Is SB420 Illegal?

[JackTheGrower]

With the focus on Cannabis in California and the general disdain for ASA (Americans for Safe Access ) I have started to look closer at this issue


Here is an article from Written by James O'Sullivan
Tuesday, 04 August 2009

Did the Legislature violate the State Constitution with SB 420?

When voters approved the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) in 1996 ensuring that seriously ill Californians would have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes they had no idea that they had inserted themselves into the middle of an already unfolding effort to legalize Marijuana in the United States. The latest and potentially largest effort, Medical Marijuana storefront dispensaries is currently unfolding in Los Angeles.

What most voters were aware of in 1996 was that a battle was raging in Northern California between supporters of legalized marijuana and the Federal government. Cannabis Clubs were ground zero in this battle that has continued through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Today’s version of Cannabis clubs is the medical marijuana storefront dispensary. Today more and more Citizens are aware of the organized and heavily financed groups seeking to legalize marijuana in California and across the United States. We are also aware that most of the marijuana in Los Angels today comes from outside the Country. This legalization effort is not about compassion it is about big business.



Today there could be up to 1000 medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles. The CUA did not establish medical marijuana dispensaries nor did it mention collectives or cooperatives, which would be a necessary component to a Cooperative Dispensary. Those words came as a result of Senate Bill 420 passed by the Legislature in 2003.

In introducing the bill, the Legislature stated that reports from across the State had revealed problems and uncertainties in the act (CUA) and impeded the ability of Law enforcement officers to enforce provisions as the voters had intended, preventing patients and caregivers from obtaining the protections afforded by the act. They went on and stated that they wanted to "enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical

marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects" and interestingly "it is also the intent of the Legislature to address additional issues that were not included within the act, and that must be resolved in order to promote the fair and orderly implementation of the act."

One of those "additional issues", Section 11362.77 of the Public Health code which dealt with the amount of marijuana a patient could possess has been struck down by the Courts (People v Kelly) and now awaits a hearing before the California Supreme Court. The Appellate Court in striking down that part of SB 420 stated that: "Section 11362.77 amends the CUA, and therefore it is unconstitutional.

They were referring to Article II, section 10, subdivision (c), of the California Constitution which provides: "The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval." The CUA did not permit an amendment or repeal.

There are several other sections that are questionable but have not been challenged to date. Section 11362.775. Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.

Section 11366 deals with penalties for persons who open or maintain any place for the purpose of unlawfully selling, giving away or using any controlled substance. Section 11366.5 appears to be addressing persons who manage or control a building from the owner to agents who lease the space. Section 11570 addresses buildings where selling, serving, storing, keeping, manufacturing, or giving away any controlled substance.

It appears that the Legislature planned that buildings would somehow be used and added protections to those associated with them to the CUA. What would have influenced them to do that? One can only speculate that it had something to do with the Cannabis clubs or dispensaries of Oakland and San Francisco.

What is clear is that the CUA did not address buildings, selling, manufacturing or serving controlled substances. Had anything like that language been in the ballot measure there is a distinct possibility the measure would have failed. That would have been a terrible outcome for people who need medical marijuana but the voters did not approve of cannabis clubs or storefront dispensaries and the Legislature has clearly amended the CUA with these additional sections.

We will watch to see what the City Council does with storefront dispensaries and how they explain the sections mentioned above in regard to the State Constitution. Section 215 of the Administrative code states Every officer provided for in the Charter shall, before entering upon the discharge of the duties of office, take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Los Angeles, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (here inserting the name of the office) according to the best of my ability."

We will be watching.

I understand ASA is seeking to establish some minimums for medical people.. If there are no minimums then the police can set their own based on their opinion..

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

With the focus on Cannabis in California and the general disdain for ASA (Americans for Safe Access ) I have started to look closer at this issue



I understand ASA is seeking to establish some minimums for medical people.. If there are no minimums then the police can set their own based on their opinion..

Hrmm lets see they certainly aren't trying have "minimum" numbers set for dispensaries. Oh wait sorry I am wrong, they are trying to keep dispensaries at a minimum.

