Secrete Crimes Or We'll Tell You Later Why

[+RevThad]

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.

Common sense says that we shouldn't put anything in our bodies unless we know where it came from. I would even say that folks should be wary of getting anything (marijuana or otherwise) from somebody or someplace they are not familiar with. However, some folks have no choice as to whether they can grow their own, be it medicine or even fruits and vegetables.

 

You and others stated that we should look at what certain PAs and LEO are doing on the enforcement front, and take that as a cue for advice given. Some PAs are filing charges if there is no hard card in hand, some LEO are arresting on the same premise. No stretching on my part for time lines. Even at the shortest, one is looking at 20 days for their legal status, then 2-3 weeks (on the short side) for veg from seed, another 6-8 weeks for flower, add in drying and curing times, and one is looking at 18 weeks (4 months). Then if one were to look at what certain PAs and LEO are suggesting one must add 3 months at a minimum, just to have a hard card in hand before starting the grow.

 

I think you are confused about my intentions, I am not a huge supporter of dispensaries as I believe there are other preferable distribution models. However, I am for anything that allows for safe and reliable access to medicine to patients. I am also a proponent of the underlying issues, the legality of patients and caregivers being able to transfer to other patients and caregivers, to ensure an uninterrupted supply of medicine.

 

One last note, I don't see you harping on the toxins that are included in the "medicines" sold at every convenience store and pharmacy around the country, or specifically around the state. The number of organ injuries that occur just from simple aspirin is mind boggling.

 

I wish you well.

[DenturesLost]

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...

You shot yourself in the foot there my good friend.

 

If "using" meant "medical use" then ADMINISTERING would be an unnecessary word because medical use is defined to include administering. Furthermore, the conjunction "and" should have been used rather than "or."

 

Clearly it was structured as "using or administering" for a very specific reason. That reason is because USING is active administration by the pt while ADMINSTERING is passive. In other words you can help the pt use by maybe rolling a joint or making the brownies. In that way you prepared it and the pt is using by eating or smoking.

 

Administering suggests that YOU are delivering it to the patient. If I'm a nurse and I administer an injection the pt is laying there passively while I administer. If I'm a nurse and I hand the pt a medicine cup with pills in it to swallow then I am assisting in their active use. In other words it was structured that way to cover someone helping the patient to use OR, if the pt is helpless such as an endstage cancer patient, then YOU can ADMINISTER.

 

This the reason for not using the defined term medical use. Because the author intended to limit the assistant in this instance.

[Guest Happy Guy]

One last note, I don't see you harping on the toxins that are included in the "medicines" sold at every convenience store and pharmacy around the country, or specifically around the state. The number of organ injuries that occur just from simple aspirin is mind boggling.I wish you well.

That is because this is a medical cannabis web site.

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

The context of this thread isn't about quality control.

 

What are the chances of a testing lab being raided for trying to help with quality control?

 

Testing labs and medical research are two items we could really use. Instead folks like Bouchard and Cooper would bust you for doing anything in that area.

[+RevThad]

You shot yourself in the foot there my good friend. If "using" meant "medical use" then ADMINISTERING would be an unnecessary word because medical use is defined to include administering. Furthermore, the conjunction "and" should have been used rather than "or." Clearly it was structured as "using or administering" for a very specific reason. That reason is because USING is active administration by the pt while ADMINSTERING is passive. In other words you can help the pt use by maybe rolling a joint or making the brownies. In that way you prepared it and the pt is using by eating or smoling. Administering suggests that YOU are delivering it to the patient. If I'm a nurse and I administer an injection the pt is laying there passively while I administer. If I'm a nurse and I hand the pt a medicine cup with pills in it to swallow then I am assisting in their active use. In other words it was structured that way to cover someone helping the patient to use OR, if the pt is helpless such as an endstage cancer patient, then YOU can ADMINISTER.

Psst... where does an endstage cancer patient acquire those meds from? How about if they don't have a registered caregiver? Oh and is that end stage cancer patient supposed to wait for a crop to be grown for them?

