-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
San Diego's Finest Cuts
- Thread starter Dragor
- Start date
Good Morning Guys,
Pretty much anywhere in SD county OUTSIDE of SD city limits is 12 immature OR 6 mature plants. Here's whats on ASAs site about SD City-
Still in development: Current version 9/17/03: Adult marijuana patients with the approval of a San Diego County doctor may keep up to 1 pound of marijuana and grow up to 24 plants. Under the measure, caregivers can keep up to 2 pounds of marijuana and grow up to 48 plants for as many as four patients.The ordinance must come back for a final vote, as a procedural matter, to be enacted.
Basically, SD city has refused to carry the ball over the goal line. I beleive SD LEO is more tolerant than County sherrifs and the SD DA probably uses the 24 plant # in consideration of what cases to pursue. Unfortunately, I don't feel we enjoy the assurance of exemption from persecution granted to us by 215/420 anywhere in the county
Pretty much anywhere in SD county OUTSIDE of SD city limits is 12 immature OR 6 mature plants. Here's whats on ASAs site about SD City-
Still in development: Current version 9/17/03: Adult marijuana patients with the approval of a San Diego County doctor may keep up to 1 pound of marijuana and grow up to 24 plants. Under the measure, caregivers can keep up to 2 pounds of marijuana and grow up to 48 plants for as many as four patients.The ordinance must come back for a final vote, as a procedural matter, to be enacted.
Basically, SD city has refused to carry the ball over the goal line. I beleive SD LEO is more tolerant than County sherrifs and the SD DA probably uses the 24 plant # in consideration of what cases to pursue. Unfortunately, I don't feel we enjoy the assurance of exemption from persecution granted to us by 215/420 anywhere in the county
SemperAltus
Active member
Good Morning Guys,
Still in development: Current version 9/17/03: Adult marijuana patients with the approval of a San Diego County doctor may keep up to 1 pound of marijuana and grow up to 24 plants. Under the measure, caregivers can keep up to 2 pounds of marijuana and grow up to 48 plants for as many as four patients.The ordinance must come back for a final vote, as a procedural matter, to be enacted.
thanks GT, this is what i heard but as you guessed i didnt hear that it hasnt gone through yet. so if i was to grow for someone do i just get another 6/12?
thanks for the info.
T.Baggins
Member
you cant really just grow for someone else.... their are guidelines to being a caregiver.... best thing to do is to go to normls site and the asa website.... ignorance of the law isnt gunna get you anywhere..... if you need to grow more meds, ask your doc to up your limits, thats what i did.... btw, i think its 6 mature or 12 immature plants
SemperAltus
Active member
well thats what im trying to be informed, since sd is a bitach
heres can ASA says
Still in development: Current version 9/17/03: Adult marijuana patients with the approval of a San Diego County doctor may keep up to 1 pound of marijuana and grow up to 24 plants. Under the measure, caregivers can keep up to 2 pounds of marijuana and grow up to 48 plants for as many as four patients.The ordinance must come back for a final vote, as a procedural matter, to be enacted.
heres what norml says
City Council guidelines allow up to 1 lb of marijuana, 24 plants in 64 square feet indoors; no outdoors growing allowed except in enclosed greenhouses.
which is why im trying to find out, one makes it seem that its done while the other is saying it isnt finalized...
so thanks guys for the info. Fing sd esp since they tried to have the supreme court erase mmj in their county... wtf
Here's the biggest decision regarding caregivers recently-
On November 24, 2008, the California Supreme Court adopted a narrow view of the “primary caregiver” defense to criminal prosecution set forth in the Compassionate Use Act (Health & Safety Code, § 11362.5) and the Medical Marijuana Program (Health & Safety Code, § 11362.7 et seq.). In People v. Mentch (Supreme Court Case No. S148204 (2008)), the court held that a man who grew and sold marijuana for five patients was not entitled to an instruction on the primary caregiver defense at trial.
Mentch was arrested and charged with the cultivation and possession for sale of marijuana under Health and Safety Code Sections 11358 and 11359. The evidence at trial showed that Mentch sold medical marijuana and gave instructions on its use to five patients. Mentch also claimed he sporadically took some of his patients to medical appointments. The trial court refused to allow Mentch to raise a primary caregiver defense under the Compassionate Use Act. Mentch was convicted and he appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding Mentch provided enough evidence to allow a jury to decide whether he was a primary caregiver as defined by State law.