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/punbb/viewtopic.php?id=3402][/url]
A moratorium can be a good thing if it leads to the development of sensible regulations. Research and experience teach us that regulations reduce crime and complaints, while serving to preserve access. Regulations for patients' associations are inevitable, so it is best if the medical cannabis community takes the lead in developing and implementing the rules. Otherwise, bureaucrats or law enforcement will.

Yeah on a public forum..... I thinks he forgets that regulations were already in place and the courts pretty much ironed em out to be perfect (hence the federal governments new found acceptance for mmj in California).

Here's the email you requested.
Sandy Sheedy
Councilmember, District 2
[email protected]

>>> Don Duncan <[email protected]> 4/3/2009 11:10 AM >>>
Dear Mayor Johnson and Members of the City Council,
The City of Sacramento has recently seen a proliferation of new
storefront
facilities maintained be legal medical cannabis (marijuana) patients¹
associations. The expansion of safe access to medicine is good for
patients,
but the rapid increase of new facilities may give rise to concern in
the
community and present an opportunity for abuse of the medical cannabis
laws.
Because research and experience show that sensible regulations for
medical
cannabis facilities reduce crime and complaints, I am writing to ask
that
the City Council adopt a temporary moratorium on new storefront
facilities,
so that we may work together to develop and implement appropriate
regulations in Sacramento.
Most of California¹s legal medical cannabis patients rely on
dispensing
collectives or cooperatives to obtain the doctor-recommended medicine
they
need to treat the symptoms of HIV/AIDS, cancer, Multiple Sclerosis,
chronic
pain, and other serious illnesses. These patients¹ associations are
legal
under California law, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown
published
guidelines in August 2008 that state "a properly organized and
operated
collective of cooperative that dispenses medical marijuana through a
storefront may be lawful under California law," provided the facility
substantially complies with the guidelines.
Until recently, the number of storefront facilities operating in
Sacramento
and statewide was checked by threats of federal interference. However,
the
historic election of President Barack Obama and the expanded
Democratic
majority in Congress signal an opportunity for change in federal
policy
concerning medical cannabis (marijuana), and recent developments
indicate
that this change may already be underway. On March 18, US Attorney
General
Eric Holder elaborated on earlier comments about the evolving federal
policy, telling reporters that the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)
would only focus on providers who use medical cannabis as a shield for
illegal activity or who violate state medical cannabis laws. This is a
radical departure from the previous Administration¹s policy. As the
federal
threat to legitimate medical cannabis providers recedes, the importance
of
sensible local regulations for providing safe access to medicine
grows.
Some reports have suggested that storefront patients¹ associations are
magnets for criminal activity or other behavior that is a problem for
the
community, but the experience of those cities with regulations says
otherwise. Crime statistics and the accounts of local officials
surveyed by
Americans for Safe Access indicate that crime is actually reduced by
the
presence of a collective; and complaints from citizens and surrounding
businesses are either negligible or are significantly reduced with the
implementation of local regulations. In Oakland, where collectives have
been
licensed since 2004, City Administrator Barbara Killey, notes that
"The
areas around the dispensaries may be some of the most safest areas of
Oakland now because of the level of security, surveillance, etcŠsince
the
ordinance passed."
I urge you to join dozens of cities and counties in California in
adopting
sensible regulations for medical cannabis collectives and cooperatives
in
Sacramento. In doing so, you will fulfill the voters¹ mandate in
Proposition
215 ³to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of
marijuanaŠ,² and help protect patients and the community.
Americans for Safe Access is the nation¹s largest organization of
patients,
medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe
and
legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research. Our staff
is
ready and willing to help you develop and implement regulations. You
may
reach me at [email protected] or (323) 326-xxxx if you need
additional
information.

