California Supreme Court Strikes Limits for Medical Marijuana Patients

[Jim Finnel]

CA -- The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous published decision today in People v. Kelly, striking down what it considered unconstitutional legislative limits on how much medical marijuana patients can possess and cultivate. Today's decision also affirms protection from arrest and prosecution for patients who both possess a state-issued identification card and comply with state or local personal use guidelines.

"The California Supreme Court did the right thing by abolishing limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country's largest medical marijuana advocacy group. "At the same time, the Court may have left too much discretion to law enforcement in deciding what are reasonable amounts of medicine for patients to possess and cultivate."

Although the court affirmed that qualified patients and their primary caregivers retain "all the rights afforded by the CUA [Compassionate Use Act of 1996]," law enforcement can still arrest and prosecute if probable cause exists. In keeping with the CUA, qualified patients and their primary caregivers will still have an affirmative defense in court. Advocates remain concerned that without guidance on personal use amounts, police may abuse their discretion to arrest patients who are in compliance with the law.

The defendant, Patrick Kelly, is a qualified medical marijuana patient treating a number of conditions, including hepatitis C, chronic back pain, and cirrhosis. Kelly was arrested in October of 2005 for possessing 12 ounces and cultivating 7 plants at his home in Lakewood, California. Kelly was convicted a year later by a jury, which concluded that he had exceeded the state-imposed "limits" of 8 ounces of dried medical marijuana and six mature plants. California's Second Appellate District Court overturned Kelly's conviction on the grounds that legislatively-imposed limits on possession and cultivation of medical marijuana are an unconstitutional restriction to a voter approved initiative (Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996).

Both parties in the case, Kelly and the State Attorney General, agreed that medical marijuana limits should be abolished as unconstitutional. Both parties also opposed the appellate court's invalidation of the entire statute, Health & Safety Code Section 11362.77, which protects ID cardholders from arrest and prosecution if they are in compliance with local or state guidelines.

Further Information:
California Supreme Court decision: https://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/Kelly_Ruling.pdf



News Hawk: User: 420 Magazine - Cannabis Culture News & Reviews
Source: Americans for Safe Access
Copyright: 2008 Americans for Safe Access
Contact: info@safeaccessnow.org
Website: ASA : California Supreme Court Strikes Limits for Medical Marijuana Patients

 

[Warbux]

Whens the last time you heard someone mention I.D. cards for vicodin? or Any other drug made legally? How bout for diabetics? When have any of them even had to pay extra to get a refferal? Not to mention insurance does'nt cover cannabis...WTF??? Sorry, my bad

 

[trekie]

WONDER WHAT THIS RULING COST THE TAX PAYER'S?

 

[ecoins]

Costs nothing, but I should will grow more than the regular 6 mature and 6 vegie stated before YAHOOOOOOOOOOO
WELCOME TO CALI BABY!!!

WONDER WHAT THIS RULING COST THE TAX PAYER'S?

 

[ecoins]

Can you ever be happy? Geese

whens the last time you heard someone mention i.d. Cards for vicodin? Or any other drug made legally? How bout for diabetics? When have any of them even had to pay extra to get a refferal? Not to mention insurance does'nt cover cannabis...wtf??? Sorry, my bad

 

[ecoins]

YUP, MY HOME STATE, ABOUT TIME!!!!! Remember to vote Feb. 2010 to pass all weed!!!

CA -- The California Supreme Court issued a unanimous published decision today in People v. Kelly, striking down what it considered unconstitutional legislative limits on how much medical marijuana patients can possess and cultivate. Today's decision also affirms protection from arrest and prosecution for patients who both possess a state-issued identification card and comply with state or local personal use guidelines.

"The California Supreme Court did the right thing by abolishing limits on medical marijuana possession and cultivation," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country's largest medical marijuana advocacy group. "At the same time, the Court may have left too much discretion to law enforcement in deciding what are reasonable amounts of medicine for patients to possess and cultivate."

Although the court affirmed that qualified patients and their primary caregivers retain "all the rights afforded by the CUA [Compassionate Use Act of 1996]," law enforcement can still arrest and prosecute if probable cause exists. In keeping with the CUA, qualified patients and their primary caregivers will still have an affirmative defense in court. Advocates remain concerned that without guidance on personal use amounts, police may abuse their discretion to arrest patients who are in compliance with the law.

