Calif Supreme Court: Workers can be fired for using med marijuana

AP via SFGate ^ | 1/24/8 | PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer

[Mojave]

The one or two lines from the ballot isn’t what’s enrolled into CA law.

It's the description of the law's intent presented to the voters by the proposition's own proponents. You imagined an unwritten secret intent into the law, I countered by presenting the intent as described to the voters.

The law does NOT authorize sales, the law does NOT mention sales.

You crapped out.

[Redcloak]

The law does not bar sales of medical marijuana either. CA law doesn’t categorize what’s permitted; only what’s prohibited. This is why you refused to answer my question about possessing a .22 rifle. You know that no section of CA law declares “It shall be legal to possess a .22 rifle in the State of California.” No “authorization” is required to do what is already legal. Similarly, no specific declaration “It is legal to sell medical marijuana” is needed since medical marijuana is legal in the State per the H&S code you cited.

[Mojave]

The law does not bar sales of medical marijuana either.

The proposition created a limited exception to pre-existing restrictions. That exception for PATIENTS and PRIMARY CAREGIVERS did not extent to sales, your unsupported secret intent argument notwithstanding.

[Mojave]

Court Rejects the Sale of Medical Marijuana

Published: February 26, 1998
The State Supreme Court cleared the way today for the possible closing of all medical marijuana clubs in California as it left intact a lower court’s ruling that the clubs could not sell the drug, despite a 1996 voter initiative.

The court unanimously denied review of an appellate decision, issued last December, that said the ballot measure, Proposition 215, did not allow anyone to sell marijuana and did not allow a commercial enterprise to furnish marijuana as a “primary care giver.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E0D6133EF935A15751C0A96E958260

[Redcloak]

The court was correct in that instance as the clubs did not fit the code’s definition of a “primary care giver”. (Again, see the code that you cited.) Otherwise, sales are not prohibited.

Try again.

[Mojave]

Otherwise, sales are not prohibited.

You're begging the question. The Proposition did NOT permit sales, the ballot statement presented to voters explicitly stated that it did NOT permit sales and the state Supreme Court unanimously held that it did NOT permit sales.

You're claiming that the Proposition must have had a secret intent to "imply sales", but you haven't come up with a scintilla of support for your imagined "intent".

[Redcloak]

There is no need to permit a legal activity; no matter how much some statists might wish it to be so.

[Mojave]

There is no need to permit a legal activity

Sales, cultivation and possession were illegal under state law prior to Proposition 215. The Proposition selectively created a limited exemption for patients and primary caregivers from the pre-existing cultivation and possession restrictions only. It references only cultivation and possession, not sales. It appeared on the ballot with an explicit statement that sales were not intended to be included.

You've claimed that there must have been such an intent, but when called on your error have been utterly incapable of providing the slightest support for your claim from any source whatsoever.

[Redcloak]

The answer is in your own post...

Sales, cultivation and possession were illegal under state law prior to Proposition 215.

Were; past tense; not any longer. Prior; before now; formerly. Is it sinking in yet?

[Mojave]

And Proposition 215 did NOT repeal those laws. It created created a limited exemption for patients and primary caregivers from the pre-existing cultivation and possession restrictions only. It references only cultivation and possession, not sales. It appeared on the ballot with an explicit statement that sales were not intended to be included.

You've claimed that there must have been such an intent, but when called on your error have been utterly incapable of providing the slightest support for your claim from any source whatsoever.

Ping me if you ever find any support for your "implied sales".

[Mojave]

Here, have some more:

“The court further held that Proposition 215 does exempt seriously ill patients and their caregivers from California Health and Safety Code sections 11357 and 11358, which prohibit possession and cultivation of marijuana. However, the court disagreed with Trippet in further holding that Proposition 215 does not, under any circumstances, exempt such patients from sections 11359 and 11360, which prohibit the sale or giving away of marijuana. The Supreme Court of California denied review of the Peron decision on February 25, 1998.”

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2956201/United-States-v-Oakland-Cannabis.html