Clarifying "Six Mature OR 12 Immature Plants"

[Max Bloom]

"11362.77. (a) ...a qualified patient or primary caregiver may
also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants
per qualified patient."​

Hi, everyone. I just wanted to clarify this language in SB420 as I've seen many people interpret it to mean that a qualified patient can have 12 plants in veg and 6 in flower. This is incorrect.

You're limited to 6 in flower or 12 in veg. Meaning that those who wish to have a mix of vegging and flowering plants are limited to 6 plants total.

HOWEVER, this only applies if the grower is playing it super safe by staying within confines of the Attorney General guidelines. The Supreme Court ruling in People v. Kelly essentially struck down plant limits, ruling limits as unconstitutional.

So, technically, a qualified patient or caregiver really isn't limited to any particular amount plants. But the reality is that law enforcement still uses the AG guidelines when making arrests, so if the grower is popped with amounts that exceed the above thresholds, he better be prepared to justify the need.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

 

[ClackamasCootz]

wrong thread

 

[SeaMaiden]

"11362.77. (a) ...a qualified patient or primary caregiver may
also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants
per qualified patient."​

Hi, everyone. I just wanted to clarify this language in SB420 as I've seen many people interpret it to mean that a qualified patient can have 12 plants in veg and 6 in flower. This is incorrect.

You're limited to 6 in flower or 12 in veg. Meaning that those who wish to have a mix of vegging and flowering plants are limited to 6 plants total.

HOWEVER, this only applies if the grower is playing it super safe by staying within confines of the Attorney General guidelines. The Supreme Court ruling in People v. Kelly essentially struck down plant limits, ruling limits as unconstitutional.

So, technically, a qualified patient or caregiver really isn't limited to any particular amount plants. But the reality is that law enforcement still uses the AG guidelines when making arrests, so if the grower is popped with amounts that exceed the above thresholds, he better be prepared to justify the need.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

Clear up confusion? This is California you're talkin' about! Technically, anyone who holds the state ID card as outlined in the MMP is voluntarily limiting themselves to these numbers. I don't think I've ever seen even county council make this mention of the 'or' proviso.

What's actually been more confusing for more people than I can count is how a plant's maturity is determined here. Each state's definition of maturity is different. In California, the size has no bearing, sex does. So, once you know the sex (clone), it's mature according to the state.

As for what growers and caregivers are currently restricted by, that's become a much thicker kettle of fish soup. At this time LE are using local guidelines, e.g. Nevada county.

 

[Max Bloom]

Technically, anyone who holds the state ID card as outlined in the MMP is voluntarily limiting themselves to these numbers.

There's nothing in the law that says card holders are limiting themselves to the AG guidelines. All the ID card does is tell LE that the holder is a qualified patient or caregiver who's legitimacy has been verified by the state.

At this time LE are using local guidelines, e.g. Nevada county.

Yes, under the law, counties and cities are allowed to impose thresholds that are higher, but not lower, than the AG guidelines.

 

[BrownThumb]

Wouldn't a square footage metric be a more logical measure than number? It's the footage with which you have to grow that determines what you can pull out of it, is it not? I have 2x2', it's tiny. In theory I could grow 20 plants, but I am still never going to be able to create a significant amount of medicine no matter how good I get. Yeah, they need to re-think that one, IMO.

 

[SeaMaiden]

BT, it really depends on whom you ask. Square footage was something bandied around last year during our work 'with' the county when they enacted the urgency ordinance banning OD cultivation. They decided that it was too much work to have LE or other county employees figure out canopy size.

There's nothing in the law that says card holders are limiting themselves to the AG guidelines. All the ID card does is tell LE that the holder is a qualified patient or caregiver who's legitimacy has been verified by the state.

I missed this response. I believe that the court decision (Kelly) required that as a part of participating in the MMPA program, you are indeed voluntarily limiting yourself to those numbers if you decide to hold a card. I know that county counsel is holding to that, as is my own attorney.

Yes, under the law, counties and cities are allowed to impose thresholds that are higher, but not lower, than the AG guidelines.

The AG guidelines, as I'm sure you know, are simply his/her interpretation of the state's laws and recommendations for how local law enforcement should act. That doesn't mean those guidelines are followed (by LE). The thresholds the counties and cities are limited to aren't defined by the AG, is what I'm getting at, they're defined by state law.

 

[johnnybravo]

personally, i like the idea of growing trees to limit plant count.
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=181239&highlight=heath+robinson

 

[johnnybravo]

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,​

v.​

SEAN CHRISTOPHER GUNN, Defendant and Appellant.​

E044942​

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two​

December 31, 2008
“In the present case, there was testimony from Deputy Piccini that the seven plants seized from the shed had buds, so they were mature, while the plant found in the bathroom shower of the Weekend Warrior was immature. Her testimony about the determination of maturity of the plants was echoed by sheriff's investigator Bender, who used the presence of buds as a primary indicator of maturity of the marijuana plant.”
“Our research has revealed no expression of legislative intent that doctors recommending medical marijuana for patients should be immune from cross-examination, nor have we found any authorities holding that possession of a doctor's recommendation entitles the defendant to unlimited possession of an otherwise controlled substance. Such a conclusion is inconsistent with the Trippet court's statement that the CUA and MMP were not intended to serve as an "open sesame" regarding possession, transportation and sale of marijuana (People v. Trippet, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1546), and is contrary to the intent expressed in the ballot information relating to Proposition 215. (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1996), rebuttal to argument against Prop. 215, p. 61.)”