 

As I stated in my other post, I don't believe that subpart (i) is the primary argument to be made. However in that light, as you state, a person (nurse) that hands the patient the meds would also be assisting with the patient's active use.

 

The question would then become at what point in the time line does such a transfer of the meds no longer constitute assisting with the active use by the patient? Does location matter in that assistance? If an end stage cancer patient is in a hospice, and has no access to a stove, am I able to prepare some medibles for them at my home? Can I prepare those in advance or do I need to have the patient with me as I prepare them?

[+RevThad]

That is because this is a medical cannabis web site.

One of the most beneficial things about using medical cannabis is that it removes those concerns, no?

 

I am with you on your position about there not being any extra chemicals added to medical cannabis. I just don't think that it should be used as a reason to allow the law to be attacked. I have stated my personal reasons for the defense of those involved in the mentioned case(s), the issue of chemicals can easily be remedied through other actions, and does not require anybody to be thrown under the bus.

 

One is also relying on the testimony of an LEO and his memory of why he only received $140 for his ounce of marijuana. There is no other evidence, or even statements that claim that this was an ordinary practice of the facility, or what would have been done with it. For all we know that ounce of marijuana may have been destined for a serious water flushing to remove any potential chemical residue...

 

Let's try to keep things in perspective.

[Guest Happy Guy]

The context of this thread isn't about quality control.What are the chances of a testing lab being raided for trying to help with quality control?Testing labs and medical research are two items we could really use. Instead folks like Bouchard and Cooper would bust you for doing anything in that area.

The context of the thread, started by you, was based on a falsehood that sheriffs said it was legal then busted them. What really happened was the sheriffs told them it was illegal, waited, the Agros made their choice to stay open, then they were busted. Do you want to go back to that BS or would you like to move forward to a more common sense real issues of poison in meds being less than safe access to medicine for patients? When it came to light that the owner of this dispensary you made the thread about tried to hide the chemical smell in a bag he was buying to sell, by using it for food, how did you feel about that? Did it change anything for you at all? Did it still seem like this was safe access for patients?

 

Edit by peanutbutter: How about this ..

[Guest Happy Guy]

One of the most beneficial things about using medical cannabis is that it removes those concerns, no?I am with you on your position about there not being any extra chemicals added to medical cannabis. I just don't think that it should be used as a reason to allow the law to be attacked. I have stated my personal reasons for the defense of those involved in the mentioned case(s), the issue of chemicals can easily be remedied through other actions, and does not require anybody to be thrown under the bus.One is also relying on the testimony of an LEO and his memory of why he only received $140 for his ounce of marijuana. There is no other evidence, or even statements that claim that this was an ordinary practice of the facility, or what would have been done with it. For all we know that ounce of marijuana may have been destined for a serious water flushing to remove any potential chemical residue...Let's try to keep things in perspective.

It was recorded and played in court.

[DenturesLost]

Psst... where does an endstage cancer patient acquire those meds from? How about if they don't have a registered caregiver? Oh and is that end stage cancer patient supposed to wait for a crop to be grown for them?

 

As I stated in my other post, I don't believe that subpart (i) is the primary argument to be made. However in that light, as you state, a person (nurse) that hands the patient the meds would also be assisting with the patient's active use.

 

The question would then become at what point in the time line does such a transfer of the meds no longer constitute assisting with the active use by the patient? Does location matter in that assistance? If an end stage cancer patient is in a hospice, and has no access to a stove, am I able to prepare some medibles for them at my home? Can I prepare those in advance or do I need to have the patient with me as I prepare them?

You are suggesting that because you see a problem then there is necessarily a solution. That's a slippery slope. Because a pt has to wait for meds to be grown doesn't, in and of itself, give them license to do anything they choose. What if my doc writes me a script for an anti-emetic cancer drug but I cannot drive to get to the pharmacy? Does that mean I can carjack someone and make them take me there? The point is that because you can find instances where a pt can be in a quandry doesn't mean that you can twist a law to resolve their quandry. That's why laws aren't absolute and we have a way to amend them.

