Jump to content

Guilt By Finances


Cheliose

Recommended Posts

I have known people that SMOKE an ounce per DAY.

 

I didn't believe it until I saw it.

 

How many of us remember Swampy (RIP) and the quality of life increases he experienced by consuming many ozs of medical marijuana on a monthly basis?

 

Those who are really sick, who need need this medicine most, are those who need multiple ounces per month.

 

The OP needs to understand that you just can't compare recreational use with medical use. It takes far more marijuana to treat a seriously ill patient than it does to keep a "stoner" happy. He seems to suggest that a medical patient won't need more than a recreational user wants.

 

I don't think he gets it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I am not convinced you are trying to help patients or their caregivers.

 

Bingo...sounds to me like the OP is on an ego trip. He seems to have some command of some legal terms but falls miserably short with his inaccurate and disruptive "reasonable compensation" approach, which reminds me more of a poorly-researched news article (in fact those exact, inaccurate words were used in at least one news story) than a sound legal footing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOBODY should be posting anything about diverting meds in any context that is NOT something we need law enforcement to see they might believe we all have that mindset. :thumbsd:

 

 

Your right :watching: ... But I feel someone will bring this question to the forefront, it's inevitable... & eventually some people with good intentions could get burned.-

 

NO THANKS.

 

***A caregiver should proceed with EXTREME CAUTION if you have a patient who REQUIRES 3 to 4 oz a month.***

 

Good judgment by caregivers keeps NEGATIVE PUBLICITY AWAY.

 

Constructive opinions by those with strong voices help build ideology.... "ME" think.

 

Best to ya, :skydive:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right :watching: ... But I feel someone will bring this question to the forefront, it's inevitable... & eventually some people with good intentions could get burned.-

 

***A caregiver should proceed with EXTREME CAUTION if you have a patient who REQUIRES 3 to 4 oz a month.***

 

Best to ya, :skydive:

 

It sounds like the brainwashing of the days of old still clings...You're thinking, "that's $1,000+ worth of meds; who can afford that? Who needs that?"

 

But when you get past the idea that MM is worth some huge $ figure per ounce, and instead look at a more holistic view, you'll see a new light. When your legit patient uses cannaflour and cannapasta sauce and the like - not decarboxylized - so the theraputic benefit is realized without the psychoactive effect, you'll see what I mean.

 

A real patient can use an oz of cannabis every week, see great health improvements, and never feel high.

 

A real Caregiver will assist such a patient with the medical use of marijuana for well under $1,000/month.

 

People need to quit comparing "stoner" use volumes to real patient use volumes. There is no comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best to you too Seefdro. We can't just think of all the negative "what ifs" of any given situation. If everyone always did that, we wouldn't get far no matter what the issue. The individuals who make poor choices should be treated as such: individuals. Not be a poster child for an entire group of people if any incidents in the future were to occur IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad someone gets it.

 

Actually, there is a concept in law known as constructive knowledge. In other words, if it is reasonable to assume that you know or should know something, it is proof that you know. If a patient needs an OZ per week, you have constructive knowledge that he is selling it and you could be charged on those grounds.

 

 

I have a high tolerance I can smoke an oz a week when my pain is bad .Some people cook with it also.

 

So saying if someone uses an oz per week is selling is way off base and an opinion you should keep to your self with all due respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like the brainwashing of the days of old still clings...You're thinking, "that's $1,000+ worth of meds; who can afford that? Who needs that?"

 

But when you get past the idea that MM is worth some huge $ figure per ounce, and instead look at a more holistic view, you'll see a new light. When your legit patient uses cannaflour and cannapasta sauce and the like - not decarboxylized - so the theraputic benefit is realized without the psychoactive effect, you'll see what I mean.

 

A real patient can use an oz of cannabis every week, see great health improvements, and never feel high.

 

A real Caregiver will assist such a patient with the medical use of marijuana for well under $1,000/month.

 

People need to quit comparing "stoner" use volumes to real patient use volumes. There is no comparison.

 

 

Listen, I don't doubt that there will be some people with LARGE MEDICINAL APPETITES... But the fact is (to "me") it looks ABUSIVE by the general public.

 

I do think those folks who are considered "SEVERE CHRONIC PATIENTS" should be in a different category within Michigan medicinal law. Perhaps with additional medical endorsements to obtain higher quantities LEGALLY.... :hair: ???

 

Although these folks would not be able to grow "MORE" they can legally obtain more due to SEVERE CHRONIC PAIN.

 

Regardless, I think that's a tough sell to Michigan voters... But maybe?

