Breaking News From Msp

[+Dickinson County CC]

Well .. I hope you are someone that can make a difference.

 

For the umpteenth time ..

 

section 3 e

 

 

Each of those actions listed in this section are defined, right there, as medical use.

 

So then "delivery" is medical use. Who is "delivery?" Wrong question. "Delivery" is not a person. It is an action.

The action is legal. This section does not say that the patient is legal when they do such a thing.

 

It's not the person, it is the action that is legal.

 

So then .. who can the patient deliver to? I know that it is tempting to say something like "a patient may accept delivery." But that section of law says nothing like that at all.

 

The "delivery" is lawful action if if if -> "relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

 

If it benefits a patient, then all of these named actions are legal. If the action is legal, then no crime has been committed.

 

While a logical argument heres a few issues with the verbage of the Act.

Notice the words connected to.

That makes ALL the difference.

in other words only a caregiver that is connected to a patient can assist with that patients 'medical use' not Joe Caregiver or Joe's Dispensary. BTW Joe is general.

 

Until there is a court verdict, everything is conjecture.

 

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

 

( B ) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

 

(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

[peanutbutter]

While a logical argument heres a few issues with the verbage of the Act.

Notice the words connected to.

That makes ALL the difference.

in other words only a caregiver that is connected to a patient can assist with that patients 'medical use' not Joe Caregiver or Joe's Dispensary. BTW Joe is general.

 

Good .. then please notice that those words "connected to" do not exist in the "medical use" section. You are correct .. that is important. If those words were in that section I could not present this argument.

 

In one location of the law it may say a patient may grow. That doesn't exclude the caregiver from growing.

Saying someone has permission to do something does not automatically exclude anyone else from doing those same things.

 

The sections you quote about "connected to" do not EXCLUDE anyone. Look again. What they do is INCLUDE. The inclusion is not an automatic exclusion of everything else.

[Marijuana Ranch]

To all parties posting: Lets keep it civil. No personal attacks. We can talk about this with out attacking. Thanks

 

 

what attacks?

[welj31]

what attacks?

It was just a reminder Ron nothing more nothing less john

[+Dickinson County CC]

Good .. then please notice that those words "connected to" do not exist in the "medical use" section. You are correct .. that is important. If those words were in that section I could not present this argument.

 

In one location of the law it may say a patient may grow. That doesn't exclude the caregiver from growing.

Saying someone has permission to do something does not automatically exclude anyone else from doing those same things.

 

The sections you quote about "connected to" do not EXCLUDE anyone. Look again. What they do is INCLUDE. The inclusion is not an automatic exclusion of everything else.

Because medical use is a definition.

 

 

for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition of marihuana in accordance with this act

 

 

By adding the entire definition of medical use and taking out the word medical use in the above I think it becomes pretty clear.

 

We could stage quite a demonstration.

Lets get a patient with their caregiver who has 2.5 oz, and another patient and a someone elses caregiver with 2.5 oz, not 'connected to' them and do a transfer for the MSP, Prosecutors, AG, etc.

 

Personally, I have no idea who is right, wrong or indifferent. All I know is there is a issue with this and we are about as divided as we could possibly be on it.

Until a judge rules on its the up in the air. I can completely see your point as well Pb, but ...I will always side conservative on the law, because I have a family and nothing to prove.

[SFC]

CPU. It started as one thing, but morphed into something far better. It became apparent that under our original banner of the MMMA that the people were not having a say in what was being represented on our behalf to the lawmakers, prosecutors,and LEO of this state. Mary Lindeman was ready willing and able to step up and lobby on our behalf. Many of you can remember how fierce the resistance was by our dear leader,and his proxy. Instead of just following along lockstep many of us chose to stop and evaluate the potential of the situation with an open mind. We also had couple of really good leaders working hard to make it happen. Hayduke, Malamute, Tim Beck, Matt Able, and many others to name a few.

 

Mary committed to being our eyes ears,and voice. Lobbying is what she does for a living though, so obviously she needs to be compensated. We all met up,and came up with a number that we could live with. I won't specify all of the details, as it is irrelevant. We took a chance,and although it took a little while to get everything ironed out we have in fact accomplished a coalition (CPU). The beauty is we have a great cross section of our community as voting entities. No one involved with CPU is trying to personally gain any financial benefit from this organization (which is rare in this state, and the MMJ movement). We are actively protecting this law on behalf of all Michigan Med MJ patients,and caregivers.(not out of state entities) Mary is doing a fantastic job of reaching out and creating a dialogue with our perceived enemies,(at least I perceive them as enemies anyway).

