ATTN: California Patinets/Caregivers: People v Phomkhady depublished

FreedomFGHTR

Active member

Veteran

• May 19, 2009

• #1

So the case I quote in my signature has been depublished because it is going to be reviewed by the State Supreme court. That means it does not carry any weight in court currently. Should the state supreme court decide to uphold the 3rd districts opinion it will be back. But in the mean time if you are over the stupid unconstitutional limits, make sure you have your ducks in a row. If you provide medicine for a collective/coop ask the administrators of your group to provide a notorized letter stating that your medicine is being grown for the collective per sb 420 and AG Guidelines.

Honestly this really sucks if you ask me.

 

S

SweetNightmare

Active member

• May 20, 2009

• #2

thanks for the info!

 

T

TheMintMan

• May 20, 2009

• #3

That's just crazy. Our whole justice system is just nuts to me. How can you have a fair trial if you can't even mention relevant information to your defense?

Please, keep us updated on this.

 

A

alpinestar

• May 20, 2009

• #4

people need to realize the difference between 1 plant and 1 tree

I think in the minds of lawmakers and enforcers, "if you dont care for or about a subject why learn more about it?"

as far as theyre concerned a few ounce sog could be that million dollar bust to get them that promotion they always wanted; after all its not about helping people, but rather furthering their careers

 

deltronZER0

Active member

• May 21, 2009

• #5

so is this saying to stick to county or state guidelines?
I'm not sure I get which guideline they refer to in your quote

 

O

Ocean Grown

Member

• May 23, 2009

• #6

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=2370197&postcount=4

 

deltronZER0

Active member

• May 25, 2009

• #7

I'll try again...
anyone mind translating legal-ese into the practical everyday english that we mere mouthbreathers use?

 

B

Blue Dot

• May 25, 2009

• #8

deltronZER0 said:

I'll try again...
anyone mind translating legal-ese into the practical everyday english that we mere mouthbreathers use?

Click to expand...

Prop 215 had no limit on the amount of pot you could grow and possess.
It was strictly up to your doctor (take 2 plants and call me in the morning )

SB420 was enacted (not by vote) but by politicians. It put a limit of 6 mature OR 12 immature.

SB420 was ruled unconstitutional by a court because it was not voted on by the people. This meant the 6/12 limit went out the window and back to prop 215 (no limit).

NOW, that ruling has been depublished (made it like it never happend ) so SB420 is back in effect with a 6/12 limit.

 

stoneypenguin

Member

• May 25, 2009

• #9

Good info though, thanks.

 

T

Trogdor4564

Member

• May 25, 2009

• #10

Wait how did the SB420 come back so fast? I just found out about the no limits thing, and now they are back?!

 

quadracer

Active member

• May 25, 2009

• #11

Trogdor4564 said:

Wait how did the SB420 come back so fast? I just found out about the no limits thing, and now they are back?!

Click to expand...

SB 420 has been state law since it was voted into law in 2003. It never went away. The only way to void the law is through either court ruling (which the California Supreme court has final word, until then the law stands) or by further legislation (which is the issue to begin with). Either way, we have to wait for the California Supreme Court to make the decision.

In order to be safe, I would stick to the county limits or go to your doctor and ask him/her to increase your limits.

 

T

Trogdor4564

Member

• May 26, 2009

• #12

Thanks a lot. A lot of people have been saying there is no limit now, but it just doesnt seem safe still. I definitely dont want to fight it in court. I hope it gets overthrown though. How amazing would that be if there was no plant limit

 

B

Blue Dot

• May 26, 2009

• #13

Trogdor4564 said:

How amazing would that be if there was no plant limit

Click to expand...

Yes, amazing that it only took 13 years to come back full circle to the orig text of prop 215.

Leave it to politicans to F*ck everything up!

 

SKUNK420

Member

• May 27, 2009

• #14

I am hearing way to many people in northern T.J. , California ( San Diego) say you can grow 24 plants now. I always ask where is your proof and they say "I heard it from somewhere". i think its down right dumb to be saying this kind of stuff without positive proof.

In the end they are just trying to control the amount (weight) of dried buds you can have. The law makers are like okay you got u in 1996 and voted to legalize medical marijuana but we the law makers are going to make sure you only can grow the bare minimum.

 

AndreNicky

Member

• May 27, 2009

• #15

SKUNK420 said:

I am hearing way to many people in northern T.J. , California ( San Diego) say you can grow 24 plants now. I always ask where is your proof and they say "I heard it from somewhere". i think its down right dumb to be saying this kind of stuff without positive proof.

Click to expand...

ACtually the county guideline in Sd is 24 mature plants so 24 is the legal limit

From canorml-

San Diego (also Chula Vista)

City Council guidelines allow up to 1 lb of marijuana, 24 plants in 64 square feet indoors; no outdoors growing allowed except in enclosed greenhouses.

Click to expand...

 

Grow Tech

I've got a stalk of sinsemilla growing in my back

Veteran

• May 27, 2009

• #16

AndreNicky said:

ACtually the county guideline in Sd is 24 mature plants so 24 is the legal limit

From canorml-

Click to expand...

Not quite right. The 24 number is for San Diego CITY and even that is a little if-y. When I say if-y I mean that there is question as to whether or not that # was actually ratified

 

E

EllieGrows

• May 30, 2009

• #17

.

 

Last edited: Jun 16, 2011

B

Blue Dot

• May 30, 2009

• #18

AndreNicky said:

ACtually the county guideline in Sd is 24 mature plants so 24 is the legal limit

From canorml-

San Diego (also Chula Vista)

City Council guidelines allow up to 1 lb of marijuana, 24 plants in 64 square feet indoors; no outdoors growing allowed except in enclosed greenhouses.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The city council only determines limits for within CITY borders.

The COUNTY board of supervisors determines guidelines for the County.

OBVIOUSLY the Board of supes has taken the stance of the least of these, ie 6/12.

 

T

Teeg420

• May 30, 2009

• #19

I thought plant numbers were unconstitutional? is the limit 6/12?

 

Yes4Prop215

Active member

Veteran

• May 30, 2009

• #20

fuck 6/12 what the hell can you grow with that puny ass number of plants.

im over the limit, fuck it, send me to jail you stupid fucking politicians and police. kiss my ass government!