Judge pondering Measure G requests

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
Airstrikes? Either you are a phony no on B poster trying to creat sympathy for the growers or you are an idiot.

Why do you think that is irritating to you? what's it to you? if you're growing that crap then you are breaking the law and should be in prison and tortured

nugjar wrote:

hey law and order I am not nervous i have 6 little plants.. I follow the laws i just dont know what they are I am not a commercial grower HAAAAAAhhaaaaaaaaaa six 3 inch plants thats funny....i have 215 i have chronic pain form a crushing traffic wreck which crushed my femur, ankle, left arm, ribs and fractured my skull.. weed helps me sleep so i guess my question about how much i am allowed makes me a criminal....
just asking what the hell is the law.... and get called a dirt bag... soooooo nice
another measure B probibition idiot .
god
peace people

Currently, the amount is whatever your doctor deems is relative to your condition.

susan brackett wrote:

<quoted text>
gosh where have you been !!!this guy is totally getting on my case on the state police thread .thought for sure you would be there to agree with him.
do you need another spanking?

Atta girl Alice... you gettin' it now... thank you and oooo-yes, I have been a very, very... very bad boy so if you wouldn't mind...

And as for the State Police thread... I scan big picture topic issue, lookin' fer big fish... this small potato's "eye vs spud" just doesn't git my git along very much...

However, I think you and I will tango agin there my little mash potato you.

_Spankacus_

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
Currently, the amount is whatever your doctor deems is relative to your condition.

If anyone is keeping score, rc and I agree on this one, although she is a bit sparse on the details.

The Compassionate Use Act, Prop. 215, has been interpreted to mean that a patient, or their caregiver, with a doctor's recommendation, may cultivate and possess an amount of medical marijuana consistent with the current medical needs of the patient.

If the Kelly decision stands the protection against arrest for medical card holders compliant with the state minimum limits has been wiped out. In theory, if a responding deputy thought six plants was too much for your current medical needs, you could be cited or arrested.

Legitimate medical patients realize that the state minimum limits provided a reasonable level of protection. Measure B was written to adopt the state minimum limits for Mendocino County because the state limits are reasonable and are protective of patients rights.

_Spartacus_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Atta girl Alice... you gettin' it now... thank you and oooo-yes, I have been a very, very... very bad boy so if you wouldn't mind...
And as for the State Police thread... I scan big picture topic issue, lookin' fer big fish... this small potato's "eye vs spud" just doesn't git my git along very much...
However, I think you and I will tango agin there my little mash potato you.
_Spankacus_

Careful, Sparky! this is not an adult forum, someone may get the wrong idea!

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
Careful, Sparky! this is not an adult forum, someone may get the wrong idea!

Uh-huh... so let's just advocate the sales and use of illegal drugs. Oh but wait, that won't get anyone the wrong idea... nope, because it's "medicinal" and it's "compassionate".

Nope, and that rhymes with Dope!

And pot don't lead to meth use, and child endangerment! Oh no, not compassion, or medical... no! How about "LUCRATIVE" - "MONETARY" - "BOTTOM LINE" - "CASH-CROP" in place of compassion, or medical?

Sweetheart... the only one got the wrong idea was you... perhaps you a little jealous(?) Ahhh RC, why you little school girl you.

I don't know why you and I have to do this every two months or so, ah... I just don't know. Just nothing to sink my teeth into, so we have what we have. nothing.

Peace

_S_

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
If anyone is keeping score, rc and I agree on this one, although she is a bit sparse on the details.
The Compassionate Use Act, Prop. 215, has been interpreted to mean that a patient, or their caregiver, with a doctor's recommendation, may cultivate and possess an amount of medical marijuana consistent with the current medical needs of the patient.
If the Kelly decision stands the protection against arrest for medical card holders compliant with the state minimum limits has been wiped out. In theory, if a responding deputy thought six plants was too much for your current medical needs, you could be cited or arrested.
Legitimate medical patients realize that the state minimum limits provided a reasonable level of protection. Measure B was written to adopt the state minimum limits for Mendocino County because the state limits are reasonable and are protective of patients rights.

Interestingly, though not surprisingly for those of us who said the Kelly decision was not a good thing for MMJ users, the ACLU and Americans For Safe Access have joined the AG in requesting the depublication of Kelly.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search...

_Spartacus_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Uh-huh... so let's just advocate the sales and use of illegal drugs. Oh but wait, that won't get anyone the wrong idea... nope, because it's "medicinal" and it's "compassionate".
Nope, and that rhymes with Dope!
And pot don't lead to meth use, and child endangerment! Oh no, not compassion, or medical... no! How about "LUCRATIVE" - "MONETARY" - "BOTTOM LINE" - "CASH-CROP" in place of compassion, or medical?
Sweetheart... the only one got the wrong idea was you... perhaps you a little jealous(?) Ahhh RC, why you little school girl you.
I don't know why you and I have to do this every two months or so, ah... I just don't know. Just nothing to sink my teeth into, so we have what we have. nothing.
Peace
_S_

I was referring to the "spanking" portion of your post. Not the real important part.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
I was referring to the "spanking" portion of your post. Not the real important part.

RC, I did not use the word spanking, in this thread, Susan Brackett did... I said _Spankacus_ and that instance was just a play on words.

You getting a bit technical there RC, we just funnin' don't-cha know?

Anyhow, a gosh dern good spankin' is what some of these here kids could use fer smokin' that ther DOPE you and yur buddies (no pun intended) been-a sellin' to 'em!
And don't go-a gettin all PC on me there RC (hey, rhymes!) I didn't mean spankin' from me or you, I mean from they parents... the good old fashioned way, and out behind the wood shed if'n ya catch my drift!
That ther would teach these pot smokin' youngins a thing or two!

