Secrete Crimes Or We'll Tell You Later Why

[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.

 

You are helping to support a lie being used against a lot of people, in court, right now.

 

But that's not how Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard and Prosecutor Jessica Cooper see it. Both declined interviews for this story, citing busy schedules. But they contend dispensaries are illegal under the Michigan Marijuana Act.

 

Are you here to try to help sheriff Bouchard and Jessica Cooper?

 

You see .. THEY DON'T SEEM TO HAVE READ THE LAW EITHER.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Argue with Karen then. She was the one that said that they had not been allowed.

You should know by now that it doesn't have to say dispensary in our law to make them illegal. Everything WAS illegal and our MM law made some things legal. That is why you would need a bill to allow for them. Like I said, argue with the writers of the law about intent and what they wrote.

[peanutbutter]

Argue with Karen then. She was the one that said that they had not been allowed.

You should know by now that it doesn't have to say dispensary in our law to make them illegal. Everything WAS illegal and our MM law made some things legal. That is why you would need a bill to allow for them. Like I said, argue with the writers of the law about intent and what they wrote.

 

Getting better .. but you're still refusing to admit that you are trying to help put patients in jail.

 

Your words "have not been allowed" is vastly different than "the mmj law forbids it."

[+RevThad]

Argue with Karen then. She was the one that said that they had not been allowed.

You should know by now that it doesn't have to say dispensary in our law to make them illegal. Everything WAS illegal and our MM law made some things legal. That is why you would need a bill to allow for them. Like I said, argue with the writers of the law about intent and what they wrote.

The problem is you are using that quote out of context. Karen in particular believes (according to her various quotes) that state licensing and regulating of dispensaries are a responsible way to go about assuring safe access...

 

"We are seeing a historic shift to allowing state-licensed, regulated medical marijuana production and distribution. [...] Combining regulated distribution with provisions for patients to grow a limited quantity for themselves is the best way to assure safe access for patients, with solid safeguards to prevent abuse."

 

So you admit that some things were made legal under our law, that is a good start. One of those things that is now legal is the transfer of marijuana to registered patients and caregivers. Are we now going to suggest that the only thing that matters is where that transaction takes place, besides the obvious limits on where possession is allowed in the law (see Section 7)?

 

An add on bill would only serve to define and regulate such an operation, it wouldn't be to legalize the conduct taking place in them (as the law already allows for the conduct).

[peanutbutter]

The problem is you are using that quote out of context. Karen in particular believes (according to her various quotes) that state licensing and regulating of dispensaries are a responsible way to go about assuring safe access...

 

"We are seeing a historic shift to allowing state-licensed, regulated medical marijuana production and distribution. [...] Combining regulated distribution with provisions for patients to grow a limited quantity for themselves is the best way to assure safe access for patients, with solid safeguards to prevent abuse."

 

So you admit that some things were made legal under our law, that is a good start. One of those things that is now legal is the transfer of marijuana to registered patients and caregivers. Are we now going to suggest that the only thing that matters is where that transaction takes place, besides the obvious limits on where possession is allowed in the law (see Section 7)?

 

An add on bill would only serve to define and regulate such an operation, it wouldn't be to legalize the conduct taking place in them (as the law already allows for the conduct).

 

There is a false statement that is being promoted in the media and among the people right now.

 

This false statement is being used as the grounds to put people in jail. A lot of them.

 

When I see that completely false statement being promoted here, well .. my bp goes up a little.

 

That false statement is "the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act forbids dispensaries."

 

That is a lie and supports these cowboy cops.

[peanutbutter]

Argue with Karen then. She was the one that said that they had not been allowed.

 

I've had several chats with Karen.

 

I've attempted to have e-mail exchanges with her on the topic. Talk goes dead when I ask about dispensaries.

 

So how about you argue with Bill Schuette? I bet he won't talk about it either now. He said they would be legal because NOTHING would exist that would forbid it.

