Secrete Crimes Or We'll Tell You Later Why

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

thanks .. it was just to much for this thread. I could probably pull off deleting a word here and there and make someone sound really foolish. I can also delete posts. None of which would I even consider doing if there were any way to convince the person to mend their ways. There are plenty of posts that I disagree with. So what .. We want an honest dialog.

 

The "OZ" thing was intended to sound snotty. It is an illustration of the point of the thread. My comment about officials trying to convince everyone to refrain from trying to understand our law.

 

There- now were all friends again.

 

Blessed are the peacemakers.

[Highlander]

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.

 

Note that the promulgated rules provide for a patient to allow MDCH to give out his information.

There exists a regulatory framework where patients can register with a dispensary, sign a form allowing MDCH to give status to the dispensary, then the dispensary can check every patient who walks through the door to verify his status up-to-the-minute. If the administrative framework for dispensaries to check status with MDCH, the problem of people making fake cards would be a non-issue. The MDCH could set this up right now...well, after they get caught up on cards....

[chi_guy]

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.

 

 

You really shouldn't keep typing like you are the authority on the subject of the MMA Act. I agree with the fact that the term "using" isn't "medical use". But the key term here is "administering" You seem to have an interpretation on what "administering" means even though it is not defined in MMA Act like the term "medical use" is. So the courts tell us when a term is not defined in the act itself we must turn to the dictionary for definition. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "administer" as

 

a : to mete out : dispense

b : to give ritually

c : to give remedially

 

The first definition of administer is "dispense".

[peanutbutter]

Note that the promulgated rules provide for a patient to allow MDCH to give out his information.

 

I was looking at that.

 

In the rules, but not in the law, the MDCH will disclose information if all persons protected sign waivers.

 

Not just the patient but everyone listed in the record about that patient.

 

333.121 (4) The department may release information to other persons only upon receipt of a properly executed release of information signed by all individuals with legal authority to waive confidentiality regarding that information, whether a registered qualifying patient, a qualifying patient's parent or legal guardian, or a qualifying patient’s registered primary caregiver. The release of information shall specify what information the department is authorized to release and to whom.

[DenturesLost]

You really shouldn't keep typing like you are the authority on the subject of the MMA Act. I agree with the fact that the term "using" isn't "medical use". But the key term here is "administering" You seem to have an interpretation on what "administering" means even though it is not defined in MMA Act like the term "medical use" is. So the courts tell us when a term is not defined in the act itself we must turn to the dictionary for definition. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "administer" as

 

a : to mete out : dispense

b : to give ritually

c : to give remedially

 

The first definition of administer is "dispense".

 

First mistake, using websters to define a term used in medical context. Use a medical dictionary and the applicable definition is:

a. To give or apply in a formal way: administer the last rites.

b. To apply as a remedy: administer a sedative.

c. To direct the taking of (an oath).

And so I reiterate, administration of mm would be active on the cg's part and passive on the pt's.

 

But it doesn't matter what the definition of administer is as it is covered and included in the defintion of medical use. That's the point. If you are following the argument then you would see that the argument is that using=medical use. The point is that if using meant medical use then why is the term administer even included in that portion.

[chi_guy]

First mistake, using websters to define a term used in medical context. Use a medical dictionary and the applicable definition is:

a. To give or apply in a formal way: administer the last rites.

b. To apply as a remedy: administer a sedative.

c. To direct the taking of (an oath).

And so I reiterate, administration of mm would be active on the cg's part and passive on the pt's.

 

But it doesn't matter what the definition of administer is as it is covered and included in the defintion of medical use. That's the point. If you are following the argument then you would see that the argument is that using=medical use. The point is that if using meant medical use then why is the term administer even included in that portion.

 

I understand your point and what the argument is regarding using=medical use. But whether or not using=medical use or not you still are protected for assisting a registered patient with adminstering marihuna. Yes I did use webster's to define "administer" first, because administer is a general term just like I wouldn't be looking in the medical dictionary to define the term "using" or "assisting" as a matter of fact the whole act could be considered medical context, so we should use the medical dictionary to define the whole thing. But even in your definition the first one states:

a. To give or apply in a formal way:

 

The terms, "give", "administer", "dispense" are all synonymous. Se we are doing medical definitions, the medical definition of "dispense" is:

 

To prepare and give out medicines.

 

But I again don't think we should be using a medical dictionary to define terms in the act. Clearly medical marihuana and the current medical establishment are not the same. This is about a "natural" medicinal PLANT that has no adverse side effects and no connection to the pharmaceutical death nightmare medical industry.

