Subject: People v. Urziceanu

Written by ASA Chief Counsel, Joe Elford
Tuesday, 20 September 2005
The recent CA appellate court decision in People v. Urziceanu marks the rareoccasion when CA courts eke out further protection for patient collectives/cooperatives as well as dispensing collectives/cooperatives.

Please find below ASA's analysis of the decision, written by ASA Chief Counsel, Joe Elford.

Kris Hermes, Legal Campaign Director, Americans for Safe Access

____________________________

On September 12, 2005, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a positive decision affirming the legality of collectives and cooperatives. In People v. Urziceanu, the Court of Appeal held that the Medical Marijuana Program Act, which is what it called SB 420, provides for a defense to marijuana distribution for collectives and cooperatives.

The court initially held that the Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215) did not authorize anyone, except for primary caregivers, to distribute medical marijuana to others. It, then, cited cases, including People v. Trippett, People ex rel. Lungren v. Peron, People v. Young, and others, to hold that the defendants, who served numerous members, did not qualify as the primary caregivers of these other patients as a matter of law. This left the defendants without a defense to the charge of selling marijuana, or conspiring to sell marijuana, for operating a cooperative.

Good news, however, came in a later portion of the opinion when the court held that the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420) "represents a dramatic change in the prohibitions on the use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana for persons who are qualified patients or primary caregivers." Drawing from the Compassionate Use Act's encouragement of the state and federal governments to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of medical marijuana to those patients who need it, the court found that the Medical Marijuana Program Act and its legalization of collectives and cooperatives represented the state government's initial response to this directive. By expressly providing for reimbursement for marijuana and services in connection with collectives and cooperatives, the Legislature has abrogated cases such as Trippett, Peron and Young, and established a new defense to those who form and operate collectives and cooperatives to dispense marijuana. Defendants convictions for conspiracy to distribute marijuana were reversed and, at a new trial, they would be permitted to assert a defense under the collective and cooperative provision of SB 420.