[DenturesLost]

Getting better .. but you're still refusing to admit that you are trying to help put patients in jail.

 

Your words "have not been allowed" is vastly different than "the mmj law forbids it."

Really PB get off it already. Your nonsense about people "trying to put pts in jail" just because they believe there are more limits than you do is getting old. Someone can disagree with you and it doesn't mean they want to kill old ladies, stomp kittens, OR put pts in jail. Give me a break. Frankly I don't want ANYONE in jail except violent criminals and multi-recidivists. I don't like paying for their room and board. So drop it and argue constructively.

[DenturesLost]

There is a false statement that is being promoted in the media and among the people right now.

 

This false statement is being used as the grounds to put people in jail. A lot of them.

 

When I see that completely false statement being promoted here, well .. my bp goes up a little.

 

That false statement is "the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act forbids dispensaries."

 

That is a lie and supports these cowboy cops.

The question isn't whether the MMA forbids dispensaries. You seem to hang on the word dispensary and apparently assume that because that word isn't in the act that they are then legal. The law doesn't forbid them. The question is whether the law paves the way for them to be legal. I've yet to see anyone come up with a logical flow chart based on the law that would lead us down the path to understanding that dispensaries are legal. If you think they are legal then explain how they are in precise and comprehensive terms. And how about you make it a new thread because this one is already bogged down. Maybe entitle it THIS IS WHY DISPENSARIES ARE LEGAL. And don't give us chopped up rhetoric. Give me a flow chart in a single post that explains exactly how they are legal.

[peanutbutter]

Really PB get off it already. Your nonsense about people "trying to put pts in jail" just because they believe there are more limits that you do is getting old. Someone can disagree with you and it doesn't mean they want to kill old ladies, stomp kittens, OR put pts in jail. Give me a break. Frankly I don't want ANYONE in jail except violent criminals and multi-recidivists. I don't like paying for their room and board. So drop it and argue constructively.

 

I fought to get this law in place and I will fight to keep it.

 

I will not give one inch about things that are very clear about the law.

 

I won't give way to things being added or taken away by virtue of "common perception."

 

Our mmj law DOES NOT forbid dispensaries.

[chi_guy]

The question isn't whether the MMA forbids dispensaries. You seem to hang on the word dispensary and apparently assume that because that word isn't in the act that they are then legal. The law doesn't forbid them. The question is whether the law paves the way for them to be legal. I've yet to see anyone come up with a logical flow chart based on the law that would lead us down the path to understanding that dispensaries are legal. If you think they are legal then explain how they are in precise and comprehensive terms. And how about you make it a new thread because this one is already bogged down. Maybe entitle it THIS IS WHY DISPENSARIES ARE LEGAL. And don't give us chopped up rhetoric. Give me a flow chart in a single post that explains exactly how they are legal.

 

If they are ilegall then you need to provide your evidence as to why they are. The meat of the issue is whether or not the transfer between cardholders is allowed. Obviously if you read the act this not even arguable. All this Karen O'Keefe talk I thought I remembered seeing a video interview where she clearly stated that cities should not be able to regulate medical marihuana because that would require civil penalties which are clearly not allowed under the act.

 

http://www.upnorthmedia.org/watchupnorthtv.asp?SDBFid=2198

 

 

I believe it's in about 39 minutes in to the interview when she talks about it.

[peanutbutter]

The question isn't whether the MMA forbids dispensaries. You seem to hang on the word dispensary and apparently assume that because that word isn't in the act that they are then legal. The law doesn't forbid them. The question is whether the law paves the way for them to be legal. I've yet to see anyone come up with a logical flow chart based on the law that would lead us down the path to understanding that dispensaries are legal. If you think they are legal then explain how they are in precise and comprehensive terms. And how about you make it a new thread because this one is already bogged down. Maybe entitle it THIS IS WHY DISPENSARIES ARE LEGAL. And don't give us chopped up rhetoric. Give me a flow chart in a single post that explains exactly how they are legal.

