Judge hears Measure B arguments

The fate of Measure B will remain in limbo as parties on both sides await rulings from Mendocino Superior Court Judge John Behnke and the California Supreme Court.

[Watcher]

"Nick said he feared police will treat the plant limits as a cap and arrest anyone with more than the limits set by Measure B, ignoring the portion of state law that allows a qualified patient to have as much medical marijuana as his or her doctor recommends.
"It could be very detrimental to individual rights," he said."
__________
Don't the non-pot using parents have a right not to have pot pushed at their kids 24 / 7 / 365? Because grow sites don't have to have the docs recommendation on site, the police would have to accept any lie these growers told. The pot docs used to charge around $250.00 for a 25 plant grow recommendation. Now if the growers can have any number of plants they want, a pot doc could charge a $1000.00 for a 100 plant grow or maybe the pot docs can give discounts for the real large grows, say $8500.00 for a 1000 plant grow.

This is a ridiculous.

[Tom]

215 was written & passed with its gray areas that let the Judge decide the limits.
Patient,Physician,Arresting Officer and charging Attorney are just boxcars on the 215 train.The Judge is the locomotive and the tracks.

[reality checker]

Watcher wrote:

"Nick said he feared police will treat the plant limits as a cap and arrest anyone with more than the limits set by Measure B, ignoring the portion of state law that allows a qualified patient to have as much medical marijuana as his or her doctor recommends.
"It could be very detrimental to individual rights," he said."
__________
Don't the non-pot using parents have a right not to have pot pushed at their kids 24 / 7 / 365? Because grow sites don't have to have the docs recommendation on site, the police would have to accept any lie these growers told. The pot docs used to charge around $250.00 for a 25 plant grow recommendation. Now if the growers can have any number of plants they want, a pot doc could charge a $1000.00 for a 100 plant grow or maybe the pot docs can give discounts for the real large grows, say $8500.00 for a 1000 plant grow.
This is a ridiculous.

where do you get your information that doctors charge per plant for recommendations?

What is ridiculous, sir, are your unfounded statements.

[reality checker]

Watcher wrote:

"Nick said he feared police will treat the plant limits as a cap and arrest anyone with more than the limits set by Measure B, ignoring the portion of state law that allows a qualified patient to have as much medical marijuana as his or her doctor recommends.
"It could be very detrimental to individual rights," he said."
__________
Don't the non-pot using parents have a right not to have pot pushed at their kids 24 / 7 / 365? Because grow sites don't have to have the docs recommendation on site, the police would have to accept any lie these growers told. The pot docs used to charge around $250.00 for a 25 plant grow recommendation. Now if the growers can have any number of plants they want, a pot doc could charge a $1000.00 for a 100 plant grow or maybe the pot docs can give discounts for the real large grows, say $8500.00 for a 1000 plant grow.
This is a ridiculous.

I guesss you think that the non-pot growing parents are NEVER around their kids, if the kids are having pot shoved in their face 24/7/365. just not possible.

[Watcher]

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
where do you get your information that doctors charge per plant for recommendations?
What is ridiculous, sir, are your unfounded statements.

__________
I just purposed a likely hypothetical scenario. Someone would have to be on drugs to take it literally.

You need to put the pot pipe down when you try to use whatevers left of your brain.

[LADY]

WATCHER: I read that post and understood it's reference. There is no need to sidestep points and facts if one is on the right side of justice. It wastes time to keep backpedaling, of course, one under the influence of pot tends to lose their sense of time.

[reality checker]

LADY wrote:

WATCHER: I read that post and understood it's reference. There is no need to sidestep points and facts if one is on the right side of justice. It wastes time to keep backpedaling, of course, one under the influence of pot tends to lose their sense of time.

One under the influence of alcohol loses their livers.

[Dan K]

I just want to remind the community that the real marijuana problem cannot be addressed until we recognize that federal government agencies are clearly lying about cannabis.

In my opinion, the FDA position on medical cannabis is incorrect, dishonest and a flagrant violation of laws requiring the government to base policy on sound science.

For more info, read the Institue of Medicine's 1999 publication Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science base. There is tons more research as well, check it out!

