Jump to content

Restorium2

Supporters
  • Content Count

    13,836
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    382

Everything posted by Restorium2

  1. LOL Michigan is a GRAND place to be for a cannabis attorney. Can you say boom state? I think the attorneys have us by the nads and they advise us to stay this way. OUCH! At least a hobbit doesn't have that kind of GRIP! LOL Might as well laugh it off... ha ha ouch.
  2. The reality about dispensaries, that we will all have to live with for the foreseeable future, was best summed up by David Leyton on the TV news; "There is a public dispensary model that is legal; a caregiver, or several, servicing their 5 registered patients at one location, in public. Until it is brought to our attention, with proof, that they are doing something other than this, they will be left alone. I'm not going to pay my investigators to look into it." Now Mr. Leyton likes us. Not all prosecutors do. And some WILL pay their investigators to look into cannabis stores. And since there is this window of legality for dispensaries, they will continue to open and be closed. The owners, caregivers affiliated, and their patients, will continue to be victims of the system. There will be countless court cases.
  3. So no one wants to open the law for amendments. I know when I'm beat. But remember who was the loudest (crazy) advocate for amendments, RESTO I will have to be resigned to the fact that Rhode Island's RIPAC was kicking ash and taking names in a way that we can't even attempt. Ahhh... you must welcome the disfunction...bask in it. Feel the warmth of it. It's Pure Michigan. Look at the bright side: It's cheap to live here.... and you can transfer in private and hold in public.
  4. Registration comes after. This is about the first step to becoming legal, seeing your doctor and your doctor saying the right thing on record. That's how the COA interpretted the law because of the words "has stated" showing a previous statement from a doctor.
  5. Then they came for the caregivers that supplied the dispensaries, and we all shed a tear. Then the patients that were counting on the caregivers who dumped their overages at the dispensaries wondered what they should do now. And they knew the only answer was to grow their own. And push like they never have pushed before, for fair amendments to clarify the law they loved and would/will die for. To be continued...
  6. We will have dispensaries when we do the right thing and make them legal with amendments. Then the dispensaries will have some rules to follow and the prosecutors will have rules to follow, instead of both parties making them up as they go. This whole dispensary debacle has taught us why clear rules are so important to sick patients. No patient wants their supply jerked around. The only solution is what Rhode Island did. Until we do that, be prepared to keep being jerked around.
  7. Good point and so true. Us caregivers don't run out, we have extra TO TRANSFER. I say we need to FREE THE TRANSFERS, which is the updated, politically correct, version of FREE THE WEED, and it does THE SAME THING. FREE THE TRANSFERS! Add the amendments!
  8. Nothing new; Reed looked for other places for certification, the appeals court said, "but he had not formally consulted with another doctor before his marijuana was discovered." You need to have seen a doctor about it before you launch. The wording of the law says "A doctor has stated" meaning he stated it before hand...
  9. It goes without saying that we need to oppose the 8 bills. Everyone knows that. But it's obvious that you don't completely understand our situation and the Rhode Island amendments by your comment. They are NOTHING LIKE the 8 bills we all oppose. Understand that. Rep. Horn will be coming up with something to satisfy the mission of his committee. He has expressed his wanting to make the program work. He also said he would like our votes if he runs for governor someday. The Rhode Island amendments fit the framework of our law. They fit the situation perfectly. They are already written so it's easier. They have already been tried out so there will be no overblown claims of what they will do to destroy Michigan. The best thing the amendments do is clear the way for any and all transfers to the sickest and dying. I believe we might be able to get a 75% vote for that. If not, then shame on them and anyone else that opposes the amendments. Go and visit some chemo/cancer patients and see what good you could do if you could transfer like the Rhode Island amendments would let you. You see, you are asking for exactly what the Rhode Island amendments would give you.
  10. Your caregiver can acquire for you legally anywhere. Street corner... dispensary.... farm market... anywhere. Your caregiver is protected. The entity the caregiver purchases FROM is not protected. So learn to grow real well and no one has to break the law. Someday we will have free exchanges between patients as totally legal if we ever get off our arses and get some amendments like Rhode Island did. In Rhode Island, caregivers and patients can freely trade between any and all card holders so they all can have a great variety and no one runs out. The amendments are practically already written for us. The best part about the Rhode Island amendments is we know what they do. They have been tried out for a couple years now. OH. And I almost forgot to say.... the Rhode Island amendments set up dispensaries too. BONUS: A better plant count!
  11. The COA said that patient to patient transfers for money is illegal. I bet that's what this is all about. Isn't that what they were doing? Or no? Was it just caregivers serving their 5 patients?
