Clinton Township Police

[michiganmedclones]

Its pretty vauge, its a budtrader ad but I figured someone might be interested:

 

http://michigan.budtrader.com/2011/04/25/clinton-twp-police/

 

Sounds like the cops are never going to let this go

[The Digital Nomad]

Its pretty vauge, its a budtrader ad but I figured someone might be interested:

 

http://michigan.budtrader.com/2011/04/25/clinton-twp-police/

 

Sounds like the cops are never going to let this go

 

One thing that I read - "We met .. We transferred..(meaning two people were in the car making a P2P) "we both transferred 2ounces"

 

Gee, a P2P for 4ounces? thats not a legal transfer to a patient. Granted 'they' could have 'played games' and made two trips to stay under the 2.5ounce LIMIT for patients to possess. If they knowningly sold 4 ounces to a patient, they should have known it was illegal for a patient to possess that amount. I bet this will be the crux of the MMMAct violation and subsequent CSA charge.

 

And - the first rule of P2P, should be "Know Thy Patient" - certainly meeting a new person is tough, but perhaps they should have met the new patient with less amounts and more interest in talking and knowing each other. Since the LEO would not get out of his car, I am pretty sure the LEO would not have been so converstational about his illness, disability, getting legal, etc. That would have been the first hint.

 

Now, if those two people had changed their minds about transferring and left the parking lot still holding their 2 ounces each - that sounds like they would have been legal! possessing their legal amounts.

 

Thanks for the heads up.

 

-DN

[nthlghts]

Just going on the preliminary story it looks like these patients were mocking the law and trying to transfer a QP to one guy. Oops your screwed, and if this is true I would personally put the nails in their coffin if I could.

[Hempcheff]

Since when are we not allowed to p2p? It seems like the only one out of order was the cop holding 4 ounces as an unregistered patient. Each 2 oz. transaction was legit, save for the police involvement. unless there is more (usually) to the story, they didnt do anything outside the law.

 

Just going on the preliminary story it looks like these patients were mocking the law and trying to transfer a QP to one guy. Oops your screwed, and if this is true I would personally put the nails in their coffin if I could.

[nthlghts]

Let me guess you think common sense is not a requirement. They went with 4 oz to transfer in front of one another mind you, to a patient that can only posses 2.5oz. Wise up this is the kind of stupidity that will repeal or tighten the act. I cannot believe I have to tell you this.

 

 

Since when are we not allowed to p2p? It seems like the only one out of order was the cop holding 4 ounces as an unregistered patient. Each 2 oz. transaction was legit, save for the police involvement. unless there is more (usually) to the story, they didnt do anything outside the law.

 

 

[Hempcheff]

And i cant believe that i have to tell you that perhaps the receiving police officers (bogus) paperwork may have shown him as patient and CG status, so 4 ounces really isnt a lot to question is it? Lets find the whole story first, besides, each patient still transferred a legal amount.

 

Let me guess you think common sense is not a requirement. They went with 4 oz to transfer in front of one another mind you, to a patient that can only posses 2.5oz. Wise up this is the kind of stupidity that will repeal or tighten the act. I cannot believe I have to tell you this.

 

 

 

[nthlghts]

My comments are based on the story as told. And if you meet a strange caregiver off bud trader, to transfer 4oz in a parking lot, that you don't know, who does not inspect product, than you are a fool and again my comments apply. Use your head!

 

And i cant believe that i have to tell you that perhaps the receiving police officers (bogus) paperwork may have shown him as patient and CG status, so 4 ounces really isnt a lot to question is it? Lets find the whole story first, besides, each patient still transferred a legal amount.

 

 

[Hempcheff]

so now we get into personal attacks on me to use some common sense for calling you out ? either way, each patient transferred a LEGAL amount. its not their responsibility to play moral police to the recipient any more than you can tell your patients what to do with the medicine you provide. If i was making butter then 4 ounces is a reasonable amount to ensure the uninterrupted supply of medication.

 

 

Are you a cop?

 

My comments are based on the story as told. And if you meet a strange caregiver off bud trader, to transfer 4oz in a parking lot, that you don't know, who does not inspect product, than you are a fool and again my comments apply. Use your head!

