*********SB420 EXEMPTION******???

[johnnyla]

How does one get a SB 420 Exemption?

My doc rec says as follows:

"Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code 11362.5, my patient is permitted possession of medical cannabis in quantities pursuant to California Health and Safety Code 11362.77, SB 420, and all local and city and county guidelines."

The lady at the LA Dept of Health told me i was SB420 exempt. It seems a bit murky to me. My doc didn't tell me how much i could/should use. I need more than SB420 because i can't grow my own medicine year round. I have to do it in one shot once a year at best.

Anyone have any insight?

 

[PharmaCan]

As I recall the law says your plant count is limited unless you get a doctor's recommendation for more plants. It sounds like you need to get your Doctor to put an allowed/recommended plant count in writing.

PC

 

[johnnyla]

As I recall the law says your plant count is limited unless you get a doctor's recommendation for more plants. It sounds like you need to get your Doctor to put an allowed/recommended plant count in writing.

PC

i think you are right. i'm going to form a collective with a few close patients so that i am not undully, and unlawfully (SB 420 was shot down and Prop 215 never mentioned quantities) restricted in providing the amount of medicine i need to remain healthy. I think if i had enough cannabis i could even take the risk of going off powerful pharmaceuticals that cause major nausea and the lack of could cause major organ failure. unfortunately, the meds also can cause lymphoma. WTF? anyways, my goal is to get off pharmaceuticals. I'm finally down to only two pills a day down from 25 a day. Oh and as much cannabis as i can afford now. the dispensary system is convenient but not very compassionate. it does seem to be very profiatable aka compassionate for the ones running the dispensaries.

I think we all know the realities of growing your own meds. Its very hard to grow year round and even secure a place. Adding ridiculous plant counts only makes it harder which i don't think the law intended. Anyways, better safe than sorry.

forced into forming a collective. could be worse. could live in a non med state

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

SB 420 was not shot down. It currently still has the full force and effect of California law. It is pending review in the California Supreme court on several grounds. Overall it will get upheld. The part which has the biggest controversy is about plant and weight limits. You can thank the wonderful people at ASA for getting the case law depublished and having the state supreme court review it. Honestly it's 50/50 on how the court will decide that one.

Starting a collective is the smartest way to do it.

 

[johnnyla]

yeah what is ASA doing?

follow the money trail. let's see the transperancy. who's pockets are getting lined? who funded ASA?

 

[Vespatian]

Be careful about relying on a doc's rec that says you are allowed to grow more than what is allowed in accordance with your county code. Many LEO's will ignore that, bust you, and force you and your doc to defend yourselves in the system.

 

[johnnyla]

hmmmn another reason to grow collectively?

 

[Pythagllio]

Yeah, let's keep kicking ASA and keep whining because they've got a realistic agenda vs the lala land fantasia that people here think is what we should be shooting for.

Just more of the same counterproductive infighting bullcrap that's kept the cannabis movement stuck in the mud for years. Congratulations all you ASA haters, you're efforts to keep us from moving forward will once again likely be successful. But god forbid that anyone should make a buck. Better to keep it illegal so the people on their high horses can keep claiming 'it's all about money'. Boo fucking hoo, you're a piker. Maybe if you weren't a piker you'd understand how things get done in the USA. But must you really stand in the way of progress because you're clueless?

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Hrmmm I don't see how ASA is moving things forward? Ok maybe they are if your goal is restictions and limitations on Cannabis so people can still get prosecuted and sent to jail.

ASA CA Weekly Round Up 8/15/2008
August 15th, 2008
Posted by George Pappas

California Supreme Court Considers Medical Cannabis Again
by Joseph Elford, ASA Chief Legal Counsel

Just as many would have thought that the SB 420 guidelines of 8 ounces and 12 immature or six mature plants were a dead letter — a blessing for some a nightmare for others — the California Supreme Court granted review of People v. Kelly, which held that the SB 420 quantities are “limits” on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient may possess and, as such, constitute an unconstitutional amendment of a voter-approved initiative. Another Court of Appeal agreed in People v. Phomphakdy, so it appeared that the SB 420 guidelines were done.

For some, this was a good thing, as many law enforcement officers applied the SB 420 quantities as limits on the amount of marijuana patients may possess and busted patients who had anymore than 8 ounces or six mature plants. For others, this was a potential nightmare, since police in some communities may well go back to busting patients who have as little as an ounce or one or two plants.

