Guilt By Finances

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

You have a knowledge of law. This is a very good thing here.

 

I hope (yes I really do) that you work for the other side.

 

If that is the case, then we might just possibly have a valuable conversation. Very valuable.

 

Your comments about Capone and the FBI are clearly legit.

 

Your comments about use patterns of legitimate medical cannabis use shows a lack of education in that area. IMHO you're welcome here to learn everything your mind can hold ... more than welcome.

 

Simple fact for you:

The Rick Simpson procedure requires at least one pound of starting material. The very highest quality you can get. That supplies the experimental chemotherapy medicine for one chemo program for one single patient. The procedure takes about ninety days.

 

One pound, one patient, ninety days to try to keep one patient alive.

[+Green Cross]

Implying that someone is a LEO is not exactly encouraging someone to continue to participate in a thread they started.

 

Agreed. No point in castigating someone having valuable input just because another person disagrees with their opinion or statements. In civil society we challenge each other's ideas and let the best ones win the argument. In this present matter Cheliose made some good points in a reasonable tone of voice, worthy of hearing more of. Our group's compassion for sick people using mmj should withstand the scrutiny of public discourse. What say you all? Cheliose, PM me as I have questions for you.

[Otsego County Caregiver]

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.

 

If they're going to continue to engage in willful ignorance then maybe this person shouldn't participate, eh?

 

When someone is making pronouncements that are woefully uninformed, refuses to present any supporting evidence for their position, and willfully ignores well reasoned, logical counter arguments to their own deeply flawed and uninformed reasoning, it tickles my fuzz detector.

 

Thank you .. good.

 

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

 

It is. But hey, when someone claims that, one generally knows where they're coming from.

 

You have a knowledge of law. This is a very good thing here.

 

I hope (yes I really do) that you work for the other side.

 

If that is the case, then we might just possibly have a valuable conversation. Very valuable.

 

Your comments about Capone and the FBI are clearly legit.

 

Your comments about use patterns of legitimate medical cannabis use shows a lack of education in that area. IMHO you're welcome here to learn everything your mind can hold ... more than welcome.

 

Simple fact for you:

The Rick Simpson procedure requires at least one pound of starting material. The very highest quality you can get. That supplies the experimental chemotherapy medicine for one chemo program for one single patient. The procedure takes about ninety days.

 

One pound, one patient, ninety days to try to keep one patient alive.

 

But you only need one plant to get a pound!!!

 

Seriously though, I do genuinely wish we could have a rational, fact based conversation with law enforcement.

 

It's unfortunate that many of them aren't the least bit interested in that, because the taxpayers and patients will ultimately suffer for the lack of such rationality.

[Cheliose]

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...

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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"

 

 

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...

 

You are just so clever. You even know a few logical fallacies and how to use them improperly. Good for you.

 

Guys like you are a dime a dozen. You sit around getting high and trying to pretend like you know things you don't. I remember back in the day when every stoner such as your self believed that if you asked a person if they were a cop before you sold them weed they had to tell you if they were. This was common knowledge among people like you. I laughed every time I heard it.

 

If you want facts, here is one for you. You are woefully lacking in the knowledge required to understand how the law works. You act like you do but you don't know Jack Spit. Just like you didn't know what "constructive knowledge" means. If you want an answer as to who decides what is a reasonable amount, it works like this:

 

Initially, it will be the county prosecutor who will construct a case against you. Then, your lawyer will look at the facts and charges against you and decide if you should cop a plea (if one is offered) or go to trial. If one of your patients turns out to be a cop and he has been buying 2oz every two days for a month and telling you how sick he is with a wink and a laugh, the issue will go to a judge or a jury.

 

During the trial the prosecutor will argue that you conspired with the patient (cop) to traffic and that the amount of bud he was getting from you is obviously more than one person can use for medicinal purposes. And he will surly have coached the cop to say that you clearly knew he was reselling it. Then the prosecutor will argue that any reasonable person would know that he had to be reselling it and that you should have known this to be the case. Constructive knowledge.