Thank you,
Don Duncan
California Director

What the California Attorney General¹s Guidelines Mean for Medical
Cannabis
Dispensing Collectives in California
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=5561
Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives and Local Regulation
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?list=type&type=280
__________________
Don Duncan
California Director
Americans for Safe Access
http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/
Americans for Safe Access (ASA) is the largest national member-based
organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and
concerned
citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic
use and
research.
Are you an ASA member? http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org/Join

Note the date. April 3rd 2009. They created this issue here in Sacramento. This is not something I am making up. BY the way it didn't make the papers until May 27th that the city was discussing such a thing.


So what resulted because of their actions:

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=2009&meta_id=181800]2[/url]. The Compassionate Use Act does not legalize marijuana dispensaries that are
"for profit" or which do not operate under the Health and Safety Code definition.
of a "primary caregiver." The Medical Marijuana Program has been interpreted
by at least one :court as contemplating the formation and operation of medical
marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the
services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana. (People v.
Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal:App.4th 747.)

Had they read the rest of the case http://web.lexis-nexis.com/research...b-zSkAz&_md5=981eea5a6a05aacc76355314af313aa4 they would realize that this ordinance is actually illegal because this is what the courts said years ago.

People v. Urziceanu[/url]]
As relevant here, the Medical Marijuana Program Act contains section 11362.775, which states, “Qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards, who associate within the State of California in order collectively or cooperatively to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes, shall not solely on the basis of that fact be subject to state criminal sanctions under Section 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, or 11570.” Thus, the Legislature also exempted those qualifying patients and primary caregivers who collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes from criminal sanctions for possession for sale, transportation or furnishing marijuana, maintaining a location for unlawfully selling, giving away, or using controlled substances, managing a location for the storage, distribution of any controlled substance for sale, and the laws declaring the use of property for these purposes a nuisance.

This new law represents a dramatic change in the prohibitions on the use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana for persons who are qualified patients or primary caregivers and fits the defense defendant attempted to present at trial. Its specific itemization of the marijuana sales law indicates it contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana.

And this is what the ordinance states

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=2009&meta_id=181800[/url]
Section 7. Penalties
A. Any person who owns or operates a medical marijuana dispensary violating any
provision of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Such person shall
be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any
portion of which any violation of this Ordinance is committed, continued or
permitted by such person and shall be punishable as herein provided.
B. In addition to criminal sanctions, the city attorney, in the name of and on behalf
of the city and/or the people of the state, may bring a civil action in a court of
competent jurisdiction to enforce any provision of this Ordinance, or to restrain
or abate any violation of the provisions of this Ordinance as a public nuisance.
C. Unless otherwise expressly provided, the remedies, procedures and penalties
provided in this Ordinance are cumulative to each other and to any other
remedies, procedures and penalties available under state law or city ordinance.

Yeah I am 100% certain the courts have said something to the contrary.
And here is who is affected by the Ordinance that ASA wanted passed

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=2009&meta_id=181800][/url]
For purposes of this Ordinance, the term medical marijuana dispensary means any for
profit or not-for-profit facility, building, structure or location, whether fixed, mobile,
permanent or temporary, where a person(s) makes available, sells, gives, distributes, or
otherwise provides medical marijuana to at least two or more of the following persons: a
primary caregiver, a qualified patient, or a person with an identification card in strict
accordance with California Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 et seq.
A "medical marijuana dispensary" includes medical marijuana "cooperatives" and
"collectives". The terms "primary caregiver," "qualified patient," "person with an
identification card," "cooperatives," and "collectives" shall be as defined in The
Compassionate Use Act (California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5) and the
Medical Marijuana Program (California Health and Safety Code sections 11362.7 et seq.),
and as further supplemented and interpreted by the California Attorney General's
Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use -
2008.

So if you even share a joint with 2 other patients you are legally a dispensary according to the City of Sacramento and the legislation pushed on us by ASA.



To answer your original question SB 420 as a whole is not illegal only the section that creates Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77. The part about limits.

