Chronjohn I think that is the straight jacket the justices were referring to and what the lawyers were asking for.
Calif. High Court Hears Case On Medical Pot Limits
- Thread starter FreedomFGHTR
- Start date
B
Blue Dot
I think you have it a little twisted.
The ID cards protect you from arrest BECAUSE there are limits in place (In other words cops had a reference as to what is legal).
Once those limits are gone I believe the arrest protection will disappear from the ID cards.
I disagree. My instinct is that the court will rule that the Cards are legit to protect against arrest period w/o limitation.
that is the only way they can make everyone happy. they know it too.
Thats why they basically said hey people please give us a general legalization thing cause this is getting old... you know everyone on that court is a stoner. Seriously they have to be. Ok except for Canard she seemed like she is on something else...
J
JackTheGrower
So we wait? I see that the limits are out.. I like the card thing as well, I just wish we didn't have to pay each year.. They could be good for longer than one year if your doctor said so..
That was cool to watch that video..
And yes CCI is retooling.. I hope we can get So. Cal on board in force.
But my my my... What change is happening! It's amazing..
That was cool to watch that video..
And yes CCI is retooling.. I hope we can get So. Cal on board in force.
But my my my... What change is happening! It's amazing..
The prohibitionist titanic of a boat is sinking faster and faster now. Soon it will take the plung to the bottom of the ocean of ingnorance. You will see Newt Gingrich telling Bush Senior he will never let go right before he dies. Then he will crack his old boney grip and let him sink. And all the pot smokers will be watching from land listening to Led Zeppelin's Dancing Days, rejoicing.... and peace will fall over the globe, like a warm, embracing electric blanket.
lol
lol
LOL!! Health Canada has approved one patient in the past with a 55 grams per day limit. Annually, that's a limit of 44 lbs. I think that translates to a plant count of 268 and a storage maximum of 26.5 lbs or so. (There is a mathematical formula in the Canadian Regulation that is tied to the patient's grams per day recommendation to compute maximum plant counts and storage limits.)
It's hardly a circumstance unique to California.
Again, it's not that there are not extreme circumstances that makes these very large limits inconceivable. They are not inconceivable. They do exist -- and that's the problem. The broad mass of the public who are unfamilair with these extreme cases are likely to have a knee twitch reaction should they be portrayed by the media in a very unfavorable light. It's a wrong time, wrong place potential to wreak a lot of damage on the overall cause -- but it's happily a remote concern right now.
[edit]
People v. Kelly is, is about both. He was charged with having 12 oz - and with having more than six mature plants.
The section of SB420 which is under attack reads as follows:
[Edit] FreedomFightr is right and it's about both.
I don't think the Court will act to go any further than a declaration of invalidity for more than the section 11362.77(a). Large swaths of SB420 are unlikely to be stuck down on the facts of this case.
It comes down to what the California Supreme Court should choose to do in terms of a remedy. In Kelly, both lawyers for the State and for the defendant agreed that the law was unconstitutional. They disagreed on the remedy that the Court should take to deal with this unconstitutional amendment to the CUA by SB 420.
The lawyers for the State of California were arguing for a minimally intrusive declaration - that is was not necessary to invalidate the whole of SB420 or large swaths of it. It was necessary only to just sever the one unconstitutional section that was before the Court on the facts of the case. To support its argument that the Court should not strike down more than the section, the State relied upon § 11362.82 of SB420 which reads as follows:
Lawyers for Kelly were asking for more than that - not unreasonably as a matter of logic, I might add. But, it's the facts which tend to dominate these issues, not logic applied without the necessary facts before the Court to require a ruling on another section.
What the Court will do is up to the Court, but usually, courts act only within the strict confines required by the facts before them when they invalidate legislation. So while they could strike down more than the 11362.77(a), they are not required to do so, as a matter of law.
What the California Supreme Court will ultimately choose to do? Nobody knows for sure. We'll see.
fatigues doesnt know what the fuck he is talking about he isn't even from California. I doubt he has paid attention to people v kelly as long as I have. His thinking has been scewed by the media report which mentiond weight. Patrick Kelly had 7 plants which surely are mentioned by the court.
Also both agreed on a remedy too for the part about plant and weight limits. To invalidate its application in being used to prosecute people. They disagreed about the ID card and if anything it was probably so they could have something to disagree about to begin with.
Yes, I re-read it. It's mentioned by the court at footnote 3 and yes they found him guilty of count 2 - cultivation as well. (You have to put the footnotes together and the oblique reference in the Court of Appeals decision). They spend almost no time discussing the plant count issue in their reasons. But you are correct - plant count is before the court as well.
FF - I really do try to be accurate in the comments I make - and I really do try to not be needlessly insulting to others here - including you. Why don't you try and do the same?
I gotta get behind fatigues on this one. His legal analysis is some of the best on ICMag. He is open to challenge and argument. But his general tone and the thought he puts into his posts is deserving of, at the very least, civility.
Not being from California should have nothing to do with it. Cogent commentary is cogent commentary, whether or not you agree with it. ICMag is better for every post that is well thoight out, unemotional and free of insults.
I follow the commentary of both of you guys with equal respect and would hate to see this degenrate to the level of discourse I expect to hear between others around here.
Not being from California should have nothing to do with it. Cogent commentary is cogent commentary, whether or not you agree with it. ICMag is better for every post that is well thoight out, unemotional and free of insults.
I follow the commentary of both of you guys with equal respect and would hate to see this degenrate to the level of discourse I expect to hear between others around here.
J
JackTheGrower
What it is, is, the left and the right working together. The Video is a must watch.. first page.. Read the PDF too!
Yes we should be able to have a pound of seeds if we so choose and I would wish each medical person a huge selection indeed with that pound of seeds!
-----------------
The Quality of Life for a Medical Person has improved!!!!
Yes we should be able to have a pound of seeds if we so choose and I would wish each medical person a huge selection indeed with that pound of seeds!
-----------------
The Quality of Life for a Medical Person has improved!!!!
J
JackTheGrower
It will give you some specific benefits from what I understand from the video.
I'm not sure as well.. Honestly I believe once you get a recommendation that should be the end of it.. I'm cool with renewing the id when i move or every few years but yearly is over kill IMO. After all it cannot kill you so our concern that it is dangerous is phooey!
depends what you consider dangerous. i try to keep my name out of databases. the doc who writes my script is bound by confidentiality that government health databases are not. when they start rounding up the dissidents, they are going to go after the pot smokers first... maybe that sounds paranoid, but I beleive that there is a level of paranoia that is healthy.
Phooey? Phooey, you say?!?! (shakes fist) just strange. i don;t think anyone has ever said phooey to me.
Phooey? Phooey, you say?!?! (shakes fist) just strange. i don;t think anyone has ever said phooey to me.
You've obviously not got any experience with making edibles if you think you need less than inhalation. Why do you comment when you're clueless? Point in fact a good % of the THC passes through the digestive tract undigested, depending on the edible.
J
JackTheGrower
I use a lot of fresh bud when I cook.. I used maybe half ounce of fresh for spaghetti.
J
JackTheGrower
depends what you consider dangerous. i try to keep my name out of databases. the doc who writes my script is bound by confidentiality that government health databases are not. when they start rounding up the dissidents, they are going to go after the pot smokers first... maybe that sounds paranoid, but I believe that there is a level of paranoia that is healthy.
Phooey? Phooey, you say?!?! (shakes fist) just strange. i don;t think anyone has ever said phooey to me.
You know me I get awful mean at times.. I'll try to keep it under control.
On the database side of things I'm opposite of your position.. So exposed now that the only way to go for me now is more out in the open..
What i have found being a spokesman for Legalization is you can't please everyone so you have to please yourself.
I will be also applying for work with cannabis in my system. I just don't care now.. If I can't be me I don't want to work there. After all I am a responsible adult. I have been a medical person for over 10 years..
Looking at forming a NPO now...
So I missed the news on this .. We are still waiting for a proper Court ruling yes?
I'm a bit worried that local leo will now be willing to judge people on the spot for arrest and they will now say Oh you don't need 7 plants mister.. And cuff me so the Judge can sort it out..
