Jump to content

Cannabis On Craigs List A Prosecutor's Dream


roadworkahead
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well this kid just put in print something very damning to our cause.

 

If people start seeing norml members siding with Leos view that only 5 patients assigned to you can legally obtain meds turns John and Jane Q public against us IMO not counting the further bullseye he just put on the dispensaries . :thumbsd:

 

What an idiot. :growl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are Dispensaries legal in Michigan?

 

Can Caregivers supply unconnected patients without being arrested?

 

Can registered patients be compensated to transfer cannabis to another patient?

 

Can registered patients transfer cannabis to another patient for no compensation?

 

 

No

Likely No

Maybe

Likely if it goes beyond use and administration.

 

Don't give people bad information. If you give a sick patient or caregiver advice that goes against those answers without stipulating that in fact they may not be legal, You are personally putting people at risk. You do not know. It doesnt matter how a bag of peanuts interprets the law or how Joe schmoe interprets the law, nor does it matter how i interpret the law. It ONLY matters how the Judges interpet the law. Would you consider the courts in Michigan conservative? Then you had best interpret the law conservatively yourself or be at risk of arrest. If you are not comfortable doing it in front of a Judge, then don't do it or at least understand what risk is involved by doing so.

 

Here is a way i explain it:

 

A patient to patient transfer without compensation is like doing 1 mile over the speed limit. Very unlikely you will get in trouble at all and very likely to be determined legal.

 

A patient to Patient transfer with compensation is like doing 5 mph over the speed limit. Not likely to get pulled over, but possible.

 

A caregiver to unconnected patient transfer is like doing 10 mph over the speed limit. Chances are you may get pulled over depending on how far and long you drive.

 

A dispensary is like doing 20 mph over the speed limit. Not legal and chances are high you will get pulled over.

 

 

Now sure, some people can drive 20mph over the limit for a very long time and not have a problem. Others get pulled over 1 mile up the road.

 

 

This way people can understand the risks they are taking and decide for themselves if it is worth taking the risk.

 

In the future, all of those things may be determined legal. May. But understand and inform people in possibilities, not absolutes.

 

Consider the speed limit to be 30 mph right now. It may go up to 35mph or 40 mph, but right now, it is 30mph speed limit in Michigan.

Edited by CherryCrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'd like to know why normla doesn't recant that article, or at least expound on it somewhat. intern or not that is not what needs to be printed, and to top it off. NORML Legal Intern, University of Illinois — College of Law does it matter its a michigan state law.?? I am thinking this kid is not sure of what he is saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caregivers are required to register with a patient and the state, and if they are not registered as a patient’s caregiver, they may NOT dispense marijuana to them.

 

Saaaaay whaaat? They need to get their facts straight . I can't believe that this comes from normal, intern or not. Do they not have stuff like this fact checked before publishing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the article clearly explains the LIMITATIONS of the MI MM law. the article is for and about caregivers and how to stay safe.

There is no mention of P2P transfers. I do not understand the critical nature of the article you are discussing.

 

cherrycrush has some very good questions and Dr. Bob is correct. let the courts decide.

 

However,If one is asked to defend the law through protest or rally, is one protesting for supporting the limitations of the law as written or are we protesting for less limitations to include dispensaries, P2P transfers, cali and colorado pot being sold in those dispensaries, large commercial grows etc.

Thanks cherrycrush for your input. did not post to start an argument. personally am tired of hearing and seeing many working outside the limitations of the law. If patients lose their right to grow their own, and only able to purchase through dispensary that would truly suck. certainly don't want to interpret the law, but follow the law for patients sake and as always, caregivers safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually left a comment about how dangerous this was for patients and caregivers and got an editor's response that they are sticking by it . I wish they would have presented ALL the facts, that this was a lower case ruling with no power to set precedence, and that we have courts in the state ruling the exact opposite (the Mount Pleasant case.)

 

Can't for the life of me understand how they'd let this fly. Could someone who knows VanDussen, Abel or Kormon talk them into sending NORML an official letter explaining the other side of this argument? Someone with some more clout than me posting a response on their blog? I'm sure NORML thinks this article will help keep patients and caregivers safe via warning them, but it is actually providing fodder for PAs and LEOs on an unsettled matter of law. It is just a matter of time before a PA quote's this blog in court, "SEE?!?!? Even NORML thinks this is illegal..."

 

:growl::sword:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Michigan Court of Appeals Hears State v McQueen

pdf_button.png printButton.png On June 7, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the matter of State v McQueen. The Isabella County Prosecutor argued the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) only provides limited exceptions to engage in activity involving medical marihuana. Specifically contemplated in the act is the caregiver/patient relationship whereby a qualifying caregiver may provide medical marihuana to his or her registered qualifying patients. It was contended that by creating a system for patients to acquire marihuana from caregivers, the act impliedly prohibits patients from transferring medical marihuana amongst themselves or acquiring it from an unaffiliated dispensary. Patient-to-patient transfers would eliminate the need for the caregiver/patient relationship, contrary to the intent of the MMMA. Further, the prosecutor argued that because the MMMA does not mention patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana they are not allowed.