[DenturesLost]

I understand your point and what the argument is regarding using=medical use. But whether or not using=medical use or not you still are protected for assisting a registered patient with adminstering marihuna. Yes I did use webster's to define "administer" first, because administer is a general term just like I wouldn't be looking in the medical dictionary to define the term "using" or "assisting" as a matter of fact the whole act could be considered medical context, so we should use the medical dictionary to define the whole thing. But even in your definition the first one states:

a. To give or apply in a formal way:

 

The terms, "give", "administer", "dispense" are all synonymous. Se we are doing medical definitions, the medical definition of "dispense" is:

 

To prepare and give out medicines.

 

But I again don't think we should be using a medical dictionary to define terms in the act. Clearly medical marihuana and the current medical establishment are not the same. This is about a "natural" medicinal PLANT that has no adverse side effects and no connection to the pharmaceutical death nightmare medical industry.

When we're dealing with a medical term then we have to define it based on medical practice. Pick any word that has a medical and nonmedical meaning. Any. How about cane. If a law stated that the state is responsible for providing wounded verterans with a cane would we use every defintion available for cane or would we use the applicable definition. Under your theory the state could give the verteran " any of various tall woody grasses or reeds: as (1) : any of a genus (Arundinaria) of coarse grasses (2) : sugarcane (3) : sorghum" and that would mean the state followed the law.

 

Furthermore, argung that administer has the broad meaning you are giving it basically makes "using or adminstering" equate to "medical use" as defined by the law from a caregiver's perspective. How would it not? Read the definition below and observe that everything a caregiver can do for a patient under medical use would also be covered by the terms "using or administering."

 

"Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Now, that would be all well and good BUT if the drafter intended for "using or administering" to be the same as medical use, as applied to a cg,then why wouldn't they have just used the defined term "medical use?" What you are suggesting is that the drafter meant medical use but decided to convey that in a different manner. That is not an assumption we make when interpreting a statute based on sound interpretation principles.

 

So, in a nutshell, to define using as medical use makes the term "administering" an extra word. Rules of statutory interpretation dictate that administering cannot be extra or redundant, therefore using cannot mean medical use.

 

To define administering as broadly as you suggest it should be defined basically makes "using and adminstering" all-encompassing as far as the requirements necessary for a cg to fall under the term "medical use" as far as their assistance goes. Rules of statutory interpretation further dictate the specially defined term in the statute, in this case medical use, should be used when the intent of the drafter is to convey the idea or meaning supplied in that definition. Therefore, such a broad definition of administering is contrary to rules of interpretation. Ergo, administering should be defined in a more narrow sense and in this case defining it as I suggest makes the most sense in context.

[peanutbutter]

When we're dealing with a medical term then we have to define it based on medical practice.

 

Pure BS.

 

The terms need to be understood as the voters would have understood them when they voted.

 

If the term is not defined within the law itself.

[DenturesLost]

Pure BS.

 

The terms need to be understood as the voters would have understood them when they voted.

 

If the term is not defined within the law itself.

Exactly. If someone told me they were going to administer a vaccine to me I would NOT understand that to mean that they were going to sell it to me out of a storefront. You made my point for me. The average person would read administering and define it in a similar way as they would when considering the administration of any medicine. Does ANYONE say, "I need to run out to rite aid so they can adminster me my blood pressure pills"?

 

What you are suggesting is that the voters contemplated administering to mean selling mm out of a storefront. Hello!!!

 

And thank you for making my point for me...

[DLD420]

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.

He didn't stretch anything, plant a seed and you wait 3 1/2 to 4 mons for usable product add in the wait time to get you card and it is easy 6 to 8 months even more is more likely. The Judges and PA's are saying if you don't have the card you aren't legal so now you say to grow it after 20 days, where's you keep it safe and follow the laws at now? You sound a lot like a lawyer speaking out the other side of your mouth.

[Guest Happy Guy]

My patients wait 20 days and they have their meds. I walk the walk. Not just talk. My meds are clean of bad chemicals. I know this because I grow them myself. I wouldn't have bought and sold chemical stinking cannabis. But the mighty OZ (peanutbutter) says I can't say this here because it is not what he wants to talk about. At least he didn't erase all of my posts this time on his power trip.

[DenturesLost]

He didn't stretch anything, plant a seed and you wait 3 1/2 to 4 mons for usable product add in the wait time to get you card and it is easy 6 to 8 months even more is more likely. The Judges and PA's are saying if you don't have the card you aren't legal so now you say to grow it after 20 days, where's you keep it safe and follow the laws at now? You sound a lot like a lawyer speaking out the other side of your mouth.

