Secrete Crimes Or We'll Tell You Later Why

[chi_guy]

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.

 

What are you talking about? The act does not address "dispensaries" what it does is provide "protections" for persons involved with medical marihuana. 4i is just one of many protections which permit conduct that so-called "dispensaries" are engaging in. You stated earlier in a post:

 

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.

 

Same scenario If I'm a person who hands a patient a medicine bottle filled with cannabis to ingest then I am assisting in their active use right?

[Nameless_Hero]

Dentures. What benefit do you have in going against the grain? You must just be an "uber-patriot" since our government also enjoys going against the grain spending $10 billion a year on pot alone. I know you are going to turn around and say "Well Im arguing the other side for your guys benefit. You people need to understand how the world and law works". Regardless if every court decision from this point on ends up being Anti-MMJ it doesnt matter and it doesnt mean its right. The government will still waste money as people still smoke weed. Targeting marijuana users and growers (most of them) has just boiled down to oppression. Drug testing companies, probation departments, leos, pharmas would lose soo much money. Unfortunately that's not what is being argued in court but in the end who should be more scared? Jail time is nothing compared to the millions private companies and politicians will lose.

[Nameless_Hero]

But when the lawsuits hit the fan: the Wal-Mart employee wins, the Ferndale case Wins, and Federal Government continues to avoid state mmj laws even more at least the so called "Smaller-government" proponents will be forced to live by their words

[DenturesLost]

But when the lawsuits hit the fan: the Wal-Mart employee wins, the Ferndale case Wins, and Federal Government continues to avoid state mmj laws even more at least the so called "Smaller-government" proponents will be forced to live by their words

The walmart plaintiff won't win. I will say that right now.

As far as the ferndale case I don't know enough about the status of the sellers to know what will happen there.

As for the feds, the tide will turn in our favor as far as scheduling goes.

[DenturesLost]

Dentures. What benefit do you have in going against the grain? You must just be an "uber-patriot" since our government also enjoys going against the grain spending $10 billion a year on pot alone. I know you are going to turn around and say "Well Im arguing the other side for your guys benefit. You people need to understand how the world and law works". Regardless if every court decision from this point on ends up being Anti-MMJ it doesnt matter and it doesnt mean its right. The government will still waste money as people still smoke weed. Targeting marijuana users and growers (most of them) has just boiled down to oppression. Drug testing companies, probation departments, leos, pharmas would lose soo much money. Unfortunately that's not what is being argued in court but in the end who should be more scared? Jail time is nothing compared to the millions private companies and politicians will lose.

Oh i see. Because so many people here think their interpretation is correct then my interpretation is "against the grain?" So what you are saying is I should fall in line? Haha. What you want are a bunch of yes men. It's funny how, on the one hand, people here harp on the politicians for being party hacks or yes men but then that is exactly what they want themselves. A yes man is good as long as he is in your camp I guess.

 

And, no, I'm not going to claim I am arguing for "your guys benefit." I am arguing what I believe based on my knowledge of the law and English grammar. I argue what I logically interpret. I don't have an agenda. Most of these other people DO have an agenda and try to use brute force to make the law say what they want. That doesn't make me against mm. To suggest that it does would further indicate your desire to only associate with the yes men. I am pro MM but that doesn't mean I am going to read something and then put it through a meat grinder to change its appearance.

[DenturesLost]

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.

 

Same scenario If I'm a person who hands a patient a medicine bottle filled with cannabis to ingest then I am assisting in their active use right?

I couldn't have said it better myself. That is exactly right. Handing the pt their meds is assisting in using. What's your point?

You are trying to head up the slippery slope that says since I can hand the pt the meds that then also means I can be in possession, or sell, etc. You are equating USING with MEDICAL USE. That's the whole point here. You missed the boat.

[DenturesLost]

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.

As well you should. I agree, it will be a laugh riot if he later contradicts himself. However, the point is that his statement doesn't have the force and effect of law so bringing it up as some sort of authority is useless.

 

And to qualify that, I'm not saying you brought it up, I'm only saying it doesn't contribute to the debate here.