 

Your question regarding what line defines assisting, etc... the answer to that is the reasonable person standard. That's how we resolve those types of problems in the law.

 

It is very clear that if the intent was to allow for medical use in this instance then that exact term could have been used. It would have been shorter, clearer, and broader than what IS there. It would have eliminated the redundancy that occurs if one accepts your interpretation. Why would the author state "using," meaning medical use and then state "or administering," a term found in the definition of medical use? I don't think you can argue that the author went to the trouble to define medical use in the law but then decided to disregard what amounts to a term of art and switch things up later in the law. That isn't logical and to argue otherwise I would say is absurd.

[Bisharoo]

The secret is out. Some here, who either are a part of or you love law enforcement or just think like those statist authoritarians, and hate individual humans rights, (you know who you are), just come on out and be honest with everyone and just say that the real reason that you hate individual human rights is that you don't trust individual humans to make their own choices.

You think human and every action must be controlled totally. In your opinion, and that of all authoritarians, people are too stupid to decide for themselves which food to eat or which medicines to ingest, without your help. A total police state would be right up your alley!

 

Well, we don't want or need your help, unless you want to help in this way:

 

Admit the following in this public forum: Or, feel free to debate these points and loose your cover (more so) or moral standing...

 

1) All individual humans have the right to live for their own sake, unencumbered by any force or threat of force from any king, gang, criminal, thug, mob, group, or any other individual. (Comment: any problems so far?)

 

2) The US Constitution was written to protect the individual human rights of everyone by limiting the power of the government to those few items listed, and no governmental authority has the power to rule over the individual without their consent, because this would be tyranny. (Comment: unless you think some tyranny is ok and you and your profession and friends get to decide how much is ok)

 

3) Any law prohibiting the free choice of any individual (that has not infringed on the individual human rights of others) is unconstitutional because it infringes on the rights of that individual.

4) Any government agency that engages in unconstitutional acts against the rights of individual humans (who have not infringed on the individual human rights of others) is subject to having their agency disbanded.

 

5) Any elected or non-elected official who infringes on the rights on any individual(s) (that have not infringed on the rights of other individual humans) will be subject to prosecution and jail for violating the rights of the individual human.

 

 

1) I know, in your minds, people can't be expected to decide what is best for them to eat or drink or without you guys in charge.

But, some of us would like to try it, so please let us.

 

2) We the individual human beings here will promise to make our our life choices without infringing on the rights of others to live for their own sakes. (Comment: most of us will respect those rights to a far great degree than many gov. agencies)

 

How about you guys promise to start respecting and honoring the rights of individual human beings? (Comment: can't see it from what you guys say so far)

 

We are not test cases are stubble to be cast off. We are individual human beings, and we have the right to our own life.

 

And all the legalize and lawyer speak you can throw at us won't change the basic facts that we have individual human rights.

 

You may hide behind immoral or unconstitutional laws, test cases, lingo, but none of it matters. Rogue PA's and judges have come and gone before. We will get enough honest judges and PA's eventually that individual human rights will be protected.

 

We know you hate individual human rights. We are asking you to respect those rights enough to let others alone with their free will.

 

Let's have a heart to heart chat, and from just one human being to another, lets make a deal. I will respect your individual human rights, and you respect mine. If you can't live with that, I will hope that your heart will be softened to respect the rights of each individual and at least just try to ignore them and don't destroy and imprison those that you or your group don't like.

 

It is not ok to sacrifice a few for the good of the many.

 

Oh, and have a nice day!

[Highlander]

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."

 

The point of my post was that someone in complaince yesterday doesn't mean they are today.

 

5.6 pounds between six pt/CGs - sure, but then there is little pesky little part of the law:

 

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

 

So if the dispensary is relying on pt to pt transfers as as the legal umbrella under which to distribute meds (rather than a registered pt to CG relationship), then the patients who are transferring can't be in possession of more than 2.5 oz each..otherwise the transfer isn't protected.

