Calif. High Court Hears Case On Medical Pot Limits

[Blue Dot]

It is possible that the most recent development will move toward a resolution of the plant/posession limits,...

The resolution is "reasonable" and that's it.

When the state passed sb420 it was my understanding that there was a lot of input from Leo and legislators and not so much from the avg joe.

they never asked me what reasonable was.

So if reasonable is ever to be defined it will have to be different then the way it was in sb420.

isn't that basically what the cali supreme court said?

I think it's more like what is reasonable according to your doctor, afterall a doctor is a person who prescribes dosages of medicine so that's essentially what he/she ( ) is doing.

 

[SpasticGramps]

The resolution is "reasonable" and that's it.

When the state passed sb420 it was my understanding that there was a lot of input from Leo and legislators and not so much from the avg joe.

they never asked me what reasonable was.

So if reasonable is ever to be defined it will have to be different then the way it was in sb420.

isn't that basically what the cali supreme court said?

I think it's more like what is reasonable according to your doctor, afterall a doctor is a person who prescribes dosages of medicine so that's essentially what he/she ( ) is doing.

I agree to an extent. I would argue that when doctor's dose prescription meds they have to heavily weigh the side effects. I've had a bone marrow transplant and I can attest to the side effects of many of the prescribed medicines. You have every problem when you have no immune system. With weed though, the side effects are non-significant when related to Pharma meds. Therefore dosage becomes much less of an issue because there is no toxicity level. It's because drugs are toxic that the must be regulated. I'm not saying MJ doesn't have side effects, I'm saying they are irrelvant for most people when all things are considered.

 

[Blue Dot]

Therefore dosage becomes much less of an issue because there is no toxicity level. It's because drugs are toxic that the must be regulated.

Leo would definately disagee with you there.

Leo believes that drugs must be regulated not really because of there toxic effects but because of their active effects.

In other words, a doctor not only prescribes based on the toxic effect but based on the active effect.

In a sense, when you get a MMJ rec it's really the doctor saying I'm recomending this much because that is the amount that will have an active effect and be effective BUT NO MORE.

That's where leo wants to step in.

They want to say that you can't have MORE then can be effective and if you agree with the FDA model then you agree with that.

If you don't agree that it's only acceptable to have an efficatious amount on hand then you step outside the FDA model and that's where leo and the legislators have a problem because they believe that any extra outside of your needs could be used towards diversion and they don't believe 215 was set up to supply others thru diversion as well as yourself.

 

[kmk420kali]

Leo believes that drugs must be regulated not really because of there toxic effects but because of their active effects.

I would think they are more against Resale Value--

 

[SpasticGramps]

Leo would definately disagee with you there.

Leo believes that drugs must be regulated not really because of there toxic effects but because of their active effects.

In other words, a doctor not only prescribes based on the toxic effect but based on the active effect.

In a sense, when you get a MMJ rec it's really the doctor saying I'm recomending this much because that is the amount that will have an active effect and be effective BUT NO MORE.

That's where leo wants to step in.

They want to say that you can't have MORE then can be effective and if you agree with the FDA model then you agree with that.

If you don't agree that it's only acceptable to have an efficatious amount on hand then you step outside the FDA model and that's where leo and the legislators have a problem because they believe that any extra outside of your needs could be used towards diversion and they don't believe 215 was set up to supply others thru diversion as well as yourself.

Obviously if we lived in a sane society LEO would have 0 input on medication. I would still have to argue from a clinical perspective doctor's weigh more heavily on toxicity than active effect. I would actually argue that active effect is a by product of toxicity. I say this under the assumption that toxicity has a range from insignificant to fatal. Obviously with some medication there is a point of dismissing returns. But when dealing with the stronger medications (MJ being one of the strongest effect wise) dosage is controlled because they are toxic.

MJ doesn't fit into neatly into this model. There is no reasonably consumable LD50 dose for cannabis.

 

[meduser180056]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty seems like with medical cannabis it's guilty till proven innocent... That's not the way it's supposed to b.

 

[meduser180056]

How is it they can drag you into court to make you prove it's a reasonable amount. Don't they need more evidence that you are diverting for sales or something before they can drag you into court.

For instance all Leo needs to get a warrant is an anonymous tip and above normal electircal usage. Makes no sense I mean that could be a legal medical grow but they will get raided anyway and have to prove after the fact they are legal. That's not how the system is supposed to work. They should need to have reasonable suspicion that it is not a medical grow or that it is medical but diversion/sales are taking place before they can get a warrant. This is not the case currently though.

 

[freeride high]

i like how they call it a high court.

 

[theJointedOne]

I had a question though.

