Jump to content

Medical Use Of Marijuana


Recommended Posts

Medical Use of Marijuana - "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.

 

PATIENT

acquisition

possession

cultivation

manufacture

use

internal possession

transportation

 

 

 

PATITENT W CAREGIVER

acquisition

possession

use

internal possession

transportation

 

CAREGIVER

acquisition

possession

manufacture

cultivation

transfer

delivery

transportation

 

CAREGIVER PATIENT

acquisition

possession

use

manufacture

cultivation

transfer

delivery

interal possession

transportation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I see you are attempting to go this route again, and since I have a bit of time this morning I am game...

 

Can you please explain to me where in the law these breakdowns occur, for who is allowed to do what? Just one citation that says what you list in column x is only for patients, and column y is for caregivers...

 

I look forward to your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as court rulings establishing this list, courts can rule "black" to mean "white" in two steps. The first one being "black" could mean "gray." The second being "gray" could mean "white."

 

It is only by way of this habit of "construing" that black becomes white.

 

Courts will, when possible, eliminate any protections that the voters gave us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as court rulings establishing this list, courts can rule "black" to mean "white" in two steps. The first one being "black" could mean "gray." The second being "gray" could mean "white."

 

It is only by way of this habit of "construing" that black becomes white.

 

Courts will, when possible, eliminate any protections that the voters gave us.

 

 

Courts will, when possible, eliminate any protections that the voters gave us.

sadly, this seems to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is possible courts could divide "medical use" up that way, there is nothing in the law itself that does this.

 

Are you saying that is the way you wish it to become?

 

That would require either court rulings or a change in the law.

no pb dispite what your opinion is this is the break down of the medical use definition there are a lot of things that are not in the law like dispencarys, p2p transfers ect ect and after all it is the courts interpation not yours or mine that matters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, I was just reminded of that old Abe Lincolnism

 

"How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a leg?" 4 because the tail is still a tail regardless of we call it.

 

Folks like the original poster of this thread want to keep renaming tails into legs.

 

Indeed, we also need to keep on the lookout for these activist judges that will change the words "shall not be subject to" into "possibly be protected from on every other Tuesday".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no pb dispite what your opinion is this is the break down of the medical use definition there are a lot of things that are not in the law like dispencarys, p2p transfers ect ect and after all it is the courts interpation not yours or mine that matters

Again, one last time I ask nicely for a citation of where this breakdown of the "medical use" definition comes from. You keep stating this breakdown as fact, so I am certain that you must have some proof of your position. PLEASE, provide the language in the law that shows this breakdown of the term "medical use".

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no pb dispite what your opinion is this is the break down of the medical use definition there are a lot of things that are not in the law like dispencarys, p2p transfers ect ect and after all it is the courts interpation not yours or mine that matters

 

That is false.

 

It is only a break down of "medical use" that some anti-mmj people wish to apply.

 

The breakdown is not in the law.

 

If you wish to change the law, then start a petition drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is false.

 

It is only a break down of "medical use" that some anti-mmj people wish to apply.

 

The breakdown is not in the law.

 

If you wish to change the law, then start a petition drive.

 

 

Does Michigan have a ballot initiative, where if there are enough support from citizens with signatures our State will begin to form that into a law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be an interesting thread. I have often wondered...if a CG is granted the right of "medical use" then he can internally possess marijuana, which I think most of us would agree isn't what the law intends....

 

But then nowhere in the law does it actually say the CG has the right of medical use like it does for a patient...In some places the law says that the CG is presumed to be engaged in medical use, but it doesn't explicitly say that his medical use is protected (like it is for a patient.) Nowhere in the law does it say that all medical use is protected. Law law defines "medical use" and the law says who can engage in medical use and when, but the law does not say that just because and action is defined as "medical use" it is protection. This is an important point to understand.

 

So the only conclusion is that a CG, who is never specifically granted the right of medical use, cannot engage in all the verbs listed as "medical use" This bit of ambiguity will be left to the courts to decide - which of the verbs listed under "medical use" are applicable to a caregiver.