[peanutbutter]

The context of the thread, started by you, was based on a falsehood that sheriffs said it was legal then busted them. What really happened was the sheriffs told them it was illegal, waited, the Agros made their choice to stay open, then they were busted. Do you want to go back to that BS or would you like to move forward to a more common sense real issues of poison in meds being less than safe access to medicine for patients? When it came to light that the owner of this dispensary you made the thread about tried to hide the chemical smell in a bag he was buying to sell, by using it for food, how did you feel about that? Did it change anything for you at all? Did it still seem like this was safe access for patients?

 

Edit by peanutbutter: How about this .. I just go back and delete your off topic posts and your attempt to sidetrack the thread?

In case you didn't see my edit of your post, I quoted it here.

 

You are attempting to hijack this thread to discuss another topic.

 

Start your own thread if you wish to talk about chemicals in our medical cannabis supply. If you aren't willing to do that I'll start removing your unrelated posts.

[DenturesLost]

The secret is out. Oh, and have a nice day!

The reason we have a constitution is to balance individual rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre unless there is one. Why?

 

I can't control what you eat, etc. but why should my health insurance rates be higher because of your poor decisions? Maybe we ought have truth in health insurance and bill people according to their level of health? You have diabetes as a result of how you eat then your insurance balloons to 10x what it was. Everyone's conditions affect rates accordingly. How's that for fair? You have the right to choose what to eat, smoke, etc., so why shouldn't I have the right to reasonable costs based on my acts?

[+RevThad]

You are suggesting that because you see a problem then there is necessarily a solution. That's a slippery slope. Because a pt has to wait for meds to be grown doesn't, in and of itself, give them license to do anything they choose. What if my doc writes me a script for an anti-emetic cancer drug but I cannot drive to get to the pharmacy? Does that mean I can carjack someone and make them take me there? The point is that because you can find instances where a pt can be in a quandry doesn't mean that you can twist a law to resolve their quandry. That's why laws aren't absolute and we have a way to amend them.

To answer your questions, you are allowed to have somebody else go get those meds for you. If your personal pharmacy is back ordered on that particular medication, you can go to another pharmacy to get it filled, or even have somebody else go to another pharmacy for you to get it filled.

 

Your question regarding what line defines assisting, etc... the answer to that is the reasonable person standard. That's how we resolve those types of problems in the law.

I agree with you, and is why I included another reasonable position on what subpart (i) could entail. A reasonable person would not require a patient in need to wait 18 or more weeks to acquire a medicine to treat their conditions; assuming the medicine is available through various channels. One would also do well to look at the rest of the law, as you have suggested, and see that the definition of "medical use" also includes the following: "relating to the administration of marihuana".

 

 

It is very clear that if the intent was to allow for medical use in this instance then that exact term could have been used. It would have been shorter, clearer, and broader than what IS there. It would have eliminated the redundancy that occurs if one accepts your interpretation. Why would the author state "using," meaning medical use and then state "or administering," a term found in the definition of medical use? I don't think you can argue that the author went to the trouble to define medical use in the law but then decided to disregard what amounts to a term of art and switch things up later in the law. That isn't logical and to argue otherwise I would say is absurd.

See above. However, following your argument, one must then also accept the differences in language in that section when it changes from "whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process" to simply "a registered patient".

 

[DenturesLost]

In case you didn't see my edit of your post, I quoted it here.

 

You are attempting to hijack this thread to discuss another topic.

 

Start your own thread if you wish to talk about chemicals in our medical cannabis supply. If you aren't willing to do that I'll start removing your unrelated posts.

Oh good one. Threaten the guy. I've seen you hijack plenty a thread PB. Maybe you ought remove your own posts from those threads? And while you're at it remove mine because I've responded to your hijacks. Then remove everyone's here who has responded to happy because they were complicit in the hijacking as well.