 

Good thoughts here-

 

:skydive:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is purely a hypothetical: But let's say a patient who has solely gone to one caregiver (their registered/designated one) for a few months or so and fortunately for him/her the caregiver has a strain that works wonders on that particular patient. But somewhere down the road, due to some unseen complication with the grow, that caregiver is delayed in harvesting that strain. He or she may have a different strain that helps the patient, but it's not as successful as that first strain. But luck has it that another patient, or caregiver or even dispensary carries that strain. What would be wrong for any of those to give or "sell" it if the patient wants or NEEDS it?

Michigan voters, in my opinion are not the ones being tough customers right now. Some people are trying to prohibit that alternate avenue for a patient or so it seems. If Walgreen's doesn't have my prescription, can I not go to the CVS or a different Walgreens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this .. (not)

 

If you're growing 12 plants you must be diverting.

 

Someone else uses that "one pound" per plant stuff .. I've never been able to get one pound off a single plant.

 

And I've grown hundreds of plants over the last five years. Never a whole pound .. not once.

 

The only people that claim one pound per plant are those who have never grown.

 

I'd suggest everyone be very careful what they post to this thread.

 

It seems to be based on leo talk.

Just to clarify. The pound per plant was not my claim. It was used as an example of how the IRS goes to extremes to figure income if they audit a person and the person has no records to indicate otherwise. The IRS will use the figures provided by their experts, in this case the DEA.

 

I have never had or seen a 1 pound plant. I have heard of such things in California grown outdoors and I assume massive amounts of chemical fertilizer.

 

I was only pointing out a reason to keep records and report income. Taxes have been discussed thoroughly on another thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a high tolerance I can smoke an oz a week when my pain is bad .Some people cook with it also.

 

So saying if someone uses an oz per week is selling is way off base and an opinion you should keep to your self with all due respect.

I have recently been able to afford to do a little cooking with cannabis. It works wonders for my pain and I am able to cut back on the toxic pharmafeces that I have been on for way too many years.

 

I'm looking forward to a time in the not too distant future when I can eliminate all of my prescription drugs and rely solely on cannabis to control my pain. How much will it take? I'm thinking several ounces per week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesnt the Federal government Give Irv Rosenfeld 300 Thumb sized prerolled Joints per month? How much is that in weight? I hope someone knows what the federal governments prescription (it is a prescription for irv i think) is for him.. And isnt Irv a stockbroker or some other Very involved job like that.. His Boss lets him take smoke breaks during work i hear because he doesnt act different or hurtful to the buisness but just is able to do his job and be painfree which im sure is a plus for the job he does.. Anyways it seems to me there is already a precedent for how much is acceptable for a MM patient and in my opinion 10 thumb sized joints a day is it.. (just a layman here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was a good video but doesnt answer my questions Except in stateing that the fed do Prescribe this for Irv..

But i wonder how it would fly with the feds and Irv to read this thread and see that by Chelioses standards Irv must be diverting his thumb sized joints.. ridiculous..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was a good video but doesnt answer my questions Except in stateing that the fed do Prescribe this for Irv..

But i wonder how it would fly with the feds and Irv to read this thread and see that by Chelioses standards Irv must be diverting his thumb sized joints.. ridiculous..

I guess a more potent way to go after such hypocrisy, might be via the 14th amendment... Forcing the DEA and Feds to openly declare that all of us are not created equal, and therefore do not deserve equal protections under the law.

 

As for the assertions of diversion, I think we have covered that part of the delusion fairly well. However, the OP is still welcome to rebut anything in this thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best to you too Seefdro. We can't just think of all the negative "what ifs" of any given situation. If everyone always did that, we wouldn't get far no matter what the issue. The individuals who make poor choices should be treated as such: individuals. Not be a poster child for an entire group of people if any incidents in the future were to occur IMHO

 

Well, best... Back at ya Nameless Hero!

 

It's not a negative to "ME", just an honest legal concern within my caregiver service :horse:

 

REGARDING POOR CHOICES-- Individuals alter ideology & political stances through the media circuits which effect the voter(S) OR the :judge: .

 

The hope in my communication is to define whats clearly LEGALLY- safely legit (as close as I can get, although there will always be DOUBTS).

 

Those who want to push the limits for "MAXIMUM MEDICINAL USAGE" please do so-- BUT "I" prefer to challenge the system in ways which won't BANKRUPT me for the needs of a few patients which "require" 3 to 4oz a month. Those caregivers who supply these type of patients.... BEST TO YA :turkey: .