 

Some like to say that she is neither a patient, or a CG,and therefore cannot represent us well, fact is she keeps her private life private. Know this, she is a very disarming person, and I find her entirely charming, and wise enough to know when to listen. Her aura is good. We are still in the fledgling stages of our organization, but in these first few months I can honestly say I am very pleased with her,and our progress.

 

There is no hidden secret agenda, repeat that as many times as you need to. Things would have been different as far as the relationship with the MMMA had certain individuals not went on a ridiculous attack before anything was ever set in stone. Originally there wasn't even a CPU. For now the paid voting block is solidified, our door is always open though to new people,and new idea's. There are some really great people still involved with the MMMA, but there is still a lingering fog here. We wish the MMMA luck in their endeavors, and if everyone puts the dollars back in the back ground, and get to work on the stuff that really matters I am sure we can find ways to work together.

 

One other thing. I really encourage all of you to engage your state reps, and state senators. Many have facebook pages, and they all have emails that can be found easy. I have personally outed myself to one of ours on behalf of Mr Boykes, and Tackebury's cases. I think the dialogue is going excellently.

 

Anyone wishing to learn more about what we are about is welcome to ask away,and join in fellowship here http://michigancannabispatients.com/Forum/

[+Dizledot]

While a logical argument heres a few issues with the verbage of the Act.

Notice the words connected to.

That makes ALL the difference.

in other words only a caregiver that is connected to a patient can assist with that patients 'medical use' not Joe Caregiver or Joe's Dispensary. BTW Joe is general.

 

Until there is a court verdict, everything is conjecture.

 

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

 

( A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

 

(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

 

Thank you for pointing this out. I work with Public Acts, Laws and Resolutions and it is the words which are in black and white that will dictate whether anything is legal or illegal, the words exactly as written. They, judges and lawyers will do their best to digest and spit out. But if you read this law word for word and not try to put your own spin on the words, just the black and white of the paper and words, no assumptions just the exact words it does tell us what we are allowed to do. Now what they didn't do is provide us means to obtain MM very clearly. They state we may do so but from whom or how, or even what to do if we have an emergency and run out or our care giver runs out. We're all human that could happen so where do we LEGALLY go? That's the "gray" area we are all trying to figure out here. It's probably safe to say some of what we are doing is walking a fine line in our efforts to follow the law to prevent having this right taken away from us. In my most humble opinion we need clarification of this law in plain language which covers what LEO should do or not do, a means to check the validity of a card or paper work to prevent our automobiles and homes from being trashed. This is clearly what we do not have and unless someone steps up and fights to get this done we will sit here and pick at each other until hell freezes over. I'm not thrilled at having my name pop up on LIEN but if it preserves my home, my vehicle and myself from harassment from the law the let it be with a simple yes or no answer.

 

The documents I work all with contain the words , SHALL & MAY. It's a clear understanding among politicians as well as our lawyers that is anything states you SHALL, you better darn well do it or you bet you can and its legal. If it states MAY, that's an option, you may or may not. What I don't find within this law is the word's Shall or May and it's very poorly written at this point. This has left each and every one of us questioning exactly just what the flower our rights are. We can sit here at the keyboard and second guess all day long but unless it tells you and I in plain English that we can do it, then we better be very careful. There are really no gray areas within the laws especially if these two very important words have been left out. My attorney as well as my friend the local LEO have made it very clear to me that we can only do what the exact words of this law states and only if we have card in hand are we legal due to the fact it has become difficult for them to verify in a timely manor. Now as far as the State guy's, apparently they have no intentions of learning what this law permits. I do have a connection with the county and state guy's. I can try to find out what's up and why but can't promise. One more point I'm pretty sure I'm not the only straight laced polished politician or public official or public person who is using MM. If and only if that image could be conveyed to the general public as well as LEO we may be able to put a stop to 'THEM" thinking we are all a bunch of pot heads who found a way to use legally.

 

Dizz

[chi_guy]

Well I received this email as well. First of all why the hell is CPU having all these private meetings with state police all the time. I told myself that i wouldn't pass judgement on Mary L. until I actually met her. Well I got a chance to meet her in Lansing at the appropriations meeting.Before the meeting she told me how she was working on getting the MDCH to issue numbers to people until they get their cards. I replied that it sounded like a good idea and might be a good temporary remedy, the reason I was there was to show my support and make it clear to Lansing that patients need their cards on time. I also told her her I wasn't in favor of opening up the rules she disagreed. After the meeting a State Police Rep was there talking to us and taking questions. Now I know I am nobody special but I had a very important issue which involved a cardholding patient who's medicine had been stolen by police even though the patient was within the limits of the law. I was asking the State Police on what steps could be taken to pursue this issue.After talking the state police rep for about 3 minutes at the most. Mary L. comes charging up saying that I had been talking to the Rep for too long and that her good friend wanted to talk to him but I was asking too many questions. I was surprised at the way she just cut into to me. I told her that I was not the only one asking questions and if her friend wanted to talk to the state police rep he could have asked a question just as I did and others were. She just kind of rolled her eyes at me and brushed me off. At that point I told her she doesn't represent me or most of the people in the MMJ community. As I was leaving the building I was told by a few people that she was against patient to patient transfers. I can't confirm or deny it but that is what I was told.

 

I think we need to be real careful on what's going on here. The email I got that this group CPU is "neutral" on this issue. But they should not be neutral on the subject of p2p transfers. It is clearly not illegall and they should have let the state police attorney know it. I wish I was at that meeting because this time Mary L. would have to literally told me to Shutup because i would have had way more questions for the state police.

[Zombiefied]

If p2p transfers are illegal, then how did the first, second, third, so on and so fourth, get a seed, clone, medicine? There has to be some kind of "transfer" between p2p and p2cg and cg2cg to allow cannabis to be used in the first place.

[Guest finallyfree09]

well... this doesn't surprise me at all. what i want to know is are the people that have gone to diapensaries and left their personal info in jeopardy? are we at risk of being arrested? by the way leo is interpreting the law it sounds as if they might possibly go after patients once they shut down the dispensaries. kinda scary.

[Guest hayduke]

Mary works as lobbyist for CPU. She is registered with the state of Michigan. CPU is not looking to open the rules or the law. Period. You misunderstood her. There is no gray area in this regard.

 

CPU would very much like to see patient to patient transfers be considered the law in Michigan. Period.

 

The MSP consider as their official policy, per our meeting on Monday, patient to patient transfers are not legal. Period.

 

That is all.

 

Use the information as you see fit. Don't believe it, Do believe it. I am sorry you do not recognize we were trying to give you new info from the MSP.

[bobandtorey]

Can we please put a Goggle calender on this site that list all meeting and hearings around the state. I would love to show my support but it always seems I find out the night before or day of the event. Giving everyone a little advanced notice would greatly help turn out.

 

Please join us Thursday July 1st at 9.00 am

 

at Saginaw county court house at the corner of Court

 

and Michigan 111 South Michigan Saginaw Michigan 48602

 

for Peaceful Demonstration July 1st starting at 9am to

 

protest Saginaw County Sheriff Dept and DEA Raids arrest and

 

property seizures of Medical Marijuana Patients

 

and Caregivers for more information or to volunteer

 

Please contact John at 989-607-0384 .

 

This Protest is about our rights as Medical Marijuana Patients

 

and our rights as Americans

[+Dickinson County CC]

well... this doesn't surprise me at all. what i want to know is are the people that have gone to diapensaries and left their personal info in jeopardy? are we at risk of being arrested? by the way leo is interpreting the law it sounds as if they might possibly go after patients once they shut down the dispensaries. kinda scary.

Actually, as a paitent or a caregiver you are protected while those you procure from are not.

 

I also wanted to add, that I still have a google calendar running for ANYONE who wants to use it.

I WILL NOT add dates manually but if you share your calendar with admin@dickinsoncountycc.org your events will show up.

If we get over 40 wanting to be attached I will start handing out special gmail accounts so we can add everyone.