[Highlander]

Dentures. What benefit do you have in going against the grain? You must just be an "uber-patriot" since our government also enjoys going against the grain spending $10 billion a year on pot alone. I know you are going to turn around and say "Well Im arguing the other side for your guys benefit. You people need to understand how the world and law works". Regardless if every court decision from this point on ends up being Anti-MMJ it doesnt matter and it doesnt mean its right. The government will still waste money as people still smoke weed. Targeting marijuana users and growers (most of them) has just boiled down to oppression. Drug testing companies, probation departments, leos, pharmas would lose soo much money. Unfortunately that's not what is being argued in court but in the end who should be more scared? Jail time is nothing compared to the millions private companies and politicians will lose.

 

Hey good idea..doood….let’s get a bunch of laypeople together and start an on-line discussion about what is legal and what isn’t and we’ll decide that whatever is the most liberal is what is legal and anyone who offers advice to the contrary will be banished. We’ll all live happily ever after, accusing anyone who advises caution of sleeping with LEO.

 

Um. Maybe not.

 

I met a guy when I was at THCF waiting for my appointment for my recert. He told me that he didn’t renew his driver’s license because he read on-line that because a medical marijuana patient is allowed the privilege of medical use, which includes transportation, he doesn’t need a driver’s license, and the state cannot deny him his right to transport his marijuana. No shyt. He said this and was serious. And funny thing is I recall on the old MMMA website there was a thread that suggested that such behavior was maybe a good idea.

 

Funnier still if it weren’t so dangerous, I met another guy who said that because as a patient his marijuana would not be subject to forfeiture, he didn’t need to pay his property tax anymore. The reasoning was that the county couldn’t foreclose on his property for back taxes because his marijuana was in an enclosed, locked facility in the house and accessible only to a patient or caregiver…and that since the county could not be a registered patient or CG, they can’t legally enter his grow room to remove the plants and because his plants weren’t subject to forfeiture, between those two items, the gubbermint couldn’t take the plants out of the house and since there were plants there, the gubbermint couldn’t become the owner of the house without becoming owner of plants it can’t touch nor legally own. He seemed pretty set on this idea.

 

I wonder how that worked out for him.

 

The law isn’t going to change one way or the other based on some on-line discussion. The worst that will result is that people will read all of the sides of an argument and act within their own risk tolerance.

 

The act was drafted by Karen O’keefe of the Marijuana Policy Project with advice from a reputable Michigan law firm. Many of the opinions presented on this website are contrary to her own position on the law…..

 

….let that sink in….

 

……laypeople are arguing that the attorney who drafted the law with the help of other attorneys knows less about what is legal than said laypeople posting on this site.….and you are suggesting that it is unproductive for someone to point out those instances.

[Highlander]

 

Same scenario If I'm a person who hands a patient a medicine bottle filled with cannabis to ingest then I am assisting in their active use right?

 

But under your theory, a person - any person can sell marijuana to a patient under the umbrella of "assisting with using or administering."

 

Where do you draw the line yourself? Where is the limit of assisting with using or administering?

 

Is an unregistered person growing plants "assisting with using or administering?"

[chi_guy]

I couldn't have said it better myself. That is exactly right. Handing the pt their meds is assisting in using. What's your point?

You are trying to head up the slippery slope that says since I can hand the pt the meds that then also means I can be in possession, or sell, etc. You are equating USING with MEDICAL USE. That's the whole point here. You missed the boat.

Thank you for agreeing with me now there should be no more confusion that giving a patient cannabis whether I main line it directly to their vein or hand it to them in a pill bottle I am assisting with "using or administering". I haven't missed the boat. I'm not saying that "using or administering" equates to "medical use". I believe I stated that the first post I commented on regarding this. I do believe that using or administering is giving a patient their meds whether you roll the joint for them or physically hand it to them. When a patient purchases their meds it belongs to them when you hand them their meds you just assisted with them "using or administering" marihuana.

[chi_guy]

But under your theory, a person - any person can sell marijuana to a patient under the umbrella of "assisting with using or administering."

 

Where do you draw the line yourself? Where is the limit of assisting with using or administering?

 

Is an unregistered person growing plants "assisting with using or administering?"

 

you said:

 

But under your theory, a person - any person can sell marijuana to a patient under the umbrella of "assisting with using or administering."

