In a unanimous decision filed Thursday, the
California Supreme Court struck down the state’s specific limits on how
much medical marijuana a patient can possess, concluding that
restrictions imposed by the Legislature were an unconstitutional
amendment of a voter-approved initiative.
The decision, which affirmed an appellate decision,
means people who have a doctor’s recommendation to use marijuana can
possess and cultivate as much as is “reasonably necessary.”
The court invalidated a provision of a 2003 state
law passed to clarify the initiative. Under that law, patients or their
primary caregivers could have no more than eight ounces of dried
marijuana and grow no more than six mature or 12 immature plants. The
law, however, allowed patients to have more than that if they had a
statement from a doctor that the amount was insufficient.
“I’m very pleased. They gave us exactly what we wanted,” said
Medical marijuana advocates and defense attorneys
said court’s decision could make it harder for prosecutors to win
convictions because they will no longer be able to tell juries that a
defendant had more medical marijuana than the law allows.
“The big impact is going to be the change in perception by the district attorney,” said
The state’s 1996 medical marijuana initiative, known
as the Compassionate Use Act, put no limit on the amount of cannabis a
patient could possess or cultivate other than to require that it be
“personal medical purposes.”
Seven years later, the legislature passed a law to
create medical marijuana identification cards to help protect patients
from arrest and included the limits on possession and cultivation.
The justices concluded that the state Constitution
bars the Legislature from changing an initiative approved by voters,
but also appeared to rue that restraint. Almost a third of the 54-page
decision written by Chief Justice
initiative process places unparalleled limits on the Legislature. The
decision notes that it “may well be prudent and advisable” for
lawmakers to have the power to set limits.
George recently gave a speech to the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences in which he questioned whether initiatives
had become “an impediment to the effective functioning of a true
democratic process.”
In an odd twist, Uelmen and state prosecutors argued before the court that the limits were unconstitutional.
Both sides also argued that the appellate court
erred when it ruled the entire section of the law that included the
limits was unconstitutional. They maintained that the limits were valid
as part of the state’s medical marijuana identification card program.
“It effectively would have gutted the ID card program,” said Deputy Attorney General
The court agreed, concluding that the limits could still be applied to the identification card program.
Medical marijuana advocates and the Attorney
General’s office said that means patients with ID cards are shielded
from arrest for possession or cultivation if they have less than the
limits in state law or the more liberal limits adopted by some cities
and counties. But
“In one sense this is a call to patients to enroll
in the ID card program if they want to be immune from arrest and
prosecution,” said
The card program, however, has been largely shunned
by patients who have been afraid to have their names listed in
government records. Statewide, about 38,000 cards, which must be
renewed annually, have been issued since the program started.
—
(c) 2010, Los Angeles Times.
Visit the Los Angeles Times on the Internet at http://www.latimes.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