 

Make some sense. I agree that it was off topic but a simple request to cease and desist was all that was necessary.

[Bisharoo]

The reason we have a constitution is to balance individual rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre unless there is one. Why?

 

I can't control what you eat, etc. but why should my health insurance rates be higher because of your poor decisions? Maybe we ought have truth in health insurance and bill people according to their level of health? You have diabetes as a result of how you eat then your insurance balloons to 10x what it was. Everyone's conditions affect rates accordingly. How's that for fair? You have the right to choose what to eat, smoke, etc., so why shouldn't I have the right to reasonable costs based on my acts?

 

 

 

You are so right. I don't know why I couldn't see that before. By all means, because your insurance rates might increase we should monitor all consumption by all individuals. And, if while you are being monitored someone finds something they don't like, I still hope you get to choose what medicine to take. The only way to make everything fair would be to monitor and control everything. Yes, that would keep all costs down, and keep people from behaviors that you know is bad for them. You really would like that, and I never thought people really felt it was ok to rule over others without their consent, but I have finally met some here.

 

The constitution was not to balance individual human rights, but to limit the power of government over the individual. The balance is on the shoulders of government on how to balance themselves in a position that does not infringe on the rights of any individuals.

[DenturesLost]

To answer your questions, you are allowed to have somebody else go get those meds for you. If your personal pharmacy is back ordered on that particular medication, you can go to another pharmacy to get it filled, or even have somebody else go to another pharmacy for you to get it filled.

 

 

I agree with you, and is why I included another reasonable position on what subpart (i) could entail. A reasonable person would not require a patient in need to wait 18 or more weeks to acquire a medicine to treat their conditions; assuming the medicine is available through various channels. One would also do well to look at the rest of the law, as you have suggested, and see that the definition of "medical use" also includes the following: "relating to the administration of marihuana".

 

 

 

See above. However, following your argument, one must then also accept the differences in language in that section when it changes from "whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process" to simply "a registered patient".

 

And if you have no one to get the meds for you then the carjacking is okay? The point is that you can conceive of a thousand hypotheticals but it doesn't mean you contort the act to cover for them. Just because you can't grow for yourself doesn't automatically change the law to fit your needs.

 

As for your reasonable position, that's all well and good but it has to be done within the law. I can come up with reasonable ways to break any law but that doesn't mean I will be accomodated. The problem you are running into is you are equating access to MM as an entitlement under the law. It isn't an entitlement.

 

I agree regarding the registered patient argument. However, that's neither here nor there because how we interpret that makes no difference as to how we interpret this. And, it's not the same thing anyway. As I pointed out "using or administering" is redundant if interpreting using to mean medical use because in the very definition of medical use you can find adminstering. So your position is that what the act means is "medical use or medical use."

[DenturesLost]

You are so right. I don't know why I couldn't see that before. By all means, because your insurance rates might increase we should monitor all consumption by all individuals. And, if while you are being monitored someone finds something they don't like, I still hope you get to choose what medicine to take. The only way to make everything fair would be to monitor and control everything. Yes, that would keep all costs down, and keep people from behaviors that you know is bad for them. You really would like that, and I never thought people really felt it was ok to rule over others without their consent, but I have finally met some here.

 

The constitution was not to balance individual human rights, but to limit the power of government over the individual. The balance is on the shoulders of government on how to balance themselves in a position that does not infringe on the rights of any individuals.

Yes, poor choice of words on my part regarding the reason for the const. But I think you get my drift.

 

I didn't say the government should control everything we do did I? I'm saying it's a balance. You don't like your right to choose curtailed and I don't like my pocketbook drained due to your "right" to choose. So we have a balance. You're required to wear motorbike helmets in this state, etc. It's a balance and it's the best that can be done to preserve rights as far as affordable health care goes. If you can come up with a better system let's hear it...

[Phil78]

I believe they already had the fake ID cards when they agreed to leave Ferndale alone.

