The Law Does Not Require A Grow Room To Be Locked.

[peanutbutter]

We will never surrender any part of our law. We as individuals must always put safety first. This part of the law will be tested over and over. PB is right in his interpretation, but the judicial is legislating currently, so keep those doors locked. Thanks, bb

 

Thank you. Yes they are not "clearing up" the law. They are writing new law from the bench.

 

And I guarantee that whatever the judges write for our law will look NOTHING like what the voters passed.

 

Dr. Bob, I'm sorry that I snapped at you. sorta ..

 

Jury nullification is the only thing that can stop this abuse.

[Dr. Bob]

Thank you. Yes they are not "clearing up" the law. They are writing new law from the bench.

 

And I guarantee that whatever the judges write for our law will look NOTHING like what the voters passed.

 

Dr. Bob, I'm sorry that I snapped at you. sorta ..

 

Jury nullification is the only thing that can stop this abuse.

 

hey man, we are cool, strong opinions=strong emotions and I admire your passion.

 

We can't always jump down their throats when they don't read something the way we do. Hate to say this and will get flamed I'm sure, but the vast majority of things - the Redden concurring opinion, the King case, etc do have an element of common sense as the courts try to wrap their heads around what the people told them they wanted. There is a difference between boot licking and complying with what the court considers 'reasonable'. Take Redden for example- they want records, a face to face visit, and a follow up. Ok, sure that means you can't just walk in, say you are sick and get a card. Restriction of rights, well sort of, but can you do that with vicodin or a heart transplant? Sure there will be folks out there that say they can get vicodin that way, but really, is that the way we want to do it? Would the vast majority of folks on this board think it was 'OK' to just walk in and get vicodin that way?

 

Why should a certification for MMJ be any different than a regular doctor visit? What is the main criticism of Certification Clinics? They are mills and sell signatures to people without documented conditions. Will complying with Redden over time and across the board eventual change that opinion and public perception, over time it will. We need to show we are professionals and follow good medical practice and by our example, convince the general public of that. The courts just outlined the standards by which we are judged

 

This is a battle for public perception, we need to determine how we fight it. We can whine, re-argue cases, and continue to push limits and self justify. Or we can listen to what the courts are saying and learn our lessons. We will lock the grow rooms, cover the grows, have records, and do follow ups.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

As for jury nullification, of course it is there. It can be used for good to refuse to convict someone under an unjust law, it can be used for evil as it was in some of the civil rights cases down south in the 60's.

 

Which is it in our case? Folks will argue either side depending on their point of view. One thing I will bring up is that regardless of what it is, IT REALLY, REALLY PISSES JUDGES OFF!!!!!!!

 

Who runs the court room, the judge.

Who instructs the jury, the judge.

Who can question each juror, in front of the entire court, as to their willingness to put aside what they just saw outside the courthouse and CONVICT based on the law, THE JUDGE CAN, especially when we give him cause to.

 

So why are we going out of our way to tinkle the judge off, lets do our best to make the PROSECUTION tinkle the judge off and stand on our evidence, arguments, and have the power of right on our side. We wont win all the cases, but we will win a lot LESS if we continue to give the courts excuses to influence the juries against use by telling them they have to ignore what they saw us doing and CONVICT if that is what the law tells them to do.

 

Remember a basic tenant of human psychology is that we are inclined to do something if we are given permission to do it. Tell a smoker it is ok to light up in your house, chances are he will even if he wasn't thinking of having a cig at that very min or planned on going out later in the evening for one. A judge, sitting up high in his robes oozing power and authority, making a big deal of telling a jury it is OK to CONVICT despite what they just saw outside is a hurdle we DON'T NEED.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

I would disagree about the permission thing. Laws have no impact on the desire for drugs in our nation. Such documents are like a command that you are not allowed to like the way apples taste. It's the wrong tool for the job. Paper in Lansing has zero effect on the taste of apples in Detroit.

 

A complete mis fire. Zero impact on the desire.

 

I believe we have a example of a couple of judges that conducted criminal activity to convict an otherwise innocent person.

[CedarSpringsCG]

Yeah, I think the problem is judges who disagree with the MMMA2008 and impose their own rules against what is written in the law. Just like here, I believe the intent is that the grow room be in a state that only allows access by a CG/PT. It could be a lock, it could be a troll, it could be just so well hidden that no one can figure out how to get in. The intent as voted by the people is that the grow room is only accessible by the right people, not your neighbors kid who crawls through a window when you go to the market.

