Growing for another card holder in CA question

I have a medical card for myself and grow my own (up to 6 plants). My question is I have a friend who will be getting his card but can not grow and has asked me to grow his 6 plants limit.

My question is what do I need to do that I can grow 12 plants and not get into trouble within the current CA medical marijuana laws? Do I just need to post a copy of his medical letter in my house or need some other document that gives me the protection that I am growing for him etc..??

Any good /accurate insight is appreciated :)

Due to a recent court decision there really isn't a cap in California right now. Probably a good idea to keep under 100 so as not to push it with the feds.

^ that was my first thought, too, Lead. The California Supreme Court ruled that any limits are illegal, under the laws enacted with Prop 215. But, I would still be cautious if it were me. I would really love to hear from the Californian's on here on how this is actually playing out in the field.

As Lead was saying, over 100 plants could get the feds involved. They used to have mandatary sentencing at the federal level by plant count, but I'm not sure if that is still used today or not. (note: The US Supreme Court ruling against MMJ was for only 6 plants, so they could charge you anyway with much less than 100 plants.)

Which, to me, begs the question . . . If, by State law, there is no limit a person can grow and if the new policy of the fed is to not interfere with State law, then wouldn't all federal limits be null and void in the State? This is one we might see play out in the courts :twocents:

I don't really know a whole lot about all this but I find it all interesting to follow. :smokin:

Actually, you're sorta right boaz. Having possibly misled folks, here is NORML's take on the decision...

CA NORML Medical Marijuana Information

^ thank you, sorry, didn't mean to mislead anyone. I am glad you corrected that, Lead. I guess all they ruled was that the state could not set a number of plants, like sb 420 did, but they can still bust you and make you explain your numbers.

Here is a good blurb from one of Lead's norml links.



sfweekly

A Big Fat Bowl of Nothing: What the Pot Limit Strike Down Really Means

By Chris Roberts, Friday, Jan. 22 2010 @ 4:04PM
Categories: Pot Culture :stoned:

What exactly did the California Supreme Court do Thursday, when it struck down a 2003 law limiting the amount of pot a medical marijuana patient can possess to eight ounces? A big fat bowl of nothing, says Dale Gieringer, who as director of the state office of National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), ought to know.

All the court did was uphold the will of the voters - which is exactly what it did when it upheld Proposition 8, incidentally. Proposition 215, passed in 1996 by voters, put no arbitrary limits on how much pot a patient can possess; it was the 2003 law, passed by the Assembly, that did. Voters trump the voted, every time. "This is exactly as we expected," Gieringer said. The state "cannot arbitrarily limit the amount of plants, the amount of medicine a patient might use."

​ That is not to say a recommendation gives any patient, anywhere, carte blanche to tote any amount of medicine.

"If you have 10 pounds, you're just as likely to be arrested now as before (the decision)," Gieringer said Thursday afternoon. That's because 10 pounds is a limit well above what's "reasonably allowable" for medicinal marijuana patients under Proposition 215. There are different thresholds for different ailments, many of which are above eight ounces -- Patrick Kelly, the defendant in Thursday's case, was busted with 12 ounces and seven plants in Southern California. And many counties across the state allow more than others: Humboldt County, for example, allows a patient to possess three pounds of dried weed and an unlimited amount of plants. Gieringer speculates that Thursday's decision will have little effect on current law enforcement attitudes: a patient can still be arrested for possessing a pound or two. "It's still an issue," Gieringer says, "and it will still be an issue." SF Weekly placed a call to the San Francisco Police Department to see if the decision should impact local law enforcement, but have not yet heard back. We'll keep you posted.

I was speaking of myself but if you want to take part of the credit, good on you boaz!

I was starting to feel guilty about my having potentially spread misinformation.

I'm also not totally on board with NORML's interpretation either though but won't belabor the point.

I do think the decision gives a good lawyer a great opportunity to run with it on behalf of their client-defendant.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer- just smoked a doober a few minutes ago and go on the internet and act like one.

Lead

And I can't remember the last time I linked to the SFWeekly, lol.

Northender!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leadmagnet

Of course, I'm not a lawyer- just smoked a doober a few minutes ago and go on the internet and act like one.

Lead

---

:D yeah, that's my story, too. Don't know much about the SF Weekly, prolly a liberal rag :hippy: :rastasmoke: I've only lived in so cal. :cool: