Calif. High Court Hears Case On Medical Pot Limits
- Thread starter FreedomFGHTR
- Start date
Ok.
B
Blue Dot
The state has no choice.
Why in the hell do you think that everything that is important gets decided on by initiatives in CA?
(Hint: it's specifically designed that way to insure that the state will be left out of the decision process).
I feel the same way. Leo is not going to like where this is going, and will try anything and everything to continue to prosecute those cultivating marijuana.
If legalization doesn't occur, it's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out. But in the end, the outcome has already been decided. MMJ patients have a right to their medicine, and as much of it as they need. It's just a shame there has to be so many casualties before things become clear.
Earth to Blue Dot: The CUA was passed by ballot initiative in 1996 and since then, the state has done NOTHING BUT insert itself into the decision process. What in the hell (your words, used to illustrate how dumb they sound) do you think SB420 is/was?
So are you now advising that all patients completely ignore plant and possession limits? The only consolation here is that I know that nobody would take your advice because your opinions are emotional rather than being based in the realities of the world we live in.
It is possible that the most recent development will move toward a resolution of the plant/posession limits, but to be like "Duh! Its unconstitutional, bro!" when the Sheriff's deputy shows up for a compliance check is probably unwise.
Someday, the state may concede what you have already declared to be the case... that they have no choice but to leave cannabis in the quasi-legal state that the CUA creates for it, but that day has not arrived.
Your idealism always outruns your intellect.
B
Blue Dot
They already did.
SD tried to take it to the supreme court and lost.
The legislators (with the help of LEO) tried to over-ride it with SB420 and just lost.
All this was ruled unconstituitional (because of cali's strong initiative law) so now Leo has to accept how it was back in 1996 but can't try any new legal wrangling anymore (they've pretty much exhausted all their legal efforts).
This is great news for patients but not so great for dispensaries that usurped all that interim legal wrangling as a justification for thier gouging dispensaries.
Of course they already did, that's the basis for what we're discussing. But they will continue to find other avenues to suppress the movement any way they can.
Leo still has the right to arrest anyone they feel is outside of the law, so what exactly do you think they HAVE to accept?
B
Blue Dot
The SCOTUS said they had to accept ID cards in SD.
The cali supreme court has said they have to accept there are NO limits.
You'd be suprised how Leo accepts courts decisions way more then the voters, city councils, commitees, etc.
Honestly, there just aren't that many "avenues" left for them to pursue.
Let me know when there are none and I'll start looking around for the war to be over.
B
Blue Dot
For patients the war is over, you can put a nail in that coffin.
As for dispensaries, that's a whole nother story.
You lack a fundamental understanding of, well, pretty much everything it seems..
So you think the supreme court ruling means law officers have to accept patients can have as much marijuana as they want and they aren't allowed to arrest anyone? Get real. They can still arrest anyone and everyone they feel is operating outside the law and let the courts sort it out. That's what they do.
B
Blue Dot
and if you have a "reasonable" amount you'll be aquitted so what's the problem?
If you have an ID card you might not even get arrested.
215 didn't say you could grow a million pounds.
Ummm... legal fees, hassle, time wasted, embarrassment , having everyone know you grow, do I need to continue?
B
Blue Dot
There is no legal answer to that.
215 was vague and 215 is the only thing that is constitutional.
Legislators are not allowed to "clarify" it for you in order to save you from the hassle of that.
That's how it is and how it will be.
Just in case you missed this on the bottom of the last page.
You've got to be kidding me with the "and if you have a "reasonable" amount you'll be aquitted so what's the problem?"
How do you expect to be taken even remotely seriously when you are so obviously detached from reality.
This kind of thinking will eventually be offcially recognized as a form of mental retardation.
So thousands of innocent people continue to get arrested, but the war is over? Arguing with you enlightens me to the brilliance of mrwags' sig.
Ahhh, intelligence !! So refreshing.
Since when is "Reasonable" or "Affordable" allowed as legal definitions??
This is all vague...and was intended so, from both sides...albeit for vastly different reasons--