 

How you do that is what is in question. Locks are what everyone can agree on. Arguing that you can use a sawzall to get through a wall in 20 seconds doesn't make anyone feel good about security, a LOCKED lock on a door does. The whole thing comes down to the intent of the law, more than the words (I can't recall who quoted a judge, but by an initiated law it should be evaluated by voter intent more than the actual words).

 

Make it secure, and be able to argue how a repairman in your house wouldn't have access to the room. How a housesitter when you are on vacation wouldnt' have access to the room.

 

If the LEO has to wait for you to get a key, or wait for you at all to access the grow, that is a good thing.

 

My grow is in a basement, and I have access under a shelf in a closet upstairs right over the door. I was thinking about dropping a pin from the upstairs down into the door, so it can't be opened until you remove the pin, and then lock the pin down to the floor. No one could argue that I wasn't doing everything I could to secure it, as if you see it upstairs you probably would have no clue what it was for, and if you didn't know it was there when standing at the room downstairs, you would have no clue to go look upstairs for a pin.

[thatoneartist]

And PLEASE understand. I'm NOT saying to leave your grow unlocked.

 

Lord knows, they will use that as an EXCUSE to ignore the people of the state.

 

What I'm saying here is that an unlocked door is not a justifiable reason to send someone to prison. Even more so when locks are not even required in the law.

 

 

 

THANK YOU. I am facing felonies because my basement wasn't locked. I thought my house was the locked, enclosed facility. Do I really deserve prison because of that? This happen before the King case was out

[Guest Happy Guy]

THANK YOU. I am facing felonies because my basement wasn't locked. I thought my house was the locked, enclosed facility. Do I really deserve prison because of that? This happen before the King case was out

The only way they can make that case is if either your house was unlocked, or they can prove that someone that isn't a patient had free run inside your house when the grow room was unlocked. Otherwise, the locks you have on your outer doors would be the locks for the locked facility. Some day a good attorney will drive that one home.

[CedarSpringsCG]

I use a patient as a security device... Works well when I have my door open for any reason

[bobandtorey]

hey man, we are cool, strong opinions=strong emotions and I admire your passion.

 

We can't always jump down their throats when they don't read something the way we do. Hate to say this and will get flamed I'm sure, but the vast majority of things - the Redden concurring opinion, the King case, etc do have an element of common sense as the courts try to wrap their heads around what the people told them they wanted. There is a difference between boot licking and complying with what the court considers 'reasonable'. Take Redden for example- they want records, a face to face visit, and a follow up. Ok, sure that means you can't just walk in, say you are sick and get a card. Restriction of rights, well sort of, but can you do that with vicodin or a heart transplant? Sure there will be folks out there that say they can get vicodin that way, but really, is that the way we want to do it? Would the vast majority of folks on this board think it was 'OK' to just walk in and get vicodin that way?

 

Why should a certification for MMJ be any different than a regular doctor visit? What is the main criticism of Certification Clinics? They are mills and sell signatures to people without documented conditions. Will complying with Redden over time and across the board eventual change that opinion and public perception, over time it will. We need to show we are professionals and follow good medical practice and by our example, convince the general public of that. The courts just outlined the standards by which we are judged

 

This is a battle for public perception, we need to determine how we fight it. We can whine, re-argue cases, and continue to push limits and self justify. Or we can listen to what the courts are saying and learn our lessons. We will lock the grow rooms, cover the grows, have records, and do follow ups.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Take Redden for example- they want records, a face to face visit, and a follow up Am sorry Doc we had records and a face to face i think you are reading it wrong

[GanjaWarrior]

There are other laws that come into play as well. Do you have easy access to MMJ while driving? If you can possess a loaded fire arm, does that mean you can carry it openly on the seat next to you when you drive? Can you have an open beer in your cup holder even if you aren't drinking it?

 

I'll turn it right back at you. I'll grant you it isn't in the law, but if it is locked in the trunk vs on the seat next to you, which is the better defense? Pick battles, don't split hairs. It is precisely think kind of thought process that leads directly to adverse court opinions, bad zoning laws and bad public perception.