My link

[peanutbutter]

CPU. It started as one thing, but morphed into something far better. It became apparent that under our original banner of the MMMA that the people were not having a say in what was being represented on our behalf to the lawmakers, prosecutors,and LEO of this state. Mary Lindeman was ready willing and able to step up and lobby on our behalf. Many of you can remember how fierce the resistance was by our dear leader,and his proxy. Instead of just following along lockstep many of us chose to stop and evaluate the potential of the situation with an open mind. We also had couple of really good leaders working hard to make it happen. Hayduke, Malamute, Tim Beck, Matt Able, and many others to name a few.

 

Anyone wishing to learn more about what we are about is welcome to ask away,and join in fellowship here http://michigancannabispatients.com/Forum/

 

It's good to know who a few of these folks are.

 

A much better response than something like "you don't need to know."

[freemannabis]

It would SEEM Mr Cox has very little power in this matter and MSP are the ones making the rules.

 

Proof-positive Michigan Politicians sanctify a NAZI Police State.

 

I STILL wish the MALFEASANT DICTATORS "HOLDING-UP" "Public Offices," to the dire HEALTH and FREEDOM of "WE the PEOPLE," of Michigan / America would clarify this:

 

(e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-333-26427

 

http://www.michiganprosecutor.org/Victim.htm'>http://www.michiganprosecutor.org/Victim.htm

 

http://www.michiganprosecutor.org/

 

FREE the CURE!

[Marijuana Ranch]

Well I received this email as well. First of all why the hell is CPU having all these private meetings with state police all the time. I told myself that i wouldn't pass judgement on Mary L. until I actually met her. Well I got a chance to meet her in Lansing at the appropriations meeting.Before the meeting she told me how she was working on getting the MDCH to issue numbers to people until they get their cards. I replied that it sounded like a good idea and might be a good temporary remedy, the reason I was there was to show my support and make it clear to Lansing that patients need their cards on time. I also told her her I wasn't in favor of opening up the rules she disagreed. After the meeting a State Police Rep was there talking to us and taking questions. Now I know I am nobody special but I had a very important issue which involved a cardholding patient who's medicine had been stolen by police even though the patient was within the limits of the law. I was asking the State Police on what steps could be taken to pursue this issue.After talking the state police rep for about 3 minutes at the most. Mary L. comes charging up saying that I had been talking to the Rep for too long and that her good friend wanted to talk to him but I was asking too many questions. I was surprised at the way she just cut into to me. I told her that I was not the only one asking questions and if her friend wanted to talk to the state police rep he could have asked a question just as I did and others were. She just kind of rolled her eyes at me and brushed me off. At that point I told her she doesn't represent me or most of the people in the MMJ community. As I was leaving the building I was told by a few people that she was against patient to patient transfers. I can't confirm or deny it but that is what I was told.

 

I think we need to be real careful on what's going on here. The email I got that this group CPU is "neutral" on this issue. But they should not be neutral on the subject of p2p transfers. It is clearly not illegall and they should have let the state police attorney know it. I wish I was at that meeting because this time Mary L. would have to literally told me to Shutup because i would have had way more questions for the state police.

 

 

Mary is a nice person

However she told me she does not use Marijuana

Based on that statement my fealing is that she cannot understand the Marijuana Culture.

I am not saying others should not support her.

I can not

She use to be the 3med lobbiest

[Guest hayduke]

as always Ron, you are very loose with the truth. I guess nothing with you changes. Mary Lindemann was never the lobbyist for 3Med. That is a flat out lie.

[Scooter]

The safest bet is to be a Patient AND a Caregiver, and deal with Patient/Caregivers. There is no need for the Patient/Caregiver to relinquish possession of their plants, or even possess plants for that matter. Thus, A Caregiver can transfer to a Patient/Caregiver who can transfer to a Patient/Caregiver and so on. This is totally legal, would not constitute a dispensary, and allows for a safe outlet for excess meds. I have crossed swords regarding this with various LEO and attorneys, and they have agreed with the legality of this.

[Guest finallyfree09]

Just curious, would that mean that all the white college kids that traveled to the US South in the 60s to help civil rights couldn't understand the plight of the southern blacks so they shouldn't have been there?

 

 

It just seems like you guys are bitter that something really good was done by somebody else. Every other MMJ organization thanked CPU for sharing the information from the private meeting, and all the 3ma has done is vilify themn for doing the good work.

