Secrete Crimes Or We'll Tell You Later Why

[Highlander]

Then, on Aug. 26, Myers said he went to the dispensary with an ounce of marijuana from the sheriff department’s evidence room to do a “reverse buy.” He called his product “Evan’s Bubble Berry” and showed it to Agro in a back room.

 

Agro questioned the chemical smell and asked another defendant, Ryan Fleissner, 30, of Livonia for his opinion. Myers testified that Agro said he could only sell it as a mid-grade or give it to “Chef Nick” to use in food. Myers said he originally was offered $160 but he got $140 cash and a receipt.

 

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/11/05/news/doc4cd4bcfd0b741636898022.txt

 

Intersting that the judge protected the IDs of those in the records.

[phaquetoo]

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="video" width="400" height="340" data="http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/video/videoplayer.swf?dppversion=5390"><param value="http://www.myfoxdetr...dppversion=5390" name="movie"/><param value="&skin=MP1ExternalAll-MFL.swf&embed=true&adSizeArray=300x240,,&adSrc=http%3A%2F%2Fad%2Edoubleclick%2Enet%2Fadx%2Ftsg%2Ewjbk%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fdetail%3Bdcmt%3Dtext%2Fxml%3Bpos%3D%3Btile%3D2%3Bfname%3Dfox%2D2%2Dfocus%2Dthe%2Dmedical%2Dpot%2Ddebate%2D20101110%2Dwpms%3Bloc%3Dsite%3Bsz%3D320x240%3Bord%3D8436208075082414%3Frand%3D0%2E019543149988583586&flv=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxdetroit%2Ecom%2Ffeeds%2FoutboundFeed%3FobfType%3DVIDEO%5FPLAYER%5FSMIL%5FFEED%26componentId%3D133707297&img=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia2%2Emyfoxdetroit%2Ecom%2F%2Fphoto%2F2010%2F11%2F10%2FMARIJUANA%2DLNE%2Etransfer%5F20101110225528%5F640%5F480%2EJPG&story=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emyfoxdetroit%2Ecom%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Fsound%5Foff%2Ffox%2D2%2Dfocus%2Dthe%2Dmedical%2Dpot%2Ddebate%2D20101110%2Dwpms&category=news&title=10P%2DMEDICAL%2DPOT%2D1%2Emov&oacct=foximfoximwjbk,foximglobal&ovns=foxinteractivemedia" name="FlashVars"/><param value="all" name="allowNetworking"/><param value="always" name="allowScriptAccess"/></object>

 

 

wow my vision is blurry this morn, but now im real concerned!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

been there done that lol ^^^

[bobandtorey]

wow my vision is blurry this morn, but now im real concerned!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

been there done that lol ^^^

 

 

sorry

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/sound_off/fox-2-focus-the-medical-pot-debate-20101110-wpms

[DenturesLost]

The sheriffs office of Oakland county seems to have misled the persons involved for the purpose of putting them in jail.

 

Anyone who relies on a sheriff's dept. for advice that they should be seeking from a LAWYER puts themselves into that quandry. The sheriff's dept could have one opinion based on some memo they get from their associations and that opinion could change the next day based on a discussion with the local prosecutor. A sheriff's opinion, unlike the AG's, does NOT have the force and effect of law.

[peanutbutter]

Anyone who relies on a sheriff's dept. for advice that they should be seeking from a LAWYER puts themselves into that quandry. The sheriff's dept could have one opinion based on some memo they get from their associations and that opinion could change the next day based on a discussion with the local prosecutor. A sheriff's opinion, unlike the AG's, does NOT have the force and effect of law.

 

We don't get immunity for our mistakes.

 

You're right about one thing. It is a serious mistake to trust a law enforcement officer's word.

[lawyercaregiver]

I only need to buttress what Denture said. Don't rely on cops for protection or information. You have to get a confirming letter from the city attorney or/and the county prosecutor (or send him a confirming letter of your conversation if you want any protections.