 

 

[nthlghts]

No personal attack, simple facts. No moral responsibility needed, but look at every other controlled item, guns, alcohol, prescription meds, cigarettes and you will find controls. What makes you think this is any different, use sense or someone else will do it for you. Some think this is going to be some free for all, and they will screw it up for everyone. And you cop comment, grow up! I am not mister nice guy, this is serious, and will cost some their freedom, so no place for children, if you fall in that to bad.

 

 

so now we get into personal attacks on me to use some common sense for calling you out ? either way, each patient transferred a LEGAL amount. its not their responsibility to play moral police to the recipient any more than you can tell your patients what to do with the medicine you provide. If i was making butter then 4 ounces is a reasonable amount to ensure the uninterrupted supply of medication.

 

 

Are you a cop?

 

 

[JimD]

Nothing irritates me more than these case studies that drive wedges in our community. If it were removed from schedule one this would be a non issue for us and leo!

But it isn't so here is the best advice for all of us...know your law! It says quite clearly that 2.5 oz is the maximum amount, none of us should be in the business of helping people obtain more than that at any one time

Lastly, and this is my opinion, I won't be shedding a tear when our law puts the last pot dealer out of business.

[Hempcheff]

/sigh, you win,

 

dont forget the puppies

 

No personal attack, simple facts. No moral responsibility needed, but look at every other controlled item, guns, alcohol, prescription meds, cigarettes and you will find controls. What makes you think this is any different, use sense or someone else will do it for you. Some think this is going to be some free for all, and they will screw it up for everyone. And you cop comment, grow up! I am not mister nice guy, this is serious, and will cost some their freedom, so no place for children, if you fall in that to bad.

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2011 by Hempcheff

[+EdwardGlen]

I have an idea! Lets wait and find out if this story is even true.

 

Every story has three sides to it - yours, mine and the facts.

- Foster Meharny Russell

[jessiejamez]

I have an idea! Lets wait and find out if this story is even true.

 

Every story has three sides to it - yours, mine and the facts.

- Foster Meharny Russell

That's 2 posts in the last 24 hours that I completely agree with you (I don't remember what the other one was). After calling you divisive repeatedly, I'm looking for common ground with my more liberal friends and neighbors...lol

 

I'm wondering what kind of person transfers 4 oz. in a parking lot with someone they just met over the internet who wouldn't even get into your car. I'm a "let's take it slow kind of guy". I would want to get to know you and your medicine before I even consider that type of transfer. Just seems like some people don't see the red flags.

[nthlghts]

No tears, but definitely taxes back in your pocket

 

Nothing irritates me more than these case studies that drive wedges in our community. If it were removed from schedule one this would be a non issue for us and leo!

But it isn't so here is the best advice for all of us...know your law! It says quite clearly that 2.5 oz is the maximum amount, none of us should be in the business of helping people obtain more than that at any one time

Lastly, and this is my opinion, I won't be shedding a tear when our law puts the last pot dealer out of business.

[SkiBindings]

"Are you a cop?" Haha, famous last words of those on this forum who have exhausted any practical arguments. Saying that on here is kind of like saying, "yeah, well you're ugly, so there!" Rather than the race card I'll start calling it the "cop card." Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't make them a cop.

 

What you are forgetting, or maybe just plain didn't know, is that it is illegal to aid and abet the commission of a crime in Michigan. In this transaction one or both tranferors knew that their transfers would create a crime in the end. It would aid the transferee in committing that crime. When someone performs acts that assist someone else in the commission of a crime then they may be guilty of the crime under the aiding and abetting theory. Also keep in mind that the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime is a possible charge here. Here, even though the transferors maybe didn't intend to commit a crime they still had knowledge that the principal (the transferee) intended the commission of a crime. It is that knowledge that makes the transferor guilty of the crime under an aiding and abetting theory.

 

so now we get into personal attacks on me to use some common sense for calling you out ? either way, each patient transferred a LEGAL amount. its not their responsibility to play moral police to the recipient any more than you can tell your patients what to do with the medicine you provide. If i was making butter then 4 ounces is a reasonable amount to ensure the uninterrupted supply of medication.

 

 

Are you a cop?

Edited April 26, 2011 by SkiBindings

[nthlghts]

 

"Are you a cop?" Haha, famous last words of those on this forum who have exhausted any practical arguments. Saying that on here is kind of like saying, "yeah, well you're ugly, so there!" Rather than the race card I'll start calling it the "cop card." Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't make them a cop.