 

:skydive:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesnt the Federal government Give Irv Rosenfeld 300 Thumb sized prerolled Joints per month? How much is that in weight? I hope someone knows what the federal governments prescription (it is a prescription for irv i think) is for him.. And isnt Irv a stockbroker or some other Very involved job like that.. His Boss lets him take smoke breaks during work i hear because he doesnt act different or hurtful to the buisness but just is able to do his job and be painfree which im sure is a plus for the job he does.. Anyways it seems to me there is already a precedent for how much is acceptable for a MM patient and in my opinion 10 thumb sized joints a day is it.. (just a layman here)

11 ounces every 25 days.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what, I'm going to go ahead and end this conversation. It is clear that wishful thinking mixed with personal opinion about how things ought to work is what rules the day here. It is also clear that nobody wants to be bothered with facts they don't like to hear.

 

Maybe some of you will find out the hard way just like the dispensaries that were raided. I'm sure when you are paying tens of thousands in legal fees you will easily be able to convince a judge that you had no idea that your "patient" (a detective you found on Craig's List) was buying a QP a week for reasons of trafficking.

 

Let me know how that works out for you.

 

BTW you can Google "constructive knowledge."

 

By application of reasonable care or diligence if a person should have known a fact, he or she is deemed to have constructive knowledge of that fact. Generally, a person is presumed by law to have constructive knowledge about specific fact or condition

 

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/constructive-knowledge/

 

There is a concept in criminal law called constructive knowledge. It means that a corporation, or even an individual, can be held responsible for knowing everything that the different people and branches under him know. You add the different pieces together, and even if there is no one person who knew everything, the boss and the company can still be held responsible.

 

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/9/94026.shtml

 

Constructive means something which is interpreted or legally imputed. Constructive refers to something that has an effect in law though not necessarily in fact. For example, constructive knowledge, constructive effect, constructive meaning.

 

 

But anyway, I don't want to bother you geniuses anymore with stuff that can keep you out of prison. I'll just tell you to go ahead and believe everything you want to. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what, I'm going to go ahead and end this conversation. It is clear that wishful thinking mixed with personal opinion about how things ought to work is what rules the day here. It is also clear that nobody wants to be bothered with facts they don't like to hear.

 

Many here agree with some or much of what you have to say and many disagree with most of what you have to say. And when they state their opinion and it disagrees with your opinion you want to end the conversation because you don't want to be bothered with facts you don't want to hear. That's up to you.

 

Our opinion of how things ought to work is consistent with the COA ruling where they state,

 

"This issue presents a question of statutory interpretation. We review issues of statutory

interpretation de novo. People v Stone Transport, Inc, 241 Mich App 49, 50; 613 NW2d 737

(2000). Generally, the primary objective in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to

the Legislature’s intent. People v Williams, 475 Mich 245, 250; 716 NW2d 208 (2006). The

MMMA was enacted as a result of an initiative adopted by the voters. The words of an

initiative law are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by

the voters.” Welch Foods, Inc v Attorney General, 213 Mich App 459, 461; 540 NW2d 693

(1995). We presume that the meaning as plainly expressed in the statute is what was intended.

Id. This Court must avoid a construction that would render any part of a statute surplusage or

nugatory, and “[w]e must consider both the plain meaning of the critical words or phrases as well

as their placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.” People v Williams, 268 Mich App 416,

425-426; 707 NW2d 624 (2005).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what, I'm going to go ahead and end this conversation. It is clear that wishful thinking mixed with personal opinion about how things ought to work is what rules the day here. It is also clear that nobody wants to be bothered with facts they don't like to hear.

Sorry to hear that you won't be continuing in the coversation. We have asked numerous times for facts, and or rulings that prove what you are suggesting is true. Yet, none of those have been provided by you. Your strawman argument is quite obvious, and now you reply trying to project your own issues on others? As you suggest some folks don't want to be bothered with facts they don't like...

 

Maybe some of you will find out the hard way just like the dispensaries that were raided. I'm sure when you are paying tens of thousands in legal fees you will easily be able to convince a judge that you had no idea that your "patient" (a detective you found on Craig's List) was buying a QP a week for reasons of trafficking.

 

Let me know how that works out for you.

 

You once again rely on your subjective position of what is a reasonable amount of marijuana for one person to be consuming, without even acknowledging the fact that you are ignorant of how it is used. My offer is still on the table to help you become informed on this topic.

 

BTW you can Google "constructive knowledge."