Dispatch to the board police. PB come in...

Looks like we're straying off-topic again.

Maybe time for spankings or some of that fancy post manipulating to make peole look stupid....

 

Haha. No offense DLD420. Just thought PB would want to be uniform in his spanking application.

[DenturesLost]

At least he didn't erase all of my posts this time on his power trip.

Give a guy power and he'll abuse it. Policing tends to draw the bullying personalities because of the ability to exercise power over others.

[chi_guy]

When we're dealing with a medical term then we have to define it based on medical practice. Pick any word that has a medical and nonmedical meaning. Any. How about cane. If a law stated that the state is responsible for providing wounded verterans with a cane would we use every defintion available for cane or would we use the applicable definition. Under your theory the state could give the verteran " any of various tall woody grasses or reeds: as (1) : any of a genus (Arundinaria) of coarse grasses (2) : sugarcane (3) : sorghum" and that would mean the state followed the law.

 

Furthermore, argung that administer has the broad meaning you are giving it basically makes "using or adminstering" equate to "medical use" as defined by the law from a caregiver's perspective. How would it not? Read the definition below and observe that everything a caregiver can do for a patient under medical use would also be covered by the terms "using or administering."

 

"Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Now, that would be all well and good BUT if the drafter intended for "using or administering" to be the same as medical use, as applied to a cg,then why wouldn't they have just used the defined term "medical use?" What you are suggesting is that the drafter meant medical use but decided to convey that in a different manner. That is not an assumption we make when interpreting a statute based on sound interpretation principles.

 

So, in a nutshell, to define using as medical use makes the term "administering" an extra word. Rules of statutory interpretation dictate that administering cannot be extra or redundant, therefore using cannot mean medical use.

 

To define administering as broadly as you suggest it should be defined basically makes "using and adminstering" all-encompassing as far as the requirements necessary for a cg to fall under the term "medical use" as far as their assistance goes. Rules of statutory interpretation further dictate the specially defined term in the statute, in this case medical use, should be used when the intent of the drafter is to convey the idea or meaning supplied in that definition. Therefore, such a broad definition of administering is contrary to rules of interpretation. Ergo, administering should be defined in a more narrow sense and in this case defining it as I suggest makes the most sense in context.

 

How about cane. If a law stated that the state is responsible for providing wounded verterans with a cane would we use every defintion available for cane or would we use the applicable definition.

 

This argument is weak and confusing. The word "cane" is an object "administering" is not. What dictionary would you look at to define the term "providing" in this statement?

 

Furthermore, argung that administer has the broad meaning you are giving it basically makes "using or adminstering" equate to "medical use" as defined by the law from a caregiver's perspective. How would it not? Read the definition below and observe that everything a caregiver can do for a patient under medical use would also be covered by the terms "using or administering."

 

I don't know about that, my argument is that administer is synonymous with dispense and that is how the voters would have understood it. Your own definition of administer is:

a. To give or apply in a formal way

 

To GIVE or apply in a formal way. If I walk into a compassion center and go through the FORMALITIES of having my id's and paperwork checked then a person GIVES me my medicine I have just been "administered" marihuana by that person and they are protected from arrest or penalty in any manner for doing so. Again I don't think this definition of "administer" is as broad as you suggest.

 

In fact your definition requires the terms "using" and "administering" to mean the same thing. If both terms were to mean the same 4i wouldn't state "using" OR "administering". This means you are allowed to assist both with "using" and with "administering".

[DenturesLost]

[in fact your definition requires the terms "using" and "administering" to mean the same thing. If both terms were to mean the same 4i wouldn't state "using" OR "administering". This means you are allowed to assist both with "using" and with "administering".

It absolutely does not. Scroll up and read my post on that.

 

Your argument, which is the same as PB's, is that the voters contemplated administering to mean selling out of a dispensary. As I already stated, what average person do you know that would use administering in that way? Do you go to walgreens so they can administer your pills to you? Come on, recognize reality and embrace it.

[DLD420]

Dispatch to the board police. PB come in...

Looks like we're straying off-topic again.

Maybe time for spankings or some of that fancy post manipulating to make peole look stupid....

 

Haha. No offense DLD420. Just thought PB would want to be uniform in his spanking application.