  12. Sure, that's the right thing to do. But you can't do it in public. It may seem absolutely backwards to you and me, but the law says this is what is legal. You can still do the right thing for your patients, just do it carefully and not at a STORE or in public po po view. Sad but true. Even though it isn't exactly what we want; transfers for money between any and all card holders, we should get everything but the money part straightened out if we can. Then you are covered for everything right up to the cash changing hands. That's all our law allows and we need as much of our rights outlined in plain english so all the prosecutors can go suck and egg about transfers without cash flow. The way it is right now, you can get away with something in one county and go to prison for doing the same thing in another. I'm not a big fan of that action. I would rather have it spelled out like Rhode Island did than have over zealous prosecutors and sellers making a mockery of our law to the point it is more bother than it is worth. If we keep letting the over zealous prosecutors pick the test cases to define our law we slowly lose our rights.
  13. He was the first in. And the first to be ignored when he didn't say what you wanted him to say. Turns out he was right on track with all the advice I have heard him give. I posted it all here starting back in early '09. Most thought it was just something to argue against, not advice to follow. What makes anything different now? He said that people, including prosecutors, with their own personal agendas, would twist the wording all around to fit their position and the law wouldn't be agreed on until it was spelled out in language no one can twist. Like they did in Rhode Isalnd. I can spell it out for you again if you like. But the attacks start right away when you mention any kind of transfers without enumeration. The thing is, the legislature isn't against transfer without enumeration. It would be our chance at a super majority. Card holders connected through the registration process can charge for services, those unconnected can't, but all card holders can transfer.... once we get it spelled out anti-twist style.
  14. Exactly. And we could get other transfers between card holders that are NOT directly connected through the registration process defined clearly legal BUT without enumeration, like Rhode Island did. Our law clearly supports both but restricts cash sales by a store/proxy. That's what the attorney I spoke with told me. The COA opinion was no surprise to him at all. Some attorneys ran right through the act before it was even passed and had a solid understanding of it. Some attorneys have a lot of experiences with past rulings and have them on the tip of their brain. Nothing much surprises them because of their vast experience with previous case law. And since 'the essense' of our law was already on the books years before it was here, there is a 'fast track' for an attorney, if they choose to use it.
  15. Why do you think the patients of Rhode Island amended their law? Could it be so everyone involved would follow the law, and not guess at the meaning with their own twist, prosecutors included?
  16. I'm not so worried about the 'getting paid in public' part of the law as some seem to be. I would be extremely happy with the transfer part being totally legal. Totally legal between any and all card holders. This would cover the sickest and dying in their time of need. Our law, the voters, and most all of the Michigan legislature agree about that. We can all get on the same page and make transfers, without money involved, as clear and totally legal. That would be a HUGE step forward for patients.
  17. The COA was more openly against SALES not transfers. Transfers by proxy for money was the problem.
  18. The time for a renewal is varied through the year. If you renew in April the cards came in a couple weeks. If you renew in November the card takes months.
  19. BINGO!! We have a winner. Rhode Island is our ticket to transfers between caregivers and patients, BONUS! and a better plant count for cuttings/immature plants. Ask him if he likes what Rhode Island has done. We have our foot in the door but many with delusions of richness want to shut it again. It could be a SLAM DUNK! The legislature is poised for a 75% super majority vote on something. Give them something DECENT to vote on or you will get what Schuette has cookin'. It's all cut and dried, a nice Christmas Package for patients. Transfers and your cuttings don't count in the plant count. That's what this patient wants for Christmas. How about you?
  20. Nope. You need to be a Michigan resident and your doctor needs to be licensed in Michigan.
  21. Yup. That's what the judges in Rhode Island decided too. Go figure, they have the same wording.
  22. Not me, I'm a Michigan patient. I'm stuck in a RUT! If I were a Rhode Island patient, I would have found 12 more plants when they made transfers legal and accepted. We should already be there but we had to try the short cut first.
  23. Check out the link. Rhode Island had our law and they chose to fix it for patients. The ammended plant count wording makes it so your little cuttings do not figure in your plant count. They did a lot for patients. Can we do that here or isn't there enough quick money in it to attract support? This was my suggestion years ago and here I am again, beating the drum. Round two. Ding! Put up your DUKES! LOL
  24. It's a new day. Time to move forward. http://ripatients.org/Home/cc09/ Sharing Medicine Any licensed patient or caregiver may give away medical marijuana to any other licensed patient or caregiver, as long as they don't exceed their possession limits (2.5 ounces + 12 mature plants + 12 immature plants).
  25. Dr. Steven E. Newman is why a lot of doctors around Michigan are afraid to recommend medical cannabis. Dr. Newman will tell every doctor who will listen that medical cannabis needs to be held to a higher level of scrutiny than the Oxycontin, and other dangerous drugs, that he prescribes regulary. He even says he doesn't need a bona fide doctor patient relationship to prescribe Oxycotin and the other dangerous drugs. He says ONLY medical cannabis requires a bona fide doctor patient relationship. I think he should be charged with malpractice for his lack of understanding of state and federal medical law in regard to a bona fide doctor patient relationship and writing prescriptions. How many times has he followed his own advice and prescribed dangerous drugs without a bona fide doctor patient relationship? The problem lies with doctors like Dr. Steven Newman. Listen to his ignorance; http://www.msms.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=18784 Here google bot.. Dr. Steven E. Newman of Michigan doctor review
×
×
  • Create New...