 

Lawyers not cops! Still really obnoxious that they raided them after approving. There seems to be a question of fact here on whether they later withdrew the approval before raiding them or if they blindsided the dispensaries.

 

Even if so this is probably not entrapment but it is definitely a test case! Keep our fingers crossed and our joints straight because this is a pretty big one.

[peanutbutter]

I only need to buttress what Denture said. Don't rely on cops for protection or information. You have to get a confirming letter from the city attorney or/and the county prosecutor (or send him a confirming letter of your conversation if you want any protections.

 

Lawyers not cops! Still really obnoxious that they raided them after approving. There seems to be a question of fact here on whether they later withdrew the approval before raiding them or if they blindsided the dispensaries.

 

Even if so this is probably not entrapment but it is definitely a test case! Keep our fingers crossed and our joints straight because this is a pretty big one.

 

Odd way to serve and protect.

[DT61]

"Odd way to serve and protect."

 

Only depends upon who your are paid to serve and protect -

[+RevThad]

You don't go to the sheriff to get interpretation on the law. The clinic should have approached the prosecutor's office. Lawyers, not cops.

Really discussion of this is useless iunless we know exactly what was going on there when they first opened and what was going on when raided. Maybe they represented to the sheriff that they were going to transfer to their own registered patients? I dont know.

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2010/06/30/news/doc4c2a85d513080438409933.txt?viewmode=default

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/06/ferndale_mayor_looks_to_cash_i.html

and from another story:

 

"Ferndale Police Chief Timothy Collins toured the clinic shortly after it opened and said at the time it appeared to be operating within legal guidelines.

 

"But there are many unknowns that are not spelled out in the state law," Collins said in late June. "Some of the concerns we have are to make sure the operators don't dispense marijuana to people who don't have licenses. That's not an accusation, but it is a concern."

 

Oh and a story from the day prior to the raids...

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/08/ferndale_breaks_ranks_in_metro.html

 

The Daily Tribune reports the City Council on Monday voted unanimously to amend zoning ordinances by allowing medical marijuana-related business owners to apply for special land use permits in light industrial, heavy industrial and -- provided less than 20 percent of their space is use for growing -- office districts.

 

The Clinical Relief medical marijuana dispensary, which opened before the moratorium and zoning amendment, will be grandfathered in and allowed to continue operations on Hilton Road.

 

"It was clear a majority of Ferndale voters approved medical marijuana," City Manager Robert Bruner told the newspaper. "The council was looking for a way to reasonably reflect the will of the people and I think we achieved that with these ordinances."

 

Why bother having city councils or mayors, as county sheriffs and PAs will decide what laws and ordinances are acceptable for cities and towns....

[+RevThad]

 

Do you think there were four pounds of marijuana at the location if/when the cops first checked the place out?

Why not, they possibly could have had more at the time of the tours, as they had 15-20 different strains available during them. The local cops and city government all toured the facility, used it for photo ops, and gave their blessings. By the way, what quantity of medicine can 6 patients that are also fully loaded caregivers possess? A little over 5.6 Pounds cumulatively.

 

Ferndale Police Chief Timothy Collins toured the clinic shortly after it opened and said at the time it appeared to be operating within legal guidelines. He stated "Some of the concerns we have are to make sure the operators don't dispense marijuana to people who don't have licenses. That's not an accusation, but it is a concern."

[Guest Happy Guy]

Why bother having city councils or mayors, as county sheriffs and PAs will decide what laws and ordinances are acceptable for cities and towns....

BOOM! You got it. Doesn't matter what the city cop says either. When the sheriff comes a knockin' best shut it down.

Recorded evidence shown and verified here in this thread proves they were buying and selling as they pleased and not trying to follow any of the MDCH rules for registered patients. Let's stop pretending they were, ok? They could possible hang their hat on patient to patient transfers for money. But throwing out scenarios that suggest they were following the registration rules with caregivers servicing their registered patients isn't going to fly.

[+RevThad]

Why bother having city councils or mayors, as county sheriffs and PAs will decide what laws and ordinances are acceptable for cities and towns....