 

You would the argue that it is entirely possible for a cancer patient to smoke, eat or shove up his rear end, an OZ of high potency bud each day and therefore you didn't question the patient's (cop's) seemingly perfect health because the law doesn't specify how much one person can use. After which point the judge would have you brought up to the bench so he could hit you over the head with his gavel before tossing you in jail and while the rest of the courtroom erupts in laughter and your lawyer plants his palm over his face for having such a complete ignoramus for a client.

 

This is how it happens in real life. It isn't a question of needing rulings or case law to determine what is reasonable. What is reasonable will be for the court to determine. The objective is to avoid being in such a situation.

 

But see, the fact that I have to explain all this just proves that you don't know what you are talking about. The thing is, you guys just really don't want to hear it. What you guys want to hear is stuff that confirms your views on legalized MJ and validates your thoughts on the issue regardless of whether or not they have any basis in fact. You are not interested in fact. you are interested in getting more people to post fuel for your ideological rabble.

 

If you must know, I am a caregiver who also happens to own a successful business. And I know how to do things so that my behind is covered. For instance, do any of you have contracts with your patients? Do your contracts state that the patient agrees not to transfer your product? Do they contain non-disclosure language that prohibits your patients from discussing anything about your relationship or your practices? Are you indemnified by your patients so that if they bring the law on you they pay your legal fees?

 

There is an old saying that the wise man is the one who understands how little he knows. There is a reason lawyers go to law school and have to pass a bar exam. Law is complex stuff and it is foolish to think that you can interpret a statute or two and know all of the inns and outs of the whole matter.

 

You can get busted if there is enough circumstantial evidence. If your story doesn't hold water and suggests that you are making your money from diverted product, there are ways for a good prosecutor to build a case that can look very bad for you. And depending on how the MMMA winds up being interpreted, the burden of proof might be on you to prove your innocence.

 

All I am saying is that you don't want to give the prosecutor ammunition to use against you. If you advertise free smoke to all of your patients, the obvious question is who is paying the bills. See, to the law, that sounds like a bribe in order to entice people to conspire with you to use the MMMA as a front for illegal activity. Really, to any reasonable person it sounds like that. And the law is not going to accept the argument that you grow at a net loss to you for philanthropic reasons. Do you donate money to other causes?

 

See, what I'm trying to do here is to keep a bunch of childish fools from messing up a good thing for everyone because they get greedy and abuse the system in an obvious manner. The law is only going to put up with so much before they pull the plug on all of us. That will tinkle me off.

[westmich]

I think the original point is moot. If the Feds have that much information on your marijuana growing operation to pursue tax charges, why would they? They can still charge you for the marijuana itself under Federal law. For them to look at "diversion" is an oxymoron - all use is illegal to them.

[+RevThad]

Welcome back, I didn't think you would be able to resist the bait. I am glad you went back on your word, and will continue in this discussion.

[Otsego County Caregiver]

"the burden of proof might be on you to prove your innocence"

 

 

 

Well, that's positively Orwellian.

[Nameless_Hero]

If you are such a concerned citizen and more importantly for this forum; a concerned caregiver, where was all this knowledge months ago? All of a sudden, you and a couple others start writing essays on this website? By all means the more angles a person can look at things, the more informed he or she will become. I understand your logic in that post, but medical marijuana in Michigan is still fairly new with very little precedent to go by here. So beyond just a definition of a word, could you please cite the reasons behind your inside knowledge of the legal world or simply state it is your opinion?

[peanutbutter]

Hey! If you can call me a self deluded stoner, can I call you a high stepping nazi?

 

Seriously .. let's talk out our ideas, instead of doing a bunch of name calling.

 

Now then .. we are supposed to be a land where the people rule. The voters gave you marching orders.

 

You are correct. There will be officials that don't care what the voters tell them to do.

[Nameless_Hero]

Took all day to write that post and just disappears after posting it.

