One of many great points from you, freaky! I agree that there is SO much room for growth in this industry, and in particular here in Lafayette!

I was at the last council meeting, you know, the one that you weren't at... I was there advocating for patient rights.

And no, I will not re-post your slanderous remarks for you, thank you for much.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but I respectfully disagree with the last part. I think that, based on the clearly divisive, intentionally personal, and downright unprofessional comments being posted here on by @veronicaapril, it is absolutely in the best interests of the owner (not owners) of Ka-Tet and her employees to continue to allow 420 Highways and their detrimental language to distance themselves from the rest of the rational, calm, and professional people speaking up this movement. Attempting to make an ally with someone who has dedicated so much energy to making enemies seems a rather fruitless endeavor... I say they let this individual continue to violate patient confidentiality, and slander private individuals in a public forum, and take it up in the courts. Given that it's fairly easy to open the Grab application on one's computer and take a screen shot of @veronicaapril's disrespectful comments, one could easily provide ample photographic evidence of these slanderous remarks, even after they have been removed by the admin...

I completely agree. I think the rationale behind the 2 ounce limit is that the possession limit for normal adults (for only a misdemeanor and a $100 ticket) is one ounce. They probably figured that twice that amount should be reasonable for patients. And, since most of these legislators aren't (at least to the best of the public knowledge) well versed and practiced in cannabis cultivation, they just threw out a number on the plant limit. "Uhhh, I dunno. Six?" Never mind that each plant produces more than 2 ounces on its own. Never mind that six plants is a totally arbitrary and meaningless number. Never mind that some patients need much more medicine than others. Seems like there was quite a lot that they either didn't consider, or that for whatever reason they considered and just saw very differently than us...

Finally, I might add that the 2 oz possession limit itself is silly and unconstitutional. While this particular part of the law is in agreement with the state constitution, we have all ready seen in California several court cases in which plant and possession limits for patients have been deemed unconstitutional. I have heard that there are similar cases pending in Colorado as we speak. For me, it comes down to a question of individual liberty. A doctor could prescribe me 200 Vicodin at a time. This would of course kill me and several of my friends if we took it all at once. But with 2 ounces the most we could do to ourselves is induce a serious case of couch-lock and a relaxing night of sleep. In fact, since the lethal dosage of cannabis has been estimated to be about 15,000 joints smoked in a 15 minute period (which is impossible), one would need to possess upwards of 30 pounds to even be at risk for harming him or herself. That is, assuming that each joint weighed one gram, we would need about 526 ounces (15,000 grams divided by 28.5 grams per ounce), or roughly 32 pounds to harm ourselves. This is, of course, about 256 times the current legal maximum. Since we do not plan to harm anyone with our medicine, including ourselves, I think we could reasonably make possession of 8 ounces up to two pounds a reality without posing any threat to ourselves or society. Personally, I think all limits ought to be off, though, since we are in a gray area with growing in the first place.

Say for instance that I am allowed to grow six plants. So I grow all six plants at the same time and flower three of them, as the state constitution allows. I now have 1-8 ounces per plant on three plants. I am now illegal in terms of personal possession, yet still legal in terms of my plant count. How does this work? So why not bump the personal possession limit up to a pound or two, since this would allow me to possess what my plants produce (without any contradictions or gray area? I could keep my plants small, not produce any mold or smell by flowering in an airtight/lightproof tent with only one carbon filtered exit point, use only a couple of normal electrical sockets for my lighting, and produce 3-32 ounces? This would allow me to grow less crops per year, to keep more of my own medicine on hand for consuming or making into edibles, and I wouldn't be harming myself or anyone else.

Kinda hard to have a crime with no victim, isn't it?

Although I agree that the plant limits are unconstitutional, and that the local government may enter into, as Mr. Matthews put it, a "litigious situation" as a consequence of their decision to place this 12 plant limit on caregivers, I do not believe that they will change their position on this matter. For them, it seems perfectly rational to have a caregiver grow 12 plants in his/her home, and the other 18 the homes of the patients for whom he/she is growing. I, too, have to agree that to the layperson this sounds like a fair argument. However, I think it is quite possible (and in fact I know a family for whom this is the case), that certain patients prefer having a caregiver to grow for them, in a different home, because they have small children and pets around. For a family of three--let's say a husband and a wife who are patients but have a three-year-old daughter and a cat in a small apartment--have neither the space, the time, nor the means to grow their own plants. Additionally, although they may choose to partake of their medicine in a separate room of the house where the daughter is not around (as responsible cannabis users should do), they likely do not want to grow or possess large quantities of this medicine in a place where their child plays daily. Also, even growing their medicine with a child in the home could result in their arrest for child abuse. Cannabis is of course fairly harmless to adults, but it should never be in the hands of children, obviously. But beyond the issues of responsible parenting, space, and time, growing cannabis is very costly initially. Setting up a grow space can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars. In this economy, it is difficult for a patient such as myself to purchase my medicine regularly, pay my bills, buy my groceries, and somehow have several hundred dollars lying around to set up my own grow operation. If I lived in an apartment, with neighbors on either side, I doubt I would even attempt to grow simply for fear of eviction, even though I would be legal. As such, we may have a family, or perhaps many families, for whom growing in their home, condo, or apartment is not an option for any number of reasons. This is why caregivers ought to be allowed, as per state law, to grow up to 30 plants in their own homes, for their patients.

That being said, I still believe that City Council feels firmly that more than 12 plants poses a number of risks to residences in the community. Among these risks, last night they mentioned the risk of mold, electric short-outs and fires, and of course, the dreaded smell. For them, 30 plants in a house is too much to conceive of. Of course, as Mayor Pro Tem Ruggeri was right to point out, cannabis growers are very aware of the risks of mold, and since it poses a risk to the crop into which they are investing hundreds of dollars, they often ventilate properly and control for this and other factors. Additionally, 30 plants does not necessarily mean 30 flowering plants. It could mean 10 flowering plants, 10 in vegetative growth, and 10 seedlings. The smell and mold risks of 10 flowering plants are not that sever, especially with the mylar tents and ventilation systems readily available at any hydroponics store. I intend to bring up several of these points at the next meeting...