 

Read elsewhere on this board. There is a substantial bit of opinion that is saying protesters promoting jury nullification etc at a recent trial ALLOWED the judge to influence the jury to convict. I am not commenting on the protest or the case, just pointing out what is being said about it.

 

My point is that if we approach this from an attitude of safety demonstrating how we complied with what they want, we may never end up in court to begin with. Lock the grow, lock it in the trunk, etc. The old adage with speeding tickets comes to mind. The best way to fight one is not to get it in the first place. After that it is an uphill battle and I don't want to joust windmills if I don't have to. I don't want to be in court unless it is my choice to be there, and I don't choose to be there unless it is a slam dunk win from my side and I can overcome any possible argument from theirs.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Great examples dr bob.....but what do they have to do with us? beer guns...... can you have your loratab on the seat next to you? when you gop to walgreens do you lock up your anitbiotics? Now dont get me wrong....i think i just pointed out something for the politicians to work on lol but its medicine and i sure as hell dont need to put it in the trunk. just my op....

[Dr. Bob]

Take Redden for example- they want records, a face to face visit, and a follow up Am sorry Doc we had records and a face to face i think you are reading it wrong

 

Never said you had any less, I am aware you went to THCF and they do a good job. Good to have a follow up in addition since last fall.

 

My comments were directed at the no record, no problem mills.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Great examples dr bob.....but what do they have to do with us? beer guns...... can you have your loratab on the seat next to you? when you gop to walgreens do you lock up your anitbiotics? Now dont get me wrong....i think i just pointed out something for the politicians to work on lol but its medicine and i sure as hell dont need to put it in the trunk. just my op....

 

Beer and vicodin are not schedule 1 narcotics that cops are looking to bust. You accept whatever level of risk you wish, but if you don't want to take chances, you have my advise. Police can look at MMJ as an intoxicant in easy reach, just like an open beer. There are laws outside of the MMMA that come into play, and keeping meds in the trunk is just good sense.

 

Dr. Bob

[The Digital Nomad]

I rather side with Dr. Bob - why NOT take every precaution to protect yourself? An extra lock on the door, putting your meds out of reach while you are driving - they only take a few extra minutes to deal with, and could save you years of problems if something does happen.

 

I have two doors that have to be unlocked to get to the room, not including the front door. I have Restricted Area signs on the inner door, with photocopies of paperwork, card, etc. I carry my meds in a locked, air tight breifcase. If LEO is going to raid my house, they will have to trash two doors to get in, and all these signs warning them to contact the Justice and notify that this is a medical grow. Overkill? No - just a harder person to arrest and convict.

 

Do what you will, drive with your meds in your front pocket and a warm pipe in the other pocket. Carry your full 2.5 ounces every time you leave the house in a brown sack, you can leave that on your front seat. Make transactions in public where everyone can see you.Make sure that you and your house and car smells like dank. Its your right, but don't come back on the forum whining about how you got busted and expect the rest of us to stand with you. We took extra precautions to protect our rights, why won't you?

[Dr. Bob]

I rather side with Dr. Bob - why NOT take every precaution to protect yourself? An extra lock on the door, putting your meds out of reach while you are driving - they only take a few extra minutes to deal with, and could save you years of problems if something does happen.

 

I have two doors that have to be unlocked to get to the room, not including the front door. I have Restricted Area signs on the inner door, with photocopies of paperwork, card, etc. I carry my meds in a locked, air tight breifcase. If LEO is going to raid my house, they will have to trash two doors to get in, and all these signs warning them to contact the Justice and notify that this is a medical grow. Overkill? No - just a harder person to arrest and convict.

 

Do what you will, drive with your meds in your front pocket and a warm pipe in the other pocket. Carry your full 2.5 ounces every time you leave the house in a brown sack, you can leave that on your front seat. Make transactions in public where everyone can see you.Make sure that you and your house and car smells like dank. Its your right, but don't come back on the forum whining about how you got busted and expect the rest of us to stand with you. We took extra precautions to protect our rights, why won't you?

 

Well said. You are planning well, folks that don't take basic, common sense, precautions put the law at risk and make the efforts of those of us trying to do things right pointless. They are the low hanging fruit of the movement and the first LEO will grab and make an example of.

 

Dr. Bob

[Poppa Puff]

I lock my rooms, others don't. I do because I feel a JUDGE may interpret the law better for you with more locks between your girls and other ppl.

Until we can get a clear ruling on this, I would rather air with more than less. Just my thoughts.

[Guest OxXGarfieldXxO]

This whole thread is a red herring. The law explicitly states a "locked closed facility". Yes you can have "locks (plural form of the noun-denotes 2 or more) or other security devices" but they are not required, but it being "locked (adjective-past tense- implies there is a way the door became locked)" from the get go is law. Can't lock(verb) something without a lock(noun). Think PB got a lil overzealous in his interpretation and left out a few things like "s's" and the difference between singular and plural. The initial "lock" is a given or the facility has no way to be "locked". Other security measures are optional. I can't believe no ones said this in 3 pages....

 

Unless you guys would just rather re-write grammar rules.....

[bobandtorey]

Never said you had any less, I am aware you went to THCF and they do a good job. Good to have a follow up in addition since last fall.

 

My comments were directed at the no record, no problem mills.

 

Dr. Bob

 

you do not need records their any more but when we went you had to have them

[Timmahh]

hey man, we are cool, strong opinions=strong emotions and I admire your passion.

 

We can't always jump down their throats when they don't read something the way we do. Hate to say this and will get flamed I'm sure, but the vast majority of things - the Redden concurring opinion, the King case, etc do have an element of common sense as the courts try to wrap their heads around what the people told them they wanted. There is a difference between boot licking and complying with what the court considers 'reasonable'. Take Redden for example- they want records, a face to face visit, and a follow up. Ok, sure that means you can't just walk in, say you are sick and get a card. Restriction of rights, well sort of, but can you do that with vicodin or a heart transplant? Sure there will be folks out there that say they can get vicodin that way, but really, is that the way we want to do it? Would the vast majority of folks on this board think it was 'OK' to just walk in and get vicodin that way?

 

Why should a certification for MMJ be any different than a regular doctor visit? What is the main criticism of Certification Clinics? They are mills and sell signatures to people without documented conditions. Will complying with Redden over time and across the board eventual change that opinion and public perception, over time it will. We need to show we are professionals and follow good medical practice and by our example, convince the general public of that. The courts just outlined the standards by which we are judged

 

This is a battle for public perception, we need to determine how we fight it. We can whine, re-argue cases, and continue to push limits and self justify. Or we can listen to what the courts are saying and learn our lessons. We will lock the grow rooms, cover the grows, have records, and do follow ups.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

Very well spoken Sir! I can agree entirely with your statements with just one exception, I ll address below. But, basically, This is the point I've been atempting to convey over the last few months as well. "WE" (any one that has an MMJ card, and is in public view at any time in their day) represent what sways public opinion, about MMJ, Pts, or if you will "Pot Heads". We show ourselves by how we carry ourselves when dealing with other humans, friend, family or stranger. SO we infact, are a direct link to how the Pulic Views MMJ, thus how they Feel about MMJ Pts and the law, thus defines what their Public Opinion is. Pretty commen sense in my view, but as mentioned earlier, we certainly do not have very much commen sence anymore. Without Favorable Public Opinion, the law would not of been offered, let alone allowed to be voted on by the general public, let alone have the chance to be passed.

 

If we do not rise to the occasion, like many before, we will be left in the rear, left wondering whats going on, while others force THEIR Interpritations forward, which in most cases, WONT coincide with your thoughts on them. Now is the time to BE/GET INVOVLED. Now is the Time to make your Voice Heard! Now is the Time to MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT!!!

 

Your Vote is your Voice in Government. If you dont use your voice, you can only follow or be left behind, while other use their voice to its fullest potential. Again, YOUR VOTE IS YOUR VOICE, PLEASE USE IT WISELY, BUT FOR GODS SAKE (or whoevery your spiritual guide is) USE IT. I, Personally, dont care for either of those two options, so please register to vote, and promote it to everyone. Especially If they are of Legal Age, can actaully vote, and are MMJ acceptive. get them registered and interested in our DEMOCRATIC PROCESS or we will continue to lose it.

 

 

 

To clarify my earlier referance on Prisons , the point I wanted to convey, is getting out of a prison is incredibly hard, as is getting in (Illegally that is). When I think Prison, I Think Secure. That alone was the point I was hopeing to convey with my comparison of an "Enclosed, Locked Facility" and a Prison Yard. OfCourse we shouldnt need gaurd towers, but Im willing to bet one of the liberal judges in one of our misguided communities would still find it not secure enough even if we had razor wire and gaurd towers with armed gaurds on the walls.

 

Also, there is the Open Topped comparrison as well involved. IMPO, it does not say anywhere the Facility MUST BE ROOFED, just Enclosed, and Locked.

But, for the sake of arguement, and shareing of knowledge, I believe they will "Split Hairs" if you will, which will include finite details including the words used, and the definitions of them.

 

Looking at 3 words, Enclosed, Locked, and Facility, Websters defines them as follows:

 

en·close verb \in-ˈklōz, en-\

Definition of ENCLOSE

transitive verb

1a (1) : to close in : surround <enclose a porch with glass> (2) : to fence off (common land) for individual use b : to hold in : confine

 

2: to include along with something else in a parcel or envelope <a check is enclosed herewith>

 

See enclose defined for English-language learners »

See enclose defined for kids »

 

Variants of ENCLOSE

en·close also in·close \in-\

Examples of ENCLOSE

The pie's flaky crust encloses a fruit filling.

Enclose the fish in foil and bake.

She enclosed a photo with the card.

Please enclose a check with your application.

Enclosed with this letter are the tickets you ordered.

Origin of ENCLOSE

Middle English, probably from enclos enclosed, from Anglo-French, past participle of enclore to enclose, from Vulgar Latin *inclaudere, alteration of Latin includere — more at include

First Known Use: 14th century

 

Locked verb

Definition of LOCK

transitive verb

1a : to fasten the lock of b : to make fast with or as if with a lock <lock up the house>

2a : to fasten in or out or to make secure or inaccessible by or as if by means of locks <locked himself away from the curious world> b : to fix in a particular situation or method of operation <a team firmly locked in last place>

3a : to make fast, motionless, or inflexible especially by the interlacing or interlocking of parts <lock wheels> <lock a knee> b : to hold in a close embrace c : to grapple in combat; also : to bind closely <administration and students were locked in conflict>

4: to invest (capital) without assurance of easy convertibility into money

5: to move or permit to pass (as a ship) by raising or lowering in a lock

intransitive verb

1a : to become locked b : to be capable of being locked

2: interlace, interlock

3: to go or pass by means of a lock (as in a canal)

— lock·able \ˈlä-kə-bəl\ adjective

— lock horns

: to come into conflict

— lock on or lock onto

: to acquire (as a target or signal) automatically using a sensor (as radar)

See lock defined for English-language learners »

Examples of LOCK

They locked the door when they left and unlocked it when they returned.

She locked the bicycle to the railing with a chain.

He forgot to lock the car.

The car locks automatically when you start the engine.

The wheels locked and the car skidded off the road.

They were locked in each other's arms.

She locked her hands around the steering wheel.

The file is locked for editing.

First Known Use of LOCK

14th century

 

 

fa·cil·i·ty noun \fə-ˈsi-lə-tē\

plural fa·cil·i·ties

Definition of FACILITY

1: the quality of being easily performed

2: ease in performance : aptitude

3: readiness of compliance

4a (1) : something that makes an action, operation, or course of conduct easier —usually used in plural <facilities for study> (2) : lavatory 2 —often used in plural b : something (as a hospital) that is built, installed, or established to serve a particular purpose

See facility defined for English-language learners »

See facility defined for kids »

Examples of FACILITY

The facilities are at the end of the corridor.

He had a great facility for writing.

He had great facility with words.

She handled the crisis with facility.

First Known Use of FACILITY

1531

 

 

If one were to read the law in a as a Black and White context, from Top to Bottom, I feel many would have a very similar interpritation as I do. Which is pretty cut in dry, when you detail the info to a micro manangement level.

 

so in the words Enclosed, Locked, and Facility, no where does it say ROOF or ROOFED Structure, or even IMPLY a roof must be present, as the term Facilty can have 3 or so differnt Locational meanings, while Locked, nor Enclosed even offer a difinition that indicates a roofed building of some sort.

 

in that sence alone, the clear black and white reading of the law, and these 3 Important words and their subsequent definitions, which all the fuss is hinging on at the moment, can cleary indicate a Non Roofed Facility is well within any of the 3 word term "Enclosed, Locked, Facility." as long as entry can only be obtained in a legal manor, and only those allowed to enter, can physically interact with the Meds Within the Facility. This would inlcude a Perimeter, that would keep someone from being able to grab any item inside the "Facility" thru the enclosure.