The Supreme Court granted review to address the meaning of “primary caregiver” under the Compassionate Use Act. In an opinion by Justice Kathryn Werdegar, the court noted that the statutory definition of “primary caregiver” has two components: he or she must be designated by the patient, and must be a person “who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health and safety” of the patient. As to the “responsibility” component, “a defendant asserting primary caregiver status must prove, at a minimum, that he or she (1) consistently provided caregiving, (2) independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, (3) at or before the time he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana.” According to the court, the Compassionate Use Act allows “[t]he spouse or domestic partner caring for his or her ailing companion, the child caring for his or her ailing parent, [and] the hospice nurse caring for his or her ailing patient ... to add the provision of marijuana, where medically recommended or approved, as one more arrow in their caregiving quiver.” The Compassionate Use Act “does not provide similar protection where the provision of marijuana is itself the substance of the relationship.”
This is basically how Bonnie D and company justified entrapping medical delivery services. They really have made it hard for patients to help patients. They keep saying that "collectives" are ok...we'll who the fuck has the time & resources to do that on a small basis. And oh yeah...if you do jump through all the hoops to form a collective, you better not make a cent...and when po-po comes and does a smash and grab on your collectives garden...maybe they'll drop charges...after you pay your lawyer another buttload of cash to represent you. Sorry about the rant
On November 24, 2008, the California Supreme Court adopted a narrow view of the “primary caregiver” defense to criminal prosecution set forth in the Compassionate Use Act (Health & Safety Code, § 11362.5) and the Medical Marijuana Program (Health & Safety Code, § 11362.7 et seq.). In People v. Mentch (Supreme Court Case No. S148204 (2008)), the court held that a man who grew and sold marijuana for five patients was not entitled to an instruction on the primary caregiver defense at trial.
Mentch was arrested and charged with the cultivation and possession for sale of marijuana under Health and Safety Code Sections 11358 and 11359. The evidence at trial showed that Mentch sold medical marijuana and gave instructions on its use to five patients. Mentch also claimed he sporadically took some of his patients to medical appointments. The trial court refused to allow Mentch to raise a primary caregiver defense under the Compassionate Use Act. Mentch was convicted and he appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding Mentch provided enough evidence to allow a jury to decide whether he was a primary caregiver as defined by State law.
The Supreme Court granted review to address the meaning of “primary caregiver” under the Compassionate Use Act. In an opinion by Justice Kathryn Werdegar, the court noted that the statutory definition of “primary caregiver” has two components: he or she must be designated by the patient, and must be a person “who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health and safety” of the patient. As to the “responsibility” component, “a defendant asserting primary caregiver status must prove, at a minimum, that he or she (1) consistently provided caregiving, (2) independent of any assistance in taking medical marijuana, (3) at or before the time he or she assumed responsibility for assisting with medical marijuana.” According to the court, the Compassionate Use Act allows “[t]he spouse or domestic partner caring for his or her ailing companion, the child caring for his or her ailing parent, [and] the hospice nurse caring for his or her ailing patient ... to add the provision of marijuana, where medically recommended or approved, as one more arrow in their caregiving quiver.” The Compassionate Use Act “does not provide similar protection where the provision of marijuana is itself the substance of the relationship.”
This is basically how Bonnie D and company justified entrapping medical delivery services. They really have made it hard for patients to help patients. They keep saying that "collectives" are ok...we'll who the fuck has the time & resources to do that on a small basis. And oh yeah...if you do jump through all the hoops to form a collective, you better not make a cent...and when po-po comes and does a smash and grab on your collectives garden...maybe they'll drop charges...after you pay your lawyer another buttload of cash to represent you. Sorry about the rant
SemperAltus
Active member
Nice post, GT, not worry on th rant. i feel the same way. my friend and I were also contemplating starting a collective but it just seems that in the end it will cost us a crap of lawyer fees... starting to rethink this sd move. ( my bro is already down there)
again good info GT, as i said most other places its cut and dry but in sd county its like a complete other world so im glad i can come here and talk to people on the front line so to speak.
again good info GT, as i said most other places its cut and dry but in sd county its like a complete other world so im glad i can come here and talk to people on the front line so to speak.
Their downpression has only made us stronger! Witness the awesome genetics this community enjoys & proliferates!
