Petaluma firefighters responded Saturday to a fire at an eastside home that officials say stemmed from faulty electrical wiring to an indoor pot garden. To prevent such fires, which have become more prevalent in recent years, the police and fire departments last year began jointly developing a safety ordinance aimed at regulating indoor medical marijuana growing operations, but ran into conflicts with federal law that prohibits growing marijuana at all.

“The ordinance was put aside because we realized that we cannot have an official fire ordinance that contradicts federal law,” Petaluma Fire Marshal Cary Fergus said. “So we had to stop working on it.

Also, I am not advocating for industrial size grows in residential housing, I am more saying that people (commenters) think the law says one thing while it CLEARLY says another and there are CLEAR court rulings that uninformed readers should be aware of.

That is all.

Landmark Ruling: People v Kelly Decision.
(2010): The Supreme Court held that the quantities are legal as a safe harbor for state ID cardholders but are unconstitutional as a limit on a qualified patient's legal defense. It also noted that the state ID card system is constitutional and collectives operating under Health and Safety Code 11362.775 are lawful throughout the state.

Bergen Decision:
(2008) determined that qualified patients making edibles, hash and kief are clearly legal but using butane to make hash oil is chemical extraction that is not covered by the medical use statutes — although the oil product is legal.

Chakos Decision:
"Nowhere in this record do we find any substantial evidence that the arresting officer had any expertise in differentiating citizens who possess marijuana lawfully for their own consumption, as distinct from possessing unlawfully with intent to sell."

Colvin Decision:
the Second Appellate District, Division Three rejected prosecutors' claim that all collective members must participate in cultivation. The court reversed the conviction of William Frank Colvin, who was convicted for transportation after being denied a medical marijuana defense under SB 420 (HSC 11362.775) because he was not engaged in the cultivation process. The court specifically re-affirmed the legitimacy of dispensaries in this situation.

Kha Decision:
Appellate Court: Local police must return medical marijuana to patients if found to be lawful under state law, regardless of federal law. Click here to view as a PDF (120k). "Mindful as we are of the general supremacy of federal law, we are unable to discern any justification for the City or its police department to disregard the trial court’s order to return Kha’s marijuana. The order is fully consistent with state law respecting the possession of medical marijuana, and for all the reasons discussed, we do not believe the federal drug laws supersede or preempt Kha’s right to the return of his property. That right has its origins in the CUA and MMP, but it is grounded, at bottom, on fairness principles embodied in the due process clause. Those principles require the return of Kha’s property."

Los Angeles v AMCC Collective, :
Second Appelate District, Division One ruled that Los Angeles County's "complete ban" on medical marijuana is "preempted" by state law and, therefore, void. "[T]he repeated use of the term 'dispensary' throughout [Health and Safety Code section 11362.768] and the reference in subdivision (e) to a 'storefront or mobile retail outlet' make it abundantly clear that the medical marijuana collectives authorized by section 11362.775 are permitted by state law to perform a dispensary function." The AMCC further held that, "[Los Angeles] County's total, per se nuisance ban against medical marijuana dispensaries directly contradicts the Legislature's intent," and called that contradiction "direct, patent, obvious, and palpable."
(sounds to me like the "ban" on local collectives).

Spark Decision:
Juries and judges do not get to "second guess" a doctor's approval, condition need not be determined to be "serious" for a valid approval.

Windus Decision:
Doctor's approval is not an annual requirement and can be good for years; doctor's dosage is advisory and does not restrict patient from having a "reasonable" amount, even if less than what a patient has.
(Well, there goes the "expired" recommendation excuse).

I could go on for another hour but I think you get the point…