Calif. High Court Hears Case On Medical Pot Limits

[nephilthim]

since the burden of proof is on the state the state would have to prove intent ie ledgers cash large amounts of mj,proven illicit sales etc.the mere presence of a large grow cannot be construed as dealing given the amounts needed to cook,smoke,and make legal hash with.think Ill pop open those caliconnection tahoe o.g pack and give em a whirl.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

since the burden of proof is on the state the state would have to prove intent ie ledgers cash large amounts of mj,proven illicit sales etc.the mere presence of a large grow cannot be construed as dealing given the amounts needed to cook,smoke,and make legal hash with.think Ill pop open those caliconnection tahoe o.g pack and give em a whirl.

I want cuts! Err pics!

 

[theJointedOne]

So does anybody know when they are going to make a concrete decision?

or since it is up in the air, does that make it pretty much ok to start doing as many as necessary? This will make popping beans a HUGE hobby for me

 

[nomaad]

Somebody posted that they have 90 days to publish their opinion.

 

[fatigues]

Lepp is in federal Prison, I believe.

Hey fatigues, I was happy to see you weigh in on this thread. Your perspective is always appreciated. So what's your opinion of how this will play out on the ground for growers and LEOs?

Sorry for not replying to this sooner. I wanted to think about it a bit.


I think the answer is that it will be somewhat of a blessing – with the potential to wreak a little injustice and expose some to a charge which they might have otherwise have avoided under SB420. Overall, I think it will have beneficial results, but not without some potential rough spots. Let me explain.


The presumption under SB420 was that if you have more than eight ounces, you were not in compliance with the Act and you could not shelter under the MMJ provisions. (We know that to be untrue in accordance with The People v. Kelly.) For some, if you had 12 ounces in the stash - that clearly wasn’t a good result. For others though, who might have, say, six ounces in their possession, SB420 was a blessing.


Six ounces and a MMJ card was essentially a get out of jail free card in the absence of a buy and bust to prove otherwise. Even if the MMJ in someone’s possession was, say, split up into one ounce baggies. Even if there were other baggies, cash and a scale in your home. Even if, to an objective eye, it all looked a helluva lot more like somebody selling dope and a helluva lot less like someone just holding their personal MMJ stash in convenient one ounce baggies. SB420 just made the whole thing very difficult to prosecute.


Now, that guy holding the six ounces is not going to be able to shelter under SB420. He’ll still be able to shelter - if he can – under the CUA. The state can still prosecute for trafficking, and in some cases, the lack of a SB420 presumption will be of practical assistance to a prosecutor. But while the legal burden has not changed, there is more of an evidentiary burden on the accused, in the wake of People v. Kelly.


So it’s a mixed blessing, if you get my meaning.


On the other end of the scale, I have some real practical concerns about the inevitable scenario where a dealer is going to assert a personal MMJ defence notwithstanding his possession of a very large amount of pot. Say, 5 or 6 pounds or even 10 lbs. To some neck deep in the culture, that might be possible to see in some very highly unusual circumstances (though to be fair, most of us would agree that’s an amount which is certainly FAR more likely to be on the commercial supply side of the MJ ledger).


Now. Step back for a moment. For those people not neck deep in this culture, a defence of “personal MMJ” for 6 or 10 lbs is going to sound like an incredible pile of bullshit. To most people, it will appear that the MMJ laws are now being directly twisted to let a drug dealer go free “on a technicality” (Note: all substantive laws that people don’t like are “technicalities”).

I think we might all agree that is certainly a possibility in the wake of People v. Kelly. Ten years ago, I’d be concerned that something like that might arouse public and legislative anger and potentially weaken the overall “cause”.


Now? I don’t think that will happen at all, as I don’t think it will have the TIME to happen so as to have any significant effect on the relevant political environment. You see, by the time People v. Kelly gets sorted out and assimilated by the police and prosecutors (and to those in the drug trade) – by the time those cases are brought up and the inevitable bullshit defence of “personal MMJ” by a dealer caught with three garbage bags of pot is put forward – we’ll have already had the “intervening moment”.



That “intervening moment” will be the November 2010 ballot measure, at which time I believe California will vote to legalize marijuana, in some shape or form, by approval of a ballot initiative.


And after that political event occurs, all bets are off and we will be transitioning and turning over to a very blank new page. While politics and legal developments of the past will not magically be thrown away if, say, TC2010 passes, I’m not too concerned about the political optics old cases will lend to such a new political environment. There will be bigger issues to confront and deal with at that time.


So, I’m not as troubled by any of this as I might otherwise be, given the timing of the case and the fact that the Nov 2010 ballot vote is less than one year away.



If TC2010 and/or another MJ legalization initiative do not qualify for the Nov 2010 ballot, all bets are off, obviously.


I hope all of the foregoing makes some sense.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Isn't AB390 also an option?

 

[burnedout]

Now. Step back for a moment. For those people not neck deep in this culture, a defence of “personal MMJ” for 6 or 10 lbs is going to sound like an incredible pile of bullshit. To most people, it will appear that the MMJ laws are now being directly twisted to let a drug dealer go free “on a technicality” (Note: all substantive laws that people don’t like are “technicalities”).

Doesn't the federal government provide 6+ lbs per year to all their medical marijuana patients? It seems fairly reasonable to argue 6 lbs is a personal stash as long as your not churning that out every 3 months.

 

[fatigues]

Doesn't the federal government provide 6+ lbs per year to all their medical marijuana patients? It seems fairly reasonable to argue 6 lbs is a personal stash as long as your not churning that out every 3 months.

That's precisely my point.

While I expect there probably IS somebody out there who smokes 22 joints a day, 365 days a year, the likelihood of that appears, even to someone like me who's swum in some of the deeper parts of the pool, rather incredible. But those of us who are very familiar with some exceptional chronics, might be able to see it. And so, for that very reason, it's possible a jury might even be persauded of it, under the right circumstances.

Which would be the danger, of course. Actually getting somebody off on the personal MMJ defence? That's when the backlash could rumble.

Because to somebody not in the culture or who did not sit through every twist and turn in the trial? It's going to sound like the biggest pile of bullshit they ever heard. And I can't say that they would be wrong to think so. And even if they WERE wrong to think so, that's not going to stop them from thinking so - and 90% plus of everybody else, to roll their eyes and say "bullshit".

It's the exceptional cases, the Willie Horton's of the justice system, that arouse anger. The hypothetical 6lbs of personal MMJ could be such a case under the right media spotlight, at the right time.

Because exceptionally provocative circumstances can rouse the public to great anger. That's the irony of democracy; past a certain point, the more democracy there is in the justice system, the less just it ends up being. Willie Horton? People go ballistic and lay waste to the penal system looking for vengeance. The Weldon Angeloses that very sort of "mob vengenace" produces? The broad mass of the public doesn't care about Weldon Angelos or anybody like him. That's why Weldon Angelos got sent to prison for 55 years in the first place: nobody cares.

Anyways - under the wrong circumstances, something like this could set back the cause. However, as I mentioned above, I don't think that it is likely to manifest into a serious issue. Here's to hoping.

 

[nomaad]

Fatigues: thanks for your reply. My own musings have come up with similar conclusions. You have a skill for articulating legal opinion. Thanks.

I wonder if the 2010 ballot initiatives will actually be fruitful. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next 12 months.

 

[JackTheGrower]

Pardon my confusion.. This is about weight only yes? The issue of plant count is not settled yet right?

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

People V Kelly is about both plant and weight limits. BOTH!

Anyways if you watch the discussion they bring up "legalization" in the board sense. I noticed that CCI is rewriting their initiative to be more receptive to the current cannabis community. That is very encouraging. And given what was said by the justices on the topic, I'm thinking the reworked version of CCI is going to be the way to go! jack you told us so!

 

[nomaad]

P

Anyways if you watch the discussion they bring up "legalization" in the board sense. I noticed that CCI is rewriting their initiative to be more receptive to the current cannabis community.

link?

 

[burnedout]

link?

5th post in this thread...very interesting to watch

 

[Pythagllio]

On the other end of the scale, I have some real practical concerns about the inevitable scenario where a dealer is going to assert a personal MMJ defence notwithstanding his possession of a very large amount of pot. Say, 50 or 60 pounds or even 100 lbs. To some neck deep in the culture, that might be possible to see in some very highly unusual circumstances (though to be fair, most of us would agree that’s an amount which is certainly FAR more likely to be on the commercial supply side of the MJ ledger).

No doubt whatever you're not from Cali, so I took the liberty of correcting the text above as you were off by at least a factor of 10.

 

[Pythagllio]

While I expect there probably IS somebody out there who smokes 22 joints a day, 365 days a year, the likelihood of that appears, even to someone like me who's swum in some of the deeper parts of the pool, rather incredible.

Edibles and topicals take a considerable amount in excess of what would be available from inhalation. Angel Raich uses about 9 lbs a year. A guy with extensive scarring from being burned can top 20 lbs a year using topicals, and it isn't anywhere near approaching true extremes.

Oh, then there's the thing about the quality of the cannabis to consider....10 lbs of mexibrick isn't equal to 10 lbs of ******'s Madonna.

 

[Blue Dot]

Edibles and topicals take a considerable amount in excess of what would be available from inhalation. Angel Raich uses about 9 lbs a year. A guy with extensive scarring from being burned can top 20 lbs a year using topicals, and it isn't anywhere near approaching true extremes.

Oh, then there's the thing about the quality of the cannabis to consider....10 lbs of mexibrick isn't equal to 10 lbs of ******'s Madonna.

I'll give you that but you must then concede that edibles also last a hell of a lot longer then an hour or 2 high (no titration) so that reduces the total amount needed annually compared to inhalation.

 

[burnedout]

I'll give you that but you must then concede that edibles also last a hell of a lot longer then an hour or 2 high (no titration) so that reduces the total amount needed annually compared to inhalation.

Doesn't really matter imo. The bottom line is a patient using concentrates WILL use significantly more marijuana in a year than one who smokes bud.

 

[ItsGrowTime]

Don't do anything different until the written ruling is issued! It's not case law *yet*. Unless the judges specifically issued a stay (cease order) on all cases being prosecuted under the 8oz limit and also included a specific invalidation of the 8oz limit until they issue the final written ruling, then nothing has changed. Don't get too excited YET. Wait for the ruling to be issued THEN change the way you do things. As of right now you still aren't free to grow as much as you want, in a legal sense.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

link?

for those that are too lazy...

http://californiacannabisinitiative.org/

on their front page right now...

 

[ChronJohn]

I saw earlier in the thread someone mention that patients might have to argue before a court that their amount was "reasonable"... well since all patients with an ID card are completely protected from ARREST, not just prosecution, but ARREST, as long as they're in compliance with their limits and all (which there are none of now), you think maybe there will be a surge of people who actually have the card now? Growing 98 plants and holding onto like 20lb at a time? Goddamnit I love you Cali.