Questions about California MMP

[Δ9-THC]

Weed snob: Thanks for the reply. Turns out my county does not issue ID's, so I guess I don't have a choice. Can information regarding # of plants etc. be placed on the regular recommendation form?

Delta 9: Do you have a county issued card? I was aware that a doc can recommend more, but I doubt that I'll need this at the moment.

ZeroKool: If you've got no evidence to support your claim of the FDA is sanctioning pot doctors left and right, I'm not really inclined to believe it. If you got pulled over high as hell, you didn't break the law under prop 215 or sb420, you breaking whatever law regards driving under the influence of drugs. I'm not a drug dealer, so I don't plan to cruise around the block with a few O's in my backpack asking for trouble.

Clowntown: While I'm not in SF nor Oakland, I hope that a recommendation will protect me in some way shape or form. I guess just try to have a minimal amount on you and try not to talk to the cops in the first place?

Inflorescence: Thanks for the input. I'd agree that we're all in it with a responsibility to push for appeals and fair trials. As I see it, this isn't something unique to SB420 or prop 215, cops mistreat people under the law and arrest under nuances of the law all the time.

 

[Pythagllio]

ZEROKOOL, if SB 420 attempted to set a limit it would be unconstitutional under the CA Constitution. Prop 215 contains no such limit, and the legislature can't change a voter passed initiative. The 6/12 plant count is definitely a floor, not a limit. Patients have been acquitted under a Prop 215 defense with as many as 52 plants.

http://www.chrisconrad.com/expert.witness/sb420-03.htm#analysis

September 10, 2003

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

 

[Pythagllio]

The FDA can't sanction doctors for recommending cannabis. They used to, a bunch of doctors took it to the Supreme Court, and won. 1st amendment right.

 

[Pythagllio]

Sorry, seems the supreme Court just refused to hear the case, thereby allowing the lower court ruling to stand. It's Conant vs. McCaffrey, if you want to loo it up.

Feds can't threaten doctors

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1724.html

 

[Δ9-THC]

Fantastic! Thank you Pythagllio, evidence makes the argument! Take care.

 

[allmanjoy]

I understand you cant get into coops with out the card?

 

[clowntown]

Technically all you need is a doctor's recommendation to get in; but some clubs "won't bother", because they either don't deem you serious enough (heh) or don't want to spend extra time on you since it may require verification / validation (which can typically be done with most "pot-doc" recs. in 30 seconds). Most that I've been to in SF simply accept the recommendation without question. CARE in Oakland didn't seem to want anything to do with me, without a card.

 

[Guest]

MAN!!! you live in a dream world!!!!! WAKE UP!!! the cops dont give a shit!!! arrest, take MJ, put you in jail, ask questions later!!! jees where do you live.
second SB420 isnt new its 2.5 years old!!!!!! YEARS! also, "the card" is from the gov. and there not giving them away yet. if they dont give a shit about your 11362.5 paper. what makes you think there gona care about "the card"
also. the new thing is to take the people to court and make em go through the process. FIND OUt who there DR is and have the FDA go after there medical lic. please. dont cut and paste from NORML.ORG and yap about how much rights we have. it dosent work like that out on the streets. FOOL. the audacity of you!!!

I know of a guy who was raided for a domestic violence call, they came across his grow, over 50 plants, limit was under 30, he had his papers and copies of another patient's recommendation (Card is BS, the reccomendation is what counts)

They made a few calls to the Sheriff or whoever the main cop at the station was, and left his house after he pulled the amount to leave him with the 48 or so he could keep. They never went back. It's all a matter of luck, what county you're in, who's the sheriff, whose the police comissioner etc...

They can fuck you, like they did zerocool, or they can be compassionate and leave...The recommendation has also saved others I've heard about and some cops go as far as returning apprehended bud. Now DEA and the Feds don't usually give a shit about a rec, but again are only after big fish, and most of us are personal growers .....medical growers....

 

[Δ9-THC]

Thanks Flamengo. I agree with the big fish model, a 4 plant bust is hardly of pressing importance.

Sounds like having a card is very subjective.... some say it's essential, the rest say it doesn't help at all. hmm..

 

[Guest]

Δ9-THC - GO GET IT ITS ESSENTIAL its a recomendation.


Flamengo - thats the type of stuff that needs to happen more often!!
we can do it, its a change of time.

clowntown - i wana go visit that one. all the ones i go to all have to verify the rec. before they let you 'into the back' there like a dr. office there is a lobby with a place to sit while they 'check you in' and verif your docs.
usualy you can call ahead and have them call you doc and verify it before you go. once its verified they dont verify it again untill after you renew your recomendation ether 6 mo or 12 mo.

