The Ultimate Guide to The World’s Best Marijuana Growing System — Unlike other grow bibles, this is a full tutorial that cuts to the chase. It’s a step-by-step guide to getting flawless grow and incredibily potent bud every time. It breaks down every process in order, telling you exactly what you need to succeed. By the end of the book, you”ll know exactly what you need to grow the perfect budâ€”from seeds, strains, lighting, soil to harvesting. Use this link to order online (click here). Get The Ultimate Elite Growing Bundle, which includes the ebook and 9 other bonuses all at once.
Everyone has stolen a lighter at least once. You probably have half a dozen lighters sitting in your drawer right now. Stealing lighters is a bad habit and can really leave your friends pissed off. It is cool if you accidentally steal a lighter so long as you follow these few simple rules: 1) If you have the lighter and the person asks you for it, then you must return it immediately. 2) If it is a cool, unique, rare, or expensive lighter…do not take it. 3) If you realize that you accidentally stole the lighter, return or replace it. 4) You can make a game out of and win points for stealing lighters so long as the owner of the lighter knows these rules.
When you are smoking with a large group of people, it can be hard for everyone to get a fresh hit. The best way to solve this problem is by packing snaps. A snap is a tiny bowl that can be snapped through the chamber in one hit. By packing little snaps for all your friends; you can make sure everyone gets a fresh hit. Packing snaps is also a good way to conserve your weed and get a good flavorful hit every time.
When a bowl is “cherried” it means that the bowl is lit and burning. The herb will take on a glowing color like that of lit charcoal. It is bad etiquette to light a cherried bowl. What you want to do is just hit the bowl by sucking in and letting the cherry burn the meds on its own. A cherried bowl is useful when you are sitting in a circle or when it is windy out and using a lighter is difficult.
California Senate Bill 420 (colloquially known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act) was a bill introduced by John Vasconcellos of the California State Senate, and subsequently passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003 “pursuant to the powers reserved to the State of California and its people under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” It clarified the scope and application of California Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and established the California medical marijuana program. The bill’s title is notable because “420” is a common phrase used in cannabis culture.
The bill specifically:
– “demonstrates that more information is needed to assess the number of individuals across the state who are suffering from serious medical conditions that are not being adequately alleviated through the use of conventional medications”
– “require[s] the State Department of Health Services to establish and maintain a voluntary program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients and would establish procedures under which a qualified patient with an identification card may use marijuana for medical purposes”
– “creates various crimes related to the identification card program”
– “authorize[s] the Attorney General to set forth and clarify details concerning possession and cultivation limits, and other regulations, as specified”
– “authorize[s] the Attorney General to recommend modifications to the possession or cultivation limits set forth in the bill” and “require[s] the Attorney General to develop and adopt guidelines to ensure the security and nondiversion of marijuana grown for medical use”
In enacting the bill it was the intent of the legislature to:
– “clarify the scope of the application of the act and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution of these individuals and provide needed guidance to law enforcement officers”
– “promote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state”
– “enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects”
– “address additional issues that were not included within the act, and that must be resolved in order to promote the fair and orderly implementation of the act”
The bill reflects a compromise between patients’ advocates and law enforcement. It also required counties to implement a voluntary patient identification card system and other provisions to protect patients and their caregivers from arrest. The guidelines were hotly disputed by California NORML and other patients’ advocates. Patient advocates had pushed for more liberal guidelines, such as those adopted by Sonoma County, which allow up to 30 plants in a 100-square-foot (9.3 m2) growing area plus 3 pounds of marijuana. The final guidelines were decided in a last-minute legislative deal by Attorney General Lockyer and Sen. Vasconcellos in order to get the bill passed.
In recognition of the fact that the guidelines are inadequate for many very ill patients, SB 420 allows patients to be exempted from them if they obtain a physicianâ€™s statement that they need more. In deference to local autonomy, SB 420 also allows counties and cities to establish higher – but not lower – guidelines if they so choose. As a result, the new law will not overturn liberal guidelines that are now in effect in Sonoma and elsewhere. However, it should force more restrictive counties, such as San Bernardino and Fresno, which have heretofore had “zero tolerance” policies, to honor the new statewide minimum standard. Many counties have increased the limits of possession and cultivation since the passage of the law in 2003. It also specifically allowed cannabis cooperatives.
Voluntary State ID Card System:
The Medical Marijuana Identification Card Program (also referred to as MMIP, or MMIC) is administered by county health departments. There are registration fees to cover the costs of the program, with a 50% discount for Medi-Cal patients. Identification cards generally have an expiration date of one year after the date of application, regardless if the physician’s recommendation expires before that date. The California Department of Public Health maintains a 24-hour telephone hotline and an online website by which law enforcement and collectives/cooperatives can verify the validity of the card(s).
The system is designed with safeguards to protect patient privacy like the former San Francisco and Oakland ID card system. Police may identify whether persons are medical marijuana patients by only an unique identification number appearing on the card. Although some patient advocates have expressed qualms about the privacy of the new identification system, California NORML recommends that patients register to protect themselves from arrest. Persons designated as “primary caregivers” are also eligible for ID cards. Each patient may designate only one caregiver under the voluntary program.
