House passes 24 PLANT LIMIT!

1792df80451b.jpg
 
Legal in AK said:
California can not prosecute an OUI based off a blood test as it does not determine when the cannabis was ingested. Sorry to burst your bubble

http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2014/01/14/marijuana-and-dui-what-californians-need-to-know/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, but better to go to the source:

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE
SECTION 23152-153

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence
of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence
of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

Simply being "under the influence" is enough to be considered unlawful, signs of which your article says can include

"dilated pupils, elevated pulse rate, elevated blood pressure, giving off the odor of marijuana, tremors, relaxed demeanor, dry mouth and short term memory impairment."


Yes "relaxed demeanor."

Anyway sorry to burst your bubble but get in an accident and even if its not your fault and they can get a warrant for your blood, which can be used against you.

And yes get a lawyer.
 
So what is the final count on how many plants we can have in mature, and then veg stages? I thought it was max of 6 flowering and 6 in veg state. Am I wrong?
 
elkamino said:
Hey Rob. The law is 3 flowering/3 in veg per person. If you’ve two or more adults in your home, max is 6 in veg and 6 in flower. :joint:

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/201...nts-alaskans-can-now-legally-possess-at-home/
Click to expand...

Food for thought.

Did not the wording of our vote for House Bill 75 explicitly say it was not to interfere with the state's right to privacy (in our states constitution) and thus we are still allowed 24 plants (regardless of maturation)?

Has this discrepancy been challenged or clarified?
 
I'm on probation and have served dept of corrections with a court order barring them from any probation violations for failing a UA for THC. I need to not stir the pot as much as possible. They're going to tell me again that allowing it is against their policy, but as officers of the court they are required to follow a lawful court order. I was the second person in the state to win this argument in court.
I have my recommendation and am waiting on response from bureau of vital statistics and my green card in the mail to submit to probation office. Its going to be interesting for sure.
 
GreatwhiteNorth said:
Food for thought.

Did not the wording of our vote for House Bill 75 explicitly say it was not to interfere with the state's right to privacy (in our states constitution) and thus we are still allowed 24 plants (regardless of maturation)?

Has this discrepancy been challenged or clarified?
Click to expand...
A couple years ago I asked Jason Brandeis this exact question. He’s a prof at the UAA Justice Center and focuses on mj law. He’s very approachable if you have qs but here was his response from April 2017. Cheers!

————-

SNIP-
The 25 plant “limit” has been misconstrued and misunderstood by the public at large, in my opinion. Ravin itself sets so specific limits, it just allows possession in the home for personal use. 25 plants was the cutoff between misdemeanor and felony and personal v commercial intent (in the eyes of the legislature). Most recent court decision under Ravin allows up to 4 ounces of marijuana possessed by an adult in the home for personal use. But if you have over 25 or more plants, regardless of total weight, the courts no longer consider that personal use and therefore not covered by Ravin. See Hotrum v. State for more explanation on that, or p. 218 of this article: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=alr

I’m not aware of any recent happenings with respect to Ravin and the amount of cannabis one can use/possess under that doctrine.

This is still a complicated area of the law. Here’s a link to another recent article I wrote that provides some further info on the topic of Ravin in a post-BM2 world: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1499&context=alr. See p.334- end of that article.

--
 
im happy for everyones good fortune with these new laws in kentucky it is limited no personl grow non smokable HB136 ITS FAME AND GLORY said to be stictes in nation !
 
24 plant count...now that is doing it right.

I had to get a med card to get there...and i was making it work with allegedly 4...but 25 is a lot easier.
 
oldsilvertip55 said:
im happy for everyones good fortune with these new laws in kentucky it is limited no personl grow non smokable HB136 ITS FAME AND GLORY said to be stictes in nation !
Click to expand...
What are these new laws in Kentucky? I always thought parts of Kentucky would be good for weed, but I never thought I'd see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top