So, without taking any pleasure from the process, we filed a letter with the California Supreme Court requesting depublication of the Kelly decision. Although we agreed the result of the Kelly decision and love the fact that yet another court has sided with patients, we felt it was important for the California Supreme Court to hear our view — that the SB 420 guidelines are thresholds, not ceilings. Patients should have a safe harbor and the Kelly decision, though well-intentioned, took that safe harbor away.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Kelly decision, framing the issues as follows:

(1) does Health & Safety Code section 11362.77 violate the California Constitution by amending the Compassionate Use Act without voter approval?; and (2) were there alternative remedies to invalidating section 11362.77 in its entirety?

This bodes well for Mr. Kelly and the rest of us, as it appears that the Court will likely affirm the reversal of Mr. Kelly’s convictions, while maintaining that the SB 420 guidelines are constitutional, at least as they apply only to patients with identification cards or if they are interpreted as thresholds. Meanwhile, the Kelly case is depublished and the SB 420 guidelines will remain in effect.

See they requested to have the appeals courts decision revoked. I am not making this shit up. Like I said this all comes as a surprise. My friend who used to own Capital Alternatives in Sacramento benefited from ASA years ago, when they got raided and ASA had people protesting and helped keep them out of jail. Hence why this was so much a shocker. But like most groups that start out with good intentions, their special interests rear their ugly head.

Lets look specifically at this

"For others, this was a potential nightmare, since police in some communities may well go back to busting patients who have as little as an ounce or one or two plants."

Since the appeals courts specifically held that plant limits are a direct conflict with prop 215, all patients would still be protected under the decision of the appeals courts. People v phompkhady was very specific. You would think that ASA who understand how precidents work, would have understood that, which they do.

So now should I get back on the topic of how they are encouraging moratoriums on collectives, not just dispensaries,.. on a state wide basis.

I will keep hating ASA because they are corrupt and greed driven. Their actions have helped to keep the price of cannabis inflated (good for farmers and those who operate collectives(Don Duncan) but bad for patients.

The bottom line is that we wouldn't have to worry about plant numbers, and weight on hand if it weren't for ASA.

 

[trybud]

Anyone that supports ASA's stance on MMJ is probably having their pockets lined by their actions. They went from being my fave pro-MMj org to the bottom of the list. They turned into a money-grubbing 'club' of dispensary owners only interested in dictating policy that directly benefits themselves...such a shame

 

[JackTheGrower]

http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/rulings.html

An interesting page...

 

[JackTheGrower]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/08/20/18528251.php

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*California Supreme Court Considers Medical Cannabis Again *
*by Joseph Elford, ASA Chief Legal Counsel

*Just as many would have thought that the SB 420 guidelines
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?list=type&type=186 of 8 ounces and 12 immature or six mature plants were a dead letter --- a blessing for some a nightmare for others --- the California Supreme Court granted review of People v. Kelly, http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/?p=104 which held that the SB 420 quantities are "limits" on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient may possess and, as such, constitute an unconstitutional amendment of a voter-approved initiative. Another Court of Appeal agreed
in People v. Phomphakdy http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/?p=135, so it appeared that the SB 420 guidelines were done.

For some, this was a good thing, as many law enforcement officers applied the SB 420 quantities as limits on the amount of marijuana patients may possess and busted patients who had anymore than 8 ounces or six mature plants. For others, this was a potential nightmare, since police in some communities may well go back to busting patients who have as little as an ounce or one or two plants.
So, without taking any pleasure from the process, we filed a letter with the California Supreme Court requesting depublication of the Kelly decision. Although we agreed the result of the Kelly decision and love the fact that yet another court has sided with patients, we felt it was important for the California Supreme Court to hear our view ---
that the SB 420 guidelines are thesholds, not ceilings. Patients should have a safe harbor and the Kelly decision, though well-intentioned, took that safe harbor away.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Kelly decision, framing the issues as follows:

(1) does Health & Safety Code section 11362.77 violate the California Constitution by amending the Compassionate Use Act without voter approval?; and (2) were there alternative remedies to invalidating section 11362.77 in its entirety?

This bodes well for Mr. Kelly and the rest of us, as it appears that the Court will likely affirm the reversal of Mr. Kelly's convictions, while maintaining that the SB 420 guidelines are constitutional, at least as they apply only to patients with identification cards or if they are interpreted as thresholds. Meanwhile, the Kelly case is depublished and the SB 420 guidelines will remain in effect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what ASA is saying then is they want to clarify that medical people won't get busted for two plants and two ounces if the cops feel like it.

So here we are all upset over ASA and yet getting some minimum threshold of what we medical people can have is really important..

What I see ASA saying is.. Some police are busting people with 7 plants or the police make a judgment call on how much a medical person can have.
So with out some legal numbers as minimums police can set their own limits.

I'm starting to think ASA isn't the bad guys here.. As they said

So, without taking any pleasure from the process, we filed a letter with the California Supreme Court requesting depublication of the Kelly decision.