Since sb420 is/ and always has been uncostitutional, does that make it viable to be a caregiver for more than one out of county patient? It was my understanding that sb420 outlined that a caregiver can only provide mmj to one out of county patient per collective. Am i wrong?

Many sick people cannot grow their meds and only have grower connections in the hills and mountains which is usually far from there home county. Seems like it could help a lot of people if that restriction is revoked.

thanks for all the great info above me too, you guys rock! peace

 

[JackTheGrower]

I had a question though.

Since sb420 is/ and always has been unconstitutional, does that make it viable to be a caregiver for more than one out of county patient? It was my understanding that sb420 outlined that a caregiver can only provide mmj to one out of county patient per collective. Am i wrong?

Many sick people cannot grow their meds and only have grower connections in the hills and mountains which is usually far from there home county. Seems like it could help a lot of people if that restriction is revoked.

thanks for all the great info above me too, you guys rock! peace

I'm not sure on all the issues but I am reading all I can find.

What I gleaned was that growers are not care providers. The care provider is the one providing direct care for a person such as bathing and feeding if necessary.
I sure wish we had clear structure to work from but it looks like we have to go at it "Washy Wishy" or, in other terms "bass ack wards" and uncertain.

Anyone have a different take in California on how Caregiver is legally viewed?

 

[nomaad]

Jointed one: I think the decision invalidates SB420 in every way that it seeks to interpret the CUA.

 

[meduser180056]

So if it's unconstitutional all the cases where it was used to convict patients should b retroactively dismissed and those patients should b able to sue for damages since an illegal law was used to convict them

 

[coolx]

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.

Um, yes they are. That's what SB420 was supposed to be for. They are not allowed to LIMIT Prop 215, but they can EXPAND it. With SB420, you weren't supposed to be arrested if you had below those thresholds, which is an epansion. (Read the preamble and author's intent to the bill). But the cops don't give a shit anyway. When I was arrested they told me "We don't believe in Prop 215!"

 

[coolx]

It's interesting, and true for the most part, but I don't think he has it spot on.

What is being argued is not that the limits themselves are unconstitutional, because as he in fact stated they are not limits but thresholds. What is unconstitutional is the application of these limits in that people are being prosecuted and not allowed to state a medical defense in court because they are over these "limits", which IS unconstitutional and which will change.

You may be right. I used to have time to read and study all the cases, but these days ..... If that's the argument in Kelly then it mirrors one of my cases - the judge wasn't originally going to let me use a mmj defense, cos in his view if I were over limit, I was illegal and therefore couldn't use the defense. Talk about a catch 22! It took a few hearings to get him to see the ridiculousness of his reasoning, but at least he was willing to reverse himself.

 

[nomaad]

Um, yes they are. That's what SB420 was supposed to be for. They are not allowed to LIMIT Prop 215, but they can EXPAND it. With SB420, you weren't supposed to be arrested if you had below those thresholds, which is an epansion. (Read the preamble and author's intent to the bill). But the cops don't give a shit anyway. When I was arrested they told me "We don't believe in Prop 215!"

if you don't mind the question, what county? feel free to PM (or ignore) me if you're more comfortable.

 

[meduser180056]

Coolx Santa Cruz County sherriffs say the same type of shit when faced with a reccomendation. Basically it's too bad we don't believe in that were taking all ur shit and ur doctors a quack. Most times they don't press charges just rob people

 

[zenoonez]

Coolx Santa Cruz County sherriffs say the same type of shit when faced with a reccomendation. Basically it's too bad we don't believe in that were taking all ur shit and ur doctors a quack. Most times they don't press charges just rob people

Well, you can sue them now so go gettem boys. A nice class action from all the members of a collective should do the job admirably.

 

[coolx]

Coolx Santa Cruz County sherriffs say the same type of shit when faced with a reccomendation. Basically it's too bad we don't believe in that were taking all ur shit and ur doctors a quack. Most times they don't press charges just rob people

Yeah. The word there was (is?) that they would take your shit and so long as you didn't try to get it back they wouldn't press charges! A friend of mine had his whole room taken, but he had 0 plants! none at all as he was in between grows. For all the sheriff's knew, he was growing orchids. He just let it go, to keep a low visibility.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

I'd much rather sue! Yup each clone was going to produce 5 lbs your honor. Yes your honor each pound is worth over $6000 as claimed by the DEA in numerous press releases. Yes your honor this was for medical purposes only with full transparent documentation.

I really hope some stupid putz city cop comes and tears my garden up! Time for drug war reparations!

 

[meduser180056]

Yeah freedom I hear u. Doesn't it cost a lot of money to sue tho?

I have heard that they back off if u have all your collective paperwork in order and r in your limits bcause they don't want to get sued but if your over they take it.

Also they contact all patients in the collective supposedly and ask what they have recieved from the grow and what they have contributed...