Judge Says Pot Dispensary Ok

[djkazoo]

Perhaps this will start to help set prescedence in other similar cases and influence other cases that are MMj related.

 

A win for MMj!!!

 

I know some folks aren't thrilled with dispensaries, but they do offer an alternative for some folks. It's good to have choices!

[phaquetoo]

Perhaps this will start to help set prescedence in other similar cases and influence other cases that are MMj related.

 

A win for MMj!!!

 

I know some folks aren't thrilled with dispensaries, but they do offer an alternative for some folks. It's good to have choices!

 

 

I want a dispensary in every town! hell in every gas station! I want the choice!

 

I have absolutly no problem with dispensarrys or their prices! we dont have to go there, like I said its a nice choice though if you need it!

 

Awsome win!

 

Merry Christmas!

Peace

FTW

Jim

[GregS]

Those who insisted that p2p is not legal are now being shown the high road. I guess there are some who cannot trust their own judgment or whose judgment is inadequate to read and understand the plain and unambiguous language of the law. For them, we have "experts" whose "opinions" are freely acquiesced to, without reasoned, critical inquiry, or common intelligence. Oh well.

 

The bell just went off boyzngrrlz. Get on it.

 

So now I guess we hafta decide the definition of dispensary. If it means to say that an entity can provide a private venue where patients can enjoy all of the protections of the law, and without interference from local government, and be counted as a "dispensary," then they are in fact, legal. If we want to call it a dispensary, that amounts to a term that has been cleverly worked into the law in order to ensure safe, secure access. If it means to denote an operation where an individual or individuals can operate to engage in medical use w/o adherence to the closely and clearly specified limits of the law, then we have a different animal that cannot be protected. This ruling clarifies that it is time we clarify that a dispensary is a business, for or not for profit, that provides a venue for qualified persons to enjoy the generous protections of the law, without engaging in practices that are not protected. Sounds pretty simple.

[+mayorherb]

I think that if I happened to be a patient that wanted to transfer to another patient..... I would do it in Isabella County. The prosecutor is not so friendly but the judge rules.

Well i am glad and not surprised..Mt.Pleasant and Clare border each other..and are very understanding on the law and for the patients and caregivers..Hats off to all invloved even the prosecuter for handleing it the way he did..

[Clear and Unambiguous]

Oh it’s on like a plate of neck bones now. Open them all over the state and marry them to our tax dollars.

[davidl]

Thank You for providing this Information ...

 

May you have a Merry Christmas " Eric L. VanDussen "

Bout time they are finally learning they cannot circumvent the law we voted into effect.

[michiganmedclones]

Were getting some big wins in the courts lately, everyone stay legal and honest and we can make this into the state we want it to be!

[kruztydj]

Great news indeed.

[+EdwardGlen]

:goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob:

[Hempcheff]

little bump

[Mr. Wilson]

Patient to patient "transfer" sounds different than patient to patient "sale", ?????

 

Sounds like the Judge had to make an educated guess because the law does not specifically OK P2P.

 

Good news but no doubt another court will come up with a decision that says the complete opposite and it will be back up in the air.

[Croppled1]

UPDATED: Judge says pot dispensary is OK; Burdick says he'll appeal

 

Published: Thursday, December 16, 2010

 

0diggsdigg ShareThis21By SUSAN FIELD

Clare Managing Editor

An Isabella County judge has ruled that a Mt. Pleasant medical marijuana dispensary is operating within state law.

 

In an opinion filed Thursday in Isabella County Trial Court, Chief Judge Paul Chamberlain denied Prosecutor Larry Burdick’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop Brandon McQueen and Matt Taylor from operating Compassionate Apothecary.

 

Burdick plans to appeal the ruling and said that the issue is a statewide concern.

 

Chamberlain ruled that the business was not a public nuisance and that McQueen and Taylor operate during designated business hours, and perform medical marijuana-related conduct pursuant to state law.

 

Compassionate Apothecary Opinion

 

Michigan voters in November 2008 approved a referendum providing for the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and lawmakers approved the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act.

 

In a Aug. 13 brief asking for the preliminary injunction, Burdick argued that Compassionate Apothecary does not comply with the law because it allows for the distribution of medical marijuana from registered patient to registered patient, whereas the law indicates that the drug can only be obtained by a registered patient growing the plant or the patient’s registered caregiver growing the drug.

 

Taylor and McQueen’s attorneys, Dan O’Neil and John Lewis, indicated during testimony in August that the state law is “silent” about whether a middleman can distribute the drug to registered patients. They indicated that McQueen and Taylor were easing the pain of patients who, for a variety of reasons, might not have access to medical marijuana.

