-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
California State Law: 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants AND 8 ounces of bud?
- Thread starter Jayson420
- Start date
The state supreme court found that law to be invalid because the law, when voted on, said nothing about maximum amounts.
http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/sb420-03.htm
http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/wright.htm
The Honorable John Burton
President pro Tempre of the Senate
State Capitol, Room 205, Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Legislative Intent Regarding SB 420 (as amended September 4, 2003)
JOHN --
In order to clarify the Legislature's intent in enacting Senate Bill 420, I respectfully request that this letter be published in the Senate Daily Journal.
Fully recognizing that Proposition 215 cannot be amended by the Legislature, we have resisted all efforts to make the new identification card system created by SB 420 mandatory &endash; and at least two times SB 420 contains specific language declaring our intent that this program is wholly voluntary.
In addition, the guidelines in SB 420 establish permissible amounts that are intended to be the threshold, and not a ceiling.
Furthermore, SB 420 specifically allows localities with higher possession or cultivation amounts to retain them, and other local jurisdictions to establish new guidelines to exceed what has been set forth in this bill. No jurisdiction may establish amounts lower than those set forth in SB 420.
Altogether, we believe that our final version of SB 420 is the very best we could hope to get enacted into law and that it provides (pursuant to the California voters' will in enacting Proposition 215) broad protection to tens of thousands of ill Californians without jeopardizing any ill Californians.
Thank you for allowing us to clarify our legislative intent regarding SB 420.
Sincerely,
JOHN VASCONCELLOS / MARK LENO
Senator, 13th District / Assemblyman, 13th District
http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/sb420-03.htm
http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/wright.htm
The Honorable John Burton
President pro Tempre of the Senate
State Capitol, Room 205, Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Legislative Intent Regarding SB 420 (as amended September 4, 2003)
JOHN --
In order to clarify the Legislature's intent in enacting Senate Bill 420, I respectfully request that this letter be published in the Senate Daily Journal.
Fully recognizing that Proposition 215 cannot be amended by the Legislature, we have resisted all efforts to make the new identification card system created by SB 420 mandatory &endash; and at least two times SB 420 contains specific language declaring our intent that this program is wholly voluntary.
In addition, the guidelines in SB 420 establish permissible amounts that are intended to be the threshold, and not a ceiling.
Furthermore, SB 420 specifically allows localities with higher possession or cultivation amounts to retain them, and other local jurisdictions to establish new guidelines to exceed what has been set forth in this bill. No jurisdiction may establish amounts lower than those set forth in SB 420.
Altogether, we believe that our final version of SB 420 is the very best we could hope to get enacted into law and that it provides (pursuant to the California voters' will in enacting Proposition 215) broad protection to tens of thousands of ill Californians without jeopardizing any ill Californians.
Thank you for allowing us to clarify our legislative intent regarding SB 420.
Sincerely,
JOHN VASCONCELLOS / MARK LENO
Senator, 13th District / Assemblyman, 13th District
its like a speed limit i think of it like a suggestion more than a rule LOL
Not according to Eric Holder.
The attorney general said this morning that mandatory minimum sentences would not be enforced for non violent offenders.
But after the Ogden memo we shouldn't start a 250 plant per light sog any time soon
The attorney general said this morning that mandatory minimum sentences would not be enforced for non violent offenders.
But after the Ogden memo we shouldn't start a 250 plant per light sog any time soon
The Law now reads that you can have whatever you can justify in Court-- I have a 99....and I also have COPD, so my recourse is that I no longer smoke [cough-cough], and I only make topical's for my back-- My refinement method requires a "shitload" of weed--
extreegrowerrr
Member
Just keep it under a 100 to be super safe. I stay around 50 because I have had my door kicked in and that shit sucks! I have a rec for 99 though. Just grow them bigger.
The Fed's definition of a plant include everything from "seedlings" to dead "rootballs"--so if you have a bunch of clones, juveniles in beercups, big ones in veg & flower, and last week's harvest remnants (rootballs) outside in the trash--they all count. Real easy to get to 100--even for the "small guy".