 

Simple

 

All existing marijuana laws in Michigan were passed years before the phrase "medical marijuana dispensary" was even thought of.

 

They were off the radar.

 

The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act does not define or outlaw them either.

 

The activities that take place within a building that make the location a "dispensary" have never been defined in any State or Federal law.

 

The activities that normally take place within a dispensary have been permitted in the mmj law.

 

Lawful activities are lawful.

[Guest Happy Guy]

RI House Passes Marijuana Dispensary Plan

 

 

 

by Chris Boardman, ABC-6 Rhode Island

 

The House today voted 63 to 5 to approve legislation to allow the creation of compassion centers to dispense marijuana to patients in the state’s medical marijuana program.

 

If the legislation (2009-H 5359A), which is sponsored by Rep. Thomas C. Slater (D-Dist. 10, Providence), is enacted, Rhode Island would join California and New Mexico as the only states that allow medical marijuana dispensaries.

 

The passage comes on the heels of the Senate passage on April 29 of similar legislation (2009-S 0185aa) sponsored by Sen. Rhoda E. Perry (D-Dist. 3, Providence). Both she and Representative Slater were also the sponsors of the legislation that created Rhode Island’s medical marijuana law in 2006. Thirteen states in total allow the medicinal use of marijuana.

 

Representative Slater said compassion centers would safely and sensibly address a major problem in the state’s medical marijuana law: Patients have no safe, legal way to obtain marijuana, and must turn to the streets for it. Patients who testified at committee hearings told of being robbed and terrified while attempting to find marijuana on the streets.

 

“We recognized when we created the medical marijuana program that marijuana has a legitimate medical application, and that patients should have access to it if they need it. But we forced them to deal with criminals in order to get it. We’re talking about very sick people, and they shouldn’t have to put themselves at risk to get their medicine,” said Representative Slater.

 

The bill amends the original medical marijuana act to create nonprofit compassion centers that would be registered by the Department of Health to distribute marijuana or related items to people registered with the state’s medical marijuana program. The bill sets a limit of three compassion centers statewide.

 

Representative Slater and Senator Perry sponsored similar legislation, which passed the Senate but died in committee in the House amid concerns that the federal government might raid the centers because federal law prohibits the distribution of marijuana. Instead, both chambers passed a bill, which was later vetoed by the governor, to study the issue.

 

However, with the change in the federal administration, the sponsors believe the climate has changed for the bill. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has stated that the federal government will no longer prosecute dispensaries for patients in states that allow them.

 

“Without the threat of federal raids, there’s no practical reason not to develop a safe way for patients to access this drug. When we recognize that patients need marijuana to ease their pain and the federal government isn’t standing in the way, it’s cruel to refuse to allow them a safe means to get it,” said Representative Slater, who added that he hopes there would be enough support for the legislation to override a veto if necessary. The Senate passed Senator Perry’s version of the bill with a 35-to-2 vote.

 

The General Assembly overrode a gubernatorial veto to create the state’s medical marijuana program in January 2006. The bill was the result of years of effort by Representative Slater and Senator Perry, and it was a very personal campaign for both. Representative Slater has been diagnosed with two types of cancer and is currently undergoing treatment. He is one of four of the six siblings in his family with the disease and lost his father, brother and uncle to cancer.

 

Senator Perry’s nephew, Edward O. Hawkins, died four years ago after a long battle with AIDS. As Hawkins suffered and wasted away in his final months, his family offered to get him marijuana to ease his pain and nausea, but he refused for fear of arrest.

 

In honor of their personal crusades to make marijuana treatment available to the suffering, the General Assembly named the law the Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act

 

RI House Passes Marijuana Dispensary Plan

 

 

 

by Chris Boardman, ABC-6 Rhode Island

 

The House today voted 63 to 5 to approve legislation to allow the creation of compassion centers to dispense marijuana to patients in the state’s medical marijuana program.