 

whoa there.... i am glad that somebody is doing something for us. what bothers me is the fact that i have no clue what is being said on my behalf. i am not sure if this lobbyist or CPU is working in my best interest. don't accuse everybody of villifying mary... i just don't know where she stands. i don't know where the cpu stands either.

 

why do all of these dealings have to go on behind closed doors? fishy

 

what is the CPU? what is their mission statement? what is their interpretation of the law? and most importantly, is there a website i can go to to see exactly what it is that the CPU is about?

 

if you want more people behind the CPU it is time for full disclosure. total transparency... no more cloak and dagger stuff. obama said all this crap about transparency and look what we wound up with. how's about some GENUINE transparency in this instance? keep us all in the dark as if this is a secret and we ARE going to be a little upset.

[chi_guy]

I did not say that Mary L. wasn't a "nice" person. I did find her rude and abrasive, although that is just my personal feelings regarding my encounter with her.

 

I don't feel someone representing our community in Lansing needs to be a patient or a caregiver. But I think they should be well educated about cannabis and well informed on the issues our community is facing. I don't know if Mary is or not.

Does she know the difference between a clone or a cutting?

Does she know about thc and cannibinoids?

Does she know what mother plants are?

What about the the difference between flowering and vegging?

Does she know about the curing process of harvested plants?

Does she know how solvents, tinctures, simpson oil, edibles and hash are all made?

 

The list goes on. These questions may seem trivial but it is importnat for someone to have a grasp on these topics.

[+Dizledot]

This is why a democratic process is important. It is important that the people know the views of people that claim to represent them. This is why the MMMA was split into a business section, to support activism, and a democratic side, so that the people could express their will, and action could be taken. I agree completely that anyone that claims to support the views of the people, have a mandate from the people. Currently this entire process has been bypassed. We must all come together to agree on principles and to develop an approach. We need to beat down the walls we have built, and proceed with the blessing of the people.

 

 

Well stated....

 

Would it serve us better to have a lobbyist who is a MM patient who if familiar with the aspects of MM. I have to agree if you don't use MM then one has no clue as to what the benefits are. They can go to Lansing 24x7 and lobby but they will not exhibit the very necessity that created the movement. They IMHO will just be spitting out words, their own words. They don't have chronic pain, cancer or any other illness that's brought them here. Only someone who is living this right now can explain our concerns or lobby.

 

Dizz

[welj31]

Mary is a nice person

However she told me she does not use Marijuana

Based on that statement my fealing is that she cannot understand the Marijuana Culture.

I am not saying others should not support her.

I can not

She use to be the 3med lobbiest

Ron I have been VERY nice to you lately. And I have even used kid gloves when dealing with some of the things you do around here, But HD is right ...that is a flat out lie. And you know it. Now stop with the crap. John

[welj31]

Just curious, would that mean that all the white college kids that traveled to the US South in the 60s to help civil rights couldn't understand the plight of the southern blacks so they shouldn't have been there?

 

 

It just seems like you guys are bitter that something really good was done by somebody else. Every other MMJ organization thanked CPU for sharing the information from the private meeting, and all the 3ma has done is vilify themn for doing the good work.

Lets be clear here. Some people on this site dont approve of Mary. Not everyone is vilifing her. And for the record (you can check) When Ron first said she could not do the job because she did not use MM, I defended her. I personaly dont think you have to use MM to understand. And I think most people on here were glad to get the info (I was) and said thank you (I did). So again lets not judge a entire group by the opinions of a few. Which by the way is how a free world works. Like it or not people can voice their views. Thanks John

[SFC]

I am sorry Joe, but I do not believe it is possible to have it both ways. The MMMA is either a business, or a political activist. Greg made his choice. Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is. We stuck with politics, we took a cross section of the community and are now off to battle our foes. Whether anyone agree's with how we are doing it is irrelevant, we put our money up to get things happening. We would have gladly done the same thing here (many of us did try to do just that) But the whole business side of things kept muddying the waters, and even still the water is muddy!

 

John, you are alright bro, and I am more confident than ever that you "get it". PB you are also a warrior in this battle, even if we don't always agree on tactics. Peace..

[SFC]

"You guys,and Mary are in fact a business"? What? How is that Joe? WE PAY MARY TO REPRESENT US! There is no money coming back uphill to us, none, nor was that EVER our intent. Ok, I have had my fill of this place again. GregS, you are so right man. Peace.