Clinton Township Police

[jessiejamez]

My thought is LEO made sure to buy 4 oz so no one could say it was a legit transfer.

[CedarSpringsCG]

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.

The crime did fall under the MMMA. P2P has been backed by a judge already. Each one individually transferred 2 oz. a 2 oz transfer is protected as long as they confirmed that the receiver had a card or paperwork, it is covered. The only crime that nthnlts argues is that they transferred 4 oz to a person, which is a crime in that no one can possess 4 oz. Except that doing something like that puts the other person in an illegal activity, not the posters, so their only crime is that they aided a person in a crime. And that isn't even a crime if the person had possession of more than 1 card.

[Highlander]

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?

 

No, I'm not suggesting that.

 

Noone knows if p2p is legal or not...yet. The matter hasn't been through the court of appeals. There is a p2p case going to the COA stemming from the Isabella County PA's appeal of a judge's ruling that p2p is legal.

 

I have been watching for a p2CG case. I'm not aware of one yet. Are you?

[nthlghts]

Nice spin job. Who makes assumptions, everything you say is hoping the story will change! I am again going to say, I commented on what I read and only what I read. You on the other hand make the assumption more exists. And I said what I need to, please review, don't try to put words in my mouth, and assume I am saying something other than written.

 

 

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?

[Highlander]

The crime did fall under the MMMA. P2P has been backed by a judge already.

 

This was decided by a circuit court judge - not COA - not the SC. His opinion means nothing other than giving us hope. It isn't case law.

 

Each one individually transferred 2 oz. a 2 oz transfer is protected as long as they confirmed that the receiver had a card or paperwork, it is covered. The only crime that nthnlts argues is that they transferred 4 oz to a person, which is a crime in that no one can possess 4 oz. Except that doing something like that puts the other person in an illegal activity, not the posters, so their only crime is that they aided a person in a crime. And that isn't even a crime if the person had possession of more than 1 card.

 

Not quite. If you knowingly help someone commit a crime, you can be charged with conspiracy.

 

It is legal to hand someone bullets, right? So if you are in a McDonalds when a looneytune opens fire and then hand him bullets when he runs out, you didn't commit a crime?

[CedarSpringsCG]

This was decided by a circuit court judge - not COA - not the SC. His opinion means nothing other than giving us hope. It isn't case law.

 

 

 

Not quite. If you knowingly help someone commit a crime, you can be charged with conspiracy.

 

It is legal to hand someone bullets, right? So if you are in a McDonalds when a looneytune opens fire and then hand him bullets when he runs out, you didn't commit a crime?

I was actually going to use the bullets anaology as well! The question is, if some looney tunes opens fire in McD's and you hand him bullets, are you guilty of 1st degree murder? Or are you guilty of either aiding and abetting, or conspiracy?

 

If you are guilty of first degree murder, then you got me. If you are guilty of aiding and abetting, manslaughter, or anything lower, then I think my case is pretty solid.

[Hempcheff]

careful CS, that was the point i made that got me dumbed down so i gave up

 

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.

[CedarSpringsCG]

Nice spin job. Who makes assumptions, everything you say is hoping the story will change! I am again going to say, I commented on what I read and only what I read. You on the other hand make the assumption more exists. And I said what I need to, please review, don't try to put words in my mouth, and assume I am saying something other than written.

I disagree that you comment on only what you read. It doesn't say if the receiver here had 2 cards, 3 cards, or 6 cards. Nthlghts, would you say the guys here would be OK if they said the LEO here had 6 cards? Not asking for the story to change, just asking if it would be OK in your eyes?

 

See, I will tell you a story of a rabbit, throwing white rabbits into a hole is illegal, and 2 guys got together and threw 2 rabbits into a hole. That's the whole story.

 

Now, you are saying that they were white rabbits, where I am saying that they were brown rabbits, and others might believe they were spotted rabbits. You did not have the information, and neither do I. However, the problem I have with you is that you say they should go to jail, in a rather judgemental way. You assume that rabbit was white. Yes, in my version the rabbit is brown, and they shouldn't go to jail. Both interpretations are just that, our view of it without all of the facts.

 

The difference is, I am not offending people by mine. (well except PETA, they might be upset by throwing rabbits, I have to guess it all depends on how hard you threw the rabbits). people on here are sensitive to how LEO is treating us, because there are MANY cases where LEO is in the wrong.

[CedarSpringsCG]

careful CS, that was the point i made that got me dumbed down so i gave up

Yeah Hempy, I guess after reading what you had posted I kinda picked it up where you left off. Anyway, sometimes I am too stubborn to know when to quit.

[nthlghts]

Technically yes, but we know better, he should have taken better precautions.

 

 

I disagree that you comment on only what you read. It doesn't say if the receiver here had 2 cards, 3 cards, or 6 cards. Nthlghts, would you say the guys here would be OK if they said the LEO here had 6 cards? Not asking for the story to change, just asking if it would be OK in your eyes?

 

See, I will tell you a story of a rabbit, throwing white rabbits into a hole is illegal, and 2 guys got together and threw 2 rabbits into a hole. That's the whole story.

 

Now, you are saying that they were white rabbits, where I am saying that they were brown rabbits, and others might believe they were spotted rabbits. You did not have the information, and neither do I. However, the problem I have with you is that you say they should go to jail, in a rather judgemental way. You assume that rabbit was white. Yes, in my version the rabbit is brown, and they shouldn't go to jail. Both interpretations are just that, our view of it without all of the facts.

 

The difference is, I am not offending people by mine. (well except PETA, they might be upset by throwing rabbits, I have to guess it all depends on how hard you threw the rabbits). people on here are sensitive to how LEO is treating us, because there are MANY cases where LEO is in the wrong.

[Highlander]

I was actually going to use the bullets anaology as well! The question is, if some looney tunes opens fire in McD's and you hand him bullets, are you guilty of 1st degree murder? Or are you guilty of either aiding and abetting, or conspiracy?

 

If you are guilty of first degree murder, then you got me. If you are guilty of aiding and abetting, manslaughter, or anything lower, then I think my case is pretty solid.

 

Well so much of this is moot because at this point it doesn't matter what they were arrested for. It matters what they will be charged with.

 

You left out "conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder."

 

I sat on a jury 20 years ago. Some dude got popped for driving his buddy with the buddy's cocaine to another guys house to have it cooked up into crack.

 

The buddy was a CI. The dude who cooked was a CI. The guy who did the driving was charged with sales, some gun crimes, and conspiracy to manufacture. He got 22 years on the conspiracy charge. All he did was drive the car. He was legal to drive, but he thought he was helping someone elese break the law = conspiracy.

 

Who cares what he was arrested for. Who cares that he wasn't charged with manufacturing. He got 22 years on a conspiracy charge.

 

But by all means, Cedar. Act as you see fit.

[SkiBindings]

Commented as written, lets see it is line one.

 

 

 

 

 

CAN NOT BELIVE IT!

 

Was doing a patient to patient transfer and got arrested!

 

Exactly. We don't see the term caregiver used. If he were a cg and a pt or a cg times 2 then yes, he should be in the clear. But that's not how the story reads.

[SkiBindings]

people on here are sensitive to how LEO is treating us, because there are MANY cases where LEO is in the wrong.

 

People are also sensitive about the pts and/or cgs that are abusing the law or using it to cover themselves to make regular illegal street sales. What you are forgetting is that it is people like this that put more chips into the basket of the naysayers so they can say "see I told you so." Some of us around here are sensitive as to how the movement is perceived because in the long run the general public's perception of this whole thing is what will drive changes in the law for better or for worse.

[GreenDreamz]

So are you guys aying that you hwouldn't get rid of a qp to a patient if they needed it and you had it. A caregiver with 5 patients and thereself is allowed to posses 15 ounces. So if someone has all the paperwork it isnt against the law to transfer that amount. LEO is in the wrong anyway you put it. Never go to clinton township to do anything and you will be fine because I have heard of a lot of law enforcement that are following the laws. CROOKED COPS!! BUST REAL CRIMINALS DETROIT IS A VIOLENT CRIME EXTRAVAGANZA!!!

[SkiBindings]

I was actually going to use the bullets anaology as well! The question is, if some looney tunes opens fire in McD's and you hand him bullets, are you guilty of 1st degree murder? Or are you guilty of either aiding and abetting, or conspiracy?

 

If you are guilty of first degree murder, then you got me. If you are guilty of aiding and abetting, manslaughter, or anything lower, then I think my case is pretty solid.

Aiding and abetting isn't a crime in and of itself. Under Michigan law if you aid and abet then you are punished as if you committed the principal crime. In the bullet analogy you would be punished as if you committed 1st deg. homicide. Similar to the liability or culpability that is attributed to accomplices in regard to felony murder. If you rob a bank with a buddy and you didn't even have a gun but your buddy kills the teller then you're on the hook for the killing too under the felony murder rule.

