Anticipated widely as “the Kelly decision,” in effect it also voids Mendocino County’s Measure B which enacted the state limits – 12 immature plants or six mature plants and 8 ounces of dried marijuana – as the county’s growing and possession limits.

The court kept alive the voluntary ID card system for patients agreeing to limit themselves.

At issue is Prop. 215, the Compassionate Use Act which legalized medical marijuana in California in 1996. The CUA did not limit the amount of marijuana a patient could grow or possess except to a reasonable amount consistent with the patient’s medical needs.

After several years of confusion over how much marijuana was reasonable for a patient, the California legislature enacted SB 420 the Medical Marijuana Program which enacted a voluntary identification card system in which patients could agree to limit their growing and possession of marijuana in exchange for protection against arrest. The CUA does not protect patients from arrest, it only provides a defense in court after the fact. While the legislation enacted discusses a voluntary program, it went further to define all patients – with or without ID cards – as subject to the new limits.

A medical marijuana patient, Patrick Kevin Kelly, arrested in Southern California with 12 ounces of dried marijuana and seven marijuana plants appealed his conviction and today’s decision is the result.

Kelly argued that the state had no authority to place limits on the CUA’s provisions because that was amending a constitutional amendment (the CUA) by legislation (SB 420) which is not allowed in the state of California without a vote of the people.

In today’s decision the Supreme Court agreed and threw out the mandatory limits imposed by SB 420.

However, the court left intact the voluntary nature of the ID card system whereby patients – if they choose – can get protection from arrest by voluntarily limiting their growing to the six mature, 12 immature plant figures and possession to eight ounces of dried marijuana. Since the program would be voluntary, the court argued, it does not change the CUA but enhances it.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

CAPTCHA Code