If you take the time to read the whole post I didn't reply until after PBs chastizing of HG, look at the time stamp

[Guest Happy Guy]

Yup. Gang up. LOL Couldn't resist it or what? Stay on topic like the boss said. Don't comment on the poison meds at the dispensary where the cops broke the law.

[peanutbutter]

Give a guy power and he'll abuse it. Policing tends to draw the bullying personalities because of the ability to exercise power over others.

 

Which is one of the reasons that I avoided the job for so long.

 

Several people ganged up and asked me all at the same time. Nice to feel wanted.

 

Some folks feel that mods shouldn't have an opinion. Another reason I didn't want the job.

 

There could be times that I could disagree with a MMMA stance. By disagreeing, I could give an impression that the MMMA has a different stance than it does. Something that I would wish to avoid.

 

And overall, I don't do well at staying quiet.

 

The job sought me. I didn't ask for it.

[chi_guy]

It absolutely does not. Scroll up and read my post on that.

 

Your argument, which is the same as PB's, is that the voters contemplated administering to mean selling out of a dispensary. As I already stated, what average person do you know that would use administering in that way? Do you go to walgreens so they can administer your pills to you? Come on, recognize reality and embrace it.

 

No that is not my argument. my argument is exactly what I stated and you have yet to respond to it. I do believe the voters contemplated that the term "using or administering" could mean giving someone their medicine. Whether or not that happens in a dispensary is irrelevant. You need to embrace reality my friend.

[+RevThad]

Exactly. If someone told me they were going to administer a vaccine to me I would NOT understand that to mean that they were going to sell it to me out of a storefront. You made my point for me. The average person would read administering and define it in a similar way as they would when considering the administration of any medicine. Does ANYONE say, "I need to run out to rite aid so they can adminster me my blood pressure pills"?

 

What you are suggesting is that the voters contemplated administering to mean selling mm out of a storefront. Hello!!!

 

And thank you for making my point for me...

Enter the words of the biggest opponent of the MMMAct, and the current AG Elect...

"Not explicitly outlawing pot shops implicitly allows them" ~ Bill Schuette, October 25, 2008.

 

Now for your current attempt to make an analogy... Uhm, one also wouldn't think that getting a vaccine would be done at a grocery store, yet one can see advertisements out in front of your local Kroger, Meijer, etc... (selling?) offering administration of flu shots...

 

Anyways, we have gotten off on the subpart (i) track pretty far, and as I stated I think it is a supplemental bit of language to the rest of the provisions of the law. Regardless of which definition of using or administering we use, I believe a common understanding of assisting with either of those would include helping the patient to procure.

 

What would a reasonable person assume about Section 4 (j)? I contend that the average person would reasonably know that medical marijuana is only recognized as legal to possess and cultivate in certain states. Further, I suggest that people would understand that it is illegal to transport marijuana across state lines, especially through states where medical marijuana possession is not recognized. Also, that a person from another state would be legal to possess and acquire in their own state, and while visiting Michigan they are afforded the same rights as patients of Michigan. Those rights include the rights to possess and to acquire marijuana for medicinal purposes. As there is no way that they could legally be registered with the State of Michigan, and there is no way that they could have a connection through the registry program with a caregiver in the State of Michigan, one would reasonably assume they are allowed to acquire marijuana for medical purposes from a source here in Michigan.

 

Guess that is enough for this post, look forward to your rebuttal. Especially in light of your comments about "doesn't mean that you can twist a law to resolve their quandry". I suppose this is where the rubber hits the road, either patients and caregivers are allowed to acquire marijuana for medicinal purposes from folks they aren't connected to via the registry program, or they aren't. IF they aren't it would seem that there is a whole lot of extra and unneeded language in the law, and parts that are completely useless.

[+RevThad]

It absolutely does not. Scroll up and read my post on that.

 

Your argument, which is the same as PB's, is that the voters contemplated administering to mean selling out of a dispensary. As I already stated, what average person do you know that would use administering in that way? Do you go to walgreens so they can administer your pills to you? Come on, recognize reality and embrace it.

Do people go to a grocery store to have a vaccine administered to them? How about a library? A church? Yes to all of those.

 

Or are you suggesting that the MMMAct is more like the old stamp acts? Sure you can legally possess it, but you need a stamp to do so, oh and in order to get a stamp you will have to own it. So in order to get your stamp, you must bring your marijuana in, but doing so will require you to violate the law as you do not have a stamp for the marijuana that you currently possess. Such violations of the law will also prevent you from acquiring a stamp.

 

Where does a registered caregiver acquire marijuana from? As they are allowed to engage in the statutorily defined "medical use" of marijuana and paraphernalia.

