Legality of a script with higher plant limits?

wheres the doc. from? the state? heres the deal if state law says say 6 plants and your actual town has some ordinance that says you can only have 4 then ya the town ordinance beats the state law....
 
kermit2692 said:
wheres the doc. from? the state? heres the deal if state law says say 6 plants and your actual town has some ordinance that says you can only have 4 then ya the town ordinance beats the state law....
Click to expand...

Not really. The state law is the mandatory minimum allowable. Cities and counties can allow more, but not less. They can try to allow less, but that should violate state law.
 
Dan Kone said:
Not really. The state law is the mandatory minimum allowable. Cities and counties can allow more, but not less. They can try to allow less, but that should violate state law.
Click to expand...

no your wrong and im 100 percent sure of that...think of it this way if you were right then say one town called town A has a law about noise limits at night but the state has a law that says the noise limit is 100 db higher than the towns law...why the hell would the town have made the law?? when you live in a particular town you are agreeing to abide by the local govts regulations....heres a real life ex. in chicago where my buddy lives its illegal to own a hand gun yet outside of chicago but still in illinois his friends can own handguns...how would that be possible if you were right?? cant be...your wrong on this one man
 
also the article you added was state lawmakers trying to change the state law thats why it was shot down!! thats different from a town itself changing their local ordinance....look at colorado for example med mj is legal yet many TOWNS have passed legislation banning the legal sale of cannabis within their borders!
 
Dan Kone said:
Not really. The state law is the mandatory minimum allowable. Cities and counties can allow more, but not less. They can try to allow less, but that should violate state law.
Click to expand...

and actually you have it EXACTLY backwards the cities and towns cant allow more because thats against state law...however they can restrict state law and allow less
 
kermit2692 said:
no your wrong and im 100 percent sure of that...think of it this way if you were right then say one town called town A has a law about noise limits at night but the state has a law that says the noise limit is 100 db higher than the towns law...why the hell would the town have made the law?? when you live in a particular town you are agreeing to abide by the local govts regulations....heres a real life ex. in chicago where my buddy lives its illegal to own a hand gun yet outside of chicago but still in illinois his friends can own handguns...how would that be possible if you were right?? cant be...your wrong on this one man
Click to expand...

That all depends on how the state law was made. If the law was made by the state legislature, then you might be correct, but if it was made by voter initiative, then it's a constitutional amendment and applies to the entire state regardless of local law.
 
Ahhh. You are correct. A town or city can supersede the state plant limit because that limit was established by the state legislature (sb420), not a voter initiative.

However the Kelly Decision (California supreme court case) says that a doctor's rec supersedes any state or local limit.
 
once again the kelly thing appears to be different than what we are talking about here because sb420 is state wide and the caps on amounts were put into the STATE law without a vote....this is still different than if a county or town put a cap on the amount of dried marijuana someone can possess..the town can still pass an ordinance saying you can only possess 6 ounces at a time because that is within the sb420 amount of 8 ounces...which seemingly is unconstitutional anyway but for argument sake had the amount of 8 zips been constitutional a town can then go and say nope here you can only have 6 without any type of voter initiative!
 
kermit2692 said:
once again the kelly thing appears to be different than what we are talking about here because sb420 is state wide and the caps on amounts were put into the STATE law without a vote....this is still different than if a county or town put a cap on the amount of dried marijuana someone can possess..the town can still pass an ordinance saying you can only possess 6 ounces at a time because that is within the sb420 amount of 8 ounces...which seemingly is unconstitutional anyway but for argument sake had the amount of 8 zips been constitutional a town can then go and say nope here you can only have 6 without any type of voter initiative!
Click to expand...

Ok. But he's asking if getting a doctor's rec with a raised plant limit supersedes a local plant limit. It does. It doesn't matter how many plants your city/county says you can have if your doctor puts a higher limit on your rec.
 
if your right your right because thats written into state law and counties cant supercede the state law they can only undermind it if you follow....so if state law says already that a doctor can allow more plants regardless of county law then the county cant go and make an ordinance....however if the state law is say 6 plants and nothing is written in about doctors being able to allow more then a county law cannot say a doctor can allow more...counties can restrict state law not bypass it
 
just call a damn lawyer lmao....i still am nearly 100 percent sure that if the town has an ordinance stating a plant limit less than that of the state or doctors recomendation they win
 
Dan is right as usual:
Here's the actual Health and Safety Code, below.

California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77

(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.
 
curious2garden said:
Dan is right as usual:
Here's the actual Health and Safety Code, below.

California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77

(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.
Click to expand...


I think this is why some places have banned outdoor and or added canopy restrictions instead of plant count restrictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kayaganja
Name them Fake online shops
Replies
0
Views
304
Kayaganja
Kayaganja
Sparkster79
Nutrients
Replies
1
Views
484
Smokenpassout
S
Y
Is Canada Cannabis Growing legit?
Replies
4
Views
434
Turpman
Turpman
emepher
Ohio legal cannabis - discussion of laws and everything else
Replies
2
Views
1K
decrepit digits
D
R
Iowa still with Reefer Madness
Replies
7
Views
1K
unclejoebob
U
Back
Top