FluffyBudz said:

I just got home from beautiful SD yesterday.. While visiting our friends, they had been informed from a friend in the DEA that they (the DEA) will be coming down on the states Legal growers in the next few months. Being a card holder, I guess they can acquire all the info on the growers that they need from those records.. Anyone else heard of this?? Old news? This was an incentive for me to finally make the move out west and get legit, but im bummed to hear federal and state laws are still very much in turmoil.. IMO busts such as these will only fuel the fire amongst Pro legalization activists.

Click to expand...

DEA is federal and thus doesn't recognize state medical laws. Obama said he wouldn't mess with those peeps, but what you appear to be saying is they are changing their policy?

the card program is supposed to be anonymous in that the cops/gov cant get your info from a database

so this sounds like pure bullshit to me

the only people in a database are those with the state card. otherwise you are protected by doctor patient laws

Hey thanks for all the input here! Extreamly HELPFUL! So I was just looking over my dr rec and it clearly states the limits, and a "LIMITS EXEMPTION"....this may help cleaify some of this gray area as this is a legal document (further more is words from the doctor himself)...I apologize for not posting this earlier = / shame on me! LOL

Also looking at my other perscription from medican has no limits, or limits exeption, simply says I can use posess and cultivate.

I was calling around doctors offices for the SPECIFIC limits exeption reccomendation and the majority of them charge upwards of $200!!!!

This pictue and rec was $45 dollars with a coupon, MOST IMPORTANT spells out the specific law on limits of posession/cultivation, and PLAIN OUT EXEMPTS me from the countys unconstitutional "limits"

HA!



HA HA HA!

TamyLove420 said:

Click to expand...

this is health & safety (H&S) section 11362.77, which was struck down by people v. kelly.

once again, the two links i provided above lay it all out.



Papa

Papa said:

this is health & safety (H&S) section 11362.77, which was struck down by people v. kelly.

once again, the two links i provided above lay it all out.



Papa

Click to expand...

Awe! I thought I was onto something for a hot minute.... bottom line is pay the retainer for a lawyer I suppose? = /

I have enough information to ask the right questions and make a informed decision...thanks to all your HELPFUL responses! = )