Because these numerical limitations are not found in the
Compassionate Use Act, defendant contends that the Medical
Marijuana Program Act unconstitutionally amends the
Compassionate Use Act. To address this contention, we turn to
the rules regarding amendment to an initiative and the
definition of an amendment.
“A statute enacted by voter initiative may be changed only
with the approval of the electorate unless the initiative
measure itself permits amendment or repeal without voter
approval.” (People v. Cooper (2002) 27 Cal.4th 38, 44, citing
Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (c).)Here, the Compassionate
Use Act does not authorize the Legislature to amend its
provisions without voter approval, so we look at whether the
Medical Marijuana Program Act amends the Compassionate Use Act.
“An amendment is ‘. . . any change of the scope or effect
of an existing statute . . . . ’” (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Cory
(1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 772, 776, citing Sutherland, Statutory
Construction (4th ed. 1972) § 22.01, p. 105.) “A statute which
adds to or takes away from an existing statute is considered anamendment.” (Franchise Tax Bd., at p. 776, citing Robbins v.
O. R. R. Company (1867) 32 Cal. 472.) “‘Whether an act is
amendatory . . . is determined by an examination and comparison of its provisions with existing law. If its aim is to clarify
or correct uncertainties which arose from the enforcement of the
existing law, . . . the act is amendatory, even though in its
wording it does not purport to amend the language of the prior
act.’” (Franchise Tax Bd., at p. 777.)We therefore compare the provisions of the Compassionate
Use Act to the provisions of the Medical Marijuana Program Act
to determine if the latter amends the former. The Compassionate
Use Act does not place numerical limits on the amount of
marijuana that a patient or a patient’s primary caregiver can
possess or cultivate. It simply states that the laws penalizing
possession and cultivation of marijuana shall not apply to a
patient or a patient’s primary caregiver if either possesses or
cultivates marijuana “for the personal medical purposes of the
patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a
physician.” (§ 11362.5, subd. (d).)The Medical Marijuana
Program Act adds numerical limits to the Compassionate Use Act.
Specifically, it limits the amount of dried marijuana that a
qualified patient or a primary caregiver can possess to “no more
than eight ounces . . . per qualified patient” and the number of
plants either can maintain to “no more than six mature or 12
immature marijuana plants per qualified patient.” (§ 11362.77,
subd. (a).) It lifts these limits “f a qualified patient or
primary caregiver has a doctor’s recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient’s medical needs,”
in which case “the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient’s
needs.” (§ 11362.77, subd. (b).)The People argue that despite the quantitative difference
between the Medical Marijuana Program Act and the Compassionate
Use Act, “[t]here is no substantive difference between” them.
According to the People, the numerical limits in the Medical
Marijuana Program Act “do no more than implement a plan to
provide the safe distribution of medical marijuana to those who
need it as specifically authorized by the [Compassionate Use
Act].” At the same time though, the People admit that the
Medical Marijuana Program Act “both expanded and clarified the
scope of the [Compassionate Use Act].”
This latter admission, with which we agree, dooms the
People’s argument. Two cases illustrate this point. In Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California v. Swoap (1985) 173
Cal.App.3d 1187, the Court of Appeal invalidated a budget act
provision restricting the use of family planning funds for
organizations providing abortion-related services. (Id. at
p. 1201.) As is pertinent here, the court compared that
provision to existing statutes providing for family planning
education, training, and services, and to regulations requiring
that clients be advised of all possible family planning options.
(Id. at pp. 1199-1200.) The court explained that even if the
budget act “‘simply clarifie[d]” funding arrangements and other
services authorized under the family planning act, it still
impermissibly amended the act because “[a]t the very least” it “impose[d] substantive conditions that nowhere appear in
existing law.” (Id. at p. 1201.)
Relying on Planned Parenthood, the court in California Lab.
Federation v. Occupational Safety & Health Stds. Bd. (1992) 5
Cal.App.4th 985, invalidated a budget act provision that imposed
a “‘cap’” on the hourly rate to be paid for attorney fees under
the “‘private attorney general’ attorney fee doctrine” because
the provision was an impermissible amendment of that doctrine.
(California Lab. Federation, at pp. 993-996.) The “‘private
attorney general’ attorney fee doctrine” itself contained “no
express limitation on the size of the award” although it had
been “universally understood to permit a ‘reasonable’ award.”
(Id. at p. 994.) The budget act provision at issue, however,imposed “what amounts to a mandatory numerical ceiling on the
fees which may be recovered.” (Ibid.) Similarly here, the Medical Marijuana Program Act imposes
mandatory numerical ceilings on the amount of marijuana and
marijuana plants that can be possessed or cultivated, where the
Compassionate Use Act has none. The Compassionate Use Act
speaks simply in terms of the “personal medical purposes of the
patient . . . .” (§ 11362.5, subd. (d).) At most, this
language can be understood to impose only a reasonableness
requirement, i.e., “that the quantity possessed by the patient
or the primary caregiver, and the form and manner in which it is
possessed, should be reasonably related to the patient’s current
medical needs.” (People v. Trippet (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1532,
1549; see also CALJIC No. 12.24.1 & Comment to CALJIC No.12.24.1 (Fall 2006 ed.) pp. 789-791.) But “[w]hat precisely are
the ‘patient’s current medical needs’ must, of course, remain a
factual question to be determined by the trier of fact.”
(Trippet, at p. 1549.) Here, by placing numerical limits on
what constitutes the “patient’s current medical needs,” or the
“personal medical purposes of the patient . . . .” where no such
limits are found in the Compassionate Use Act, the challenged
provision of the Medical Marijuana Act is amendatory. We
therefore hold that the provision in the Medical Marijuana
Program Act imposing numerical limits on the amount of dried
marijuana that can be possessed and the number of marijuana
plants that can maintained (§ 11362.77, subd. (a)) is an
unconstitutional amendment to the Compassionate Use Act. This
provision can be severed without affecting the validity of the
remaining portions of the Medical Marijuana Program Act.
(§ 11362.82.)

So had this case remain citeable as published case law we could carry as much weed and grow as much as we want and the cops and courts would be powerless. There would be no need for a minimum by the way if you exceed the minimum aren't you still in violation of the law and thus subject to arrest? Seriously ASA is trying to fuck things up now, not help them.

 

[ChronJohn]

Jack we think the same brother I was wondering about this myself recently, because the medical grow i will have when i move out there will be a perpetual SOG so i havea steady stream of meds; not in the mood to deal with LEO an explaining my shit will only yield 1/4-1/2 oz a plant.. will definitely get an exemption but I shouldn't have to! its unconstitutional. The court already said so, like FreedomFGHTR said thanks to ASA depublishing it or whatever we can't use the decision til the Supreme Court handles it BS! Those without exemptions who get caught up will still win in court but why go through the trouble! I don't know who to be madder at ASA or the state for appealing a clear verdict.

 

[JackTheGrower]

It's the liberty VS Drug Policy.. In the beginning of the United States our founding Fathers feared true Democracy and so that is why we only vote for Representatives who go into a close door meeting to elect a President.

I don't see that changing no mater how red in the face we get; On any level.

In the county I live in I want the printed word of I am not in violation if i have x number of plants and x ounces of medicine on hand..

This backwater , exploiting cheep labor and voting against social services county will fuck me over if I get the man on my ass.

Not only that I have to deal with people who are locked nose deep in propaganda and see cannabis medical people as communists to be hated six and 3/4 days a week.. ( They go to church for part of the Sunday )

So.. In a honest and fair spirit.. FreedomFGTR why can't we have a law that says X plants and x ounces as a minimum?
That there are no limits is fine by me but, that there are no limits to the down side towards 1 plant one ounce is not good with me.


Jack

 

[JackTheGrower]

Jack we think the same brother I was wondering about this myself recently, because the medical grow i will have when i move out there will be a perpetual SOG so i havea steady stream of meds; not in the mood to deal with LEO an explaining my shit will only yield 1/4-1/2 oz a plant.. will definitely get an exemption but I shouldn't have to! its unconstitutional. The court already said so, like FreedomFGHTR said thanks to ASA depublishing it or whatever we can't use the decision til the Supreme Court handles it BS! Those without exemptions who get caught up will still win in court but why go through the trouble! I don't know who to be madder at ASA or the state for appealing a clear verdict.