 

Right On my friend. Any person who assists a registered patient with "using or administering" marihuana is protected.

 

Where do you draw the line yourself? Where is the limit of assisting with using or administering?

 

No need to draw any lines here or limit anything that isn't already limited in the act.

 

Is an unregistered person growing plants "assisting with using or administering?"

 

No because you have to specifically be assisting with using or administering under 4i. But a unregistered person can grow plants under the AD.

[DenturesLost]

Thank you for agreeing with me now there should be no more confusion that giving a patient cannabis whether I main line it directly to their vein or hand it to them in a pill bottle I am assisting with "using or administering". I haven't missed the boat. I'm not saying that "using or administering" equates to "medical use". I believe I stated that the first post I commented on regarding this. I do believe that using or administering is giving a patient their meds whether you roll the joint for them or physically hand it to them. When a patient purchases their meds it belongs to them when you hand them their meds you just assisted with them "using or administering" marihuana.

So here is the definition of medical use. What elements within this definition would also be covered by assisting with using?

 

"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.

[chi_guy]

So here is the definition of medical use. What elements within this definition would also be covered by assisting with using?

 

"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.

 

It doesn't matter what the definition of "medical use" is in this argument. But I would assume the terms transfer, delivery, and transportation all apply.

[lawyercaregiver]

So much material to respond to.

 

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

 

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.

 

Like hell. This is critically important. If Schuette is a man of honor he will have to argue that pot shops are explicitly allowed by the MMMA. I vote they are explicitly allowed so long as in conformity with county and city use permits. Local control baby. That's the answer.

 

So here is the definition of medical use. What elements within this definition would also be covered by assisting with using?

 

"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.

 

Umm, I know! I know! I will take 'all of them' for a get out of jail free card.

[peanutbutter]

The act was drafted by Karen O’keefe of the Marijuana Policy Project with advice from a reputable Michigan law firm. Many of the opinions presented on this website are contrary to her own position on the law…..

 

….let that sink in….

 

……laypeople are arguing that the attorney who drafted the law with the help of other attorneys knows less about what is legal than said laypeople posting on this site.….and you are suggesting that it is unproductive for someone to point out those instances.

 

She has always said that the act does not allow for regulated dispensaries.

 

She has never claimed that the mmj law forbids dispensaries.

 

Our law was copied from a law that has a regulatory structure for dispensaries. Our proposed law then had those sections removed.

 

The result .. no dispensary regulations.

[angie8186]

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 ..

[angie8186]

To Happy Guy: I don't know where you are getting your information but here are the facts. Firstly OCSD came into the Ferndale Clinic after it was open for approx 2 weeks and spoke to Tony Agro (a letter is on file of what transpired that day) and advised him that they did not agree on the patient to patient transfer of Medical Marijuana was legal, the way they interpreted the law. Agro advised them that all of the employees were patients and caregivers and they believed they were operating the way they (the Clinic) interpreted the law. They were not told to shut down. In a recorded conversation by the undercover officer Det Myers (while he had forgotten to turn off his mic) even said to another officer "I thought that we PROMISED Ferndale PD that we were NOT going to hit the place, and the other Officer responded "Yea, like thats gonna happen" and laughs. These people don't even have any respect for another Police Agency . On the buying of the Myers Bubbleberry marijuana, Agro told the Det. Myers TWICE that he couldn't buy what he was trying to pawn off because it smelled of chemicals and the only thing that could POSSIBLY be done with it was cook it. Agro asked where he had gotten the marijuana, did he grow it himself and Det Myers said no, his caregiver had given it to him, but he needed money, didn't like the product and was trying to get some of his money back, that he had paid $250 for it. Agro then went on to tell him, he felt bad for him and told him his caregiver was definitely ripping him off, charging that much for such an inferior product. Its all on video tape and audio tape Mr. Happy Guy, so get your stories straight before spouting off.

[phaquetoo]

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.

 

 

bish! Melvindale!!! when i was younger, they used to say all the chemicals there made the girls grow bigger lady bumps! Lmao

 

Um! how many people are posting on this thread? seems like there are many interpetations of the law here! Most off you are sat morn couch judges and lawyers.

 

I will enterpet the law for how it worked for me in my 3 cases since becoming legal!

 

Nuff said!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[Guest Happy Guy]

Thanks for the clarification. It just confirms what I said. For anyone to say this; it smelled of chemicals and the only thing that could POSSIBLY be done with it was cook it shows a serious disregard for whoever he is cooking for AND/OR he needs a lot of education about cannabis as a medicine. Take your pick as to what his problem is. It would have been so easy and upstanding to say that it was not fit to be medicine. I hope someone teaches him about medical cannabis someday.

 

You are a teaching tool for those that think they can get 'permission' from the city to do things that the sheriff and prosecutor think are a crime. You made a bad choice and are living with the consequences of your choice.

[phaquetoo]

Thanks for the clarification. It just confirms what I said. For anyone to say this; it smelled of chemicals and the only thing that could POSSIBLY be done with it was cook it shows a serious disregard for whoever he is cooking for AND/OR he needs a lot of education about cannabis as a medicine. Take your pick as to what his problem is. It would have been so easy and upstanding to say that it was not fit to be medicine. I hope someone teaches him about medical cannabis someday.

 

You are a teaching tool for those that think they can get 'permission' from the city to do things that the sheriff and prosecutor think are a crime. You made a bad choice and are living with the consequences of your choice.

 

 

ur barking up the wrong tree! why dont you do a lil more looking around at what pb has done for the sick!

 

peter weed!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[Guest Happy Guy]

Wasn't even talking about PB. LOL Go back and read up. That quote is from Agro.

All I said was the sheriff warned them, waited, and then shut them down. My quote was also correct. All I said were true statements confirmed now by a dispensary employee.

[phaquetoo]

Wasn't even talking about PB. LOL Go back and read up. That quote is from Agro.

All I said was the sheriff warned them, waited, and then shut them down. My quote was also correct. All I said were true statements confirmed now by a dispensary employee.

 

 

sorry!

[Guest Happy Guy]

That's ok.

If peanutbutter wants to say I'm off topic and censure me again then here's a statement he made in the starting post in this thread;

Before the raid on the Ferndale clinic, the sheriffs department had been consulted. The sheriffs office had agreed to allow the clinic to be open. Then they raided it.

My posts are exactly on topic and show he was wrong from the start on this topic. Lot of wrangling around but he was flat wrong about what actually happened at the dispensary.

[DenturesLost]

It doesn't matter what the definition of "medical use" is in this argument. But I would assume the terms transfer, delivery, and transportation all apply.

It absolutely matters because if you are going to define using and administering such that it equates to the definition of medical use then you are shooting yourself in the foot. If the drafter would have intended using and administering to be the same thing as medical use then the drafter would have USED medical use, a term specifically defined in the act. Your problem is that you want using and administering to have such broad coverage that it is the same thing as medical use (from the cg's perspective). To do so would fly in the face of the most loosely defined rules of statutory interpretation. That's what you aren't getting. You can either say using and administering is designed with a narrow and specific purpose or you can open up the can of worms and say it was designed with a broad purpose. Saying it was designed to be used broadly will be shot down by the most liberal of appeals judges because using it broadly implies that the drafter forgot how to effectively draft the law based on accepted practices of statutory construction. That won't fly. You can argue that it will but you will see in the end that it simply will not. Clearly there is no way I will convince you so I'll give up but, mark my words, you'll be referring back to this thread in a year or so when the COA releases an opinion on point. And if their opinion is aligned with yours then I'll eat my shoe. Dollars to donuts says you are wrong.

[DenturesLost]

So much material to respond to.

 

 

 

Like hell. This is critically important. If Schuette is a man of honor he will have to argue that pot shops are explicitly allowed by the MMMA. I vote they are explicitly allowed so long as in conformity with county and city use permits. Local control baby. That's the answer.

 

 

Ah hahaha. So now we are going to define the law based on whether a political condidate is a man of honor? Maybe that can be our 1st line of defense. "Your honor, Mr. Schuette SAID so and so, and Mr. Schuette is an honorable man, and besides, I recall myself AND PB responding to Schuette with "NO TAKE BACKSIES!" So your honor, didn't that seal the deal? Isn't AG Schuette now required to honor the no-take-backs rule?"

 

Parenthetically, isn't "honorable political candidate" an oxymoron?