[The Digital Nomad]

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

 

P2P is limited to 2.5oz- there is no P2CG.

P2P is protected by 'medical use' definition under the MMMAct - and it stipulates that you are perforuming medical use, with card and with only allowed 2.5ounces. So the story teller did say they did something wrong - they did a P2P for a total of 4 ounces to one person, a supposed patient. (again if he was a CG - its not a P2P. If it was a Patient/CG - you can only transfer 2.5 - the patient allowable amount)They did the 4ounces at once, from the same vehicle, and they hardly knew the guy.

 

of course there is more to the story. but the user posted in a public forum and the people made thier comments.

 

Did the LEO show a card? paperwork? Aiding and abetting or CSA charges? Were they just innocent first time growers, or were they planning on 'cashing in'? We'll see.

 

The point is, know who you are helping first - don't be in a hurry to transfer. P2P is not P2CG.

If its a Cg whining about how he needs to help his patients - simply say - "I am a patient, introduce me to your patients" - if not, f' -off.

 

-DN

[affordablemimeds]

Keep in mind even with a bunch of people shouting that P2P transfers are legal. Your working in a gray area and you assume the risk. And we know what can happen when we assume.

[SkiBindings]

Exactly. People who want to stay out of trouble need to realize that you have to walk down a winding path in the law to come up with the idea that p2p is legal. Do I think it is legal? Yes, but many others find that to be a tenuous conclusion and judges with that mindset are what you need to avoid. People have posted on this forum saying that because p2p was found to be legal by a trial court judge in Isabella county then that means they are in the clear. Nothing could be more false. Until the court of appeals rules then no court needs to follow anyone else's interpretation of the law. A trial court ruling in Isabella county does not set precedent that must be followed by other judges (even in the same county). So, the point being, watch your step. Consider doing your p2p transfers in friendly counties.

 

Keep in mind even with a bunch of people shouting that P2P transfers are legal. Your working in a gray area and you assume the risk. And we know what can happen when we assume.

[CedarSpringsCG]

People are also sensitive about the pts and/or cgs that are abusing the law or using it to cover themselves to make regular illegal street sales. What you are forgetting is that it is people like this that put more chips into the basket of the naysayers so they can say "see I told you so." Some of us around here are sensitive as to how the movement is perceived because in the long run the general public's perception of this whole thing is what will drive changes in the law for better or for worse.

Ski, I hear you on how the whole movement is perceived. It is a concern. However, more convictions = more naysayers saying I told you so. If every single bust got thrown out of court whether it was an illegal P2P or a legit one, but there were no convictions, we win. If someone with a card gets busted for anything, then they have ammunition to say, see the whole thing is a bust, because all these people with cards are doing illegal activity that never happened before. I believe we will be much better off if no one is busted for it, for any reason anytime.

 

The part about "how it reads". He doesn't say the LEO/Snitch didn't have a CG card. In fact he doesn't say he had a PT card. There was not enough disclosure to say what the LEO had.

 

there is no P2CG? CG's can "acquire" meds. That means they can buy it. The fact is that ONE lower court judge has said P2P is OK, which means that a pt can sell it, and by LAW the CG can "acquire" it, so logically that means that just as P2P is protected, P2CG is just as protected if you are in front of the same judge. Until this goes in front of the MI Supreme court, it isn't protected, there is just some precedent to allow it.

 

P2P as stated is a gray area, it depends on which judge you are in front of. It is not legal in the law. Show me where it says anywhere that a Pt can transfer to another Pt? It doesn't. I have read it dozens of times and it is not there. There is 1 LOWER court judge saying it is OK. There are also a couple lower court judges saying it isn't OK and sending people to Jail over it. If it were in the law, it would be a done deal and no one would be jailed over it.

 

Also, they did it in 2 transactions, so they sold him 2 oz, he now has 2 oz. Transaction is done. Now he wants 2 more oz. If he has a CG card and a PT card, he can transfer the 2 oz he already has to the CG card, and now is carrying nothing on the PT card, and buy 2 more oz as a PT. The fact they did it in 2 transactions is why I think they were trying to be legit, if that is how it actually went down.

 

I personally think we should all be disgusted that LEO is out there setting up traps. It costs somewhere around $30,000 a year to keep someone in jail. Do you really want $30,000 of your taxes going to keep someone in jail for selling a couple ounces of weed? And it all comes out of our pockets. If the sellers really thought this guy was a PT, I have absolutely no issue with what they did.

 

Oh and on the 2.5 oz. Section 8 allows any amount to ensure uninterrupted supply. So if this guy was cooking with it, 4 oz could be 2 weeks worth of cooking and that's it.

 

Until there is a law, which there is not, that says P2P is allowed, and only 2.5 oz, then this wasn't illegal, unless they had knowledge this guy wasn't a real PT.

[+Annnie]

what county is clinton township in?

[jessiejamez]

Macomb County

[Hempcheff]

CS, you stated:

 

there is no P2CG? CG's can "acquire" meds. That means they can buy it. The fact is that ONE lower court judge has said P2P is OK, which means that a pt can sell it, and by LAW the CG can "acquire" it, so logically that means that just as P2P is protected, P2CG is just as protected if you are in front of the same judge. Until this goes in front of the MI Supreme court, it isn't protected, there is just some precedent to allow it.

 

P2P as stated is a gray area, it depends on which judge you are in front of. It is not legal in the law. Show me where it says anywhere that a Pt can transfer to another Pt? It doesn't. I have read it dozens of times and it is not there. There is 1 LOWER court judge saying it is OK. There are also a couple lower court judges saying it isn't OK and sending people to Jail over it. If it were in the law, it would be a done deal and no one would be jailed over it.

 

Nothing out of context here, or cherry picked. Straight up flat out words in the law!

 

Doesnt: My reference in blue clear up any grey area regarding P2P transfers. a plain reading of the law as written by any laymen can clearly understand that DELIVERY is giving to, and ACQUISITION is recieving from, Both are afforded to a patient under medical use as well as TRANSFER. Feel free to use any definition of DELIVERY from a dictionary.

 

Quite black and white if you ask me. But please point me to the item that DELIVERY is referring to. It aint pizzas bro, that too, quite clearly, is MARIHUANA.

 

 

333.26423 Definitions.

 

 

 

3. Definitions. Sec. 3. As used in this act:

 

(a) "Debilitating medical condition" means 1 or more of the following:

 

(1) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, hepatitis C, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Crohn's disease, agitation of Alzheimer's disease, nail patella, or the treatment of these conditions.

 

(2) A chronic or debilitating disease or medical condition or its treatment that produces 1 or more of the following: cachexia or wasting syndrome; severe and chronic pain; severe nausea; seizures, including but not limited to those characteristic of epilepsy; or severe and persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to those characteristic of multiple sclerosis.

 

(3) Any other medical condition or its treatment approved by the department, as provided for in section 5(a).

 

(b) "Department" means the state department of community health.

 

© "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

(d) "Marihuana" means that term as defined in section 7106 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7106.

 

(e) "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.

 

(f) "Physician" means an individual licensed as a physician under Part 170 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17001 to 333.17084, or an osteopathic physician under Part 175 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17501 to 333.17556.

 

(g) "Primary caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs.

 

(h) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

(i) "Registry identification card" means a document issued by the department that identifies a person as a registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver.

 

(j) "Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant.

 

(k) "Visiting qualifying patient" means a patient who is not a resident of this state or who has been a resident of this state for less than 30 days.

 

(l) "Written certification" means a document signed by a physician, stating the patient's debilitating medical condition and stating that, in the physician's professional opinion, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

 

[affordablemimeds]

I read the statements from the isabella judge, and he said the locker type system might be legel. That is what the guys running the place said they were doing. Just renting out locker space for caregivers to keep the meds. I don't beleive I read it where he mentioned P2P. Also our family attorney friend (for 30 years) has a real issue where it states 5 patients register to you through the MDCH, said it would be hard to defend in court.

Edited April 27, 2011 by affordablemimeds

[CedarSpringsCG]

I totally agree Hempchef. I was asking a question because I think it was DN that said there is no P2CG. I was asking why isn't there. You went out and got the actual law...

[Hempcheff]

lolz, im sorry i am curious where in the law it prohibits p2p transfers, as the word transfer itself is afforded to a patient as well as caregivers in the plain language of the law.

 

It seems to me that the law provided the registration for the intents and purposes of allowing cardholder transfers and keep the overzealous hardliners on a short leash. they are finding out that this is the case the hard way!

 

And to quell highlanders' thirst to quash me this is all my plain language reading as a laymen of the MMMA as provided for on the public MDCH website.

 

Nice to see ya still ticked over our last go round highlander

 

I totally agree Hempchef. I was asking a question because I think it was DN that said there is no P2CG. I was asking why isn't there. You went out and got the actual law...