The idea that SB 420 isn't constitutional is a fair one.. But I can see the reasoning to get some minimums in writing to save medical people from being arrested.


So why is ASA being Dissed?

Jack'

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Jack it was in writing and had the full force of law that there were no such thing as minimums and patients could legally posses and grow as much as they want. As for the whole of SB 420 being unconstitutional I could understand, not wanting that. But I think there is a severability clause in sb 420and the issue at hand is AMOUNTS, H&S 11362.77.

Don't buy that BS of wanting established Minimums it's just Orwellian doublespeak.

 

[Thundurkel]

Thanks for another update on the medical cannabis laws and news FreedomFGHTR and with that said FUCK ASA!!!

 

[trybud]

Self-serving, like a bunch of politicians with no jobs..."Oh hey, you club owners can donate to us and when we come to your town to impose limits on the number of operating dispensaries we'll make sure you can stay open"......lol......Thats my problem with ASA, without them in the picture around in the sac area(just meddling nowadays) meds could probably be 30% cheaper for the everyday patients, but im just speculating.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Jack it was in writing and had the full force of law that there were no such thing as minimums and patients could legally posses and grow as much as they want. As for the whole of SB 420 being unconstitutional I could understand, not wanting that. But I think there is a serviceability clause in sb 420and the issue at hand is AMOUNTS, H&S 11362.77.

Don't buy that BS of wanting established Minimums it's just Orwellian doublespeak.

Friend, I doubt seriously ASA is the "Bad Guy."

Some medical people need a pound on hand. Some need an ounce..

Who decides who is out of bounds?

I'm now researching this issue.. For now I am taking the opposite position from you and giving ASA the shadow of the doubt.

Heh.. This is healthy for getting to the bottom of things yes?


Jack

 

[nephilthim]

Yeah, let's keep kicking ASA and keep whining because they've got a realistic agenda vs the lala land fantasia that people here think is what we should be shooting for.

Just more of the same counterproductive infighting bullcrap that's kept the cannabis movement stuck in the mud for years. Congratulations all you ASA haters, you're efforts to keep us from moving forward will once again likely be successful. But god forbid that anyone should make a buck. Better to keep it illegal so the people on their high horses can keep claiming 'it's all about money'. Boo fucking hoo, you're a piker. Maybe if you weren't a piker you'd understand how things get done in the USA. But must you really stand in the way of progress because you're clueless?

thats right defining safe access(wtf?)or maybe limiting access to keep the competition down?so monopolies are unconstitutional but o.k. when it comes to medical mj?or what does conflict of interest mean?advocating restrictions that benefit yourself to the detriment of others and the financial benefit of your cronies that you serve?why should sad sac have only 3 dispensaries shouldn't a free market decide how many can financialy viable or consider two or more people growing a collective subject to regulation*?
any informed voter know it's illegal,unconstitutional to modify a ballot propostion with alegisaltive body.the only way to change or modify a proposition is with another proposition.so knowing that a.s.a. is advocating an unconstitutional position in regards to s.b. 420 not to mention gross conflicts of interest with their agenda.I think we can all feel ire towards a.s.a for having the case on plant limits depublished.

 

[Thundurkel]

All I know is I am a med patient with limited resources and little money and space, so I have found the Dr Bud Method of craming 27-72 plants in 20oz bottles in 2-3sq ft but that would have me put away for a while even though my harvest is less than the HID guy next door with 6 monster plants in his spare room so how is is fair to put a limit on plant numbers?? thats my rant for the morning

 

[johnnyla]

yeah it's not fair and the money trail should be followed all the way home.

 

[purrpullkush]

I'm ashamed to say I've donated to ASA in the past. I thought their agenda was in line with the wants and needs of the patients but have come to realize that they are truly only concerned with the wants and needs of their biggest contributors, the cannabis clubs. If the Kelly decision is reversed and sb420 is deemed constitutional alot of californians are more likely to do time in prison for marijuana, plain and simple. An affirmative prop 215 defense was much simpler to make for a patient growing any quantity previous to sb 420. sb420's limits do a lot more to RESTRICT marijuana cultivation and possession than they do to protect it. It is inherently flawed. Basically, it may lower the probability of being ARRESTED for small possession or cultivation(maybe), but it almost definitely increases the chances of being CONVICTED for medium to large possession or cultivation, thus putting the true heroes of the MMJ movement, "REAL" caregivers, at great risk.
The messed up thing is that ASA knows this better than ANYONE so it can only mean one thing....they are just cannabis club industry lobbyists, their intent is to keep marijuana expensive so their biggest clients, I mean contributors, can make as much money as possible, and not even have to compete in a free market system. Disgusting....
just my $.02
-purrp