 

If the legislation (2009-H 5359A), which is sponsored by Rep. Thomas C. Slater (D-Dist. 10, Providence), is enacted, Rhode Island would join California and New Mexico as the only states that allow medical marijuana dispensaries.

 

The passage comes on the heels of the Senate passage on April 29 of similar legislation (2009-S 0185aa) sponsored by Sen. Rhoda E. Perry (D-Dist. 3, Providence). Both she and Representative Slater were also the sponsors of the legislation that created Rhode Island’s medical marijuana law in 2006. Thirteen states in total allow the medicinal use of marijuana.

 

Representative Slater said compassion centers would safely and sensibly address a major problem in the state’s medical marijuana law: Patients have no safe, legal way to obtain marijuana, and must turn to the streets for it. Patients who testified at committee hearings told of being robbed and terrified while attempting to find marijuana on the streets.

 

“We recognized when we created the medical marijuana program that marijuana has a legitimate medical application, and that patients should have access to it if they need it. But we forced them to deal with criminals in order to get it. We’re talking about very sick people, and they shouldn’t have to put themselves at risk to get their medicine,” said Representative Slater.

 

The bill amends the original medical marijuana act to create nonprofit compassion centers that would be registered by the Department of Health to distribute marijuana or related items to people registered with the state’s medical marijuana program. The bill sets a limit of three compassion centers statewide.

 

Representative Slater and Senator Perry sponsored similar legislation, which passed the Senate but died in committee in the House amid concerns that the federal government might raid the centers because federal law prohibits the distribution of marijuana. Instead, both chambers passed a bill, which was later vetoed by the governor, to study the issue.

 

However, with the change in the federal administration, the sponsors believe the climate has changed for the bill. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has stated that the federal government will no longer prosecute dispensaries for patients in states that allow them.

 

“Without the threat of federal raids, there’s no practical reason not to develop a safe way for patients to access this drug. When we recognize that patients need marijuana to ease their pain and the federal government isn’t standing in the way, it’s cruel to refuse to allow them a safe means to get it,” said Representative Slater, who added that he hopes there would be enough support for the legislation to override a veto if necessary. The Senate passed Senator Perry’s version of the bill with a 35-to-2 vote.

 

The General Assembly overrode a gubernatorial veto to create the state’s medical marijuana program in January 2006. The bill was the result of years of effort by Representative Slater and Senator Perry, and it was a very personal campaign for both. Representative Slater has been diagnosed with two types of cancer and is currently undergoing treatment. He is one of four of the six siblings in his family with the disease and lost his father, brother and uncle to cancer.

 

Senator Perry’s nephew, Edward O. Hawkins, died four years ago after a long battle with AIDS. As Hawkins suffered and wasted away in his final months, his family offered to get him marijuana to ease his pain and nausea, but he refused for fear of arrest.

 

In honor of their personal crusades to make marijuana treatment available to the suffering, the General Assembly named the law the Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater Medical Marijuana Act

[peanutbutter]

Nothing to do with Michigan .. good for RI, I guess.

 

Simply because RI took some action does not place a requirement on Michigan.

[Highlander]

Maybe I'm missing something? What are these legal activities? Do you feel that this explanation is similar to a defense one might raise in court? What you have essentially said is "dispensaries are legal because what happens at one is legal.". I don't think this is very helpful?

 

I guess one needs to define a dispensary. If a dispensary is a location where a registered caregiver provides meds to patients to which he is connected through MDCH then you won't find many to disagree with you.

 

Simple

 

All existing marijuana laws in Michigan were passed years before the phrase "medical marijuana dispensary" was even thought of.

 

They were off the radar.

 

The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act does not define or outlaw them either.

 

The activities that take place within a building that make the location a "dispensary" have never been defined in any State or Federal law.

 

The activities that normally take place within a dispensary have been permitted in the mmj law.

 

Lawful activities are lawful.

[peanutbutter]

Maybe I'm missing something? What are these legal activities? Do you feel that this explanation is similar to a defense one might raise in court? What you have essentially said is "dispensaries are legal because what happens at one is legal.". I don't think this is very helpful?

 

I guess one needs to define a dispensary. If a dispensary is a location where a registered caregiver provides meds to patients to which he is connected through MDCH then you won't find many to disagree with you.

 

Yep ..

IF what is taking place within the building is legal, then the building is legal.

 

The actions that are taking place are a different topic than the building itself.

 

In Ferndale, the defendants are not charged with running a dispensary. If they are, in fact, forbidden by law, then why haven't the defendants been charged with the crime?

 

There is no crime that has been defined about medical marijuana dispensaries.

 

Putting a sign on the outside of a building does not convert the actions taking place inside the building into a crime.

[Highlander]

Ok fair enough you can have a place called a "dispensary" or "a groovy place to get meds" and maybe all you can buy there are Matchbox cars and so there is nothing illegal about that

 

What were the activities of concern at ferndale? What have they (ferndale folks) been charged with? And what is their best defense?

 

Yep ..

IF what is taking place within the building is legal, then the building is legal.

 

The actions that are taking place are a different topic than the building itself.

 

In Ferndale, the defendants are not charged with running a dispensary. If they are, in fact, forbidden by law, then why haven't the defendants been charged with the crime?

 

There is no crime that has been defined about medical marijuana dispensaries.

[peanutbutter]

Ok fair enough you can have a place called a "dispensary" or "a groovy place to get meds" and maybe all you can buy there are Matchbox cars and so there is nothing illegal about that

 

What were the activities of concern at ferndale? What have they (ferndale folks) been charged with? And what is their best defense?

 

Many charges. Everything they can think of to charge them with. Every one even remotely possible to stick.

 

Not one of those charges has the word "dispensary" in it. Not one.

 

So if our mmj law forbids dispensaries, why haven't these people been charged as such?

[+RevThad]

Maybe I'm missing something? What are these legal activities? Do you feel that this explanation is similar to a defense one might raise in court? What you have essentially said is "dispensaries are legal because what happens at one is legal.". I don't think this is very helpful?

 

I guess one needs to define a dispensary. If a dispensary is a location where a registered caregiver provides meds to patients to which he is connected through MDCH then you won't find many to disagree with you.

Currently there is a few cases going through the courts that will decide a these issues and many others. Along with the protections and rights of visiting qualifying patients, transferring marijuana to patients that aren't connected to a caregiver via the registry process, and whether patient to patient transfers are allowed.

 

One might be really interested in noting the lengths prosecutors have been going to avoid allowing the words medical, patients, caregivers, and others that would relate any of those actions to the MMMAct. They understand the slippery slope they are on, and how the COA has ruled so far. They know that even unregistered folks are protected from prosecution (conviction more specifically). That even if the broad and liberal interpretation that many of us have of section 4 doesn't apply to these folks, that the protections of Section 8 will. What is an unregistered caregiver? If I am a registered caregiver and a registered patient, can I also be an unregistered caregiver for other patients outside of my 5?

 

Just my thoughts.

[peanutbutter]

Many charges. Everything they can think of to charge them with. Every one even remotely possible to stick.

 

Not one of those charges has the word "dispensary" in it. Not one.

 

So if our mmj law forbids dispensaries, why haven't these people been charged as such?

 

I'll answer .. They can't find a single MCL code number to plug in. Not one single code number for "dispensaries" in the entire MCL code.

 

If anyone would have found it, it would have been Jessica Cooper.

[peanutbutter]

Many in the anti forces see this gap in the legal system as a problem.

 

One area that needs to be "regulated" in the medical marijuana world we live in today.

 

It is now to late to get a law in place that forbids them.

 

The best hope for the anti forces is a very very tight regulation. That would recognize them as legitimate.

 

I think that during the design for the regulations, felony charges for officers of the law to handle any patient records that reside in any dispensary. Weather the dispensary is conforming or not.

[+RevThad]

Ok fair enough you can have a place called a "dispensary" or "a groovy place to get meds" and maybe all you can buy there are Matchbox cars and so there is nothing illegal about that

 

What were the activities of concern at ferndale? What have they (ferndale folks) been charged with? And what is their best defense?

Hell they were adding charges for other miscellaneous stuff the week of the prelim hearings. Charges not based on any new evidence, just a hope that something will stick. Watch the videos that Eric linked to yesterday, and catch the insane dialogue about how the felony firearms charge was added. Nothing about it in the police reports, the original photos didn't contain anything about them, and only 3 or 4 days prior to the hearing did the OIC remember the defendant getting up and going into the other room, where the firearm was allegedly found.

 

What is their best defense? Relying on the fact that their are all registered patients and caregivers, that were helping only registered patients or registered caregivers. Pointing to the limits on sales as set forth in section 4 (k). Further, since they are already in the court system, using the protections in Section 8, as they can clearly show the elements as they were diligent about checking for registry identification cards. Their own rules and regulations show what their intent was.

[DenturesLost]

Getting better .. but you're still refusing to admit that you are trying to help put patients in jail.

 

3rd grade nonsense that is...

That's like saying that because I agree cops should be able to arrest people and because once in a while someone is arrested who is innocent of a charged crime then I must be TRYING to put innocent people in jail. You are trying to bully people into adopting your view by indicating that anyone opposed must be trying to harm innocent people. Drop the grade school antics already before I ask you if you are a f@g in a cage...

 

You know what you are if you aren't a f@g in a cage, right? A f@g on the loose. Yeah, the height of 3rd grade humor.

 

And, my apologies to any gay people reading this. I'm not a bigot just trying to make an anolgy here.

[DenturesLost]

Many charges. Everything they can think of to charge them with. Every one even remotely possible to stick.

 

Not one of those charges has the word "dispensary" in it. Not one.

 

So if our mmj law forbids dispensaries, why haven't these people been charged as such?

So are we playing semantics games now or are we arguing constructively?

The law doesn't need the word dispensary in it to outlaw the activity engaged in by a dispensary.

 

I would throw a similar challenge to you--to find a Michigan law that outlaws brothels. I don't think you can. Does that mean brothels are legal?

Ha Ha Ha

 

Really PB....either you understand where people are coming from when they assert dispensaries are illegal and you are just trying to be cute with your position that they must be legal since the law doesn't specifically outlaw a "dispensary," or somehow you really do believe that the word dispensary must be contained in a law for a dispensary to be illegal. If it's the latter then there is no point debating it with you anymore.

[peanutbutter]

Many charges. Everything they can think of to charge them with. Every one even remotely possible to stick.

 

Not one of those charges has the word "dispensary" in it. Not one.

 

So if our mmj law forbids dispensaries, why haven't these people been charged as such?

So are we playing semantics games now or are we arguing constructively?

The law doesn't need the word dispensary in it to outlaw the activity engaged in by a dispensary.

 

I would throw a similar challenge to you--to find a Michigan law that outlaws brothels. I don't think you can. Does that mean brothels are legal?

Ha Ha Ha

 

Really PB....either you understand where people are coming from when they assert dispensaries are illegal and you are just trying to be cute with your position that they must be legal since the law doesn't specifically outlaw a "dispensary," or somehow you really do believe that the word dispensary must be contained in a law for a dispensary to be illegal. If it's the latter then there is no point debating it with you anymore.

 

Please list the crime any of these people are charged with that would be the same thing as "operating a dispensary."

 

You are partiality correct. There are things that could take place inside a dispensary that would be illegal. Every one of those things would be illegal regardless of the location it took place. Inside a building or not.

 

There might be the possible exception of "operating a drug house." However, that crime involves illegal drugs.

[peanutbutter]

The claim that set me off was something like "The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act makes dispensaries illegal."

 

If the MMMA makes dispensaries illegal, then why haven't any defendants in these cases been charged with THAT crime?