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,​

v.​

DAVID FRANCIS DELMARK, Defendant and Appellant.​

B203866​

Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two​

March 3, 2009
2. The CUA and the MMPA
The CUA was approved by California voters as Proposition 215 in 1996 and is codified at section 11362.5. (People v. Trippet, supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 1546; People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1436.) Subdivision (d) of section 11362.5 provides: "Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician."
In 2003, the Legislature passed the MMPA, effective January 1, 2004, adding sections 11362.7 through 11362.83 to the Health and Safety Code. (People v. Wright, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 93.) The express intent of the Legislature was to: "(1) Clarify the scope of the application of the [CUA] and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution of these individuals and provide needed guidance to law enforcement officers. (2) Promote uniform and consistent application of the [CUA] among the counties within the state. (3) Enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects. (c) It is also the intent of the Legislature to address additional issues that were not included within the [CUA], and that must be resolved in order to promote the fair and orderly implementation of the [CUA]." (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, § 1, subd. (b)(1).)
The MMPA allows medical marijuana patients and their primary caregivers to voluntarily apply for an identification card that protects them against arrest for violation of state marijuana laws. (§ 11362.71, subd. (e).) The MMPA also establishes a numerical limitation on the amount of marijuana that can be lawfully possessed by a qualified patient and primary caregiver. Thus, section 11362.71, subdivision (e) immunizes persons from arrest for, among other things, cultivation of medical marijuana "in an amount established pursuant to this article." Section 11362.77, subdivision (a) states that: "A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient." Subdivision (b) of that section states that "f a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor's recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient's medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient's needs."
“ 3. The MMPA is unconstitutionally amendatory
Article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending an initiative measure unless the initiative measure itself authorizes legislative amendment. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (c); People v. Cooper (2002) 27 Cal.4th 38, 44.) "An amendment is `. . . any change of the scope or effect of an existing statute, whether by addition, omission, or substitution of provisions, which does not wholly terminate its existence, whether by an act purporting to amend, repeal, revise, or supplement, or by an act independent and original in form. A statute which adds to or takes away from an existing statute is considered an amendment.'" (Franchise Tax Bd. v. Cory (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 772, 776; Knight v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 14, 22.)
The People concede, and our review of the CUA reveals, the CUA does not contain authorization for legislative amendment without voter approval. The People further concede, and we agree, that application of the limits of section 11362.77 to an in-court CUA defense replaces the CUA's reasonableness standard with specified, numeric guidelines.3 Section 11362.5, subdivision (d) of the CUA specifically provides that a patient or a patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to laws relating to the possession or cultivation of marijuana if either possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician. (§ 11362.5, subd. (d).) But, the MMPA limits the amount of dried marijuana that a qualified patient or a primary caregiver can possess to "no more than eight ounces . . . per qualified patient" and the number of plants either can maintain to "no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient." (§ 11362.77, subd. (a).) These numerical limits do not apply "f a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor's recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient's medical needs," in which case "the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient's needs." (§ 11362.77, subd. (b).)
Thus, the "personal medical purposes of the patient" set forth in section 11362.5, subdivision (d) of CUA embodies a reasonableness requirement, which is improperly amended by the numerical limits set forth in the MMPA at section 11362.77, subdivision (a). Accordingly, we agree that the MMPA is unconstitutionally amendatory.”

 

[Bretz]

The MMP quantity limits where ruled unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. It's California constitutional law 101, the legislature can not modify the will of the people. Any lawyer that says otherwise probably has a very low win rate and is unable to unlock their cases. Most lawyers only understand procedure and are very limited in the understanding of the law.
SB 420 is a perfect example of how incompetent the state of California legislature is. After the incompetents passed 420 the guy that drafted it tried to change it but Arnold refused to void it. Anything in 420 that gives a benefit stands and anything that restricts 215 is void.

 

[supermanlives]

I had way more when the piggies showed up.showed em paperwork and they left empty handed. I guess a lot depends on the piggy. I am in nice neighborhood

 

[Seal-Clubber]

People v. Kelly
Contents

People v. Kelly was decided on January 21, 2010 by the California Supreme Court. The decision invalidated a law passed in 2003 by the California State Legislature on the grounds that the law imposed stricter standards on medical marijuana than is allowed under Proposition 215. Under the ruling, the state government is no longer allowed to impose any legal limits on the amount of marijuana that medical marijuana users can grow or possess.[1]



The 2003 law limited medical marijuana users to 8 ounces of dried marijuana and six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants.



The basis for the court's ruling in People v. Kelly is that the 2003 legislation amounted to an amendment to Proposition 215, and that the California Constitution prohibits legislative tampering with ballot initiatives approved by voters.

The defendant in the case was Patrick Kevin Kelly, a user of medical marijuana.​

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/People_v._Kelly