Food for thought.
Did not the wording of our vote for House Bill 75 explicitly say it was not to interfere with the state's right to privacy (in our states constitution) and thus we are still allowed 24 plants (regardless of maturation)?
Has this discrepancy been challenged or clarified?
A couple years ago I asked Jason Brandeis this exact question. He’s a prof at the UAA Justice Center and focuses on mj law. He’s very approachable if you have qs but here was his response from April 2017. Cheers!
————-
SNIP-
The 25 plant “limit” has been misconstrued and misunderstood by the public at large, in my opinion. Ravin itself sets so specific limits, it just allows possession in the home for personal use. 25 plants was the cutoff between misdemeanor and felony and personal v commercial intent (in the eyes of the legislature). Most recent court decision under Ravin allows up to 4 ounces of marijuana possessed by an adult in the home for personal use. But if you have over 25 or more plants, regardless of total weight, the courts no longer consider that personal use and therefore not covered by Ravin. See Hotrum v. State for more explanation on that, or p. 218 of this article:
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=alr
I’m not aware of any recent happenings with respect to Ravin and the amount of cannabis one can use/possess under that doctrine.
This is still a complicated area of the law. Here’s a link to another recent article I wrote that provides some further info on the topic of Ravin in a post-BM2 world:
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1499&context=alr. See p.334- end of that article.
--
