue to try to harangue the anti-prohibitionist establishment into adopting your policy views. The same way the religious right continues to try to take over the Republican Party. It will never happen. Damn libertarians..... [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Jules on February 16, 2000 at 20:54:01 PT O.k. Oh boy, a flock of 'em!Kaptinemo, we agree. No need for discussion.Now, for you, Mr Hawk..... perhaps, next time, you will actually respond to my points directly.-The thread here has gone from a request for ideas to a one man attack.Mark started attacking our allies, unjustly. I responded. You obviously are sympathetic to his views, which puts you in the same unrealistic boat.- Jules, if you have a personal problem with Mr. Tide'sremarks, why not take them to him personally? I choose not to. His remarks are posted here, in two articles, and his recent post right on this thread. This is the appropriate place for this discussion. If you do not like it, too bad. That is the purpose for these boards.-I don't see your email address here. You accuse him of slander and worse,when in fact, some of his observations have been quite cogent.No, they have been judgements borne of a frustration with political reality. AMR did extensive research and polling on every referendum they put forward. they asked for as much as they saw the public would support. This was explained at last year's NORML Conference, quite clearly.- You make broad-brush statements about libertarians that justdon't fit ALL libertarians.The Party Platform says what it says. I have debated these points before. The platfrom is clear: no government controls on drugs, whatsoever. I believe it is Plank 3, Section 8 that says as such. No prescriptions.- Are some of his views quite impractical in the real world? Certainly. Ah, he acknowledges I have a point.-Are some of them a goal tostrive for? Again, Certainly.Instead of working in the realm of generalizations, why not address the specifics of his post right here. Do you believe this woman should have turned down the offered plea, to push for a braod implementation of Prop. 215, to push for retail sales?- I understand the concepts of picking one's battles and compromising a little to accomplish at leastpart of a desired outcome, but is that necessarily enough?Demands for all or nothing will get you nothing. Our allies who are realistic and proceed by steps do not deserve to have their motives questioned. My god, in the first article attacking the ACLU, and Kevin, he was god damn speculating that they were being deceptive with him as he was speaking to him. That they were deceiving him. Pathetic.-As far as AMR goes, they get the job done...Yes, unlike some libertarians.- the magic foot-in-the-door approach, This implies something that is not so. There is no get-it-passed-now, and push the door wider later approach.They do what is possible. The door will open only as far as the public allows. Educate the public, they will allow you to open the door further. Live with it. -but are they a sacred body to beworshiped? Would you please point to where I worship them? Please, do.Mark said they sell the movement short. Those are heavy words, and you are a fool to defend them.-I don't think so. Opinion based on an exagerated false premise.-Yet their approach got some initiatives passed. Did they really help some people? Sure. Try not to choke on your appreciation.-Are theirlimits realistic. NO!...YES!!! Because, that is all the public will allow at the moment. Do not blame them for only achieving so much. They do what is possible, they do not shoot for the stars and deliver ZERO. As, happened in Washington State on the first go around.-just enough to help keep some of the cops at bay. Did their tactics get enough votes to win? Yes. Wouldother approaches also have won? In many cases. Not according to their polling data. They specifically researched just how far they could go, and retain a majority.How long should the sick have to wait for a libertarian value system to take root in America?-A previous comment "They are doing what can be done in a given state at the time. Demands for all or nothing will get youNOTHING." is actually false. No, it's true. In fact, it is taken from the mouth of Dick Cowan, another self-described pragmatic libertarian. Said to me personally, after an old time debate with radical libertarians, trying to help me understand his radical partymembers.-AMR IS getting something done, but their's are not the only way, just a politically expedientway. Perhaps the results would not have been as uniform, but speaking of uniform, go to the link below:Spare me, I hear the lecture on jack nooted thugs telling me what I can and cannot ingest coming...... UGGGHHHHHH! You and Mark can whine all you please about our allies doing the pragmatic thing. If you question their ethics, their commitment, their concern, I will assail you. And, you will deserve it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on February 16, 2000 at 20:50:19 PT Glad you brought the thread back here kaptinemo, I'm glad you brought the thread back up. I think if people can talk maybe misunderstands can be resolved. I like and respect Kevin Zeese. I have had close lawyer friends and they are a different breed. I guess I just understand how lawyers are.Since if I post two more stories this will go off the front page please bring this one back up on another article if you all want and try not to miss C-Span with McCaffrey in the morning. Check C-Span though because they're good at changing schedules!Peace, FoM!http://www.cspan.org/08:30 am0:45(est.)LIVE Call-InU.S. Drug PolicyC-SPAN, Washington JournalBarry McCaffrey , Office of National Drug Control Policy Call-InU.S. Drug PolicyC-SPAN, Washington JournalWashington, District of Columbia (United States)ID: 155480 - 02/17/2000 - 0:45 - No Sale McCaffrey, Barry, Director, Office of National Drug Control PolicyMr. McCaffrey talks about the Administration's efforts to combat illegal drug use in the U.S. For more information please contact viewer c-span.org.Copyright © 2000 National Cable Satellite Corporation C-Span [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on February 16, 2000 at 20:19:16 PT I see I've been sloppy, again I've been remiss in my remarks. I should have been clearer. My apologies.By dream, I meant a dream of freedom. A hope that one day we might all be free from what Philip Wylie once referred to as 'Mom-ism': An overbearing, overweaning government so 'protective' of its' citizens that it smothers them. The government, in its' infinite wisdom, through its' regulatory bodies, has seen fit to relegate its' citizens to the status of children; of course, it's all for your own good. About Mr. Tide's remarks: I do not agre with them. Please look at the only(!) comments following the old thread:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread4706.shtmland you will see that I do not agree with his comments, and that if it were not for Mr. Zeese and those others (Bless them, but I forgot their names) the attempt to destroy the First Ammendment rights of doctors for recommending cannabis was brought to a screeching halt. (Incidentally, I harbor no illusions of creating a utopia; I'll settle for the least damaging dystopia we can get.) But I feel that we must ALL be heard, from every end of the spectrum in this movement, rather than demand the same kind of lockstep that the Duopoly demands on this issue. Even if it gets your blood pressure up, even if it is the Web equivalent of 'nails on the blackboard', it's better than 'silent leges enim inter arma' (Law stands mute under threat of arms)... which is just what the prohibitionists are trying to pull with the Anti-Meth Bill.As to Libertarians being perfectionists; well, all I can say is that, just as with every organization, there are those who can live and let live, and then there are the anal types. If you've met the latter, please don't think that they represent us all. Kevin Zeese interview [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on February 16, 2000 at 20:18:39 PT Thanks! Thanks Everyone! It looks like this thread is making some sense now! I will defend a persons right to state an opinion. All I ask is that no one attacks the character of any person. Shy people with good ideas that offend someone somehow can be discouraged and I just don't want that to happen because then creativity is stifled and we all lose.I do not know details on California's law because I don't live there and it wouldn't be right for me to comment on how something is done or not done when I only have what I have been able to learn about prop 215 in the news articles I post and then read. I also try not to pay to close attention to the news so that I don't catch myself censoring something without thinking so I step back from the news and try to be fair to everyone.Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Doc-Hawk on February 16, 2000 at 20:03:37 PT: Differences of opinion The thread here has gone from a request for ideas to a one man attack. Jules, if you have a personal problem with Mr. Tide's remarks, why not take them to him personally? I don't see your email address here. You accuse him of slander and worse, when in fact, some of his observations have been quite cogent. You make broad-brush statements about libertarians that just don't fit ALL libertarians. Are some of his views quite impractical in the real world? Certainly. Are some of them a goal to strive for? Again, Certainly. I understand the concepts of picking one's battles and compromising a little to accomplish at least part of a desired outcome, but is that necessarily enough?As far as AMR goes, they get the job done...the magic foot-in-the-door approach, but are they a sacred body to be worshiped? I don't think so. Yet their approach got some initiatives passed. Did they really help some people? Sure. Are their limits realistic. NO!...just enough to help keep some of the cops at bay. Did their tactics get enough votes to win? Yes. Would other approaches also have won? In many cases. A previous comment "They are doing what can be done in a given state at the time. Demands for all or nothing will get you NOTHING." is actually false. AMR IS getting something done, but their's are not the only way, just a politically expedient way. Perhaps the results would not have been as uniform, but speaking of uniform, go to the link below: Law Enforcement Model of Medicine [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Jules on February 16, 2000 at 18:39:45 PT No way. -But isn't what we want to happen based upon a dream?No. It is based on a humanitarian sense of what will reduce the harm caused by drug abuse. And, protect freedom and liberty. I have no dream about what is plausable in the given political climate.