BOOM! You got it. Doesn't matter what the city cop says either. When the sheriff comes a knockin' best shut it down.

Recorded evidence shown and verified here in this thread proves they were buying and selling as they pleased and not trying to follow any of the MDCH rules for registered patients. Let's stop pretending they were, ok? They could possible hang their hat on patient to patient transfers for money. But throwing out scenarios that suggest they were following the registration rules with caregivers servicing their registered patients isn't going to fly.

The highlighted bit above is disturbing to me. As I have seen nothing that suggests they were "selling as they pleased and not trying to follow any of the MDCH rules for registered patients". The evidence presented by the prosecutor and by defense in court shows quite the opposite. These folks were very diligent when it came to checking for registration and even cross checking the registry ids against state picture ids.

 

I don't think anybody has claimed that they were servicing only their own patients, I think that is a given from them opening a storefront.

 

In regards to your final statement, I would point you to a couple of different clauses in the law, unless you feel the same way as Justice O'Connell that the only folks capable of reading and understanding it is the Supreme Court.

 

Section 333.26424

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

Please note the "a" that is used instead of possessive descriptor, in the above subpart.

 

(i) A person 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, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

(j) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.

 

Where does a visiting qualifying patient acquire meds while visiting our state? Or should they engage in trafficking a Schedule 1 controlled substance across numerous state lines and across states that do not recognize the medical use of marijuana? The answer seems rather obvious, they are allowed to acquire their meds while visiting our state from a registered patient or caregiver.

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

This subpart actually defines who a registered patient or registered caregiver is allowed to sell, by limiting who they cannot sell to. If sales were meant to be between only those connected via the registry process the language could have easily been worded that way, as they included such language in other subparts of the act, and in that exact section. On the other hand, if sales of any type were to be disallowed that could have been easily included in the language, and would have been redundant as sales of marihuana were illegal prior to the enactment of the MMMAct. Thus, one can conclude that this is an exclusionary subpart which sets limits on conduct.

 

Have a wonderful day.

[Guest Happy Guy]

This is disturbing to me as a Michigan patient;

 

Then, on Aug. 26, Myers said he went to the dispensary with an ounce of marijuana from the sheriff department’s evidence room to do a “reverse buy.” He called his product “Evan’s Bubble Berry” and showed it to Agro in a back room.

 

Agro questioned the chemical smell and asked another defendant, Ryan Fleissner, 30, of Livonia for his opinion. Myers testified that Agro said he could only sell it as a mid-grade or give it to “Chef Nick” to use in food. Myers said he originally was offered $160 but he got $140 cash and a receipt.

http://www.dailytrib...41636898022.txt

 

Put stinking chemical weed into medibles and sell it that way? You want to talk about disturbing... that is disturbing. I believe it shows they were buying and selling any way they wanted. You find it disturbing that I see it that way?

[freemannabis]

You don't go to the sheriff to get interpretation on the law. The clinic should have approached the prosecutor's office. Lawyers, not cops.

 

Really discussion of this is useless iunless we know exactly what was going on there when they first opened and what was going on when raided. Maybe they represented to the sheriff that they were going to transfer to their own registered patients? I dont know.

 

Do you even realize what you just said?

 

Aside from "I don't know," that is.

 

When you say: "You don't go to the sheriff to get interpretation on the law."

 

Here's the "professional opinion" that you're giving, in "plain and simple language":

 

"The LAW doesn't concern the police - so, no sense at all in any one of 'WE The PEOPLE' discussing 'The LAW' with any clearly 'blind as can be' 'LAW ENFORCEMENT' Officers."

 

When you say: "The clinic should have approached the prosecutor's office. Lawyers, not cops."

 

What you're really sounding like you're saying is:

 

"I have absolutely no idea, much less any personal experience, how "the prosecutors" of "WE The People" operate against the will and voice and vote of "WE The PEOPLE," deliberately against our "'spirit and intent' of 'We The People's' Voter Initiative, as is clear when they are consulted about "WE The PEOPLE's "Laws"; But, just go ahead any pay a lawyer to tell you exactly that, regardless of the clear, unquestionable fact that hired "professional "defense" attorneys obviously don't understand 'The Law' either; But, they sure could use some or all of your hard-earned money, anyway; Just don't consult the police; PAY a lawyer."

 

When you say: "Really discussion of this is useless ..."

 

What it sure sounds like you're saying is:

 

"Really, I don't care at all what anyone else thinks; My opinion is the only opinion that matters to anyone at all in the World; And, nothing anyone else [but myself] can possibly say or do will ever get me to open my shutter-blinded mind enough to see the dawning light of reason - much less understanding."

 

(Which, unfortunately, for "WE The PEOPLE," is EXACTLY the COURTS unjustified Standing")

 

When you say: "I don't know."

 

Well, I might just be inclined to agree with you.

 

: }

 

Be Neighborly.

 

Be FREE!

 

SHARE The HEALING

[DenturesLost]

 

 

(i) A person 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, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

The problem is the interpretation of the word USING. You cannot automatically substitute medical use for using. If the intent were to do that then they wouldn't have used the term "medical use" earlier in the sentence and then dropped it off later. Furthermore, when a term, such as medical use, is specifically defined in a law then generally accpeted rules of statutory interpretation tell us that one must re-use the exact term if the intent is to convey the exact meaning of the definition provided in the law. Now, there is leeway as to using the exact term but that leeway is generally confined to tense (present, past, etc) of the word being used. So, to suggest that using means the same as medical use is simply wrong.

 

Now, if I were a defense attorney would I argue otherwise? Yes, of course, because it may be the only way to defend a cg who transfers to a pt to whom he is not connected through the MDCH. But it isn't likely to work unless you get a liberal judge because statutory interpretation rules are quite well-settled. So, yes, you would need one of those "activist" judges that so many people seem to put down when it is convenient for their arguments but later accept when it is similarly convenient.

[peanutbutter]

The highlighted bit above is disturbing to me. As I have seen nothing that suggests they were "selling as they pleased and not trying to follow any of the MDCH rules for registered patients". The evidence presented by the prosecutor and by defense in court shows quite the opposite. These folks were very diligent when it came to checking for registration and even cross checking the registry ids against state picture ids.

 

Hey Rev!

 

HG mentioned rules. Most of us talk about the law.

 

We might want to look to see it there is someplace within the rules that is slanted somehow. The rules were packed with BS stuff before 1/5/2009. They cleaned out most of the BS .. Like the MDCH tried to require inspections even though the law forbids inspections by anyone. Even local government inspections.

 

Anyway .. they yanked most of the BS at that time. But I think there has been a few locations leftover from where the MDCH tried to make mmj illegal again.

 

So .. it's possible that they dropped or added a word or two in the rules. Might want to double check.

 

HappyGuy .. shame on you.

 

You figure they might be able to slide based on a tiny bit of the law ..

 

That ain't a loophole. When people voted for this law every one of those people figured that the patient would be getting their medicine from somewhere.

 

It ain't a slip slide loophole .. It's legal.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Shame on me? You ignore the chemicals in the medibles and say shame on me? Maybe you should be looking at what your thread title said, The Secrete Crime. The secret crime of poisoning by dispensary. Of course, that doesn't matter to you at all.

[DenturesLost]

Shame on me? You ignore the chemicals in the medibles and say shame on me? Maybe you should be looking at what your thread title said, The Secrete Crime. The secret crime of poisoning by dispensary. Of course, that doesn't matter to you at all.

Thank you.

 

It seems we have 2 sides to this issue. Those, like myself, who believe that people should be taught to play it safe, and others who think pushing the envelope is best for the cause. To that I say push the envelope yourself and don't try to get others to do it for you in a way that will get them caught up in the system. If you're so sure about things maybe you ought be the next to open a dispensary and turn yourself into the test case rather than paving the yellow-brick-road straight to MDOC for some other poor fool.