The defendant, Patrick Kelly, is a qualified medical marijuana patient treating a number of conditions, including hepatitis C, chronic back pain, and cirrhosis. Kelly was arrested in October of 2005 for possessing 12 ounces and cultivating 7 plants at his home in Lakewood, California. Kelly was convicted a year later by a jury, which concluded that he had exceeded the state-imposed "limits" of 8 ounces of dried medical marijuana and six mature plants. California's Second Appellate District Court overturned Kelly's conviction on the grounds that legislatively-imposed limits on possession and cultivation of medical marijuana are an unconstitutional restriction to a voter approved initiative (Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996).

Both parties in the case, Kelly and the State Attorney General, agreed that medical marijuana limits should be abolished as unconstitutional. Both parties also opposed the appellate court's invalidation of the entire statute, Health & Safety Code Section 11362.77, which protects ID cardholders from arrest and prosecution if they are in compliance with local or state guidelines.

Further Information:
California Supreme Court decision: https://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/Kelly_Ruling.pdf



News Hawk: User: 420 Magazine - Cannabis Culture News & Reviews
Source: Americans for Safe Access
Copyright: 2008 Americans for Safe Access
Contact: info@safeaccessnow.org
Website: ASA*:*California Supreme Court Strikes Limits for Medical Marijuana Patients

 

[redcannon]

Well, I am a little concerned about this. 8 ounces was a limit for patients but a limit for police as well. Now if I'm caught with six ounces in a car full of non-patients a cop can say, "well, this looks like intent to distribute to me."

This SC ruling essentially is giving the discretion to the police officer. In Santa Cruz county that would be fine but in Orange County (where I am) officers are very critical of marijuana. They see what is happening with MMJ in Los Angeles (1,000 clinics) and they don't like it. They don't want to see it in Orange County.

So I hope we get a bill up there soon that specifies the amount we can carry. Just a safer policy for everyone.

 

[Scootman]

Well, I am a little concerned about this. 8 ounces was a limit for patients but a limit for police as well. Now if I'm caught with six ounces in a car full of non-patients a cop can say, "well, this looks like intent to distribute to me."

I hope they figure this out too, but to be honest, you really do not have any reason to drive around with 6 ounces in your car, other than direct business with a clinic. The clubs ask us to come by ourselves and since we are trying to get this whole issue resolved, it would be in everyone's interest to go get your meds, go home and put it up and then go out with your friends.

While this might seem a little overboard, I think this kind of respect for those that really don't want to accept this coming, could go a long way in 'winning them over!' Whether we agree with how they feel or not, it is always better to use honey than vinegar and 'flaunting it' could be considered 'vinegar'

Just my 2 cents, but I use this stuff, so take this with a grain of salt and offer any feedback......I definitely don't mean to offend anyone. I just think we have some control over this and should use that power to get this into place as soon as possible so all the controls CAN be relaxed!

 

[Irish]

.....So I hope we get a bill up there soon that specifies the amount we can carry. Just a safer policy for everyone.

Yeah. Like legalize it so limits are no longer an issue.

 

[redcannon]

I hope they figure this out too, but to be honest, you really do not have any reason to drive around with 6 ounces in your car, other than direct business with a clinic. The clubs ask us to come by ourselves and since we are trying to get this whole issue resolved, it would be in everyone's interest to go get your meds, go home and put it up and then go out with your friends.

True. the thing I am really worried about is a cop saying, "ok, you have 1/8 of marijuana. You have insomnia? yea, I here a lot of you kids have insomnia..." and then proceed to give me a ticket.

California needs to get with the program. There are two or three thousand clinics in this state, millions of stoners, and hundreds of state lawyers running back and forth between misdemeaner trials and possession trials.

It's time to legalize.

 

[Andre Ramon]

POLICE ARE NOT DOCTORS!!!

What is wrong with everyone, appointing cops to make medical decisions? Way to regress, California.

 

[grow4ever]

A key point was missed by some. The Cal Supreme's decision leaves an "Affirmative Defense" to any arrest. There will be many DAs/prosecutors that will not waste time and more importantly financial resources in these bad economic times.