 

Next to argue was an attorney speaking on behalf of the Attorney General. The Attorney General wanted the Court to declare that:

 

1) Patient-to-patient transfers are not authorized;

 

2) Transfers between caregivers and unaffiliated patients are prohibited;

 

3) The possession limits provided in the MMMA should be strictly enforced;

 

4) The MMMA does not authorize "Sales;" and

 

5) The MMMA does not authorize commercial or for profit activity.

 

Afterward, McQueen's attorney began his argument by conceding that the only permitted uses of medical marihuana are those provided in the MMMA. He went on to explain that because patients are entitled to the "medical use" of marihuana, the definition of which allows transfers, patients should be allowed to transfer medical marihuana to each other. This interpretation of the MMMA would allow a caregiver or patient to assist other patients who they are not connected to through the registration process.

 

The panel went on to question McQueen's attorney about how much medical marihuana his clients possessed to ascertain whether his client might possess more than what is allowed under the MMMA. Judge Hoekstra questioned whether McQueen was in constructive possession of the medical marihuana contained in the 27 lockers in his store. This would tend to show McQueen possessed more than allowed. However, because the issue was not briefed, McQueen's attorney respectfully refused to answer the question.

 

Although both counsels argued at length about whether patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana are allowed under the MMMA, the expected opinion may not specifically speak directly on this issue. The Court may limit its opinion to whether the business model and activity performed in the Mount Pleasant dispensary constituted a nuisance and whether it was proper to deny the County's injunction. An analysis of the Court's opinion will follow when made available.

 

 

 

Michigan Court of Appeals Hears State v McQueen

pdf_button.png printButton.png On June 7, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the matter of State v McQueen. The Isabella County Prosecutor argued the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) only provides limited exceptions to engage in activity involving medical marihuana. Specifically contemplated in the act is the caregiver/patient relationship whereby a qualifying caregiver may provide medical marihuana to his or her registered qualifying patients. It was contended that by creating a system for patients to acquire marihuana from caregivers, the act impliedly prohibits patients from transferring medical marihuana amongst themselves or acquiring it from an unaffiliated dispensary. Patient-to-patient transfers would eliminate the need for the caregiver/patient relationship, contrary to the intent of the MMMA. Further, the prosecutor argued that because the MMMA does not mention patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana they are not allowed.

 

Next to argue was an attorney speaking on behalf of the Attorney General. The Attorney General wanted the Court to declare that:

 

1) Patient-to-patient transfers are not authorized;

 

2) Transfers between caregivers and unaffiliated patients are prohibited;

 

3) The possession limits provided in the MMMA should be strictly enforced;

 

4) The MMMA does not authorize "Sales;" and

 

5) The MMMA does not authorize commercial or for profit activity.

 

Afterward, McQueen's attorney began his argument by conceding that the only permitted uses of medical marihuana are those provided in the MMMA. He went on to explain that because patients are entitled to the "medical use" of marihuana, the definition of which allows transfers, patients should be allowed to transfer medical marihuana to each other. This interpretation of the MMMA would allow a caregiver or patient to assist other patients who they are not connected to through the registration process.

 

The panel went on to question McQueen's attorney about how much medical marihuana his clients possessed to ascertain whether his client might possess more than what is allowed under the MMMA. Judge Hoekstra questioned whether McQueen was in constructive possession of the medical marihuana contained in the 27 lockers in his store. This would tend to show McQueen possessed more than allowed. However, because the issue was not briefed, McQueen's attorney respectfully refused to answer the question.

 

Although both counsels argued at length about whether patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana are allowed under the MMMA, the expected opinion may not specifically speak directly on this issue. The Court may limit its opinion to whether the business model and activity performed in the Mount Pleasant dispensary constituted a nuisance and whether it was proper to deny the County's injunction. An analysis of the Court's opinion will follow when made available.

 

 

 

Michigan Court of Appeals Hears State v McQueen

pdf_button.png printButton.png On June 7, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the matter of State v McQueen. The Isabella County Prosecutor argued the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) only provides limited exceptions to engage in activity involving medical marihuana. Specifically contemplated in the act is the caregiver/patient relationship whereby a qualifying caregiver may provide medical marihuana to his or her registered qualifying patients. It was contended that by creating a system for patients to acquire marihuana from caregivers, the act impliedly prohibits patients from transferring medical marihuana amongst themselves or acquiring it from an unaffiliated dispensary. Patient-to-patient transfers would eliminate the need for the caregiver/patient relationship, contrary to the intent of the MMMA. Further, the prosecutor argued that because the MMMA does not mention patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana they are not allowed.

 

Next to argue was an attorney speaking on behalf of the Attorney General. The Attorney General wanted the Court to declare that:

 

1) Patient-to-patient transfers are not authorized;

 

2) Transfers between caregivers and unaffiliated patients are prohibited;

 

3) The possession limits provided in the MMMA should be strictly enforced;

 

4) The MMMA does not authorize "Sales;" and

 

5) The MMMA does not authorize commercial or for profit activity.

