[Sir D]

So for some reason I have not been able to find any discussion on here pertaining to SB 420 and I think its an important issue that has possibly been overlooked. I thought I read it was retracted but can find nothing now to back this up. I did find though where there has been a couple of cases that were won stating that this Amendment is unconstitutional thus making it invalid.
Los Angeles, May 22, 2008: The Second District of California Court of Appeals ruled that the state limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation established under state law SB 420 are unconstitutional. Here is one of them I found on Norml Stash:

"In the case People v. Patrick Kelly, the court overturned defendant’s conviction for possessing 12 ounces of dried marijuana plants on the grounds that the prosecutor had improperly argued that the defendant was guilty because he possessed more than the 8-ounce limit established in Health & Safety Code Sec. 11362.77 and did not have a doctor’s recommendation authorizing more.

The Court validated the long-standing view of California NORML and other Prop 215 advocates that the SB 420 limits are unconstitutional. Cal NORML attorneys have successfully argued the point in several lower court cases, but this is the first time it has been addressed by an appellate court.

In a 3-0 decision, the court ruled: “The prosecutor’s argument was improper. It was improper because the CUA [Compassionate Use Act] can only be amended with voters’ approval. Voters, however, did not approve the eight-ounce limit and other caps in section 11362.77 [of SB420]; hence, section 11362.77 unconstitutionally amends the CUA.” The decision is certified for partial publication, pending possible appeal to the Supreme Court."

So my question to the people of Cali, Does this mean that the plant limits are unconstitutional for all? Does this mean there is no plant limit anymore because of these rulings in the favor of high limits? Does this mean im not limited to carrying 8 ounces per patient but have the choice to carry as much as can be proven to be valid for my personal use? Or does just mean to continue to watch my ass and if it happens I end up in court I may have a loop hole to weasel out of?
When I heard about this I though it would be HUGE but I haven't heard many people talking about it at all so whats the deal?

[Sir D]

Here is another one not sure of the date believe it to be around Nov 09:

Supreme Court to Hold Special Outreach Session at UC Berkeley Law School

Live TV Broadcast of Oral Arguments on Nov. 3 in Cases Involving Medical
Marijuana, DNA Evidence, and Sex Offender Law

[UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!! California NORML Coordinator Dale Gieringer attended today's oral arguments and filed this report:

In a remarkable turn of events, both sides at today's California Supreme Court Hearing on the Kelly case agreed that the so-called SB 420 quantity limits in Health and Safety Code 11362.77 are unconstitutional when applied to limit patients' right to a compassionate use defense under Prop. 215.

Instead, they discussed how the Kelly decision could be recast so as not to invalidate 11362.77 when used for other purposes: for example, to protect card-holding patients from arrest when they are within the limits.

Michael Johnsen from the Attorney General's Office admitted that their "position had evolved" since the Kelly case was first argued, when they had tried to claim that the limits in 11362.77 were constitutional. Asked by the court why they should even be hearing the case in that event, Johnsen said that the court should narrow the Appellate Court decision so as to not throw out 11362.77 altogether.

"I have never had the pleasure of getting up in an appellate argument and saying I agree with everything my opponent said," remarked defense attorney Gerald Uelmen.

Patrick Kelly was originally charged with growing 7 plants and 12 ounces, an amount above the SB 420 limits. His defense argued that he could not be convicted for exceeding the limits, because Prop. 215 guarantees patients the right to have whatever amount is reasonably related to their medical needs. The Appellate Court agreed that the limits were an unconstitutional amendment to Prop. 215, and struck down the entirety of 11362.77 as unconstitutional.

Today, both sides agreed that 11362.77 was unconstitutional as applied to Kelly's case, but that it should be preserved in other situations, where it provides useful guidelines for arrest. The court's final decision will be forthcoming in 90 days.]

There were changes and we did have a supreme court rule.

It's in politics forum I think.

I remember waiting live for the ruling.

[Sir D]

Why is it that noone. Seems to know about it you would think this would be off the charts for people in Cali no?

[SickBoyZap]

I agree 'Sir D' I haven't heard Shit about any of this!