 

But a patient is granted the right and assumption of "medical use." (The wording is different for patients than it is for caregivers), and there is no reason to believe under any circumstance that any of the rights to any actions allowed by the medical use verbs can be taken from a lawful patient.

 

I don't see how Green Leaf Farmacy feels that the verbs can be put into different buckets that are somehow no longer applicable to patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be an interesting thread. I have often wondered...if a CG is granted the right of "medical use" then he can internally possess marijuana, which I think most of us would agree isn't what the law intends....

 

But then nowhere in the law does it actually say the CG has the right of medical use like it does for a patient...In some places the law says that the CG is presumed to be engaged in medical use, but it doesn't explicitly say that his medical use is protected (like it is for a patient.) Nowhere in the law does it say that all medical use is protected. Law law defines "medical use" and the law says who can engage in medical use and when, but the law does not say that just because and action is defined as "medical use" it is protection. This is an important point to understand.

 

So the only conclusion is that a CG, who is never specifically granted the right of medical use, cannot engage in all the verbs listed as "medical use" This bit of ambiguity will be left to the courts to decide - which of the verbs listed under "medical use" are applicable to a caregiver.

 

But a patient is granted the right and assumption of "medical use." (The wording is different for patients than it is for caregivers), and there is no reason to believe under any circumstance that any of the rights to any actions allowed by the medical use verbs can be taken from a lawful patient.

 

I don't see how Green Leaf Farmacy feels that the verbs can be put into different buckets that are somehow no longer applicable to patients.

 

In the long run, it is possible that court rulings could result in the exact list he is proposing. Very little probability that any such list would have every verb as he places it.

 

It is a simple fact that this list does not exist in the law. That is his broken down list. It just isn't there.

 

While there is not a single court ruling on the topic, there are no grounds for any exclusion at all. There is no exclusion of those verbs anywhere in the law. If you can point out one single location where it literally says a caregiver is excluded form any one of those verbs, please point it out to me.

 

Here is the government web site location of the law itself:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28acfaut55tm5bncyrbtgoj4yx%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008

 

So you could argue intent. While I argue letter.

 

So the other side starts by talking about intent. Then something about it being a gray area. whatever..

 

Someone asks me what it says in the law. What is in the law is a simple fact. Those words are solid and will not change by wishing them away.

 

So please, if a caregiver is forbidden from one of those verbs IN THE WORDS OF THE LAW please point me to those words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were to be such a list it should read like this

and I am only going by OP's list

 

PATIENT without a caregiver

acquisition

possession

cultivation

delivery

manufacture

use

internal possession

transportation

 

 

 

PATITENT W CAREGIVER and caregiver posses plants

acquisition

possession

use

manufacture

delivery

internal possession

transportation

 

PARIENT W CAREGIVER but patient posses plants

acquisition

possession

use

manufacture

delivery

internal possession

transportation

cultivation

 

CAREGIVER who is not a patient also and posses plants

acquisition

possession

manufacture

cultivation

transfer

delivery

transportation

 

CAREGIVER who is also a patient and posses plants

acquisition

possession

use

manufacture

cultivation

transfer

delivery

interal possession

transportation

 

CAREGIVER who is also a patient but does not posses plants

acquisition

possession

use

manufacture

transfer

delivery

interal possession

transportation

 

 

If you want to get down to a list that is how it would go

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were to be such a list it should read like this

and I am only going by OP's list

 

PATIENT without a caregiver

 

PATITENT W CAREGIVER and caregiver posses plants

 

PARIENT W CAREGIVER but patient posses plants

 

CAREGIVER who is not a patient also and posses plants

 

CAREGIVER who is also a patient and posses plants

 

CAREGIVER who is also a patient but does not posses plants

 

If you want to get down to a list that is how it would go

 

See .. it's all of those words that are not in the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...