Pythagllio - that looks like some guys opinion! that cant be used in court.
my lawyer told me about the case. i gues si misunderstood, it was settled. but thers alot . http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/drugreg/Conant_v_Walters.htm

also- the words of the SB (plant limitations by county) vs. the limetless of prop 215 will probably be argues forever, but i know that the recomendations have an amount on them. mine says 1/8 per day. thats a 4 oz month... so id need a 1/4lb for 4 months . . . using that math it tells me i can grow up to a half pound per harvest if do 2 harvests a year. . .

im all for the laws and stuff, im just a small timer. im sure we float below the radar.... anyone here watch "weeds" on showtime? season 2 episode 3 there was a show that DEA said the grower was small time and below his radar... cool stuff.. ( http://www.torrentz.com/torrent_1069003.html ) download torrent link.

 

[Pythagllio]

Yeah, just some guys' opinion. The guys who wrote the law.

 

[DrKatz420]

mine says 1/8 per day. thats a 4 oz month... so id need a 1/4lb for 4 months . . . using that math it tells me i can grow up to a half pound per harvest if do 2 harvests a year. . ..

Maybe you need to doublecheck that math bro. 1 eighth per day is about 4 ounces per month, that's correct. But 4 ounces = 1/4 pound. So you need a full pound, not a quarter pound, for 4 months worth. That's 3 pounds per year, so you need to pull 1.5 pounds per harvest at 2 harvests per year.

BTW, there have been several cases recently involving the greyer areas of sb420, mainly saying that transportation is ok, and that a medical defense still applies to patients who exceed their county limits on plant numbers.

http://www.dabronxnews.com/2006/11/...-pot-is-legal-for-medicinal-users-court-rules

http://www.dabronxnews.com/2006/11/27/california-ca-supreme-court-medical-marijuana-decision/

 

[Guest]

Yeah, just some guys' opinion. The guys who wrote the law.

what the fuck does it matter, his opinion isnt the law. that was a letter too not a law or a bill or anything. it holds no water. im sorry.

DrKatz420 - yea your right!!! lol too much chronic this morning when i wrote that...lolz just goes to support what were all saying. about minimums max and etc. my doc wrote me for more then the 'max' its intresting how the Senete bill tries to reduce the amounts and stuff.


my cat eating my master kush...LOL

 

[Pythagllio]

Dismiss it if you want. It may not mean anything in court, but SB 420 sure will. Since the meaning of 420 would be what would make a difference, thought you'd like to know.

BTW, statements of legislative intent are frequently used in appelate court briefs and decisions.

 

[Guest]

http://www.dabronxnews.com/2006/11/...-pot-is-legal-for-medicinal-users-court-rules

http://www.dabronxnews.com/2006/11/27/california-ca-supreme-court-medical-marijuana-decision/

Great links man!!!
i used to live in huntington beach. the cops there are the worst in the whole state. next to the local county sheriff.

 

[Pythagllio]

google returns 808 hits for "statement of legislative intent" appellate.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...ment+of+legislative+intent"+appellate&spell=1

 

[Legit_User]

It don't mean chit when they drag you to federal court.
The mere mention of "medical MJ" in court will cause a mis-trial.
How can they get away with convicting people without giving the jury the full story.
Stay peacefull

 

[Pythagllio]

Give me a call next time a Federal Grand Jury returns an indictment for 25 plants or less.

Since 99% of cannabis prosecutions are state charges it's state law that's relevent for most people.

 

[Δ9-THC]

I tend to agree with Pythagllio. As a medical user, you probably have to try VERY hard to get the attention of the DEA and consequently a federal indictment. Thanks for the input guys. Legal briefs and court decisions asserting the protection of medical users carry the most impact in my opinion, but documents written by credible sources which pertain directly to SB420 and prop 215 are also very important when in comes to interpreting the laws. Thanks everyone, keep the good information coming.

 

[Guest]

Can you say FREEDOM

Can you say FREEDOM

Fuck the government.

It is so sad we even have to talk about this.

I listen to the other people who are not from the USA and hear how their laws are becoming softer and softer. We are supposed to be the beacon of FREEDOM in the world and this is only one point that shows it is all a smoke screen. (pardon the pun)

All we can do is keep voting and get those around us to vote. Get the bastards out of office. We need to fight for it.

Sorry but I am so down on the whole system but it is up to us to do something about it.

Peace