-I agree, the Prop215 law was very vague. It invites all kinds of (unwelcome) interpretations from judges and DA's (the policeare specifically not mentioned because, despite the Shasta County sheriff's actions, he is NOT entitled to interpret the law) asto what it actually means. It does not provide for retail sales. To demand as such willfind no lawful basis. Only a compassionate basis, for marijuana will not fall like mana from heaven. Your friend criticized the plea deal, as if she should go to jail and refuse the plea, to fight for a standard that cannot be tweaked from the language of Prop. 215. I say, let this libertarian open a buyer's club, get arrested, and refuse the plea himself. And, put his ass in the jail system for naught.-But the fact is, it is on the books. It and Prop200 are the vanguard. It may lack the finesse and polish of case law, but it givesyou something to work with. Be glad you are not in my State of MD, where we are struggling to get an MMJ bill passed. I can pick up your bias already..... I approve of Prop. 215. I am not the one attacking AMR, the ACLU, and Kevin. In fact, I believe AMR played a key role in crafting Prop. 200, amongst many of the other passed a year and a half ago. The people Mark says are selling us short.-As to Mr. Tide's comments; Please hear him out. I listened. I have heard enough. And, will ignore him from now on.-I'm sure that many of you may have been rankledby my venting of electronic spleen. And some have told me so. Not I. You are far more pragmatic than most libertarians.I will not mention the Party Platform calls for the abolishment of all government controls on drugs, which includes the abolition of prescriptions. Not realistic,nor appealing politically.- We need all the friends we can get. I have heard as such. Pat Buchanan does not need friends like David Duke, and we do not need friends like Mark.Have you read what he wrote? I repeat, he called the motives of the ACLU, AMR, and Kevin Zeese into question. He slandered them. The last comment about AMR selling the movement short was the last straw, I held my fire on his article attacking the ACLU, and Kevin.-However wild and off the wall something mightg seem, however much you mightdisagree with the postings here, keep something in mind. We have been very open-minded here. That is our strength.I admire what these organizations have accomplished. And, I will defend them. I am especially fond of Kevin.- Ouropposition is NOT. Tell that to your libertarian ally. Shall I cut-n-paste his comments about our allies? I will, if forced, since it appears most just let what he said fly by without much thought.-That may cause them to finally lose this War of their own making.They will choke on their own excesses, and when the lying stops, the system will collapse. We accelerate the process by speaking the truth.- We cannot afford to emulate theirinflexibility, lest we play into their hands. So please, cut each other some slack, huh?I will not cut him slack on those type of comments. He attacked the ACLU and Kevin as having ulterior motives for not expanding the class of individuals for protection under Prop. 215. He said the AMR is selling the movement short.That is wrong. There would no injunction at all if not for the efforts of the ACLU and Kevin, and others like him. Half the passed referendums would not be, if not for AMR. And, this poor person who took a plea in this case would be jailed for nothing, had he his way.Damn libertarians..... [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on February 16, 2000 at 15:25:24 PT But isn't what we want to happen based upon a dream?I agree, the Prop215 law was very vague. It invites all kinds of (unwelcome) interpretations from judges and DA's (the police are specifically not mentioned because, despite the Shasta County sheriff's actions, he is NOT entitled to interpret the law) as to what it actually means. But the fact is, it is on the books. It and Prop200 are the vanguard. It may lack the finesse and polish of case law, but it gives you something to work with. Be glad you are not in my State of MD, where we are struggling to get an MMJ bill passed. As to Mr. Tide's comments; Please hear him out. God knows I am an opinionated SoB, and as my old instructors were fond of saying, 'Opinions are like a**holes; everybody has one and they all smell.' I'm sure that many of you may have been rankled by my venting of electronic spleen. And some have told me so. All to the good; this is a forum, not a lecture hall. This 'place' reminds me of Voltaire's famous declaration of "I disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!". We need all the friends we can get. However wild and off the wall something mightg seem, however much you might disagree with the postings here, keep something in mind. We have been very open-minded here. That is our strength. Our opposition is NOT. That may cause them to finally lose this War of their own making. We cannot afford to emulate their inflexibility, lest we play into their hands. So please, cut each other some slack, huh? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Jules on February 15, 2000 at 21:25:58 PT Fine. Don't be a hypocrite "Fom". Our unappreciated ally here,Mark, clearly called the motives and intent of the ACLU,the AMR, and Kevin Zeese into question in the two articles you posted. I reacted, commenting that he is the typical libertarian: a perfectionist who will achieve nothing because he lives in a dream. People like him piss me off, criticizing our allies.If not for AMR, the ACLU, and men like Kevin Zeese, we would be far further behind on change.Now, he is whining AGAIN that someone did not attain perfection. Nevermind it is a step in the right direction, no, our child ally wishes for all or nothing, right now.Childish.I could take you seriously if you read what you post, and showed half the outrage at the way he slandered the ACLU,AMR, and Kevin Zeese. And, called their motives into question. Did you miss that? Read what you post.And, Mark, screw you. I'll stick with the people who are actually getting something done. We all know Prop. 215 says nothing about sales and distribution at a retail level.You can grow for yourself, or for someone else as a caregiver. That is the only protection offered by the law.Any buyer's club relies on the compassion of those in powerin the given locality, which you cannot demand. Jumping on these defenders of freedom for taking this path is a joke.It is the best they could hope for.Why don't you start up a proposition drive to establish a statewide distribution network? It would be a better avenue for your energies, versus complaining that the leadership of this movement is corrupt, and not doing what you think they should. Damn dreaming libertarian, I really disrespect people with your belief system. I'd like to see you purged from the movement. All the sooner Americans would take us seriously. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on February 15, 2000 at 11:06:01 PT One Comment! Hello Mark, I want to welcome comments too. Because of the amount of news that I do I do not focus on any one issue. I don't understand why problems would exist between people who want medical marijuana available but if people want to discuss their personal feelings that is fine with me. The only thing I mind is when people attack a persons character instead of the content of the person's comment. I would really like to see all drug reform efforts pull together and work together and show humility and have an open mind.Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Mark Tide on February 15, 2000 at 09:29:43 PT: Note: An Incomplete Program Dear Cannabisnews.com readers,Detailed attention to this matter is in order.As the story reports:"Under terms of the agreement, activist Andrea Nagy is prohibited from selling marijuana or distributing the substance from herformer office. But the agreement does allow Nagy to possess or cultivate marijuana for other people under certain strict circumstances. Specifically, a patient must be seriously ill and have a doctor's recommendation. And Nagy must have assumed responsibility for the patient'shealth, housing or safety--as set out in the state health code--prior to the start of any marijuana cultivation on the person's behalf."Firstly, notice that this basis for distribution is nothing other than the law (P215). Secondly, a BIG problem arises in the final sentence : " . . . --prior to the start of any marijuana cultivation on the person's behalf."If this is the limit of legitimacy, patients' "right to obtain and use," (P215 language) is unreasonably undermined. The purpose of this initiative is to to provide access to cannabis, as soon as the physicians' approvals occur, not only to begin to plant some cannabis at that point. Governed by this court order, no satisfactory surplus of medicinal cannabis is allowed to exist. Such a surplus is clearly contemplated by P215, regardless of misleading interpretations and propaganda surrounding this detail of implementation.Why attorneys for Nagy accepted this unreasonable limitation on cultivation and distribution is an open question. It is certainly an incomplete victory, as the attitude of the prosecutors suggests.If such a policy becomes any form of court precedent, it will prove troublesome for those involved in ligitimately broad versions of implementation. Here, the prosecutors gave us nothing but a strained and starved version of what this law should actually be understood as providing.If anyone has more information or comments, please post them up, so we can help better legal settlements to be created in the future.Thanks, Mark Tide, Arcata Journal Arcata Journal [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: