Secrete Crimes Or We'll Tell You Later Why

[DenturesLost]

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

Then I say we should be DELIBERATELY adding the chemicals and FREELY distributing to all of our lady friends.

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

There are a lot of anti-cannabis cowboys out there. That doesn't mean that they are right. What that means is that they are trying to put patients in jail after the people said to stop.

 

So then, I might have had it wrong in the opening post. That's material to the discussion. Cool .. Last I checked I could get stuff wrong.

 

What you seem to be doing is to side track this thread into something about the wrongs of the dispensary. As if that justified anything that the local cowboy may have done.

 

If you wish to have a thread to praise the wonderful job that these cowboy's are doing then do it on your own thread.

 

If you want to start a thread about how bad the Ferndale folks were being, go for it. I won't like it. I might stop in to disagree with your points. But all of that would be on your thread.

 

I asked nice before. several times.

[Guest Happy Guy]

In all fairness...

What I did was show where you were wrong. Good to see you finally admit that. Also, I pointed out another secret crime so I could keep in context with your great title. A crime that should bring a lot of outrage but seems to keep getting swept under the rug. Very much the same as you say law enforcement does, sweep their mistakes under the rug. Double standards really do not serve us well. Since when do we own threads? Your thread, my thread. This is a public forum and they should all be our threads.

[chi_guy]

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.

 

Again thank you for trying to put words in my mouth. I never suggested that "using and administrating" means medical use. I'm not giving a broad definition as you stated. As A matter of fact there are key terms in the definition of medical use that I believe don't apply in this scenario such as: use, cultivation, internal possession etc.. so how could my interpretation equate "using and administrating" to "medical use". Nice try though

 

I'm not in a position to see in the future so I can't tell you what COA's opinion will be. Judging by Justice O'connell's concurrence I don't think they will make the correct decision. But I hope to see you eat your shoe.

[peanutbutter]

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?

 

Goes to credibility.

 

Should AG Schuette fire off a blasting opinion of dispensaries, we will have conflicting statements from the man.

 

These differing and conflicting statements would be obviously determined by a political context.

 

A movement in the direction of being useless.

 

Those differing opinions would undermine the authority of the office of the Attorney General.

 

It will be interesting to see if he attempts to reverse himself and what the basis for the reversal would be.

 

In 2008 he spent about ninety thousand dollars to convince voters that dispensaries would be allowed if the law passed.

 

Now the question would be:

 

"If you were incorrect in 2008, was that because you didn't understand what you read or were you intentionally misleading the voters in an attempt to change the outcome of the vote?"

 

"If you didn't understand then how do we know that you understand now?"

 

And unless he makes a statement ASAP after getting into office, the only opinion we have from the Attorney General about the medical marijuana law is what he said on his way toward the office. He will be in office, and has already stated his opinion.

 

I'm guessing that he will be under great pressure to fix his past statements.

 

Any general statement issued by him will provide a framework that patients and caregivers will be able to operate within.

 

Those that want to fight would have a line drawn and would be able to continue to push to liberalize. Those that wish to stay under cover of the protection of the AG can live there, as they wish.

 

The point being that there will be something to base life on.

[Highlander]

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.

 

To your knowledge, as Karen given a specific opinion on dispensaries? Do you have a channel of communication to her? It sure would be nice to have a reliable quote from the drafter of the law that supports the legality of dispensaries.

[Guest Happy Guy]

This should shed some light on her opinion;

 

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

 

That is posted on this web site.

[+RevThad]

To your knowledge, as Karen given a specific opinion on dispensaries? Do you have a channel of communication to her? It sure would be nice to have a reliable quote from the drafter of the law that supports the legality of dispensaries.

Good questions. I can only provide information from her organization the MPP, and their opinions on how the laws should work and the intent behind the model they provided that is now our MMMAct.

 

Six key principles for effective state medical marijuana laws

In order for a state law to provide effective protection for seriously ill people who

engage in the medical use of marijuana, a state law must:

 

1. define what is a legitimate medical use of marijuana by requiring a person who

seeks legal protection to (1) have a medical condition that is sufficiently serious or

debilitating, and (2) have the approval of his or her physician;

 

2. provide legal protection for the primary caregivers of patients who are too ill to

provide for their own medical use of marijuana;

 

3. avoid provisions that would require physicians or government employees to violate

federal law in order for patients to legally use medical marijuana;

 

4. provide a means of obtaining marijuana, which should be done by allowing each of

the following three means of access: permit patients to chose whether to cultivate their

own marijuana or designate a caregiver to do so for them; permit patients or primary

caregivers to purchase marijuana from the criminal market (which patients already do

illegally); and authorize non-governmental organizations to cultivate and distribute

marijuana to patients and their primary caregivers;

 

5. allow patients who are arrested to discuss the medical use of marijuana in court

(Sec. 8); and

 

6. implement a series of sensible restrictions, such as prohibiting patients and primary

caregivers from possessing large quantities of marijuana, prohibiting driving while

under the influence of marijuana, and so forth.

 

Just a little something to add to the mix

[Guest Happy Guy]

MPP is in favor of add on bills that allow for legal dispensaries in Michigan. They wrote the law to exclude dispensaries as a way to get votes. They also left the door open so that AFTER the bills got passed THEN dispensaries would be legal. Look at Rhode Island as an example. They have our wording and are ahead of us.

[peanutbutter]

MPP is in favor of add on bills that allow for legal dispensaries in Michigan. They wrote the law to exclude dispensaries as a way to get votes. They also left the door open so that AFTER the bills got passed THEN dispensaries would be legal. Look at Rhode Island as an example. They have our wording and are ahead of us.

 

The law does not exclude them at all. Dead wrong. You can not find the location to quote because it doesn't exist. Please stop spreading false information.

 

And in case you didn't notice, Karen seems to be OK with the idea of Government authorized dispensaries.

 

I, for one, am glad they didn't get that set up here. We see just how well that worked in RI. It's legal for them. But even though it is legal they still can't have their meds. Same kind of thing going on in Washington DC.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Peanutbutter,

You have creative interpretation again? Saying you need a bill to allow them is saying what? Answer; You need the bill to allow them, period. That is her opinion. The writer's opinion. What I said was true in 08 and it is still true now. Just look at your example of Rhode Island. They got dispensaries AFTER the new bills. The quote from Karen is here, you need a link to believe it? Just use the search function please.

[freemannabis]

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)

 

Perfect points to make.

 

Thank You!

 

What you have pointedly declared we all need to know so much can never be said or "over-stated" nearly enough.

 

Now, lets see who establishes "The Rights" to declare the answers "on behalf" "of, by and for" ... "WE The PEOPLE"?

 

Be FREE!

[peanutbutter]

Peanutbutter,

You have creative interpretation again? Saying you need a bill to allow them is saying what? Answer; You need the bill to allow them, period. That is her opinion. The writer's opinion. What I said was true in 08 and it is still true now. Just look at your example of Rhode Island. They got dispensaries AFTER the new bills. The quote from Karen is here, you need a link to believe it? Just use the search function please.

 

What I need is for you to admit the complete lie you posted here.

 

Our mmj law does NOT forbid dispensaries.

 

It neither allows OR forbids them.

[Guest Happy Guy]

They intentional 'failed' to regulate dispensaries because they knew that dispensaries have a negative public perception. They 'failed' to included the wording to help make voters believe we would not have dispensaries in Michigan. In the other states where they 'failed' like this, bills were needed to make dispensaries legal. Explain to us why our law is different than Rhode Island's law in such a way that we do not need what they needed to make dispensaries legal.

[peanutbutter]

They intentional 'failed' to regulate dispensaries because they knew that dispensaries have a negative public perception. They 'failed' to included the wording to help make voters believe we would not have dispensaries in Michigan. In the other states where they 'failed' like this, bills were needed to make dispensaries legal. Explain to us why our law is different than Rhode Island's law in such a way that we do not need what they needed to make dispensaries legal.

 

I'll be happy to talk about it ..

 

After you at least attempt to support your false statement that our law forbids dispensaries.

 

Please quote that section of our law.

[Guest Happy Guy]

I'm using Karen's quote. She has much more knowledge and experience than I so I just listen. LOL When something needs to be allowed by something else, and that something else is not there, then that something is not allowed. Can you follow that? Not allowed? What does 'not allowed' mean to you?

[peanutbutter]

I'm using Karen's quote. She has much more knowledge and experience than I so I just listen. LOL When something needs to be allowed by something else, and that something else is not there, then that something is not allowed. Can you follow that? Not allowed? What does 'not allowed' mean to you?

 

Back up your starting statement.

 

Here is where the law is on the state server. Show me where just the word "dispensary" exists in that law.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28q0wbut45lvaui045ihgv1ivi%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008

[peanutbutter]

Karen and MPP are also talking about state sanctioned large commercial grows. As a part of the three things that are needed.

[angie8186]

Why did he end up buying it? Its called COMPASSION, feeling sorry for someone that obviously got taken. Im sure you know the definition of Compassion don't you, or maybe not. You are saying have no trust in your local Police Dept, just OCSD, do you get to choose just which Police Dept you can trust nowadays? That shows just who you are in bed with buckoo. Jessica and Mike must be some really good bed partners. LMAO.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Karen is good enough back up for anyone I think. Thank Karen for her words of experience when she says dispensaries need added bills to be allowed. I believe her. I don't have to find it in the law to prove it for her. She helped write it and that shows intent. You can twist the law this way and that but Karen knows about the intent and how it was written. I don't need a word find puzzle.

[peanutbutter]

Back up your starting statement.

 

Here is where the law is on the state server. Show me where just the word "dispensary" exists in that law.

 

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28q0wbut45lvaui045ihgv1ivi%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-Initiated-Law-1-of-2008

 

OK .. so you can't find that word anywhere in the law.

 

So show me anywhere in the law that any word or phrase could be used to replace the word "dispensary."

 

You can't do that either. The location doesn't exist within the mmj law at all.

 

Prove me wrong. Otherwise you are partaking in misleading the readers here about the content of our law.

[+RevThad]

I'm using Karen's quote. She has much more knowledge and experience than I so I just listen. LOL When something needs to be allowed by something else, and that something else is not there, then that something is not allowed. Can you follow that? Not allowed? What does 'not allowed' mean to you?

Under what Michigan law are dispensaries discussed, banned, allowed, or disallowed?

 

Let's try a different tact here... The MMMAct sets specific limits on who can or cannot be sold to.

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

 

You as a registered patient or caregiver are not allowed to sell to folks not allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes. Meaning you are allowed to sell to folks that ARE ALLOWED to use marijuana for medical purposes.

 

If all sales were to remain illegal, then there would be no reason for this language in the law, as sales of marijuana were already illegal under Michigan law. If this was meant to be an increase in penalties to the existing law for selling marijuana, the wording could have simply been stated as:

 

"Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana; shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana."

 

So obviously the additional language has purpose and meaning, and that purpose is to set a defined limit on sales.

 

Simple as that.

[Guest Happy Guy]

This is what I base my opinion on;

 

This should shed some light on her opinion;

 

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

 

That is posted on this web site.

[peanutbutter]

This is what I base my opinion on;

 

This should shed some light on her opinion;

 

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

 

That is posted on this web site.

 

So she would like to see REGULATED dispensaries.

 

At this time there are no state level regulations about dispensaries.

 

That is a very long way from "the current law forbids dispensaries."

 

So her statement doesn't support your claim that they were made illegal in our law.

[peanutbutter]

I'm using Karen's quote. She has much more knowledge and experience than I so I just listen. LOL When something needs to be allowed by something else, and that something else is not there, then that something is not allowed. Can you follow that? Not allowed? What does 'not allowed' mean to you?

Under what Michigan law are dispensaries discussed, banned, allowed, or disallowed?

 

Let's try a different tact here... The MMMAct sets specific limits on who can or cannot be sold to.

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

 

You as a registered patient or caregiver are not allowed to sell to folks not allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes. Meaning you are allowed to sell to folks that ARE ALLOWED to use marijuana for medical purposes.

 

If all sales were to remain illegal, then there would be no reason for this language in the law, as sales of marijuana were already illegal under Michigan law. If this was meant to be an increase in penalties to the existing law for selling marijuana, the wording could have simply been stated as:

 

"Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana; shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana."

 

So obviously the additional language has purpose and meaning, and that purpose is to set a defined limit on sales.

 

Simple as that.

 

Now you are talking about defining exactly what a dispensary is. Which is the first step in attempting to regulate what they are allowed to do or not to do.

 

Right now it's simply wild west time. The longer it stays that way the better off that we are. When they do get it together enough to regulate dispensaries everyone will have gotten used to them.