Boycotting California I.D. Cards

H

h.h.

Well-Known Member
I wanted to give this idea a bump, there seems to be others with the same feelings.
Why are we paying for protection? The recent Supreme Court decision suggests that we are not being shielded from the law, but are not breaking the law in the first place. Where's the equal protection? Where's the grassroots movement telling them to fuck off? I'd like to see it start here and I'd like it to start today.
I've been in this battle since 1976. Mike Ciaccia did a mj marathon running from Bakersfield to Sacramento sponsored by KMET and NORMAL and I was honored to play a part. I like to think we got Governor Brown's, now attornay general, attention and had some impact on his ruling. I'd like to have further impact It is not the time to sit on our laurals and be happy that they're throwing us crumbs. Now is the time to act.
 
h.h. said:
Jerry Brown AG
http://ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=PL
Click to expand...


Now is the time to act.
Click to expand...

I'll try again tomorrow. What the hell?:blsmoke:

The legality of the limits in SB 420 has been disputed. Prior to SB 420, Prop 215 allowed patients whatever amount of marijuana they need for their medical purposes. Patients were not infrequently acquitted for personal use gardens of 100 plants or more. Some Prop. 215 advocates maintain that SB 420 cannot constitutionally limit the amount patients may legally have for personal use. This issue remains to be settled in the courts. To be safe, anyone exceeding the limits is advised to get a physician's exemption.
Click to expand...
http://www.oaksterdamnews.com/index.php/V3-Issue-3/Patient-s-Guide-to-Prop-215.html

AG Brown wants to be governor again. He needs to clarify 420 and free us from it's trappings. It was a good effort, yet there are issues and too many gray areas left up for the courts, in return leaving us as guinea pigs.
Put the pressure on him. If you support him for gov. let him know.Personally I give him a thumbs up. If you don't support him send him an e-mail anyway. It will take less time than reading this post.
 
They may have been shamed in to thinking they're doing something wrong. They simply want to appear to be good citizens. Don't we all. Thanks for the bump.
 
not me if it was a one time fee might have considered it but seeing as ca has ruled sb 420 unconsitional to limit amount of plants and ruled those with the county cards will be held to this unreasonble rule that shit stopped me in my tracks but i dont believe i should have to pay extra to not be arrested for my medicine if i had a bottle of antiboxics would i get arrested no so why should i need some card to cary my meds
 
dhhbomb said:
not me if it was a one time fee might have considered it but seeing as ca has ruled sb 420 unconsitional to limit amount of plants and ruled those with the county cards will be held to this unreasonble rule that shit stopped me in my tracks but i dont believe i should have to pay extra to not be arrested for my medicine if i had a bottle of antiboxics would i get arrested no so why should i need some card to cary my meds
Click to expand...
You've posted that before. Something I didn't know. Thank you.

On May 22, 2008, California’s Second District Court of Appeal severed Health & Safety Code § 11362.77
from the MMP on the ground that the statute’s possession guidelines were an unconstitutional amendment of
Proposition 215, which does not quantify the marijuana a patient may possess. (See People v. Kelly (2008) 163
Cal.App.4th 124, 77 Cal.Rptr.3d 390.) The Third District Court of Appeal recently reached a similar conclusion in
People v. Phomphakdy (July 31, 2008) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2008 WL 2931369. The California Supreme Court has
granted review in Kelly and the Attorney General intends to seek review in Phomphakdy.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
page 6
continued:
c) Proposition 215: Qualified patients claiming protection under
Proposition 215 may possess an amount of marijuana that is “reasonably
related to [their] current medical needs.” (People v. Trippet (1997) 56
Cal.App.4th 1532, 1549
Click to expand...
http://boards.cannabis.com/medical-...ral-mmj-prop215-guidelines-august-2008-a.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top