[+RevThad]

You are just so clever. You even know a few logical fallacies and how to use them improperly. Good for you.

 

Guys like you are a dime a dozen. You sit around getting high and trying to pretend like you know things you don't. I remember back in the day when every stoner such as your self believed that if you asked a person if they were a cop before you sold them weed they had to tell you if they were. This was common knowledge among people like you. I laughed every time I heard it.

I appreciate the concern over my activities, but again you make assumptions with no facts. I agree with you however about the folks that believed an undercover cop had to tell you they were a cop if you asked, very foolish.

 

If you want facts, here is one for you. You are woefully lacking in the knowledge required to understand how the law works. You act like you do but you don't know Jack Spit. Just like you didn't know what "constructive knowledge" means. If you want an answer as to who decides what is a reasonable amount, it works like this:

 

Initially, it will be the county prosecutor who will construct a case against you. Then, your lawyer will look at the facts and charges against you and decide if you should cop a plea (if one is offered) or go to trial. If one of your patients turns out to be a cop and he has been buying 2oz every two days for a month and telling you how sick he is with a wink and a laugh, the issue will go to a judge or a jury.

 

During the trial the prosecutor will argue that you conspired with the patient (cop) to traffic and that the amount of bud he was getting from you is obviously more than one person can use for medicinal purposes. And he will surly have coached the cop to say that you clearly knew he was reselling it. Then the prosecutor will argue that any reasonable person would know that he had to be reselling it and that you should have known this to be the case. Constructive knowledge.

 

You would the argue that it is entirely possible for a cancer patient to smoke, eat or shove up his rear end, an OZ of high potency bud each day and therefore you didn't question the patient's (cop's) seemingly perfect health because the law doesn't specify how much one person can use. After which point the judge would have you brought up to the bench so he could hit you over the head with his gavel before tossing you in jail and while the rest of the courtroom erupts in laughter and your lawyer plants his palm over his face for having such a complete ignoramus for a client.

 

This is how it happens in real life. It isn't a question of needing rulings or case law to determine what is reasonable. What is reasonable will be for the court to determine. The objective is to avoid being in such a situation.

What you state here is a definite hypothetical of how it could occur. However, again you state opinion as fact. Court rulings and law be damned. Somebody selling to a person on one of the social sites, is indeed asking for what they get; especially if they don't practice due diligence.

 

But see, the fact that I have to explain all this just proves that you don't know what you are talking about. The thing is, you guys just really don't want to hear it. What you guys want to hear is stuff that confirms your views on legalized MJ and validates your thoughts on the issue regardless of whether or not they have any basis in fact. You are not interested in fact. you are interested in getting more people to post fuel for your ideological rabble.

You claim what I have posted to you is opinion, and that your opinion of the law is indeed fact. As you can see I am still discussing this topic with you, which means I am open to hearing what you have to say, perhaps something will be persuasive. I would point out that it is you, that keep ignoring fact and case law, to put forward some ideology that is in conflict with the current law.

 

If you must know, I am a caregiver who also happens to own a successful business. And I know how to do things so that my behind is covered. For instance, do any of you have contracts with your patients? Do your contracts state that the patient agrees not to transfer your product? Do they contain non-disclosure language that prohibits your patients from discussing anything about your relationship or your practices? Are you indemnified by your patients so that if they bring the law on you they pay your legal fees?

Glad to hear that you have achieved a success, I hope it continues. Also you ask some very good questions, and folks should examine them and take them to heart. Your being a caregiver, though is a bit confusing, especially with your position on what a reasonable consumption of meds could or would be. Perhaps, you are just getting started, and are approaching it from a business perspective?

 

There is an old saying that the wise man is the one who understands how little he knows. There is a reason lawyers go to law school and have to pass a bar exam. Law is complex stuff and it is foolish to think that you can interpret a statute or two and know all of the inns and outs of the whole matter.

