Thanks... I didn't know about the Boulder case... I wonder if that would also apply to clones vs plants... my theory has been.... the clones are there already, but can't live without roots. Therefore, a clone is not a plant until it can live on it's own (having roots). But, I would not want to be in the position of defending myself on those grounds. Do you have any insight on this 6 plant rule? I could always use the same argument... I need to raise many clones to end up with 2 healthy plants, selling back to dispensaries the extra clones. Same as would be done with a harvest, the excess is sold back to dispensaries. Like I said, I wouldn't want to defend myself on that logic. Any word on how the Boulder case will cross over to other areas of "what is medically necessary for me, in my opinion".?