 

wouldn't that be like making fraudulent prescriptions, taking them to the pharmacy, and then arresting the pharmacists and techs when the prescription was filled?

 

i know cards are not prescriptions, but they are evidence provided by the state that allows a person to obtain a controlled substance. it is not the responsibility of the pharmacy or dispensary to validate the prescription or card, is it? especially when the fraudulent cards were made by state officials? i wonder if the MDCH helped produce these fraudulent cards? wouldn't that be a conflict of interest? i think there should be an investigation as to where and how these cards were actually made. i think an attempt to defraud was made by law enforcement

 

(sorry if this has already been said; haven't signed on in a couple days, and there are 4 pages of posts since yesterday don't have time to read them all)

[peanutbutter]

Oh good one. Threaten the guy. I've seen you hijack plenty a thread PB. Maybe you ought remove your own posts from those threads? And while you're at it remove mine because I've responded to your hijacks. Then remove everyone's here who has responded to happy because they were complicit in the hijacking as well.

 

Make some sense. I agree that it was off topic but a simple request to cease and desist was all that was necessary.

 

I am the great and powerful OZ!! No one has the ability to understand what I think or do. You simply must accept what I say as truth. Never question the great OZ

 

I warned him once before. This was a second warning.

[DenturesLost]

wouldn't that be like making fraudulent prescriptions, taking them to the pharmacy, and then arresting the pharmacists and techs when the prescription was filled?

 

Yes it would be exactly like that if that were the issue, which it's not. The issue isn't that they sold to nonpatients. The issue is that they sold to ANY patient to whom they weren't connected through the MDCH registration.

[DenturesLost]

I am the great and powerful OZ!! No one has the ability to understand what I think or do. You simply must accept what I say as truth. Never question the great OZ

 

I warned him once before. This was a second warning.

Yes I know you warned him. You cut and pasted the warning. The point is that you were snotty and condescending in the warning because on a personal level you didn't like what he posted. You made it personal in a way that appeared to rub in your POWER. I think a simple warning would have sufficed.

[peanutbutter]

This is the purpose of this thread:

 

There are a lot of people that are claiming that this law can not be understood.

 

They seem to claim that they have a clear understanding of exactly what is illegal and what is not. Yet when asked about exactly what they perceive as legal or illegal they refuse to answer.

 

We even have a COA judge telling people that they should not attempt to understand the law.

 

"I am the great and powerful OZ. No one else can understand. No one else should try to understand. Those that are not blessed with this great understanding should stay silent and let the great Oz do his work .. in mysterious ways. We understand the reasons that you will be in jail. You do not. Your understanding is not required for you to go to jail."

[DenturesLost]

Yet when asked about exactly what they perceive as legal or illegal they refuse to answer.

 

Did you ask a specific question as to what specifically is legal? I think your question is seen as rhetorical because no one is going to sit down and write volumes to address a very broad question like that.

[lawyercaregiver]

Oh Dent leave the man behind the curtain alone (you know- the great and powerful Oz ). I have been kicked off of blogs for less than the hijacking Mr. Chemical contaminants offthread comments that were made here- even after being warned. Sure it was snotty but it was darn funny.

 

I think your power comment is interesting. This is why I don't particularly like cops- give a man a little teensy bit of power and he turns into a bully perhaps throwing his weight around a bit. But give him a gun and well, we know what happens.

 

I am most interested in Dentures comment that just because there is a problem in the law doesn't mean we have to contort into a pretzel to find a solution (or words to that effect).

 

Actually, the law must be read overall as an orderly administration of justice and not be internally contradictory. The MMMA CLEARLY provides for protections for patients purchasing and for Caregivers IF:

 

1. They are the registered caregiver with the State (Section 4).

2. They meet ALL the requirements of the Affirmative Defense (Section 8).

 

I am becoming more convinced that patient to patient transfers must be allowed and probably dispensaries. The solution is not prosecution of the dispensary owners but regulation of the dispensaries by local law and the MDCH.

 

There- now were all friends again.