Abuse was found in Mendocino County California, when then Sheriff Craver required patients to pick up their cards at his sheriffs station. This was where convicted rapists and drug offenders had to get their criminal registration cards. Here, then, the marijuana patients were subjected to abuse by the local law enforcement, as the state Department of Health was not involved with card distribution at that time. Patients, who had been assured that no centralized database would ever be created with their personal information, were themselves witness to that part of SB 420’s irregularity.
In a quirky provision, SB 420 forbids caregivers from having more than one patient unless all of them reside in the same “city or county” as the caregiver. This means that no one may be a caregiver for both a spouse and a parent if they happen to reside in different counties. California NORML attorneys believe that this is an unconstitutional restriction on Prop 215 and intends to challenge it in court.
In 2006, San Diego County was sued for refusing to implement an ID card system as required under SB 420. In response, San Diego County filed a lawsuit against the State of California to overturn Prop. 215 and SB 420. San Diego Superior Court Judge, William R. Nevitt Jr. struck down San Diego’s claim in the court’s December 6, 2006 ruling. San Diego County filed an appeal in the case. The appeal was on August 1, 2008, and was thrown out again on the basis that the counties did not have the authority to make a case against the state. The counties do, however, have the right to make an appeal about the statutes in SB 420 that deal with the issuing of identification cards, as this task is placed upon the counties and affects their taxes. San Diego County along with San Bernardino County appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On May 18, 2009 that appeal was denied.
Currently, there are only two counties that submit information anonymously to the state, Santa Cruz and San Francisco. All the other counties submit patient information to the state patient database.
Other Provisions of SB 420:
In other provisions, SB 420:
– Recognizes the right of patients and caregivers to associate collectively or cooperatively to cultivate medical marijuana.
– Disallows marijuana smoking in no smoking zones, within 1,000 feet (300 m) of a school or youth center (except in private residences), on school buses, in a motor vehicle that is being operated, or while operating a boat.
– Protects patients and caregivers from arrest for transportation and other miscellaneous charges not covered in 215.
– Allows probationers, parolees, and prisoners to apply for permission to use medical marijuana; however, such permission may be refused at the discretion of the authorities.
– Makes it a crime to fraudulently provide misinformation to obtain a card, to steal or misuse the card of another, to counterfeit a card, or to breach the confidentiality of patient records in the card program.
People v. Kelly:
Concerning limits on possession created by the bill, the California Supreme Court decision in People v. Kelly decided multiple issues. First, it reiterated that “unlike [Proposition 215], which did not immunize medical marijuana users from arrest but instead provided a limited ‘immunity’ defense to prosecution under state law for cultivation or possession of marijuana … the [Medical Marijuana Program]’s identification card system is designed to protect against unnecessary arrest.” Secondly, it agreed with both Kelly and the California Attorney General that the limits were an “unconstitutionally amendatory insofar as it limits an in-court CUA defense.”
However, the section concerning limits on possession “should remain an enforceable part of the MMP, applicable to the extent possible â€” including to those persons who voluntarily participate in the program by registering and obtaining identification cards that provide protection against arrest” because it provided more rights, namely the immunity against arrest. A qualified patient or primary caregiver that participates in the voluntary MMIC program also maintains his or her separate rights under California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, which are not included in the legislature-driven amendments seven years later.
City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court:
On December 1, 2008, the Supreme Court decided not to hear arguments in City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court of Orange County, leaving a lower court ruling standing which requires local police officers to enforce state law, not federal law. The case stems from a traffic stop of Felix Kha, who had 8.1 grams of medical marijuana in a container, which the police officers confiscated. The ruling requires police officers to return the seized medicine. “But it must be remembered it is not the job of the local police to enforce the federal drug laws as such.”
Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law concerning the use of medical cannabis. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.
The proposition was a state-wide voter initiative authored by Dennis Peron, Anna Boyce RN, John Entwistle, Jr., Valerie Corral, Dale Gieringer, Thomas Seiler, William Panzer, Scott Imler, and psychiatrist Tod H. Mikuriya, and approved by California voters. It allows patients with a valid doctor’s recommendation, and the patient’s designated Primary Caregivers, to possess and cultivate marijuana for personal medical use, and has since been expanded to protect a growing system of collective and cooperative distribution. The Act added Section 11362.5 to the California Health and Safety Code. This law has caused much conflict in the United States between states’ rights advocates and those who support a stronger federal presence.
According to the California Department of Justice, qualified patients and caregivers may possess 8 ounces of dried marijuana, as long as they possess the proper credentials. In addition, they may only maintain 6 mature or 12 immature marijuana plants. The report also says that local governments may allow patients or caregivers to exceed these base levels.
In addition, marijuana smoking is also restricted by location. It may not be smoked wherever smoking is prohibited by law, within 1000 feet of a school, recreation center, or youth center, on a school bus, or in a moving vehicle or boat. (According to Wikipedia) Marijuana use is not to be accommodated in the workplace or in any type of correctional facilities. It is important to note that under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, an employer may terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana use. (WC does not agree)
Proposition 215: Text of Proposed Law:
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.
This initiative measure adds a section to the Health and Safety Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Section 11362.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:
(a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b)(1) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:
(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.
(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.
(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient’s primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.
(e) For the purposes of this section, ”primary caregiver” means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.
SEC. 2. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.