I just got this in my email box.
email said:
People V Kelly - Supreme Court Arguments on Calender
- Thread starter FreedomFGHTR
- Start date
Danknuggler
Active member
Thanks, I just went and made myself a little familiar with the case and what a crock of shit they are trying to do to this poor man.Does anybody read and follow the f'ing laws we vote in to place anymore this shit angers me so much.I hope he wins this.It seems like he should be the victor in this case.
nephilthim
Member
thanks ff and people wonder why I am against taxation?!
Ocean Grown
Member
FreedomFGHTR,
Your link got mangled!
Here it is again:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1896508
Your link got mangled!
Here it is again:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1896508
Reading the court documents in that link, it appears that getting an mmj card somehow obligates one to comply with the AG's guidelines, while just having a rec means you don't have to comply with them. Cards just recently became available in SBD county and I was going to get one but I think now I won't.
PC
PC
pHaroaH
Member
That was a scenario that the Court discussed, but then later held that the section limiting the amount of marijuana unconstitutionally amends Proposition 215 - the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) and therefore must be severed from SB 420 - the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP).
However, I do take note of the argument that if you choose to participate in the "voluntary" MMP that you could be held to limitations imposed by the MMP that are not in conflict with the CUA.
The only benefit to participating in the MMP that I see is that Law Enforcement can not arrest you if you have a valid MMP ID card. It is likely conservative Counties like San Diego and San Bernardino fought implementation of the card program so hard because the cops didn't want to lose their ability to arrest and harrass MMJ patients.
It is up to each individual to decide whether they feel safer with a stay out of jail card at the expense of disclosing your name and address to the government, or having a get out of jail card with a Dr.'s recommendation.
One last concern; Is it good news that the State Supreme Court has decided to hear this case? Had they denied to hear it, the Superior Court ruling would have stood.
can anyone confirm this? why should i be restricted because i paid an extra $155.00 to the State? i'll cancel it.
pHaroaH
Member
No one can really confirm this. It was part of an argument the Attorney General submitted to the appeals court to try and save the MMP limits.
His argument was that the issue of the constitutionality of the MMP guidelines need not be considered since Kelly did not have an ID and so the MMP's guidelines did not apply. This implies that since the MMJ ID program is voluntary, if you participate you consent to give up rights granted under the CUA.
However, the court ruled the limitations imposed by the MMP is an amendment to the CUA and for those reasons the MMP limits had to be thrown out. The court did not really agree or disagree with the Attorney General's argument.
His argument was that the issue of the constitutionality of the MMP guidelines need not be considered since Kelly did not have an ID and so the MMP's guidelines did not apply. This implies that since the MMJ ID program is voluntary, if you participate you consent to give up rights granted under the CUA.
However, the court ruled the limitations imposed by the MMP is an amendment to the CUA and for those reasons the MMP limits had to be thrown out. The court did not really agree or disagree with the Attorney General's argument.
Johnnyla - If you read the court filings in the link that FF provided, this appears to be a pretty good analysis of what the Appellate Court found. The thing is, as near as I can tell, Kelly wouldn't have ever been able to contest the plant limits if he'd had a card.
This whole thing is up in the air until the Supreme Court makes its decision. However, regardless of what the SC says, it would appear that one has a better defense against plant limits if that person does not have a card.
PC
pHaroaH
Member
That's the bottom line for me too. I also don't like the idea of turning over your name and address to the government to get a card either.
Well here is an update as to what happened, I'll include the most important part!
That's right the AG's office agree's that limits are an unconstutional limit to prop 215!
http://cbs5.com/local/medical.marijuana.case.2.1290320.html said:
That's right the AG's office agree's that limits are an unconstutional limit to prop 215!
nephilthim
Member
woo-hoo! fuck the state!and a.s.a! my toilet paper says s.b. 420 is an illegal modification of a state ballot proposition!fuck taxation my doctor is better than any tax!I am popping multiple beans and growing whatever I fucking feel like !self medication is better than taxation without representation!
swing low sweet leo chariot coming forth to teabag my nutsack home !
swing low sweet leo chariot coming forth to teabag my nutsack home !
Hmm, so this means we get to go back to affirmative defenses when the police decide that 2 plants is too many. Lovely, getting arrested is so much fun, everyone should have the experience!
Pythagllio that is hardly going to be the case. Because if the cops rip up plants they will get sued. I'll make sure that my expert witness comes in and uses DEA prices for valuing the plants based on their wet weight with attached rootballs. Yeah the tactics they have used against us for years are going to bite them in the ass. Time for drug war repriations. Seriously I would absolutely love it if the cops took my plants now. It would be a huge payday and a middle finger to the man.
It's kinda hard for some podunk da and sherrif to disagree with the California State Supreme Court. The SB 420 limits existed for one reason only... so DA's could still have a basis to prosecute patients. The limits hurt patients more than they protect them.
It's kinda hard for some podunk da and sherrif to disagree with the California State Supreme Court. The SB 420 limits existed for one reason only... so DA's could still have a basis to prosecute patients. The limits hurt patients more than they protect them.
I live in a county where the Sheriff adheres to the state limits and AG's guidelines... can't see how this would make things worse.
FF: do you have an answer for my above question? I have looked for more information to answer it myself (the cbs5 link does not work, nor can i find it on the cbs5 site with multiple search strings tried) but have not found what I am looking for.
weezybleezy
Member
nothing has been stricken as of yet
the decision has not been published, but Kelley was upheld by the State supreme court. I can't see anything being striken... unless 11362.77 is rewritten to allow for the ID card and they strike the part about plant limits. But it doesn't matter because the decision that its an unconstitutional amendment of the CUA has been upheld by the State's highest court.
can't wait to see the published opinion.
can't wait to see the published opinion.
Yup, there is enough case law now to go this route.
Why not have the state card and just show it when you want. Nobody knows you have it except you and the dept of health. If your driving and get caught, whip out the card. If they visit your garden, don't show it. Just show your recommendation.