Indeed, and it is sage advice. My hat comes off to the folks that choose to go through the process of passing the bar. However, some of them couldn't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, or advocate a position on a particular law without being spoonfed talking points by political hacks..

 

You can get busted if there is enough circumstantial evidence. If your story doesn't hold water and suggests that you are making your money from diverted product, there are ways for a good prosecutor to build a case that can look very bad for you. And depending on how the MMMA winds up being interpreted, the burden of proof might be on you to prove your innocence.

Indeed, I would even go so far as saying that a person can be busted without circumstantial evidence, and a prosecutor could attempt to make it look bad for that person. As of now all we have is the law, and it's plain language, and a few court rulings to go by, there is no doubt in my mind that each and every judge on a bench today, will apply their own biases and prejudices towards the reading of it.

 

All I am saying is that you don't want to give the prosecutor ammunition to use against you. If you advertise free smoke to all of your patients, the obvious question is who is paying the bills. See, to the law, that sounds like a bribe in order to entice people to conspire with you to use the MMMA as a front for illegal activity. Really, to any reasonable person it sounds like that. And the law is not going to accept the argument that you grow at a net loss to you for philanthropic reasons. Do you donate money to other causes?

I agree that keeping a low profile on how you serve your patients is a not only a good idea for the reasons you state, but also because it is nobody else's business what is going on in a patient/caregiver relationship. For the record, I do donate time and resources (when I have them) to many causes. I am an outreach minister and it is par for the course.

 

See, what I'm trying to do here is to keep a bunch of childish fools from messing up a good thing for everyone because they get greedy and abuse the system in an obvious manner. The law is only going to put up with so much before they pull the plug on all of us. That will tinkle me off.

I completely understand what you are saying here, and agree with most of it. That being said, the reason we fight so hard when rhetoric of the other side is presented, can be summed up in your opening of this post, the promulgation of stereotypes and the stigmas attached only work to further the goals of those on the other side of this issue. As you can see most of us are interested in a civil discussion with anybody, and especially with those that have differing views. By testing the issues and areas of the law against both sides of the spectrum, we are able to bring clarity to what is or isn't allowed for under the law. I am glad you decided to stick around and discuss the topic.

[Southern Cross]

You are just so clever. You even know a few logical fallacies and how to use them improperly. Good for you.

 

So you decide to entertain us with a logical fallacy of your own?

 

Guys like you are a dime a dozen. You sit around getting high and trying to pretend like you know things you don't. I remember back in the day when every stoner such as your self believed that if you asked a person if they were a cop before you sold them weed they had to tell you if they were. This was common knowledge among people like you. I laughed every time I heard it.

 

If you want facts, here is one for you. You are woefully lacking in the knowledge required to understand how the law works. You act like you do but you don't know Jack Spit. Just like you didn't know what "constructive knowledge" means. If you want an answer as to who decides what is a reasonable amount, it works like this:

 

Here it comes. It's called Proof by Verbosity which is basically, "“If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bull dung.”

 

You first attack RevThad's knowledge and understanding of how the law works. Now you will explain it all in great detail.

 

Initially, it will be the county prosecutor who will construct a case against you. Then, your lawyer will look at the facts and charges against you and decide if you should cop a plea (if one is offered) or go to trial. If one of your patients turns out to be a cop and he has been buying 2oz every two days for a month and telling you how sick he is with a wink and a laugh, the issue will go to a judge or a jury.

 

During the trial the prosecutor will argue that you conspired with the patient (cop) to traffic and that the amount of bud he was getting from you is obviously more than one person can use for medicinal purposes. And he will surly have coached the cop to say that you clearly knew he was reselling it. Then the prosecutor will argue that any reasonable person would know that he had to be reselling it and that you should have known this to be the case. Constructive knowledge.

 

So this whole story is based on selling an ounce a day to a guy who gets it with, "a wink and a laugh"? Has anyone here suggested anything anywhere near this type of scenario?

 

So now we get lots more bull dung.