 

So where was the termed roofed involved in conjunction with the definition of Facility? Well, not in the Act itself, but rather by some PA that took a minut part of the definition of the word Facility, to ONLY mean Roofed where the 08 Act itself is considered. Which is HIS/HER Interpritation, which isnt theirs to make. So the argument Must be made, where in the term Facility, does the term ROOFED, specifially apply to the MMJ Act? And by another PAs own interpritation, if its not included with in the law as written, it must be illegal. a ROOFED Facility is not Termed or Presented ANYWHERE in the Act as written, with exception to the Websters definition of ONE interpritation of the word, Facility. So therefore, it does not IMPLICITLY IMPLY your Facility Must be Roofed, therefore by this PAs interpritation, a Roofed Facility MUST BE ILLEGAL.

 

just some of the deeper thoughts i have.

[Highlander]

The law explicitly states a "locked closed facility".

Unless you guys would just rather re-write grammar rules.....

 

"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.

[+EdwardGlen]

Wow...

[peanutbutter]

This whole thread is a red herring. The law explicitly states a "locked closed facility". Yes you can have "locks (plural form of the noun-denotes 2 or more) or other security devices" but they are not required, but it being "locked (adjective-past tense- implies there is a way the door became locked)" from the get go is law. Can't lock(verb) something without a lock(noun). Think PB got a lil overzealous in his interpretation and left out a few things like "s's" and the difference between singular and plural. The initial "lock" is a given or the facility has no way to be "locked". Other security measures are optional. I can't believe no ones said this in 3 pages....

 

Unless you guys would just rather re-write grammar rules.....

 

You skipped over a part. That is the law itself defines exactly what a "Enclosed, locked facility" is. What that is defined within the law is not dependent on what either you or I think it should be defined as.

 

section 3 (c ) "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.

 

The area can't allow others into the area. However that takes place.

 

It's like "medical use." That might mean something different than the conventional understanding of medical use. For instance transportation is medical use.

 

When the law does the defining, then we have to understand that word or phrase as defined by the law instead of our pre-existing understandings.

 

In this context, locked is not the same thing as locked. Just as use is not the same thing as use.

[Dr. Bob]

you do not need records their any more but when we went you had to have them

 

Then that is sad. They used to have standards. No record mills are just in it for the money and the patients are left to the mercy of the court. I am aware of one prosecutor that is requiring patients with paperwork only to have their medical records in hand as well due to the signature mills operating in their county. Will it stand up in court? I strong doubt it. But no lawyer can get you out of the ride to the greenbar hotel.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Very well spoken Sir! I can agree entirely with your statements with just one exception, I ll address below. But, basically, This is the point I've been atempting to convey over the last few months as well. "WE" (any one that has an MMJ card, and is in public view at any time in their day) represent what sways public opinion, about MMJ, Pts, or if you will "Pot Heads". We show ourselves by how we carry ourselves when dealing with other humans, friend, family or stranger. SO we infact, are a direct link to how the Pulic Views MMJ, thus how they Feel about MMJ Pts and the law, thus defines what their Public Opinion is. Pretty commen sense in my view, but as mentioned earlier, we certainly do not have very much commen sence anymore. Without Favorable Public Opinion, the law would not of been offered, let alone allowed to be voted on by the general public, let alone have the chance to be passed.

 

If we do not rise to the occasion, like many before, we will be left in the rear, left wondering whats going on, while others force THEIR Interpritations forward, which in most cases, WONT coincide with your thoughts on them. Now is the time to BE/GET INVOVLED. Now is the Time to make your Voice Heard! Now is the Time to MAKE YOUR VOTE COUNT!!!

 

Your Vote is your Voice in Government. If you dont use your voice, you can only follow or be left behind, while other use their voice to its fullest potential. Again, YOUR VOTE IS YOUR VOICE, PLEASE USE IT WISELY, BUT FOR GODS SAKE (or whoevery your spiritual guide is) USE IT. I, Personally, dont care for either of those two options, so please register to vote, and promote it to everyone. Especially If they are of Legal Age, can actaully vote, and are MMJ acceptive. get them registered and interested in our DEMOCRATIC PROCESS or we will continue to lose it.