[+RevThad]

This is disturbing to me as a Michigan patient;

 

Then, on Aug. 26, Myers said he went to the dispensary with an ounce of marijuana from the sheriff department’s evidence room to do a “reverse buy.” He called his product “Evan’s Bubble Berry” and showed it to Agro in a back room.

 

Agro questioned the chemical smell and asked another defendant, Ryan Fleissner, 30, of Livonia for his opinion. Myers testified that Agro said he could only sell it as a mid-grade or give it to “Chef Nick” to use in food. Myers said he originally was offered $160 but he got $140 cash and a receipt.

http://www.dailytrib...41636898022.txt

 

Put stinking chemical weed into medibles and sell it that way? You want to talk about disturbing... that is disturbing. I believe it shows they were buying and selling any way they wanted. You find it disturbing that I see it that way?

So let's mix apples and oranges? IF we do not like a product, service, or medicine, we are free to not go there and purchase those, we are able to vote with our wallets. There are simple enough solution to solve those things.

 

That being the case, we still cannot surrender ground to those that wish to dismantle the law. There can be no ground given to the prohibitionists. As each and every encroachment of the law they are allowed to get away with, affects each and every one of us. The issue at hand here, is whether or not it is legal to sell/transfer to a registered patient or registered caregiver. Also, whether or not a patient has the right to acquire their meds from whatever source they choose.

 

I refuse to accept the notion that a patient is only allowed to use the medicine that they personally grow, or their caregiver (if any) grows for them. That theory means that a patient may well have to wait 4-8 months just for their first medicine to be ready; assuming we are following the current conservative suggestions by some in LEO and PA offices (requiring folks to have their hard cards in hand before growing). Intent, common language, and a liberal reading of that law are the measures used to determine what is allowed or disallowed under a voter initiated law.

 

On that note and as a counter to Justice O'Connell's opinion of "I again issue a stern warning to all: Please do not attempt to interpret this act on your own,"

See:

Welch Foods, Inc v Attorney General, 213 Mich App 459, 461; 540 NW2d 693 (1995)

People v Williams, 268 Mich App 416, 425-426; 707 NW2d 624 (2005)

 

“The words of an initiative law are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by the voters.”

 

and

 

"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.”

 

Guess those are enough thoughts for this post...

[+RevThad]

Thank you.

 

It seems we have 2 sides to this issue. Those, like myself, who believe that people should be taught to play it safe, and others who think pushing the envelope is best for the cause. To that I say push the envelope yourself and don't try to get others to do it for you in a way that will get them caught up in the system. If you're so sure about things maybe you ought be the next to open a dispensary and turn yourself into the test case rather than paving the yellow-brick-road straight to MDOC for some other poor fool.

I have no interest in opening a dispensary. However, the underlying issues and charges against them are very practical to discuss, and the outcomes will probably have a very real effect on all of us in the medical marijuana community of Michigan.

 

At stake is whether or not a registered patient or registered caregiver can acquire medicine from any available source, and particularly from other registered patients and registered caregivers. I am not even touching on the Section 8 affirmative defense and how it may or may not be effected for unregistered patients and caregivers.

 

The discussion in this thread also shows a very interesting thing, as one looks at how various LEO agencies and municipalities look at the law. Some read it as allowing for certain transactions, while others read it as not allowing them. A very curious situation indeed. Regardless of where you or I stand on dispensaries, the first concern and the obvious intent of the law is to make sure patients had safe and reliable access to their medicine, without fear of arrest or reprisals by those that wish to continue prohibiting the use of marijuana.

[Guest Happy Guy]

When a dispensary owner acts like this, showing he doesn't give a rip about chemicals in medicine, it proves you should never buy any cannabis from any person that didn't grow it. Period. There isn't enough accountability when you put middlemen in it. That is just common sense and does anyone even care about that? Transfer willy nilly and no one knows who or where it came from.

