How California LE determines maturity of a plant

[Seamaiden]

Got a quick question for my California-based 215 THCfarming brethren based upon what I was just told by my local LE regarding what determines whether or not a plant is mature. What I was told is that if I know the sex of the plant, it's mature. They said it doesn't matter what stage of growth it's in, if I know for a fact it's male or female, they consider it mature.

So, the way the proposition and other muni laws read to me, the definition of "mature" with regard to a production plant is pretty much not defined at all. I would like to hear from the rest of you, what your experiences have been, etc.

I have a basement FULL of plants in vegetative growth, nowhere near a budding stage and I am flummoxed that LE would consider those little things 'mature' in any way, shape or form.

Have you spoken with an attorney or LE in your area about this particular subject, and if so, what did *they* have to say?

My feeling is that my local LE are basically making this one up as they go along, I can't believe that just because I know the sex of a 4" tall plant that's in vegetative growth I could be dinged for having too many mature plants. How the hell do I grow them out, then? What do I get off a 4" plant if it doesn't even have buds? The people I spoke with couldn't, or wouldn't, answer those questions.

 

[up yours]

Moving to cali hope not your towni will ask my attorney if they can define it more I do know some countys are implementing 215 their way. Humholdt has one way riverside another and when you travel in state you are subject to jurisdictional laws I will repost when I have answer unless it gets answered to your satisfaction. Later U.Y.

 

[Seamaiden]

Exactly, I believe the each jurisdiction is making their own determination. I hope you're not headed for my county, either, they've outright banned dispensaries or any similar model, so if you don't grow your own meds you are SOL and have to travel a good distance to the nearest facility.

I haven't yet asked my own attorney this question a second time because he agreed that the language was ambiguous, and then *he* asked me how *I* would determine a mature plant. For me, it's a plant that has obvious bud-set and has stopped vegetative growth, sex has nothing to do with it because otherwise clones could be called mature plants (which is what the popo were inferring, it seems to me).

They told me I could call with any other questions I have, but I have to be honest, this is a situation where the enforcers seem to be determining how the law is interpreted, and that's not their job. That said, I don't want to be the case study, ya dig?

 

[gadgetsmoke]

well couldn't you just say you dont know

the sex until a couple weeks into bloom?

Edit: and, ya I dig......lol

 

[Seamaiden]

I could *say* anything. But that's no protection, as I'm sure you've heard a million times before "ignorance of the law is not a reason to violate it!" (Yet popo are not held to that standard.)

Let's say, because we have no co-ops, dispensaries, clubs or collectives here and no hope of getting anything like that anytime soon, that I went to a club out in Sact'o and bought a buncha clones. Do I really have mature plants simply because the sex has been determined? That's what they're telling me, and I believe that's incorrect.

I need to get in touch with an attorney who's a little more familiar with this sort of thing. I put mine on retainer because he's local and we know him personally as much as anything else. Were anything to happen I know he would defend me to the very best of his ability (which is pretty good), but in the meantime that retainer is being eaten up. For clones?

 

[amstercal]

Have you talked to NORML? Maybe they have some info.

That's just madness! I don't have too much exposure to the local MJ community, but any OC people I have talked to it's pretty much any cultivation that will get you a court date. It's being given back, but LE is happy to tear it down for you. They're ok with just equipment, even helped investigate a theft of equipment and plants, but actual flowering plants in their hands they love to tear down.
Most dispensaries don't flower on the premises here. Well, since they don't operate legally anyway, it's irrelevant. I'll have to see if I can locate one that does flower, which would have to be in Laguna Woods, last time I checked the status on all the cities they were the only one that actually allows them. Every other city has either a ban, a moratorium or has some court case that would essentially ban them going. I need to do a research update on that though.

So I'm no help, but that's definitely something that needs to be looked into. Just crazy. That doesn't follow anyone else's definition of "mature" and that's how the law is worded, right? I'll have to look it up when I have a minute.

 

[ent]

Technically SB420's plant guidelines have been thrown out by the CA Supreme 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."

*edit

Here is the text of health and safety code 11362.77 that was ruled unconstitutional.

