Pubdate: Wed, 07 Oct 2009
Source: Red Bluff Daily News (CA)
Copyright: 2009 Red Bluff Daily News
Author: Sharon Wilkes



Marijuana collectives not for profit? Who's kidding

Prop 215 is so vague and is simply a loophole prelude to complete
legalization and as written is for just about anyone who may want or
in some cases, need it. For those who truly need it for medicinal
purposes, they're home free, with a lot of freeloaders on their shirttails.

These collective entities would not be an issue if marijuana was
legalized for everyone, regardless of medical need, or placed on the
federal schedule for medical use, thereby making it dispensable by
pharmacies and not your next door neighbor.

Collectives have been operating for profit successfully for some time
now, and their non-profit status is a cloak of protection between
being legal and going to jail.

Prop. 215 lists cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity,
glaucoma, arthritis, migraine or any other illness for which marijuana
provides relief. Pay an annual fee to a prescribing doctor and you too
can get a recommendation for as long as the doctor says you can.

Ask someone you know well who has a recommendation. If they're honest,
they'll tell you, like those who have told me, that it's a great way
to grow and use without fear of retribution. Then ask what their
medical reason is; chances are, it's a common ailment that already has
a medicinal remedy - over the counter, under $10 type like Ibuprophen.
But if you ask, be prepared for a litany of feedback on why

it's better; who's hurting whom; "it's my life"; "who are they to
judge" kind of talk.

If not for profit, tell me why then? For the common good of others who
need marijuana? Not likely.

Because they and others like them, like to use? More likely. Saying
that a collective owner is in it for the good of those who use pot for
medicinal purposes is as glaringly hypocritical as saying a bar owner
is in it for the good of those who drink alcohol.

It's for the money. Oh, excuse me, its called revenue. And the
individual doesn't earn the revenue; the non-profit corporation earns
it. Then, those who work in and sell to the collective are paid a
compensatory amount for their time invested. I'm told it's in the language.

Now, the person who sits behind a desk, taking membership applications
is not just a receptionist earning $10 an hour. Their time
disproportionately becomes so valuable that the pay taken is highly
inflated, not called income; of course, it has to be compensatory
revenue. We're all worth more than we're paid, right? Just ask anyone
whom the non-profit corporation employs, they'll tell you over a joint
and snacks. Get comfortable; it may take a while for a cognitive
thought to form.

So, in closing we learn the corporation is non-profit. Those who work
for corporation? Very profitable.

Now there's the truth.

Sharon Wilkes, Red Bluff 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D