 

What you are forgetting, or maybe just plain didn't know, is that it is illegal to aid and abet the commission of a cirme in Michigan. In this transaction one or both tranferors knew that their transfers would create a crime in the end. It would aid the transferee in committing that crime. When someone performs acts that assist someone else in the commission of a crime then they may be guilty of the crime under the aiding and abetting theory. Also keep in mind that the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime is a possible charge here. Here, even though the transferors maybe didn't intend to commit a crime they still had knowledge that the principal (the transferee) intended the commission of a crime. It is that knowledge that makes the transferor guilty of the crime under an aiding and abetting theory.

 

 

[CedarSpringsCG]

"Are you a cop?" Haha, famous last words of those on this forum who have exhausted any practical arguments. Saying that on here is kind of like saying, "yeah, well you're ugly, so there!" Rather than the race card I'll start calling it the "cop card." Just because someone disagrees with your position doesn't make them a cop.

 

What you are forgetting, or maybe just plain didn't know, is that it is illegal to aid and abet the commission of a crime in Michigan. In this transaction one or both tranferors knew that their transfers would create a crime in the end. It would aid the transferee in committing that crime. When someone performs acts that assist someone else in the commission of a crime then they may be guilty of the crime under the aiding and abetting theory. Also keep in mind that the crime of conspiracy to commit a crime is a possible charge here. Here, even though the transferors maybe didn't intend to commit a crime they still had knowledge that the principal (the transferee) intended the commission of a crime. It is that knowledge that makes the transferor guilty of the crime under an aiding and abetting theory.

 

You still don't know the facts. First, I am sure they weren't arrested for Aiding and Abetting a crime. LEO isn't going to set up a sting operation, as that would also be entrapment. They would have been arrested for trafficking, or something like that of a schedule 1 controlled substance. If they are only being arrested for aiding and abetting, because that was their only crime, then fine. However, you don't know that the purchaser wasn't a PT and a CG for 5 other people. Meaning he could legally obtain 15 oz in one trip.

 

You say you are commenting on the story as told, yet you aren't. You make assumptions on untold portions of the story. Well, I assume the LEO here had at least 3 cards in his possession, 1 PT, and 2 CG cards. So the story tellers here did nothing wrong at all. You assume the LEO only had 1 card, and want them to get the full extent of the law.

 

Point is, don't assume so much, then jump out and make inflamatory statements. Some here are always assuming the worst, instead of supporting the people until they know different. Assume innosence until proven otherwise. If you don't, your just as bad as our AG and the LEO who are trying to completely remove the law if they could.

 

Like BB keeps saying, this should be a shield, not a sword. Give people the benefit of the doubt until there is specific evidence to the contrary.

 

Cedar

[Highlander]

If i was making butter then 4 ounces is a reasonable amount to ensure the uninterrupted supply of medication.

 

The affirmative defense protects you in court against conviction; it doesn't protect you from arrest. Cops are not qualified, nor do we want them to have the authority, to make a call in the field if an amount of marijuana is reasonable.

 

I thought you quit giving legal advice.....

Edited April 26, 2011 by Highlander

[nthlghts]

You still don't know the facts. First, I am sure they weren't arrested for Aiding and Abetting a crime. LEO isn't going to set up a sting operation, as that would also be entrapment. They would have been arrested for trafficking, or something like that of a schedule 1 controlled substance. If they are only being arrested for aiding and abetting, because that was their only crime, then fine. However, you don't know that the purchaser wasn't a PT and a CG for 5 other people. Meaning he could legally obtain 15 oz in one trip.

 

You say you are commenting on the story as told, yet you aren't. You make assumptions on untold portions of the story. Well, I assume the LEO here had at least 3 cards in his possession, 1 PT, and 2 CG cards. So the story tellers here did nothing wrong at all. You assume the LEO only had 1 card, and want them to get the full extent of the law.

 

Point is, don't assume so much, then jump out and make inflamatory statements. Some here are always assuming the worst, instead of supporting the people until they know different. Assume innosence until proven otherwise. If you don't, your just as bad as our AG and the LEO who are trying to completely remove the law if they could.

 

Like BB keeps saying, this should be a shield, not a sword. Give people the benefit of the doubt until there is specific evidence to the contrary.

