DECISIONS FORCE NEW LOOK AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA

We understand why a local judge struck down the provisions of
voter-approved Measure B limiting the number of plants a medical
marijuana patient can grow.

The California Appeals Court ruled in May that the six mature, 12
immature plant limit and the eight ounce dried marijuana possession
limit were unconstitutional because the California Legislature had
set the limits by legislation not voter initiative. Measure B's
limits were based on the California state law.

(The California Supreme Court has now decided to take up the question
of the legality of these limits which were rejected a second time in
another Appeals Court ruling in July.)

Now, medical marijuana growing and possession goes back to the
confusing and varied interpretations that existed before the state
passed its regulations - regulations that were fervently sought by
true medical marijuana patients in order to bring some order and
protection to the 1996 initiative that was unfortunately very poorly worded.

As of this moment, there are technically no limits on the number of
medical marijuana plants a person can grow - but anything they grow
has to be strictly for their own personal medical needs.

That is the important distinction and one that local marijuana
growers need to pay attention to.

Unfortunately this ruling may encourage more of the commercial
backyard growing we've seen from people who will assume that "no
limits" means they can get away with anything.

We hope that our Sheriff Tom Allman and District Attorney Meredith
Lintott will make it clear in their actions that this local court
ruling - and the ruling it stems from in People v. Kelly in the State
Court of Appeals - still makes it clear that medical marijuana
growing must be for personal medical use - and lacking any regulatory
direction, not some conglomerate in San Francisco or dispensary in Ukiah.

The courts ruled that the Compassionate Use Act does not limit a
medical marijuana patient's growing allowance based on a doctor's
recommendation. But it is also clear that those needs must be
approved by a doctor and clearly defines "caregiver" as a person
"designated by the person exempted under this section who has
consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or
safety of that person."

We have long argued that the definition of caregiver from the CUA had
been twisted out of all proportion and made mockery of the compassion
California voters tried to extend to the truly sick and dying.

We will see if the California Supreme Court agrees that regulating
the CUA by legislation is constitutional. If not, the CUA will likely
be scrutinized and perhaps amended by another voter initiative. If
that happens, we believe it is time to set constitutional limits on
the number of plants a medical marijuana patient can have, and
provide a strict definition of caregiver, limiting that to one
person, someone who is personally caring for the patient on a regular
basis, not someone in Mendocino County growing 100 plants in their name.

The Kelly decision - and the local decision based on it - should not
be construed as an open door to more pot growing. These decisions
should be viewed as restating the limits envisioned on medical
marijuana when the voters passed the CUA, limits that have been
ignored up and down the state and which have led voters even in this
Emerald Triangle, to reject marijuana growing as greedy and dangerous
to their communities.