 

You would the argue that it is entirely possible for a cancer patient to smoke, eat or shove up his rear end, an OZ of high potency bud each day and therefore you didn't question the patient's (cop's) seemingly perfect health because the law doesn't specify how much one person can use. After which point the judge would have you brought up to the bench so he could hit you over the head with his gavel before tossing you in jail and while the rest of the courtroom erupts in laughter and your lawyer plants his palm over his face for having such a complete ignoramus for a client.

 

This is how it happens in real life. It isn't a question of needing rulings or case law to determine what is reasonable. What is reasonable will be for the court to determine. The objective is to avoid being in such a situation.

 

But see, the fact that I have to explain all this just proves that you don't know what you are talking about. The thing is, you guys just really don't want to hear it. What you guys want to hear is stuff that confirms your views on legalized MJ and validates your thoughts on the issue regardless of whether or not they have any basis in fact. You are not interested in fact. you are interested in getting more people to post fuel for your ideological rabble.

 

Now you throw in some logical and important information to dazzle us with your brilliance.

 

If you must know, I am a caregiver who also happens to own a successful business. And I know how to do things so that my behind is covered. For instance, do any of you have contracts with your patients? Do your contracts state that the patient agrees not to transfer your product? Do they contain non-disclosure language that prohibits your patients from discussing anything about your relationship or your practices? Are you indemnified by your patients so that if they bring the law on you they pay your legal fees?

 

There is an old saying that the wise man is the one who understands how little he knows. There is a reason lawyers go to law school and have to pass a bar exam. Law is complex stuff and it is foolish to think that you can interpret a statute or two and know all of the inns and outs of the whole matter.

 

Much of that was good advice that would have helped us understand your perspective. That could have been offered much earlier in the thread or even days ago.

 

You could have just started with the next part. You really don't need to be so confrontational. People are interested in good advice when they have reason to believe the person offering the advice knows whereof they speak. Your presentation doesn't establish you as an authority. In fact, there have been several errors in many of your posts and even though much of what you say is true you also make many statements that are just flat out wrong.

 

You can get busted if there is enough circumstantial evidence. If your story doesn't hold water and suggests that you are making your money from diverted product, there are ways for a good prosecutor to build a case that can look very bad for you. And depending on how the MMMA winds up being interpreted, the burden of proof might be on you to prove your innocence.

 

All I am saying is that you don't want to give the prosecutor ammunition to use against you. If you advertise free smoke to all of your patients, the obvious question is who is paying the bills. See, to the law, that sounds like a bribe in order to entice people to conspire with you to use the MMMA as a front for illegal activity. Really, to any reasonable person it sounds like that. And the law is not going to accept the argument that you grow at a net loss to you for philanthropic reasons. Do you donate money to other causes?

 

That wasn't so hard now was it?

 

See, what I'm trying to do here is to keep a bunch of childish fools from messing up a good thing for everyone because they get greedy and abuse the system in an obvious manner. The law is only going to put up with so much before they pull the plug on all of us. That will tinkle me off.

 

There you go again.

 

But I'm glad you're back. Let's continue the discussion. I believe you have some valuable input. I don't see a need to be offensive.

[+Green Cross]

By testing the issues and areas of the law against both sides of the spectrum, we are able to bring clarity to what is or isn't allowed for under the law.

 

Right on. I'm starting a fresh topic thread -- What exactly -IS- "clear and unambiguous compliance" with the MMMAct? Please join me. It's in the Legal Professionals forum at:

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/24605-hat-is-clear-and-unambiguous-compliance-with-the-mmmact/#entry220486

[jaychat]

I think he is basically admitting that the law enforcement no longer needs to have probable cause to take any action no matter what the issue. That's what I took from that comment.

 

 

well, like it or not, probable cause can be as simple as a phone call, a smell, or even suspicious activities these days...

[Marijuana Ranch]

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.u...tive-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.newsm...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.

 

 

420Guess What Genius Cheliose,

We will change things even more this November

 

[Kingdiamond]