I am a caregiver and when traveling with broken multiple ounces/lbs. I tape a copy of my patients prescription and card to the bags.( e.g. John Doe has 4 ounces and Jane Doe has 8 oz.) I do the same in my Co-op garden, each section (every 6 plants) has the patients info on his/hers planted area.

This ruling was a big step in the right direction, maybe not perfect, but we've come a long way.

 

[Scootman]

POLICE ARE NOT DOCTORS!!!

What is wrong with everyone, appointing cops to make medical decisions? Way to regress, California.

No......not regressing, realistic. It has been fabulous that I no longer feel nervous just because I smoke pot. The fact that we have come this far is notable and must not be overlooked. I prefer clear calculated progress albeit slow, that let's everyone time to take it in and realize it is no more criminal than aspirin.

Dinner's ready........later

 

[Irish]

Patrick Kelley...what a fine Irish name he has....

 

[ecoins]

Problem here is you're basing it on fear. Yes, OC cops and OC it's self is a crap hole to live, so darn conservative. Trust me, better off putting Orange Tree back in and tearing down all of the OC. aside from that....lol

6 OZ in you car will determine whether you're an intelligent person, or just being plain dumb? Intelligent person would buy his/her weed, lock it in the trunk for trasportation home only from the dispensary.

If you're riding around with 6 OZ in the front of the car, and not transporting, HELL, I'D CALL THE POLICE ON YOU CAUSE YOU'D BE THE TYPE TO RUIN FOR ALL OF US. You would deserve going off to jail.

Cops, have to be honest in where the report says the weed was obtained from, they have to write trunk. Judge is not stupid, Judy Judy would say then it was being transported from store to home, you best say YES.

Case Dismissed. Under Calif. law State Law, no officer are allowed, whether they like it or not, too bad, the must accept the new law. There would be no case, and cops will accept it. I also know Long Beach is great about all this as well.

The cops even laughed at my ID card and held it up in the air. They do routine checks on long haired types riding on bicycles with tattoos....lol

Well, I am a little concerned about this. 8 ounces was a limit for patients but a limit for police as well. Now if I'm caught with six ounces in a car full of non-patients a cop can say, "well, this looks like intent to distribute to me."

This SC ruling essentially is giving the discretion to the police officer. In Santa Cruz county that would be fine but in Orange County (where I am) officers are very critical of marijuana. They see what is happening with MMJ in Los Angeles (1,000 clinics) and they don't like it. They don't want to see it in Orange County.

So I hope we get a bill up there soon that specifies the amount we can carry. Just a safer policy for everyone.

 

[ecoins]

YES WE HAVE, just make sure you transport in the trunk ONLY!!!
TRUNK ONLY for transportation.

A key point was missed by some. The Cal Supreme's decision leaves an "Affirmative Defense" to any arrest. There will be many DAs/prosecutors that will not waste time and more importantly financial resources in these bad economic times.

I am a caregiver and when traveling with broken multiple ounces/lbs. I tape a copy of my patients prescription and card to the bags.( e.g. John Doe has 4 ounces and Jane Doe has 8 oz.) I do the same in my Co-op garden, each section (every 6 plants) has the patients info on his/hers planted area.

This ruling was a big step in the right direction, maybe not perfect, but we've come a long way.

 

[ecoins]

I don't get this message. Unless you're saying how can cops put limits on weed, which cops never have done that, hence why it makes no sense. Courts make the limits, and they have justified it unconstitutional to put a limit on medical weed.

POLICE ARE NOT DOCTORS!!!

What is wrong with everyone, appointing cops to make medical decisions? Way to regress, California.

 

[ecoins]

Cost me nothing, but then I have yet to buy another OZ since the ruling.

WONDER WHAT THIS RULING COST THE TAX PAYER'S?

 

[Weed420]

I don't get this message. Unless you're saying how can cops put limits on weed, which cops never have done that, hence why it makes no sense. Courts make the limits, and they have justified it unconstitutional to put a limit on medical weed.

The justices are just saying the legislature can't change the intiative, the people have to do that. So however much the original intiative authorized, thats how much you can legally have. Commonsense should be used in transporting. Locked in the trunk is a good way. The officer can't open the trunk without a search warrant unless you give hime permission.

 

[GanjaAL2]

So how does this work for growing for a collective??? does the 12 or 6 rule still apply?

Thanks,

G.AL