[peanutbutter]

Do people go to a grocery store to have a vaccine administered to them? How about a library? A church? Yes to all of those.

 

And you have to toss in the complication that you can't go to any of those places to get your medicine. You can't even go to the drugstore.

 

Yet acquisition is allowed under the act.

 

edit .. all of which was known when the people voted.

[Highlander]

 

Now for your current attempt to make an analogy... Uhm, one also wouldn't think that getting a vaccine would be done at a grocery store, yet one can see advertisements out in front of your local Kroger, Meijer, etc... (selling?) offering administration of flu shots...

 

 

Vaccine at a grocery store is a good analogy. You go to the store, pay the $15, and they administer a shot in your arm.

 

You don't go there, pay $15, take the vaccine home and then administer it yourself. That would not be an accurate use of the word, administer.

 

Who drafted the law ??? The MPP. What did the drafters say about dispensaries? They said that the law in Michigan would not allow the proliferation of dispensaries like in CA...this is what was said to the voters to ease their fears. Do I want dispensaries to be legal and endorsed by LEOs and PAs - yes of course.

 

"I would love to see an add-on bill to allow well regulated dispensaries in Michigan. I don't know if it'd have much of a chance, but a Republican sponsor got one passed in Colorado last year and Montana lawmakers are looking at doing the same thing next year. Maine and Rhode Island also have new dispensary laws that were added on to their existing laws in 2009." Karen O'Keefe, MPP, drafter of MMMA.

 

 

 

So, oddly, we had the AG-elect campaigning against the MMJ law saying dispensaries would pop up all over like in Cali....and the proponents/drafters saying "the law does not allow for the proliferation of dispensaries."

 

So now that the law passed, we have the AG-elect who will likely back-pedal and say that the MMMA does not allow for dispensaries....and we have the non-prohibitionists saying the law does allow them.

 

When will people make up their mind?

[DenturesLost]

Enter the words of the biggest opponent of the MMMAct, and the current AG Elect...

"Not explicitly outlawing pot shops implicitly allows them" ~ Bill Schuette, October 25, 2008.

 

Now for your current attempt to make an analogy... Uhm, one also wouldn't think that getting a vaccine would be done at a grocery store, yet one can see advertisements out in front of your local Kroger, Meijer, etc... (selling?) offering administration of flu shots...

 

 

The words of a politician cow-towing to his base mean nothing to this argument. If he gets into office and issues an AG's opinion that mirrors the sentiment of his soundbite then we'll talk. Then we can look at his reasoning. Until then pointing out what Schuette said on the campaign trail is useless.

 

As for my "attempt" at an anlagoy, I don't see your point. If anything you are buttressing my argument. First of all what does whether anyone anticipates Meijer administering flu shots have to do with voter intent?

 

Secondly, where have you been hiding all your life? As far back as I can remember flu shots and/or other vaccines have been administered at schools, churches, pharmacies, etc. Does it surprise you that meijer and kroger pharmacies administer flu shots? Is there ANYONE out there that doesn't expect that? If anything I'd challenge you to point me to a pharmacy that DOESN'T administer flu shots.

 

Lastly, the pharmacist or nurse is ADMINISTERING the shot. An active, rather than passive, method of getting the medicine in you! Does the pharmacist or nurse own the shot? No. Are they personally providing it? No. Are they personally administering it? Yes. Similarly the act anticipates that the patient or the patient's cg provides the meds and the protected person at issue administers it. In other words you cannot argue that "they must be able to grow it or buy it in order to administer it to the patient." That is a purely fallacious argument. Just because you are allowed to administer doesn't mean you are allowed to grow, etc. Can the nurse who administers your flu shot make the vaccine? No but they can administer the vaccine.

 

There is no way you can argue that the average voter anticipated dispensaries based on "using and administering." That's just plain crazy.

 

Also, as the previous poster indicated, the drafter of the act didn't anticipate that the act would cover dispensaries. But somehow people think that with enough brute force or insistence then we can fit the square peg into the round hole.

[peanutbutter]

The words of a politician cow-towing to his base mean nothing to this argument. If he gets into office and issues an AG's opinion that mirrors the sentiment of his soundbite then we'll talk. Then we can look at his reasoning. Until then pointing out what Schuette said on the campaign trail is useless.

 

Heck I'm having a lot of fun with his statement!

 

I think it'll get used a lot until he issues a new statement.

 

This may have been a politician talking. But he represented himself as a COA judge while making the statement.