 

You stretch the heck out of the wait time. What ever happened to 20 days and your app is good to grow? Of course you can't use that one in this debate. 4-8 month wait time works better for you this time. That's why we need these dispensaries, because of the MDCH wait time. Can you think of any more great reasons? Maybe visiting aliens? We need to get back to the common sense issues of real Michigan patients and get our heads out of loop holes to keep dispensaries open. Keep the medicine clean and accountable to who grew it. Pig and a poke weed is gone as of 12/4/08.

[Bisharoo]

Shame on me? You ignore the chemicals in the medibles and say shame on me? Maybe you should be looking at what your thread title said, The Secrete Crime. The secret crime of poisoning by dispensary. Of course, that doesn't matter to you at all.

 

Really? Who got poisoned? From a chemical smell? I missed that news report of the poisoning, so you must be assuming that a chemical smell means poison. Huh? Then I get poisoned every time I drive through Melvindale.

The secret crime is hating individual human rights. People who hate individual human rights will always be found out.

[Guest Happy Guy]

You do have the right to be poisoned. LOL Funny stance you take there. Wouldn't want to take away your rights. What about your right to not be poisoned? You are defending that descision Agro took on buying the chemical smelling weed so he could make money off it too? He could have said, "This smells like chemicals and I wouldn't sell it to my worst enemy". Keep things in context. This is medicine used by people who are already sick.

[DenturesLost]

Really? Who got poisoned? From a chemical smell? I missed that news report of the poisoning, so you must be assuming that a chemical smell means poison. Huh? Then I get poisoned every time I drive through Melvindale.

The secret crime is hating individual human rights. People who hate individual human rights will always be found out.

I'm not going to get involved with the arguments regarding this issue but don't be so disingenuous. One of the big arguments pro MM use is the lack of liver abuse that occurs with other meds. To suggest that someone ingesting bug killers on their mm is a non-issue is to really be unreasonable. The effects of that crap are cumulative in your system. No one wants to be ingesting that. A dispensary buying meds from any tom, dick, and harry definitely leads to quality control issues. I don't know that that contributes to the present discussion, as the constitution of the meds really has no bearing on whether the dispensary is legal. However, it certainly is something to think about.

[+RevThad]

The problem is the interpretation of the word USING. You cannot automatically substitute medical use for using. If the intent were to do that then they wouldn't have used the term "medical use" earlier in the sentence and then dropped it off later. Furthermore, when a term, such as medical use, is specifically defined in a law then generally accpeted rules of statutory interpretation tell us that one must re-use the exact term if the intent is to convey the exact meaning of the definition provided in the law. Now, there is leeway as to using the exact term but that leeway is generally confined to tense (present, past, etc) of the word being used. So, to suggest that using means the same as medical use is simply wrong.

 

Now, if I were a defense attorney would I argue otherwise? Yes, of course, because it may be the only way to defend a cg who transfers to a pt to whom he is not connected through the MDCH. But it isn't likely to work unless you get a liberal judge because statutory interpretation rules are quite well-settled. So, yes, you would need one of those "activist" judges that so many people seem to put down when it is convenient for their arguments but later accept when it is similarly convenient.

What does statutory interpretation rules say about voter initiated laws?

 

While I am just a mere layman my memory of reading about such says something along the lines of:

“The words of an initiative law are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by the voters.”

 

So let's look at the law again.

"assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana."

 

We are allowed to assist with using (what is using as defined by the law?) or administering marihuana. What need is there for the inclusion of both of those words in the subpart? If the meaning was to be simply administering (i.e. the assisting with ingestion of marijuana via the chosen method), the other word would be unneeded. So we are left with the word "using", which to the average person is just another form of the word use. One would have to stretch pretty far to say that because the suffix ing was added to the word it would change the meaning of use. I will concede that is not the primary argument to make but it is an argument that holds water when accompanied by the rest of the law.

 

I would guess that another position on the actual intent of Section 4 subpart (i) would be to prevent situations like; my cousin having their car seized while driving me as I transport, acquire, or transfer medicine or plants...

 

Remember that the way voter initiated laws are to be read in a light that furthers the intent of the law, not that which would hamper it.

 

Just my thoughts and opinions...