Log In Register

california plant number question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Noworries
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

california plant number question

Noworries 10 Replies 1,645 Views
Page 1 of 1 · Replies 1–11 of 11
1
N

Noworries

Posts
143
Reactions
23
Joined
Jun 11, 2011
Points
18
I see like a few places have a 99 limit but in a lot of videos (sublbc comes to mind) how do people get ability to have 700 clones etc? I want to say he had 450, but capacity was 700

How's that work?
 
If you really want to play it safe, 12 veg & 6 flower is where you want to be. I would like to share a true story that is public record. The event took place in Vacaville, CA. You can look it up on the blotter reports for September 2011. The incidence involved Marijuana of course. A couple, each possessing a valid Doctor's Recommendation, were growing twelve plants in their backyard. Awakened from noises in the middle of the night, they turned on their backyard lights and called the police. When the police arrived, they investigated the crime scene and found two plants missing; ripped from the ground. One clever officer on the call took detailed notes of the crime scene. No issue was made of the other plants and no question of legalities were raised.
Now here is where this story gets good. Later that morning, this clever officer was summoned to a call at a local crack/dive motel due to a disturbance created by a guest. The officer discovered several youths, some under aged and no citizenship, behaving erratic. During the course of the investigation, the officer discovers the cleaned branches of two Marijuana plants, as well as the trimmed flower. Alcohol and methamphetamine was also found.
Now don't accuse smokers of not being good citizens. The officer immediately connected the plants to his earlier call, noting the material that was used to tie up and support the plants. Just as in other investigations, the officer picked up the husband to identify the plant remains. Really. This did happen. It's great. The poor guy didn't get his medicine back due to the fact that it was evidence, but as a medical grower gave legal testimony as the victim of a robbery.
I hope that you are safe with 12/6. If you are in danger, then so am I. We are all in danger. Let us all hope that if they should come knocking at the door, they will be as cool as this clever Vacaville officer.
Sorry. The numbers you are talking about sounds like prison time to me.
 
In court the only thing that matters is if u can prove it was for personal use. If u make just edibles or concentrates for medicine then its much easier to prove the 99 plants as personal. Especially if u have a doctor that will back u up in court. And a wife or girlfriend with a script as well.

Stay under 99 so the feds dont get involved. Have ur paperwork. And be ready if something does arise. But u have to remember. U are an extremely small fish in the largest of oceans out there. So unless ur plannin on rockin a few warehouses and opening a club on main street i wouldnt worry about it.
 
Cultivation of any amount of marijuana is a felony under Health and Safety Code 11358. People who grow for personal use are eligible for diversion under Penal Code 1000 so long as there is no evidence of intent to sell. There are no fixed plant number limits to personal use cultivation.
Medical marijuana: Medical patients and their designated primary caregivers may legally
possess and cultivate (but not distribute or sell) marijuana under Health and Safety Code 11362.5 (Prop 215) if they have a physician's recommendation or approval. State law SB420, now codified as California Health & Safety code sections 11362.7-11362.83, set a state threshold of 6 mature OR 12 immature plants per patient, allowing locals to pass higher allowances (many have). Read more on medical marijuana laws.

From canorml.com
 
Cultivation of any amount of marijuana is a felony under Health and Safety Code 11358. People who grow for personal use are eligible for diversion under Penal Code 1000 so long as there is no evidence of intent to sell. There are no fixed plant number limits to personal use cultivation.
Medical marijuana: Medical patients and their designated primary caregivers may legally
possess and cultivate (but not distribute or sell) marijuana under Health and Safety Code 11362.5 (Prop 215) if they have a physician's recommendation or approval. State law SB420, now codified as California Health & Safety code sections 11362.7-11362.83, set a state threshold of 6 mature OR 12 immature plants per patient, allowing locals to pass higher allowances (many have). Read more on medical marijuana laws.

From canorml.com

SB420 was thrown out
http://www.canorml.org/news/kellyruling.html



The state Supreme Court returned to the medical marijuana wars Wednesday, agreeing to decide the validity of a law that shields doctor-approved pot users from arrest for possessing up to eight ounces of dried marijuana or growing six plants.
The justices voted unanimously to review the issue after a prosecution appeal of a lower-court ruling in May. In that ruling, an appellate court found the 2003 law conflicted with California's 1996 medical marijuana initiative, which allows possession of an amount of marijuana "reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs," but did not set specific limits.
The appellate panel overturned the conviction of a Los Angeles County man who possessed more than eight ounces of marijuana and ruled that the 1996 initiative bars the Legislature from specifying the amount a patient can possess.
The case has divided medical marijuana advocates, with some arguing that the court should have left some standards in place to guide police and protect patients.
The 1996 initiative, Proposition 215, allowed Californians to possess and cultivate marijuana for medical use with their doctor's approval. The court has interpreted Prop. 215 to provide broad protections for medical patients in criminal cases, but has not extended those protections to the workplace. Notwithstanding the law, the justices ruled in January that employers could fire workers who used medical marijuana away from the job, a ruling that advocates are trying to overturn in the Legislature.
Wednesday's case began in 2005, when officers in Los Angeles County searched Patrick Kelly's home and found seven plants in his back yard, 12 ounces of marijuana in plastic baggies, and a doctor's note saying he needed marijuana for hepatitis C, back problems and other ailments.
The prosecutor told jurors that Kelly was not a legitimate medical marijuana user because he exceeded the limits of the 2003 law. He was convicted of illegal possession and cultivation and sentenced to two days in jail and three years' probation.
The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles overturned the conviction in May, agreeing with Kelly's lawyer that the 2003 law was invalid because it set limits that conflicted with Prop. 215, which does not specify the amount of marijuana a patient may possess for medical use.
But one advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access, argued that the 2003 law did not limit the amount of marijuana a patient could possess; it merely set guidelines for police. Striking down the law would eliminate a statewide standard that "protects qualified patients from unnecessary arrests," attorney Joseph Elford argued in court papers.
The American Civil Liberties Union offered a different interpretation: The eight-ounce limit and protection from arrest is an option that applies to the more than 18,000 patients who have obtained medical marijuana identification cards, also authorized by the 2003 law.
All patients remain covered by Prop. 215, which allows doctors to recommend greater amounts of marijuana and leaves local governments free to set higher limits, ACLU lawyer M. Allen Hopper said. San Francisco, for example, allows possession of up to 24 marijuana plants, he said.
Deputy Attorney General Michael Johnsen took a similar view, arguing that without the numerical standards, "law enforcement has no clear legislative guidance ... and medical marijuana patients have little incentive to volunteer for the cardholder program."
The Supreme Court has not set a hearing date.
The case is People vs. Kelly, S164830.
 
Here are the local guidelines for different cities in CA
 
under 99 indoors to be safe imo. prop depends on your area but heard of a dude with 400 clones near monterey co had his case dismissed because medical justification.
 
Page 1 of 1 · Replies 1–11 of 11
1
Back
Top Bottom