 

Burdick countered that the law does not allow for the type of distribution at Compassionate Apothecary, saying that he believed the state statute does not allow for dispensaries.

 

Burdick said in his motion that Taylor and McQueen’s conduct constitutes a nuisance per se – or in and of itself – because the business was being operated contrary to state law. Continued...

 

O’Neil said he was pleased with Chamberlain’s opinion and said the document was thorough and well-written.

 

O’Neil also said Chamberlain did not rule that dispensaries were illegal, rather that Compassionate Apothecary is not a nuisance, and that the Legislature needs to fix the statute.

 

Lewis agreed with O’Neil, noting that Chamberlain’s ruling is likely the first statewide civil opinion on the issue and that it had been anticipated by many attorneys’ groups statewide.

 

Chamberlain ruled that the court “must base a need for a preliminary injunction on a particularized showing of irreparable harm, not a mere apprehension of future injury or damage.

 

“Moreover, a nuisance per se is ‘an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings.”

 

Chamberlain also said in the opinion that state law allows for the protection of qualifying patient and primary caregiver for the “medical use” of marijuana, and that state law provides a “broad definition of ‘medical use.’”

 

That definition is “the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer or transportation of marijuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marijuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualified patient’s debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.”

 

Chamberlain ruled that McQueen and Taylor’s “acts, occupation or structure is not a nuisance at all times under any circumstances.”

 

That, coupled with the business only operating during established hours to “perform their medical marijuana related conduct pursuant” to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, means the apothecary is not a nuisance, Chamberlain ruled.

 

“Therefore, their business does not constitute a nuisance per se (in and of itself),” the judge said. “Further, defendants’ business is not an ‘unreasonable interference with a common right enjoyed by the general public.’” Continued...

 

Chamberlain said in the opinion that the public “owns a large interest in this case because the same public voted to enact the MMMA, which lends support for its interest in providing a system by which registered qualifying patients may engage in the medical use of marijuana to alleviate their debilitating medical conditions and symptoms associated with such conditions.”

 

Burdick said he believes the opinion was wrongly decided.

 

“We are disappointed in the ruling released today,” Burdick said. “We believe it significantly expands the parameters the Legislature placed in the (Michigan Medical Marijuana Act), limiting caregivers to having five patients and not recognizing ‘patient-to-patient’ distribution at all.

 

“The court’s opinion allows individuals to establish essentially a marijuana consignment shop by setting up a few lockers and getting signatures on some forms, to distribute marijuana to anyone with a patient card, while taking 20 percent commission off the top of the sale. We don’t believe the intent or language of the law, or the rules of statutory construction lead to this result.”

 

Please go to the source for the rest of the story .

 

http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2010/12/16/news/doc4d0a3372c31d7876875695.txt?viewmode=fullstory

[bobandtorey]

i knew this was going to happen they want to fill the C.O.A up and the PA's get paid to do it

[hofner67]

The good guys one one this time!!!!!

[Guest Happy Guy]

i knew this was going to happen they want to fill the C.O.A up and the PA's get paid to do it

Better that way. If it wasn't appealed it would be a weak precedent. It gets stronger as we win at the COA. Then we will need the MSC ruling and bingo, mission accomplished. That's how it's done!

[hofner67]

It is great to go into the new year with a win!!!!!

[bobandtorey]

Better that way. If it wasn't appealed it would be a weak precedent. It gets stronger as we win at the COA. Then we will need the MSC ruling and bingo, mission accomplished. That's how it's done!

 

 

yes your right about that but we know who is up their O'Connell he will wright another 30 pages

[Retta]

Very good news, I like patient to patient especially for medibles.

[freemannabis]

"...this court finds that the patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries of marihuana between registered qualifying patients falls soundly within the medical use of marihuana as defined by the MMMA. This court also finds that because the Legislature provided the presumption of medical use of marihuana in MCL 333.26424(d), it intended to permit such patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries of marihuana between registered qualifying patients in order for registered qualifying patients to acquire permissible medical marihuana to alleviate their debilitating medical conditions and their respective symptoms. Essentially, defendants assist with the administration and usage of medical marihuana, which the Legislature permits under the MMMA." (See Page 7 of the attached Isabella County Opinion and Order)

 

 

***

 

Well, as much as it goes without saying, I'm going to say it anyway:

 

This worthy news is waaaaaay at the top of the best of some of "the best news I've ever heard in my life" list!!!