 

 

 

To clarify my earlier referance on Prisons , the point I wanted to convey, is getting out of a prison is incredibly hard, as is getting in (Illegally that is). When I think Prison, I Think Secure. That alone was the point I was hopeing to convey with my comparison of an "Enclosed, Locked Facility" and a Prison Yard. OfCourse we shouldnt need gaurd towers, but Im willing to bet one of the liberal judges in one of our misguided communities would still find it not secure enough even if we had razor wire and gaurd towers with armed gaurds on the walls.

 

Also, there is the Open Topped comparrison as well involved. IMPO, it does not say anywhere the Facility MUST BE ROOFED, just Enclosed, and Locked.

But, for the sake of arguement, and shareing of knowledge, I believe they will "Split Hairs" if you will, which will include finite details including the words used, and the definitions of them.

 

Looking at 3 words, Enclosed, Locked, and Facility, Websters defines them as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If one were to read the law in a as a Black and White context, from Top to Bottom, I feel many would have a very similar interpritation as I do. Which is pretty cut in dry, when you detail the info to a micro manangement level.

 

so in the words Enclosed, Locked, and Facility, no where does it say ROOF or ROOFED Structure, or even IMPLY a roof must be present, as the term Facilty can have 3 or so differnt Locational meanings, while Locked, nor Enclosed even offer a difinition that indicates a roofed building of some sort.

 

in that sence alone, the clear black and white reading of the law, and these 3 Important words and their subsequent definitions, which all the fuss is hinging on at the moment, can cleary indicate a Non Roofed Facility is well within any of the 3 word term "Enclosed, Locked, Facility." as long as entry can only be obtained in a legal manor, and only those allowed to enter, can physically interact with the Meds Within the Facility. This would inlcude a Perimeter, that would keep someone from being able to grab any item inside the "Facility" thru the enclosure.

 

So where was the termed roofed involved in conjunction with the definition of Facility? Well, not in the Act itself, but rather by some PA that took a minut part of the definition of the word Facility, to ONLY mean Roofed where the 08 Act itself is considered. Which is HIS/HER Interpritation, which isnt theirs to make. So the argument Must be made, where in the term Facility, does the term ROOFED, specifially apply to the MMJ Act? And by another PAs own interpritation, if its not included with in the law as written, it must be illegal. a ROOFED Facility is not Termed or Presented ANYWHERE in the Act as written, with exception to the Websters definition of ONE interpritation of the word, Facility. So therefore, it does not IMPLICITLY IMPLY your Facility Must be Roofed, therefore by this PAs interpritation, a Roofed Facility MUST BE ILLEGAL.

 

just some of the deeper thoughts i have.

 

Well written and reasoned. My issue with it is to simply say that to say 'enclosed' does NOT imply that a requirement to be enclosed on all sides, including top and bottom, is NOT excluded in the definition. Can it the term enclosed mean enclosed on all sides, top and bottom? Yes it can. There is nothing that says it CAN NOT include top and bottom. That is one argument. The second is that the courts specifically included top and bottom in the definition, that is simply the way it is, so do it.

 

We can argue the point forever. Or we can simply cover the grow. Which gives hostile prosecutors the ability to continue to hassle patients and caregivers?

 

Dr. Bob

[Timmahh]

I must of missed the ruling on the "Facilty" being roofed. I assume this came from one of the more recent court rulings?

 

But Yes, i do Concur 100% no Logical reason to NOT have it in a Roofed Facility, if their has been a ruling that currently suggests a roofed facility must be utilized, though it is not directly in the Act itself.

[Wild Bill]

I frequently see comments on this site referencing "the intent of the law" or "the intent of the voters", but what we need to be concerned about is "the intent of the police" and "the intent of the courts".

 

We already presented our arguments to the voters and they agreed with us. Now we must convince the police and judges that it is better for us to be pain free than it is for them to fund their departments by confiscating our money and property.

 

If the voters decided guilt or innocence then we wouldn't be her arguing about it. Sadly, it is the criminal "justice" system who enforces the law. Remember them? They're the ones who think of us as cattle to feed and clothe them.

 

Those of them who aren't completely corrupt (if there are any) are very likely brainwashed into thinking that they are "protecting the children" from the evil drugs. Don't delude yourself into thinking that because you have your card you are safe from prosecution.

 

Right and wrong are moral concepts and have nothing whatsoever to do with he law.