Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Mr. Wilcox needs to take a look at the recent Appeals case of Williams v Butte County. In this landmark ruling, Judge Raye establishes the legality of David Williams collective grow, as well as making it crystal clear that "Each member of the collective agreed to contribute comparable amounts of money, property, and/or labor to the collective cultivation of medical marijuana, and each would receive an approximately equal share of the marijuana produced" and therefore it was that equality that made the collective legal under the auspices of SB420.
Frankly, AgraMed doesn't look a damn thing like that kind of legal patient collective to me. In fact, it makes me sick. From what I've read here, the patients picked up by Mr. Wilcox (presumably from Harborside) can't "contribute comparable amounts of money, property, and/or labor" because Mr. Wilcox already owns the property and intends to hire workers rather than use labor from the collective members. Then AgraMed intends to sell the medicine for $3000 a pound, wholesale, to a dispensary. (That's better than what small grows ever get for high-quality medicine now, whatever happened to supply and demand?) At 58 pounds A DAY, this is far, far more than the overhead. The patients, then, would probably pay $360 or more an ounce for it; this then leaves a neat $2760/pound gain for the dispensary.
It is certain that the patients that AgraMed would grow for wouldn't "receive an approximately equal share of the marijuana produced"; the value of each patient's cannabis is being split between Mr. Wilcox; the AgraMed management team, their security services and their workforce; the cost of the land, unlike home gardens; the dispensary distributing the cannabis; and finally the patient who SHOULD receive any medicine left after all this "overhead"; but would instead have to buy it from a dispensary at the same price as anyone else, and therefore will be unequally served by the nature of the patients' individual economic situations.
The buck stops here.
It is the right and responsibility of every medical patient, cannabis advocate, environmentalist, or supporter of grassroots capitalism to stand up to AgraMed, groups like them, and the City of Oakland; we must demand our right to be self-sufficient in the face of Big Business. Tell them that we will not be sold to an illegal, immoral, unequal, unsustainable, corporate trainwreck out to make easy millions by undermining the grassroots medical cannabis movement. Only by the movement standing together and shutting down this attempt (and every other attempt by some upstart robber baron) to overthrow the people's will, can we defend our FREE medicine from a true non-profit collective made up of our local community members.
This serves as a warning to Oakland's Public Safety Committee in particular and to the City Council in general: What AgraMed suggests is both illegal and unconscionable. Anyone involved with the City who supports stripping the patients of their right to grow, so soon after you decided each patient could need up to 72 plants to be relieved, would be a damnable hypocrite and an enemy of the entire medical cannabis community. Furthermore, anyone who then wants to allow a massive disaster like AgraMed creep in while the patients suffer, certainly has a short career ahead of them. Because you're not just dealing with the patients themselves, you're dealing with their parents, children, siblings, grandchildren, cousins, nieces, nephews, friends, in-laws and on and on and on. Anti-cannabis voters rarely make cannabis law a primary factor in the actual polling booth, but pro-cannabis advocates WILL, and bring a dozen more. This November's Tax and Regulate initiative means that the vast majority of cannabis users will be out voting, and looking to protect their rights from Big Business as much as Big Brother. Don’t forget.
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation