fatigues is probably Blue Dot. can an admin check this?
fucking cops ruining these boards.
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest in October! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Calif. High Court Hears Case On Medical Pot Limits
- Thread starter FreedomFGHTR
- Start date
fatigues is probably Blue Dot. can an admin check this?
fucking cops ruining these boards.
I don't know what the fuck you are talking about. If you guys read Fatigues posts and think that he is Blue Dot you guys need help. They don't write in the same style at all. While I don't always like to hear what Fatigues says, I rarely find reason to believe he isn't giving his honest opinion about something which he knows a great deal.
I didnt get that either, but maybe I havnt read enough post. I dont think he is blue dot. Blue isnt banned, and I dont see him as a person that would strart another account just to have an alter ago, for a forum. He just doesnt seem insecure, and that would be an insecure person's action.
Man you must have some good meds tonight!
J
JackTheGrower
Short Attention Span Theater.
what were we doing? lol
Well if I was Blue Dot - at least I'd be from California then - right?
Just think of all that incredible legal insight I'd absorb by way of osmosis just from breathing LA's smog on a daily basis...
Well if I was Blue Dot - at least I'd be from California then - right?
Just think of all that incredible legal insight I'd absorb by way of osmosis just from breathing LA's smog on a daily basis...
my bad fatigues. i was heavily medicated and confused.
B
Blue Dot
Well if I was Blue Dot - at least I'd be from California then - right?
Just think of all that incredible legal insight I'd absorb by way of osmosis just from breathing LA's smog on a daily basis...
You'd be from San Diego, you know, the city with NO smog.
11362.77(a) has never been and is not now unconstitutional - the High Court itself has said so, because those amounts are NOT limits, but thresholds. I know, I've had 2 cases dismissed at pretrial that were both over the supposed limits. (A pretrial dismissal is extremely hard to get - they need only the very slightest possibility of probable cause of wrongdoing to continue a case.) It will be interesting to see how the High Court words the final ruling - for sure that section of SB420 needs clarification.
This is how it works: Assuming you are a medical marijuana patient, no matter what number of plants or amount you have, whether just one plant or one gram or a hundred, the cops CAN arrest you regardless of Prop 215 or SB420. It is then up to you to prove in court you are a legal patient (this is the affirmative defense scenario), because for instance, the rec you showed the cops could be a forgery etc., and because that was agreed to when Prop 215 was first proposed.
Where those amounts come in - as THRESHOLDS NOT LIMITS - is that they are guidelines for cops so if they see someone with 6 oz or 5 plants they can ignore them if they want as they are told that that is probably a genuine medicinal grow. They could still arrest them if they wanted, but the idea of SB 420 was to protect people from arrest with amounts less than those thresholds (not that it worked because as many mj lawyers didn't know the law, you can be sure the cops didn't either and they took those amounts as limits). If you had more than the threshold, you could still be legal, but were more likely to have to go thru the process of being arrested and charged and having to defend yourself in court, like I had to do. Growing more does NOT mean you are illegal. It never has and 11362.77(a) is NOT unconstitutional, merely badly written and confusing. I guarantee you that the High Court will say this, because IT ALREADY HAS, TWICE!!! (In People vs. Mower and in People vs. Wright.) So the only thing that will change is not the law, but that more people will know what it is! This the gist of the friend of the court brief attached by the ASA to this case, that I assume was not part of the oral arguments. Usually justices know pretty much how they are going to rule before oral arguments because they have read the written briefs.
This is how it works: Assuming you are a medical marijuana patient, no matter what number of plants or amount you have, whether just one plant or one gram or a hundred, the cops CAN arrest you regardless of Prop 215 or SB420. It is then up to you to prove in court you are a legal patient (this is the affirmative defense scenario), because for instance, the rec you showed the cops could be a forgery etc., and because that was agreed to when Prop 215 was first proposed.
Where those amounts come in - as THRESHOLDS NOT LIMITS - is that they are guidelines for cops so if they see someone with 6 oz or 5 plants they can ignore them if they want as they are told that that is probably a genuine medicinal grow. They could still arrest them if they wanted, but the idea of SB 420 was to protect people from arrest with amounts less than those thresholds (not that it worked because as many mj lawyers didn't know the law, you can be sure the cops didn't either and they took those amounts as limits). If you had more than the threshold, you could still be legal, but were more likely to have to go thru the process of being arrested and charged and having to defend yourself in court, like I had to do. Growing more does NOT mean you are illegal. It never has and 11362.77(a) is NOT unconstitutional, merely badly written and confusing. I guarantee you that the High Court will say this, because IT ALREADY HAS, TWICE!!! (In People vs. Mower and in People vs. Wright.) So the only thing that will change is not the law, but that more people will know what it is! This the gist of the friend of the court brief attached by the ASA to this case, that I assume was not part of the oral arguments. Usually justices know pretty much how they are going to rule before oral arguments because they have read the written briefs.
T
theJointedOne
thanks coolx
J
JackTheGrower
Yeah I feel like I missed that before..
Nice post.. The positive of sharing..
Nice post.. The positive of sharing..
it is going to be really interesting to see how this all plays out, and to see how quickly as well. It seems the movment toward legalization is gaining more ground every day. I imagine after the third case ruling in our favor, it will become much easier to get aquitted in california. Just tell your doctor how much you think you need, and get your prestciption for that and you should be good no matter what. The more cases that enter the system the more will be aquitted. judges will get sick of wasting time, and prosecutors will move on to new stuff, hopefully involving more important crimes. Pot shouldnt even be considered a crime
It's interesting, and true for the most part, but I don't think he has it spot on.
What is being argued is not that the limits themselves are unconstitutional, because as he in fact stated they are not limits but thresholds. What is unconstitutional is the application of these limits in that people are being prosecuted and not allowed to state a medical defense in court because they are over these "limits", which IS unconstitutional and which will change.
Agreed... same goes for all the many perspectives heard here... nobody has it "spot on" but the different perspectives add to our overall understanding.
I thought that the medical defense was only not allowed in federal court and that even this is under challenge with a case coming into a federal court in california is december.
That might be the case when we're talking about perspectives and opinions, but in this instance we're referring to actual laws and events.
Kelly was originally convicted because he was over sb 420 limits and was unable to use medical as a defense for his excess because he did not have a doctor's recommendation specifically allowing 12 ounces instead of 8.
The CUA never stated any limits on what a patient may possess, only that it must be reasonable in regards to their specific condition. Sb 420 "limits" were never voted upon by the people, so to use them to prosecute MMJ patients who are over said limits IS unconstitutional. The Appellate Court has ruled this as will the State Supreme Court.
Agreed, but we're also talking about how this new decision, once published, may be interpreted by everybody from lawyers and judges to growers and the guys in helicopters.
There is the case law and there are the many interpretations thereof. Otherwise there would be no courts, just a big book with all the rules.
What happens between me as a grower, on the ground, and the sheriff that shows up next spring for a "compliance check" leaves room for a lot of interpretation on all sides. A lot will depend on how the SSC opinion is worded.
B
Blue Dot
Even thresholds would be unconstitutional since the people voted 215 mentions nothing of thresholds.
Anyways cities and counties took thresholds to mean limits as their ordinances so thresholds, limits, whatever are unconstituional.
The only thing that is constitutional is "reasonable" and this differs for every patient so there is no basis, just a case by case approach, just like how it was in 1996.
Anytime you try and "clarify" a vague voter amendment it's going to be unconstituional. That's just elementary.
Anyways cities and counties took thresholds to mean limits as their ordinances so thresholds, limits, whatever are unconstituional.
The only thing that is constitutional is "reasonable" and this differs for every patient so there is no basis, just a case by case approach, just like how it was in 1996.
Anytime you try and "clarify" a vague voter amendment it's going to be unconstituional. That's just elementary.
I couldn't agree with you more on everything you state above...However, Coolx's post had absolutely nothing to do with any of that, and as such neither did my reply to his post. He was referring specifically and only to what is and is not the law, and what is and is not constitutional.