 

Cedar

 

 

 

 

 

Commented as written, lets see it is line one.

 

 

 

 

 

CAN NOT BELIVE IT!

 

Was doing a patient to patient transfer and got arrested!

 

The person who called stated they had their paperwork, went to meet

at Meijers on Groesbeck at Cass Ave…and it was a set up!

 

Cop was in a burgandy Explorer…would not get into our vehicle

to view medicine. Minute we were out of the parking lot we were

pulled over, searched, and arrested for distribution. We both transferred

2 oz. each. The siezed medications, cash, and legal paperwork.

 

BEWARE! CLINTON TOWNSHIP IS NOT…NOT…FOLLOWING LAW!

Edited April 26, 2011 by nthlghts

[Highlander]

LEO isn't going to set up a sting operation, as that would also be entrapment.

 

 

It isn't entrapment unless LEO compells you to do something that is illegal that you would not have done were it not for LEO's convincing.

 

The story as told apears to suggest that the two transferers willingly transferred more cannabis to someone posing as a patient than one patient can legally possess. There is no entrapment here. They were on Budtrader for God's sake. Noone twisted their arm to deliver a total of 4 oz.

[CedarSpringsCG]

Commented as written, lets see it is line one.

 

 

 

 

 

CAN NOT BELIVE IT!

 

Was doing a patient to patient transfer and got arrested!

 

The person who called stated they had their paperwork, went to meet

at Meijers on Groesbeck at Cass Ave…and it was a set up!

 

Cop was in a burgandy Explorer…would not get into our vehicle

to view medicine. Minute we were out of the parking lot we were

pulled over, searched, and arrested for distribution. We both transferred

2 oz. each. The siezed medications, cash, and legal paperwork.

 

BEWARE! CLINTON TOWNSHIP IS NOT…NOT…FOLLOWING LAW!

He never once says that the PT wasn't also a CG. Line 1 says, was doing a P2P, he NEVER SAYS the PT wasn't a CG. By law a CG can ACQUIRE meds for their PT's. The law does not say a CG HAS to grow it.

 

Show me where he says the P2P transferee was only a PT and not a CG? Show me? Where is it that it says the PT was not allowed by law to hold 4 oz? You commented as posted with your own personal assumptions. When you assume, you make an azz out of yourself.

[Highlander]

By law a CG can ACQUIRE meds for their PT's.

 

 

This matter isn't about where a CG can acquire meds. The guy who acquired the meds was a cop or snitch.

[CedarSpringsCG]

It isn't entrapment unless LEO compells you to do something that is illegal that you would not have done were it not for LEO's convincing.

 

The story as told apears to suggest that the two transferers willingly transferred more cannabis to someone posing as a patient than one patient can legally possess. There is no entrapment here. They were on Budtrader for God's sake. Noone twisted their arm to deliver a total of 4 oz.

Still, the crime they committed was Aiding and Abetting correct? Or was the crime they were arrested for selling drugs? 2 EXTREMELY different charges. The actual crime here is that the officer had more than 2 oz on him, which if he had a PT and CG card it wouldn't be a crime at all. The actual transfers weren't the illegal part, so they shouldn't get drug felonies.

[Highlander]

Still, the crime they committed was Aiding and Abetting correct? Or was the crime they were arrested for selling drugs? 2 EXTREMELY different charges. The actual crime here is that the officer had more than 2 oz on him, which if he had a PT and CG card it wouldn't be a crime at all. The actual transfers weren't the illegal part, so they shouldn't get drug felonies.

 

The crime they allegedly committed was distribution of a controlled substance.

 

If the transfers did not fall under the protections of the MMMA, they lose all the protection under the MMMA and will be charged with a CSA violation.

[CedarSpringsCG]

This matter isn't about where a CG can acquire meds. The guy who acquired the meds was a cop or snitch.

So, are you saying the P2P transfer itself was illegal? Cause most people on here believe that P2P is OK and that has been backed by at least 1 judge.

 

Or are you saying that transferring 4 oz to one person is illegal? Cause most on here I believe would agree transferring 2 oz per card is OK. Especially done in 2 transactions, being that you can rightfully say that I want 2 oz for this card, here's the money for me, and I want 2 oz for this card, here's the money for my PT. How is that outside of the law?

 

So, Highlander you must be saying that the P2P transfer was illegal completely in the first place right?