 

Thanks, for the PROMISING NEWS from "the Front"!

 

Remember way back when?:

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/18186-opening-of-compassionate-apothecary-in-mt-pleasant-mi/

 

Thank you to everyone!

 

Way to cultivate some solid ground!

 

It sure will be interesting to see how long this "lower court" ruling takes to make it to "MSP Legal Updates" website, eh? That is, if it ever does.

 

Anyone else take special note of the author's obviously pointed statement:

 

"Chamberlain did distinguish he was not ruling on the legality of dispensaries across the state".

 

http://www.cm-life.com/2010/12/16/breaking-judge-rules-c-a-of-mount-pleasant-within-legal-parameteres-of-mmma/

 

Now, why and for what ever kind of purpose or intentions would anyone want to inject a colorful statement like that right in the middle of such a "clear and unambiguous" news article pertaining to such a compassionate, not to mention progressively historical, Michigan court ruling?!

 

Keep on Winning The Good Fight everybody; "Every moment; Every day".

 

Which reminds me of a younger time; a fanciful time; when I dreamed I would someday "grow-up" : ]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibFv_8LuuA0

 

Ahh ... Pipe Dreams, eh?!

 

Still dreamin' ...

 

'Cuz, as we can surely see: Dreams - even BIG DREAMS - can and do come true!

 

 

 

Yup, "We've come a long way, baby!"

 

That we have;

 

That we have.

 

Each and every one and all.

 

Much thanks to ALL!

 

FREE The CURE

 

HARVEST The HEALING

[hofner67]

Hey Hey Isabel la!!!!!

[Surfergirl]

This is awesome.....I smoked a Affie x SD to celebrate.....taste is there...but stone is only avg...for me anyway...we r all different.

 

 

Hats off to Matt and Brandon...and the rest of the crew. For standing up for what they believed in, and willing to risk their freedom doing it! Now lets blow up this economy like Cali......

 

 

 

But.......PLEASE do buy local.....support your local farmers and local economy.

[freemannabis]

My friend the noose tightens around the neck of the tyrants. They have been exposed by the people and now by the courts and they have lost. We are now on the slow march to liberty. We will have struggles. It will not be easy but we have the high ground. We will not take one step back. The law is what the law is. Thanks for the post! Bb

 

On that note ...

 

One certainly cannot help but marvel at the selfish actions of a clearly malfeasant {as alleged} "Public Servant":

 

"Burdick plans ... to appeal the ruling and said that the issue is a statewide concern."

 

"Burdick argued ... that Compassionate Apothecary does not comply with the law because it allows for the distribution of medical marijuana from registered patient to registered patient, whereas the law indicates that the drug can only be obtained by a registered patient growing the plant or the patient’s registered caregiver growing the drug."

 

"Burdick countered ... that the law does not allow for the type of distribution at Compassionate Apothecary, saying that he believed the state statute does not allow for dispensaries."

 

"Burdick said ... in his motion ... that Taylor and McQueen’s conduct constitutes a nuisance per se – or in and of itself ..."

 

(SOMEONE sure IS a "NUISANCE," - per se - alright!)

 

"Burdick said he believes the opinion was wrongly decided."

 

"“We are disappointed in the ruling released today,” Burdick said.

 

“We believe it significantly expands the parameters the Legislature placed in the (Michigan Medical Marijuana Act), limiting caregivers to having five patients and not recognizing ‘patient-to-patient’ distribution at all."

 

So ... what's this "WE" stuff?!

 

Certainly not the me in "WE The PEOPLE"!

 

So, Mr. Burdick, EXACTLY, WHO IS THIS 'WE' that YOU repeatedly refer to?

 

Keep on Winnin' the Good Fight, Bb!

 

Be FREE

 

SHARE The CURE

 

HARVEST The HEALING

[MightyMightyMezz]

Hey Hey Isabel la!!!!!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-pi4NgT21w

[Bisharoo]

Very tasty MMM, thank you very much for that! PM is working?

[dutch&Dutchess]

It is too bad that someone who ostensibly went to law school and who has the responsibility to guide people through the legal system is SO CLUELESS as to not be aware that The Legislature had nothing whatsoever to do with our ACT!!!! “We believe it significantly expands the parameters the Legislature placed in the (Michigan Medical Marijuana Act), limiting caregivers to having five patients and not recognizing ‘patient-to-patient’ distribution at all. SOO stupid and so well paid by tax dollars and others I am sure. I smell political ambition.