(a) 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.
(b) If 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.
(c) Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana
guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to
exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a).
(d) Only the dried mature processed flowers of female cannabis
plant or the plant conversion shall be considered when determining
allowable quantities of marijuana under this section.
(e) The Attorney General may recommend modifications to the
possession or cultivation limits set forth in this section. These
recommendations, if any, shall be made to the Legislature no later
than December 1, 2005, and may be made only after public comment and
consultation with interested organizations, including, but not
limited to, patients, health care professionals, researchers, law
enforcement, and local governments. Any recommended modification
shall be consistent with the intent of this article and shall be
based on currently available scientific research.
(f) A qualified patient or a person holding a valid identification
card, or the designated primary caregiver of that qualified patient
or person, may possess amounts of marijuana consistent with this
article.

 

[motherlode]

^^^ what ent said!

unless you live somewhere that has its own guidelines like Oakland, sf etc

I always understood mature to be flowering

much like is a clone an immature plant if it dont have roots - its a freaking gray area

I would just stick to stating that there are no prop 420 limits as it was ruled unconstitutional

 

[amstercal]

Yes, but didn't the decision just say it comes down to dr recommendation? So if your rx says 6, then it's 6, so the plant limits still apply, unless I'm not recalling correctly.

 

[ent]

Yes, but didn't the decision just say it comes down to dr recommendation? So if your rx says 6, then it's 6, so the plant limits still apply, unless I'm not recalling correctly.

The decision repealed H&S 11362.77 so we reverted back to the Compassionate Use Act, which adds a section to the Health and Safety code; 11362.5

11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b)(1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
(d) 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.
(e) For the purposes of this section, ''primary caregiver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.

 

[up yours]

And my attorney said to gray to explain he is 215 compliant and confused sounds like more broken eggs and I don't want be one either

 

[Seamaiden]

^^^ what ent said!

unless you live somewhere that has its own guidelines like Oakland, sf etc

I always understood mature to be flowering

much like is a clone an immature plant if it dont have roots - its a freaking gray area

I would just stick to stating that there are no prop 420 limits as it was ruled unconstitutional

We discussed the fact that AB420 has been partially struck down. I've always understood mature to be flowering as well, which is what's got my dander, and fear factor, up. If these police are now going to define *any* plant of known sex as mature, then flowering or not flowering, maturity levels, etcetera, are all thrown out the window, no?

I'm in a county that has banned dispensaries (couldn't find the listing on the NORML page yesterday) and all similar models, and the only language that discusses limitors of any kind refers back to AB420. Which is what we discussed.

Yes, but didn't the decision just say it comes down to dr recommendation? So if your rx says 6, then it's 6, so the plant limits still apply, unless I'm not recalling correctly.

My doctor didn't recommend a number of plants OR any amount of finished product for me to have on hand. In fact, there is nothing on my written recommendation that says a thing about any amount, it says that I "may benefit from medical cannabis use". That's it.

 

[amstercal]

It's so all over the place and confusing. I really think outside of paying for a lawyer (who probably doesn't have a clear cut answer either), approaching NORML after the election madness is over is probably the best bet. Considering the court case that struck down the limits was fairly recent, there probably isn't an answer right now and will be something that has to wait for the next court case for a better explanation. I mean, really, like ent was getting at, if you take SB 420 out of the equation, there's nothing in the H&S code about limits of any kind so who can enforce limits, other than maybe the fed one of 99?

 

[Seamaiden]

That's what I'm thinking. They won't tell me where they're getting their direction from, either, doesn't that sound kinda fishy? Shouldn't they be referring me back to the DA or another attorney?

Also, based upon their claim, I can go ahead and flower out everything, and it would be the same thing as having what I have--a buncha babies (though they're growing really well, I'm loving the headstart they get with an aerocloner).

I plan to make two phone calls after the 2pm lunch return--to my recommending physician (this is part of why I pay a higher fee), and my regular attorney. I've also got bookmarked a group of SF area attorneys who specialize in 215 representation and so might be able to advise me as well.

Also asked a friend whose husband still has a friend on the local sheriff's department to find out how they're making these determinations.

 

[motherlode]

It's so all over the place and confusing. I really think outside of paying for a lawyer (who probably doesn't have a clear cut answer either), approaching NORML after the election madness is over is probably the best bet. Considering the court case that struck down the limits was fairly recent, there probably isn't an answer right now and will be something that has to wait for the next court case for a better explanation. I mean, really, like ent was getting at, if you take SB 420 out of the equation, there's nothing in the H&S code about limits of any kind so who can enforce limits, other than maybe the fed one of 99?[/quote]


exactly

 

[Papa]

my doc prescribed "as needed."

done.







Papa

 

[Big Brother]

That's what I'm thinking. They won't tell me where they're getting their direction from, either, doesn't that sound kinda fishy? Shouldn't they be referring me back to the DA or another attorney?

Also, based upon their claim, I can go ahead and flower out everything, and it would be the same thing as having what I have--a buncha babies (though they're growing really well, I'm loving the headstart they get with an aerocloner).

I plan to make two phone calls after the 2pm lunch return--to my recommending physician (this is part of why I pay a higher fee), and my regular attorney. I've also got bookmarked a group of SF area attorneys who specialize in 215 representation and so might be able to advise me as well.

Also asked a friend whose husband still has a friend on the local sheriff's department to find out how they're making these determinations.

Please keep us posted on what you hear.

 

[Big Brother]

We discussed the fact that AB420 has been partially struck down. I've always understood mature to be flowering as well, which is what's got my dander, and fear factor, up. If these police are now going to define *any* plant of known sex as mature, then flowering or not flowering, maturity levels, etcetera, are all thrown out the window, no?

I'm in a county that has banned dispensaries (couldn't find the listing on the NORML page yesterday) and all similar models, and the only language that discusses limitors of any kind refers back to AB420. Which is what we discussed.

My doctor didn't recommend a number of plants OR any amount of finished product for me to have on hand. In fact, there is nothing on my written recommendation that says a thing about any amount, it says that I "may benefit from medical cannabis use". That's it.

Seamaiden,
See if you can get you Dr to put this on his letterhead and sign.

Sample physician's exemption letter for Safe Access Now:
(on letterhead)
To whom it may concern,
I am a physician licensed in the state of California.
____________________ is my patient. This statement is to affirm that this patient
has advised me that, due to personal circumstances, the county garden guideline is
not adequate to provide for his/her personal medical marijuana dosage, and
therefore s/he requires an exemption from the guideline.
Sincerely,
__________________, M.D.

The way that I understand it is this could help you if you are over your county/city limits.


(a) 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.
(b) If 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.
(c) Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana
guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to
exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a).
(d) Only the dried mature processed flowers of female cannabis
plant or the plant conversion shall be considered when determining
allowable quantities of marijuana under this section.

 

[Seamaiden]

BB, here's the rub--my county hasn't set its own guidelines or limits, it only refers back to AB420. In other words, because they got lazy and didn't put it up for vote, now that it's been struck down, they have to go with that until or unless we vote on it. And the majority of citizens want dispensaries/co-ops/collectives, are more positive about MMJ than local LE, the DA, et alia. (The ones who were voted in will be getting spanked this election, I hope! Reibe, ya bastard!)

I was only able to get in touch with my 'regular' attorney, he doesn't handle anything to do with drug law or cases. He referred me to two attorneys in the county, but I got answering services, will be calling back Monday. I will also be calling my recommending doctor. Part of the reason why I pay a higher price and don't go to outfits like Medi-Cann is because he'll stand up for me, he'll appear in court and has his own legal experts, stuff we've discussed at some length.

 

[Big Brother]

BB, here's the rub--my county hasn't set its own guidelines or limits, it only refers back to AB420. In other words, because they got lazy and didn't put it up for vote, now that it's been struck down, they have to go with that until or unless we vote on it. And the majority of citizens want dispensaries/co-ops/collectives, are more positive about MMJ than local LE, the DA, et alia. (The ones who were voted in will be getting spanked this election, I hope! Reibe, ya bastard!)

SM,
Correct me if I'm wrong. Since your county hasn't enacted it's own guideline it defaults back to AB420 which is six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per
qualified patient, correct. Are you trying to grow more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants? If so, why not have you wife/friends get a recommendation and have the Dr sign the letter I posted above?