It's grapevine shit but I am understanding it still carries weight in court right now..

That's all I know..

 

[ChronJohn]

I'm sayin we shouldn't even have to deal with courts/legal fees/meds or plants taken away anyways.. it should be LAW no limit on meds or plants. but thanks for the quick update on that Jack.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

It's grapevine shit but I am understanding it still carries weight in court right now..

That's all I know..

No you are wrong. As said before the case has been depublished which means

Depublication—the California Supreme Court's discretionary power to order that a Court of Appeal opinion not be published in the Official Reports, thus depriving the opinion of precedential value1—

Goto the california courts website and search for the case, you won't find it, I promise. Which ever lawyer said it can be still used in court is selling you bullshit instead of Bat Guano.

 

[JackTheGrower]

No you are wrong. As said before the case has been depublished which means

Goto the california courts website and search for the case, you won't find it, I promise. Which ever lawyer said it can be still used in court is selling you bullshit instead of Bat Guano.

You are not reading me correctly..

I said I understand that limits are not such an issue at this time in court from what I hear.

It's grapevine stuff yes...


Jack

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

You are not reading me correctly..

I said I understand that limits are not such an issue at this time in court from what I hear.

It's grapevine stuff yes...


Jack

That reminds me of my days as a slave. I was sitting in prison on a parole violation, just flew in from NYC. The guys at the table were talking about how they heard absconders aren't being extradited from more than 2 states away form California. Nobody had any official documentation, but I had the extradition paperwork that shows they dragged my ass all the way from NYC.

You keep on trusting the grapevine man. I am going to trust written law, and the English language. The legal texts and education I have, while not being a member of the bar (which did help me beat a 3 strikes case pro per) make me know for 100%. With matters this serious with very severe consequences I would not trust fucking rumor.

Until the legislature or the courts once again say that 11362.77 is garbage I will play by the plant limit rules of SB 420.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

So.. In a honest and fair spirit.. FreedomFGTR why can't we have a law that says X plants and x ounces as a minimum?
That there are no limits is fine by me but, that there are no limits to the down side towards 1 plant one ounce is not good with me.

Because as the Courts have pointed out, Plant and weight limits are unconstitutional. As patients per 215 we should be able to have as much medicine as we want whenever we want where ever we want!

I can order up enough vodka from bevmo to kill myself so why shouldn't you be able to buy as much cannabis as you want from California Cannabis Inc.? Atleast the weed won't kill you.

 

[maxxim]

Today more and more Citizens are aware of the organized and heavily financed groups seeking to legalize marijuana in California and across the United States. We are also aware that most of the marijuana in Los Angels today comes from outside the Country.

This has been on my mind for a while now.

Where are the LA dispensaries getting their product from? Are they all knowingly or unknowingly breaking the law by selling MJ that has been smuggled into the country?

If mexican cartel money and weed are making it to the dispensaries do we then then have blood on our hands? Not to say that we do not already but isn`t this the point to legalize or are we just hypocrites perpetuating a lie? I don`t think there would be much support for another Charles Lynch if he was buying MJ from the Los Zetas to resell to us.

 

[maxxim]

Because as the Courts have pointed out, Plant and weight limits are unconstitutional. As patients per 215 we should be able to have as much medicine as we want whenever we want where ever we want!

As a patient should we be able to have as much Oxy, percoset, vicodin, zanax as we want whenever we want where ever we want!

To call "medicine" something that you feel the need to grow pounds of or tens of pounds, or even hundreds of pounds of is a lie also. The only reason to want no limit growing is just so that you can get rich selling your crops. But lets face it everyone smokes a pound a week right?

why shouldn't you be able to buy as much cannabis as you want from California Cannabis Inc.?

Whats stopping you now from walking into the dispensary and buying everything on the shelf? Then walking to the next dispensary and doing the same...