Why do you try with me RC, you aint-a gonna win!

You and I will always be water and oil, I will always be Country, and you will always be Rock-n-Roll!

Peace (2)

_S_

_Spartacus_ wrote:

<quoted text>
RC, I did not use the word spanking, in this thread, Susan Brackett did... I said _Spankacus_ and that instance was just a play on words.
You getting a bit technical there RC, we just funnin' don't-cha know?
Anyhow, a gosh dern good spankin' is what some of these here kids could use fer smokin' that ther DOPE you and yur buddies (no pun intended) been-a sellin' to 'em!
And don't go-a gettin all PC on me there RC (hey, rhymes!) I didn't mean spankin' from me or you, I mean from they parents... the good old fashioned way, and out behind the wood shed if'n ya catch my drift!
That ther would teach these pot smokin' youngins a thing or two!
Why do you try with me RC, you aint-a gonna win!
You and I will always be water and oil, I will always be Country, and you will always be Rock-n-Roll!
Peace (2)
_S_

i guess I should have put "lol" at the end of teh posting? I was joking, Sparky. that's all. nothing more.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
i guess I should have put "lol" at the end of teh posting? I was joking, Sparky. that's all. nothing more.

Oh... OK... cool!

I hope this is the new you, but as you can see, if it is in fact the new you (and I hope so) gonna take gittin' used to on my end of the deal.

Capeische?

_S_

_Spartacus_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh... OK... cool!
I hope this is the new you, but as you can see, if it is in fact the new you (and I hope so) gonna take gittin' used to on my end of the deal.
Capeische?
_S_

Believe me, Sparky, I am used to your end of the deal~! LOL

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
Believe me, Sparky, I am used to your end of the deal~! LOL

omg you guys are going to make me gag

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
Believe me, Sparky, I am used to your end of the deal~! LOL

Thank you RC,

I like it when I can make you laugh, even if the joke is on me... the end result is that you find humor in some part of your day.

_S_

ukiahcat wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you think that is irritating to you? what's it to you? if you're growing that crap then you are breaking the law and should be in prison and tortured

What irritates me is you are an obvious no on B poster who is making ridulously false statements to try and marginalize and demonize your opponents. But if I am wrong, and you really think that way then you are an idiot.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Interestingly, though not surprisingly for those of us who said the Kelly decision was not a good thing for MMJ users, the ACLU and Americans For Safe Access have joined the AG in requesting the depublication of Kelly.
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search...

Yes, not surprising because if anyone really cares about the "patients" six plants is a reasonable number that easily provides for the needs of any legit patient. In the unlikely circumstance that anyone actually needs more, the law allows a doctor to recommend more. The state minimum limits provided consistency for patients and law enforcement. THat is why the limits in Measure B, the same as the state limits, was reasonable. But the commercial growers don't like reasonable limits.

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, not surprising because if anyone really cares about the "patients" six plants is a reasonable number that easily provides for the needs of any legit patient. In the unlikely circumstance that anyone actually needs more, the law allows a doctor to recommend more. The state minimum limits provided consistency for patients and law enforcement. THat is why the limits in Measure B, the same as the state limits, was reasonable. But the commercial growers don't like reasonable limits.

How do you know tha 6 plants provides a reasonable amount for a patient? Each patients needs are different. And why do you believe that any patient who needs more than the 8 ounce limit imposed by measure b is NOT LEGIT?

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
What irritates me is you are an obvious no on B poster who is making ridulously false statements to try and marginalize and demonize your opponents. But if I am wrong, and you really think that way then you are an idiot.

and those anti pot people on here don't spread or make false statements? Anyone who doesn't believe you is an idiot?

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
and those anti pot people on here don't spread or make false statements? Anyone who doesn't believe you is an idiot?

Do I really have to explain this to you?

THe point is, even with everyone having a phony name, the person behind the name should make statements they agree with. As an example, if I really support commercial growers but want to undermine the opposition I might say "They should launch tactical nuclear strikes against the growers in Mendocino County and any survivors should be tortured and executed." A statement like this can't possibley benefit the anti-grower position, so it is highly likely that it is posted by someone on the pro grower side. Got it?

I did not say those who disagree with me are idiots. I said if the person actually believed what they wrote they were an idiot. ARe you as dense as you appear or do you just live to misconstue my comments?

the point is an outdoor grower needs to provide for him/herselfs medical need for the entier year unless they have indoor cappabilities and funds/supply -thankfully their are kind harts out their that provide for thoes who cannot supply themselfs, shame on you all for name calling and the jr highish comments let the patents and the dignity be!. theas licenced patents (however you choose to label them) have had this 24 plant -3 pound deal the last 8 years, its a consistant supply that they are used to and rely on...

in the last 8 months they all have been generalized and called names, theas are land owners and fellow citizens not transients. Their not and should not be consitered fellons for holding onto more then the half pound their allowed by law.
BTW the Federal Governments own medical marijuana progam had it that 6 pounds was a reasonable annual supply for medical need. The city of Oakland used it for one or their moddle programs, not to say its the best modle for guidlines but 8 ounces shouldnt be consitered reasonable its more of a 30-60-90 day supply that should be supported not a concreat number unless that number holds consiteration for the two month average supply.

i also dont see the worries about consentrates, that should be in the language aswell. They are often not consitered medicime yet marinol is 100% thc and its just another issue that the law isnt far on, kiff is medicine too and should be protected under HS code 11362.5

-The DA and sherif have never changed policy regarding messure G even if they used to state cops and feds saw it that the biger gardens around the 100 plant "commercal" threshold were taken down. Atleast most where, maby after the "per parcel" language was ammended into the situation.