[anonymous]

"With or without an injunction, there is no one at risk of being arrested tomorrow who is not at risk today," he said.

That means that they want to arrest ALL medical patient regardless of the law.

[lawnorder]

Dan K wrote:

I just want to remind the community that the real marijuana problem cannot be addressed until we recognize that federal government agencies are clearly lying about cannabis.
In my opinion, the FDA position on medical cannabis is incorrect, dishonest and a flagrant violation of laws requiring the government to base policy on sound science.
For more info, read the Institue of Medicine's 1999 publication Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science base. There is tons more research as well, check it out!

Agreed. Instead of trying to flood Mendocino County with commercial dope growers/peddlers, the pro pot crowd should be trying to end federal prohibition and get marijuana delisted as a schedule 1 drug. But they don't and won't because they are not pro legalization, they are pro commercialization. The drive to end prohibition has been co-opted by the profits that can only be made during prohibition.

[lawnorder]

anonymous wrote:

"With or without an injunction, there is no one at risk of being arrested tomorrow who is not at risk today," he said.
That means that they want to arrest ALL medical patient regardless of the law.

No, it means commercial growers/peddlers have always been at risk and still are. Commercial cultivation, possession and sales has always been illegal. The only difference now is the law is actually being enforced in Mendocino County.

[reality checker]

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed. Instead of trying to flood Mendocino County with commercial dope growers/peddlers, the pro pot crowd should be trying to end federal prohibition and get marijuana delisted as a schedule 1 drug. But they don't and won't because they are not pro legalization, they are pro commercialization. The drive to end prohibition has been co-opted by the profits that can only be made during prohibition.

they already are. NORML, ASA, etc, are groups who are already doing just that.

[lawnorder]

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
they already are. NORML, ASA, etc, are groups who are already doing just that.

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) is trying to end prohibition and protect patients rights. That is why they oppose Kelly. But NORML has chosen to support the commercial dope growers. NORML invested heavily in an effort to stop Measure B which simply advocated for a return to the state limits, the same limits which ASA seeks to uphold.

[reality checker]

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
Americans for Safe Access (ASA) is trying to end prohibition and protect patients rights. That is why they oppose Kelly. But NORML has chosen to support the commercial dope growers. NORML invested heavily in an effort to stop Measure B which simply advocated for a return to the state limits, the same limits which ASA seeks to uphold.

don't forget MPP. marijuana policy project.

[lawnorder]

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
don't forget MPP. marijuana policy project.

Why do only the commercial dope growers and NORML defend the Kelly decision?

Answer: real patients prefer reasonable limits, as provided for in state law.

[4 Freedom]

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do only the commercial dope growers and NORML defend the Kelly decision?
Answer: real patients prefer reasonable limits, as provided for in state law.

Time to check facts: ASA supports CA State AG challenge (appeal) of Kelly. Really.

http://www.oaksterdam.com/

[lawnorder]

4 Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
Time to check facts: ASA supports CA State AG challenge (appeal) of Kelly. Really.
http://www.oaksterdam.com/

Time to check your reading comprehension. I said "Why do only commercial dope growers and NORML defend the Kelly decision? Real patients support reasonable limits." That is why ASA supports the State AG. ASA supports legit patients and reasonable limits.

[reality checker]

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do only the commercial dope growers and NORML defend the Kelly decision?
Answer: real patients prefer reasonable limits, as provided for in state law.

I am a real patient. I do NOT support the AG's challenge to Kelly. I know several patients who don't support the AG's challenge of Kelly.

Why do you assume only commercial growers defend it?

[reality checker]

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do only the commercial dope growers and NORML defend the Kelly decision?
Answer: real patients prefer reasonable limits, as provided for in state law.

pardon me, that should have read "why do you assume only commercial growers and NORML defend the Kelly decision?"

[lawnorder]

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
pardon me, that should have read "why do you assume only commercial growers and NORML defend the Kelly decision?"

Because the rights of all patients are protected by the state limits which allow any patient to have the amount of marijuana their doctor recommends. The state limits also create a floor which provides exemption from arrest and prosecution for those who are in compliance with the floor amount. Why do you want the protections removed from legit users?