Calif. High Court Hears Case On Medical Pot Limits

http://cbs5.com/local/medical.marijuana.case.2.1290320.html said:

The California Supreme Court, at a special session in Berkeley on Tuesday, appeared likely to strike down a state law that sets an 8-ounce limit on the amount of medical marijuana a patient can possess at one time.

The court found itself in the unusual position of having a prosecutor and a defense attorney in a criminal case agree it would be unconstitutional to prosecute genuine patients for violating the limit.

Deputy California Attorney General Michael Johnsen told the court, "We are basically on the same path."

Johnsen, representing prosecutors, and Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, representing a medical marijuana patient, both said the limit set by the Legislature in 2003 is an unconstitutional amendment of the state's voter-approved Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

Their only disagreement was in how the court should go about invalidating the limit procedurally and whether the panel should explicitly uphold another part of the 2003 law that sets up an identification card program.

The hearing on the appeal by Patrick Kelly of Los Angeles County of his marijuana possession conviction was part of an outreach session held by the court at the School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley.

The court's seven justices took the case under consideration after hearing an hour of arguments and have three months to issue a written ruling.

Kelly, who had a doctor's approval for using medical marijuana for back pain and other ailments, was convicted of possession in 2006 after sheriff's deputies found 12 ounces of dried marijuana in his house.

The 2003 law, entitled the Medical Marijuana Program, was intended by the Legislature to clarify and supplement the 1996 voter initiative, which protects medical marijuana patients from being prosecuted for using the drug.

In addition to designating the 8-ounce limit, the 2003 law established a voluntary identification card program for patients and caregivers.

Kelly argued in his appeal that the 8-ounce limit could not be used as a basis for prosecuting him because the Compassionate Use Act sets no limit and the new law amounted to an unconstitutional amendment.

The state Constitution forbids legislative amendments of laws enacted by voters unless a law specifically allows for amendments.

A state appeals court in Los Angeles agreed with Kelly's arguments last year but, in addition to overturning his conviction, struck down an entire section of the law in a way that resulted in invalidating the identification card system as well.

In Tuesday's arguments, Johnsen asked the high court to "simply narrow the remedy" by striking down the use of the limit in Kelly's case and leaving other issues "for another day."

But Uelmen asked the court to go farther and explicitly uphold the identification card provisions. He said under that interpretation, the law wouldn't limit the amount a patient can reasonably use, but would protect card-holding patients and caregivers from being arrested if they possess less than 8 ounces.

When Chief Justice Ronald George asked how narrow the court's eventual ruling should be, Uelmen answered, "I would look for a decision recognizing that there are other applications (of the 2003 law) that are not affected."

Click to expand...

FreedomFGHTR said:

Of note is the mention how possible "legalization" legislation could trump mmj by the court itself. Also the court admits that it is left in a straight jacket in terms of what it can do.

I can grow and smoke as much as I want under current law and sell w/o excise taxes. Can someone please explain how there is possibly anything better in the world?

Click to expand...

FreedomFGHTR said:

Of note is the mention how possible "legalization" legislation could trump mmj by the court itself. Also the court admits that it is left in a straight jacket in terms of what it can do.

I can grow and smoke as much as I want under current law and sell w/o excise taxes. Can someone please explain how there is possibly anything better in the world?

Click to expand...

richyrich said:

They do, but they don't care. They are politicians.

Click to expand...

The Governator said:

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning SB 1494 without my signature.

This bill reverses an agreement that led to the passage of SB 420 (Vasconcellos) in 2003. That statute established quantity guidelines which gave patients and law enforcement clarity in the law with respect to possession of medicinal marijuana under Proposition 215. Reasonable and established quantity guidelines allow medicinal marijuana patients to seek relief from symptoms free from legal questions and permit law enforcement to carry out the law.

Senate Bill 1494 removes the limitation on the amount of marijuana a qualified patient, person with an identification card, or primary caregiver can possess. Since the passage of Proposition 215, local governments have grappled with the interpretation of the voters’ intent with respect to how much marijuana a patient may possess for medical use. Senate Bill 420 resolved this issue.

Enactment of this bill would create uncertainty in this area of the law thereby making it more difficult for law enforcement to determine when a person was in possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes pursuant to Proposition 215.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this measure.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Click to expand...

fatigues said:

Correct. But the real question is which politicians? Because this wasn't the Legislature's intent. They tried to fix this already.

The fact there was a constitutional prolem in SB420 was recognized many years ago and the Legislature amended SB420 to remove the reference to eight oz. The Legislature saw the constiutional issue and attempted to correct it and in fact, passed Bill 1494 which would have already fixed this.

Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it for political reasons. Removing a legislative maximum "created uncertainty" and made things hard for police (Constitutional rights are always pesky like that and continually get in the way of the rights of the police). Schwarzenegger's supposed reasons for vetoing the Bill may be found here. It reads as follows:

So now, the courts have done the same thing the Legislature tried to do by striking the legislation down - but Schwarzenenegger can claim he was trying to "send the right message" and can say in a few months time that he was "disappointed by the Supreme Court of California's ruling in People v. Kelly". Doubtless he will suggest that the result is another key indication from the courts that point to an urgent need to reform California's MMJ laws and get the dispensaries and drug dealers under control. **yadda yadda yadda** "Our police need certainty, not vague rulings from activist judges like the people of California got in People v. Kelly." Or something close to that, at any rate.

Judges are always "activist" when they make rulings you don't like, of course.


The SCC's decision will, in all probability, say no such thing. But by then, nobody will be paying attention to the courts. This has always been about politics, spin and avoiding blame. The Court usually cares about the truth, but the media spins the story as they wish -- and the politicians always spin it to their advantage.

Click to expand...

nomaad said:

yes. sb420 imposes both plant and possession limits.

Click to expand...

When Chief Justice Ronald George asked how narrow the court's eventual ruling should be, Uelmen answered, "I would look for a decision recognizing that there are other applications (of the 2003 law) that are not affected."

Click to expand...