 

Afterward, McQueen's attorney began his argument by conceding that the only permitted uses of medical marihuana are those provided in the MMMA. He went on to explain that because patients are entitled to the "medical use" of marihuana, the definition of which allows transfers, patients should be allowed to transfer medical marihuana to each other. This interpretation of the MMMA would allow a caregiver or patient to assist other patients who they are not connected to through the registration process.

 

The panel went on to question McQueen's attorney about how much medical marihuana his clients possessed to ascertain whether his client might possess more than what is allowed under the MMMA. Judge Hoekstra questioned whether McQueen was in constructive possession of the medical marihuana contained in the 27 lockers in his store. This would tend to show McQueen possessed more than allowed. However, because the issue was not briefed, McQueen's attorney respectfully refused to answer the question.

 

Although both counsels argued at length about whether patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana are allowed under the MMMA, the expected opinion may not specifically speak directly on this issue. The Court may limit its opinion to whether the business model and activity performed in the Mount Pleasant dispensary constituted a nuisance and whether it was proper to deny the County's injunction. An analysis of the Court's opinion will follow when made available.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.hubbardlaw.com/medical-marihuana/michigan-court-of-appeals-hears-state-v-mcqueen

 

On June 7, 2011, the Michigan Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the matter of State v McQueen. The Isabella County Prosecutor argued the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) only provides limited exceptions to engage in activity involving medical marihuana. Specifically contemplated in the act is the caregiver/patient relationship whereby a qualifying caregiver may provide medical marihuana to his or her registered qualifying patients. It was contended that by creating a system for patients to acquire marihuana from caregivers, the act impliedly prohibits patients from transferring medical marihuana amongst themselves or acquiring it from an unaffiliated dispensary. Patient-to-patient transfers would eliminate the need for the caregiver/patient relationship, contrary to the intent of the MMMA. Further, the prosecutor argued that because the MMMA does not mention patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana they are not allowed.

 

Next to argue was an attorney speaking on behalf of the Attorney General. The Attorney General wanted the Court to declare that:

 

1) Patient-to-patient transfers are not authorized;

 

2) Transfers between caregivers and unaffiliated patients are prohibited;

 

3) The possession limits provided in the MMMA should be strictly enforced;

 

4) The MMMA does not authorize "Sales;" and

 

5) The MMMA does not authorize commercial or for profit activity.

 

Afterward, McQueen's attorney began his argument by conceding that the only permitted uses of medical marihuana are those provided in the MMMA. He went on to explain that because patients are entitled to the "medical use" of marihuana, the definition of which allows transfers, patients should be allowed to transfer medical marihuana to each other. This interpretation of the MMMA would allow a caregiver or patient to assist other patients who they are not connected to through the registration process.

 

The panel went on to question McQueen's attorney about how much medical marihuana his clients possessed to ascertain whether his client might possess more than what is allowed under the MMMA. Judge Hoekstra questioned whether McQueen was in constructive possession of the medical marihuana contained in the 27 lockers in his store. This would tend to show McQueen possessed more than allowed. However, because the issue was not briefed, McQueen's attorney respectfully refused to answer the question.

 

Although both counsels argued at length about whether patient-to-patient transfers of medical marihuana are allowed under the MMMA, the expected opinion may not specifically speak directly on this issue. The Court may limit its opinion to whether the business model and activity performed in the Mount Pleasant dispensary constituted a nuisance and whether it was proper to deny the County's injunction. An analysis of the Court's opinion will follow when made available.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

intern--- or this guy ... cause it says this guy wrote the artical

 

Allen F. St. Pierre

Executive Director

NORML and The NORML Foundation

Education: University of Massachusetts/Amherst, BA in Legal Studies, 1989

 

Mr. St. Pierre has written, debated, and lectured extensively on the topic of cannabis, it's prohibition, and ugly little stepchildren (such as):

 

asset forfeiture

ban on the cultivation of non-psychoactive cannabis (Hemp) in the U.S.

drug tax stamps

legal struggle for medical access of cannabis

Partnership for a Drug Free America

drug education (esp. D.A.R.E.)

mandatory minimum sentencing

drug screening

the use of the military in domestic law enforcement

history of cannabis prohibition

and numerous other legal sophistries concerning the prohibition of cannabis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So NORML believes that P2P is illegal, and the MMMA believes that P2P is legit.

The truth is, neither organization really knows.

 

Does anybody have reading comprehension skills? The article never even mentions P2P. OKAY?

 

 

Cherrycrush, thanks for your post. I think that is the number one most important post on this entire forum.

Edited by garyfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

I have had to explain the law so many times running a compassion club, i have become rather good at it.

 

Keeping patients from getting in trouble is my goal. That is done by properly explaining risks to actions.

 

Make yourselves as airtight and within the law as absolutely possible.

 

It's a basic system:

 

This is what i believe

 

This is what the law has said

 

This is how to work well within the law which is more conservative than the prior 2.

 

 

Why take the risk. Keep it tight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...