SemperAltus
Active member
true that, before i posted the day or two ive been reading through all 135 pgs nothing but dank, but since my reason was to try and get a collective started im starting to re-think moving down solely for that. gonna stick around tho. stay up to date hehehe
green bringing that fire guys.
green bringing that fire guys.
T.Baggins
Member
Jalisco Kid
Active member
I live outside of sd limits. My city will not give me any advice as they say "It's a case by case basis". I asked D. Mosler(Narcotics DA) about my predicament, he told me I would be fine if I kept it under 24 plants.He never mentions space in our conversations. 24 in the "safe harbor" number, you can have more you just need to justify it. In asking your local jurisdiction you save your ass later. I got jammed up in LA a while back. I have a court order to return a lot of weed because I did just that. I tried to do what's right. The Judge was pissed for the DA wasting his time. Cost 20,000 for a good lawyer, well worth it. Suerte JK
SemperAltus
Active member
good post JK, gonna have to do that.
gracias
gracias
The basic problem here in SD County is that neither the Prosecutors office nor the Sheriffs dept. want to acknowledge the Mendocino Appeals court ruling. All plant counts, dried weight limits and space limitations are products of SB420. The Appeals court found that these limitations were contrary to the cali constitution which states that the general assembly CANNOT change,alter or limit a Prop. passed by the people, unless that Prop. has a provision allowing them to do so. Prop. 215 did not have such a provision, hence all plant count limits, dried weight limits and space limitations are illegal and unconstitutional. The cops and prosecutors are relying on the fact that too many folks do no know the law and will not contest it. They hit you with multiple charges in hopes that you will plea bargain down to one and accept your fate without taking it to trial. The Supreme Court did make a clear definition of what a caregiver is and most people cannot qualify. However, legally at this point, you can grow 1000 plants if you can prove you are not selling. The burden is totally on you. Even with a 215 rec., the cops will rip the grow and make you prove in court that you are legal. Intimidation is their primary weapon.
Hey SA-
I was told by the San Diego ASA organizer that the US Supreme Court had until 4/16/09 to decide if they were going to hear the case. That date has come and gone and no one I know has been able to find any info. Hopefully something will bubble up soon.
Regarding Pops comment-
Yep, SB420 limits were found unconstitutional. As Pops so accurately points out LEO is fond of their intimidation tactics and it's left to you the patient to prove you are growing inline with your personal need. Good ole guilty till proven innocent ( I know were close to the border but...do we really need to adopt mexican law system).
Here's something that really gets me. I think ASA has made major strides for patients but regarding this case I just dont get their stance. ASA is looking to have the case Pops speaks of "de-published" meaning it couldn't be quoted as precedent for future cases. Here is ASA Attorney Joe Elford at the June 08 San Diego ASA meeting talking about several issues including the SB420 limitations. Discussion specifically related to the limitations begin @ min 13+/-
http://www.vimeo.com/1175881
I was told by the San Diego ASA organizer that the US Supreme Court had until 4/16/09 to decide if they were going to hear the case. That date has come and gone and no one I know has been able to find any info. Hopefully something will bubble up soon.
Regarding Pops comment-
Yep, SB420 limits were found unconstitutional. As Pops so accurately points out LEO is fond of their intimidation tactics and it's left to you the patient to prove you are growing inline with your personal need. Good ole guilty till proven innocent ( I know were close to the border but...do we really need to adopt mexican law system).
Here's something that really gets me. I think ASA has made major strides for patients but regarding this case I just dont get their stance. ASA is looking to have the case Pops speaks of "de-published" meaning it couldn't be quoted as precedent for future cases. Here is ASA Attorney Joe Elford at the June 08 San Diego ASA meeting talking about several issues including the SB420 limitations. Discussion specifically related to the limitations begin @ min 13+/-
http://www.vimeo.com/1175881
SemperAltus
Active member
interesting, another great post GT.
Gt, you just hit the nail on the head. If LEO doesn't know you are growing, plant counts are immaterial. Even though plant counts are unconstitutional, the court and prosecutors will still use them to determine "need". If the cops have their way and say that all plants will produce one pound, they can show that any quantity over 2 plants is unnecessary. If you look up the DEA guidelines for determining yield, they are much more realistic and are based on the total volume of the plant. In any case, it is best if no one knows that you grow. As far as I am concerned, I don't grow, I don't know you or anyone who grows. I just lurk here out of curiosity. I love the pictures of "Petunias" that you guys post!