 

[JackTheGrower]

That reminds me of my days as a slave. I was sitting in prison on a parole violation, just flew in from NYC. The guys at the table were talking about how they heard absconders aren't being extradited from more than 2 states away form California. Nobody had any official documentation, but I had the extradition paperwork that shows they dragged my ass all the way from NYC.

You keep on trusting the grapevine man. I am going to trust written law, and the English language. The legal texts and education I have, while not being a member of the bar (which did help me beat a 3 strikes case pro per) make me know for 100%. With matters this serious with very severe consequences I would not trust fucking rumor.

Until the legislature or the courts once again say that 11362.77 is garbage I will play by the plant limit rules of SB 420.

Relax man..

 

[JackTheGrower]

What I'm saying is no upper limit if fine just that there should be a minimum allowed lower one for everyone's protection.

I mean I could get arrested with 300 plants and would have to prove why in court I needed 300. Ya know.. Nothing is going to stop that sort of police action IMO.. But that they can come and ruin my life because I have 6 is not what I want at all..

So yes to no maximum but yes to a stated minimum.. Some protection for the average medical person is a positive step and if that is what ASA is up to then I agree with ASA..
I think the levels should allow for mother plants outside of the growing plants.
Should be 12 immature and 6 mature at least.. 12 Mature and 12 immature works for my setup..

I mean really how the hell can I keep genetics if I have to relate those plants to production counts.

Now what the ramifications are on business I don't know.. I understand you Sac guys have a bit of a turf war going but then LA is in the throws and San Diego is filing charges..

Lets skip it all and make it legal whacha ya say?



Jack

 

[Hydro-Soil]

To call "medicine" something that you feel the need to grow pounds of or tens of pounds, or even hundreds of pounds of is a lie also. The only reason to want no limit growing is just so that you can get rich selling your crops. But lets face it everyone smokes a pound a week right?.

Try to find the mums that throw cuts that work great with your head, popping 2 beans every 6 months to stay within limits. Plant limits don't hurt just commercial growers, they hurt every single med grower where it hurts the most, the freedom to find the strain that works best for them.


As for this "comes from out of the country" B.S. I have an extremely difficult time believing that the primo I picked up from the dispensaries is shipped in from some other state/country. LOL The street schwag, sure.

 

[CaptainTrips]

As a patient should we be able to have as much Oxy, percoset, vicodin, zanax as we want whenever we want where ever we want!

of coarse you should, but obviously our police state drug war does not permit this. Shouldn't need a prescription either.

To call "medicine" something that you feel the need to grow pounds of or tens of pounds, or even hundreds of pounds of is a lie also. The only reason to want no limit growing is just so that you can get rich selling your crops. But lets face it everyone smokes a pound a week right?

If everyone was allowed to grow as much as they want, no limits. No prohibition, the value of his crops would plumet. So if he needs a pound a month, or whatever. Fine. I can imagine a real med user, cooking his crops, could easily use what you find objectionable.

 

[nephilthim]

the problem with s.b. 420 and as freedom extrapolated a.s.a. having had the case depublished( fuck you don extorting duncan)is the legislature knew what they were doing was against the law,no state proposition can be modified by any legislative body,and can only be modified by another proposition placed on state ballot.
prop 13,prop 36,any provisons to modifying these propositions have been declared unconstitutional.
obviously a conflict of interest to want to regulate supply in the name of access when you own a dispensary or represent a dispensary that would benefit from a closed competition marketplace.
a free market is just that free!from untoward regulation and outright civic bans on dispensary access.knowing what or how many dispensaries can be sustained is an unknown X factor that can only be defined by product,pricing ,and customer service.
to limit the market to the benefit of a few dispensaries is monopolistic and anticompetitive,and does not benefit the consumer.
ethics and a conflict of interest are something that don and a few others should take remedial training in,preferably forced reeducation in a gulag in siberia.

 

[JackTheGrower]

nephilthim, I just posted the official Police White Paper on Medical Cannabis in California.. It's .. Well have a read...