 

By application of reasonable care or diligence if a person should have known a fact, he or she is deemed to have constructive knowledge of that fact. Generally, a person is presumed by law to have constructive knowledge about specific fact or condition

 

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/constructive-knowledge/

 

There is a concept in criminal law called constructive knowledge. It means that a corporation, or even an individual, can be held responsible for knowing everything that the different people and branches under him know. You add the different pieces together, and even if there is no one person who knew everything, the boss and the company can still be held responsible.

 

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/9/94026.shtml

 

Constructive means something which is interpreted or legally imputed. Constructive refers to something that has an effect in law though not necessarily in fact. For example, constructive knowledge, constructive effect, constructive meaning.

Will prosecutors and police be going through each and every patient's medical records to determine what is or isn't a reasonable amount. As that would have to be the starting point of trying to prove that a particular quantity and rate of consumption was not reasonable, and thus raises a red flag for diversion theories..

 

Just one more interesting piece of the law that often goes unnoticed, is the presumption clause contained in it.

 

"(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act."

 

That quantity is 2.5 ounces at any given time, and is expanded in section 8 to include "hat was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana"

 

But anyway, I don't want to bother you geniuses anymore with stuff that can keep you out of prison. I'll just tell you to go ahead and believe everything you want to. Good luck.

You started an interesting topic, then when questioned on some of the obvious shortcomings in the logic, you claim nobody wanted to engage in a serious discussion. Then when folks such as myself try to engage you in discussion (defined as "an exchange of views on some topic"), you claim that nobody wants to face facts, and resort to using passive aggressive ad hominem tactics. It sounds like your idea of discussion is that everybody listen to what you have to say, and accept it, without proof of the validity of your statements.

 

I once again reach out asking for a proffer of any evidence, facts, or court opinions that support any of your claims. Avoiding the law, will not make it go away; and ignorance of the law is no excuse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 1TokeOverLine

Just a side note, ask any pain sufferer how much of a recreational buzz they get from their meds. I for one am tired of hearing how much pain meds I need to just get out of bed in the morning, much less function normally.

 

When you are in serious pain, no amount of meds is gonna relieve you of that burden, some just attempt to make you comfortable with your pain.

 

There is no buzz affect like recreational users experience, I wish there was - I've tried to get a buzz just to get my mind (what's left of it after pharmecuticals) off the pain. :lol:

 

1T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish these law enforcement people would identify themselves right up front instead of trying to pretend they're a patient. Their ignorance of the subject matter makes them stick out like sore thumbs.

 

There is no need for deception, just be honest with folks and they will return that honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a side note, ask any pain sufferer how much of a recreational buzz they get from their meds. I for one am tired of hearing how much pain meds I need to just get out of bed in the morning, much less function normally.

 

When you are in serious pain, no amount of meds is gonna relieve you of that burden, some just attempt to make you comfortable with your pain.

 

There is no buzz affect like recreational users experience, I wish there was - I've tried to get a buzz just to get my mind (what's left of it after pharmecuticals) off the pain. :lol:

 

1T

 

You are absolutely correct. The same is true for pain drugs they give to cancer patients. There is no buzz, just a relief of pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wish these law enforcement people would identify themselves right up front instead of trying to pretend they're a patient. Their ignorance of the subject matter makes them stick out like sore thumbs.

 

There is no need for deception, just be honest with folks and they will return that honesty.

 

What makes you so sure this person is a LEO? Implying that someone is a LEO is not exactly encouraging someone to continue to participate in a thread they started. I think this person's original post did come out like the Guns of Navarone but that doesn't mean we need to place labels on anyone. It also doesn't mean anyone has to respond to the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify. The pound per plant was not my claim. It was used as an example of how the IRS goes to extremes to figure income if they audit a person and the person has no records to indicate otherwise. The IRS will use the figures provided by their experts, in this case the DEA.

 

I have never had or seen a 1 pound plant. I have heard of such things in California grown outdoors and I assume massive amounts of chemical fertilizer.

 

I was only pointing out a reason to keep records and report income. Taxes have been discussed thoroughly on another thread.

 

Thank you .. good.

 

I think we need to undermine this myth about one pound plants. It is being used against us far to often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that was a good video but doesnt answer my questions Except in stateing that the fed do Prescribe this for Irv..

But i wonder how it would fly with the feds and Irv to read this thread and see that by Chelioses standards Irv must be diverting his thumb sized joints.. ridiculous..

 

One of the people that are on the same program that Irv is, has glaucoma. She was receiving the same amount as Irv was.

 

The DEA came to her door and stole her medicine. They told her that she couldn't possibly be consuming that much marijuana. So she must be selling it to other people.

 

Before she managed to get her medicine back, she had lost 80% of her peripheral eyesight .. forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...