Sec 8 And Sec 4

[BirdHunter]

What exactly is it that makes section 8 dependent on section 4? The courts have found that if a dismissal isn't warranted based on sec. 4, then sec. 8 is automatically non applicable. I'm not seeing the connection.

[lawyercaregiver]

Well we already knew justice was blind.

 

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR26ZKwQpEHk3yGxnofJhnFns1m0HosrELplHFNFw-_azDq16ke

 

Who knew it was deaf, dumb and stupid also.

 

On a related note: Has anybody noticed how judge O'Connell looks a little bit like Mr. Magoo. You be the Judge.

 

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvXas24l54kOOMqVdOw3DBAmSPcQ0becxflM2R4d5U-ut4xtUn

 

or

 

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6Jl9PA3WhIvyZm3KvrESFjjA2Vga6JhjYvfDftgcFgX0gIE-o4w

 

BTW: The answer is there IS no connection. They are CLEARLY SEPARATE provisions and were CLEARLY meant to be separate. I think this is something eventually the Supremes will get right...

[nexplosion]

It's bothersome that you can be 100% compliant and still have to worry about 'what if'.

[Michael Komorn]

What exactly is it that makes section 8 dependent on section 4? The courts have found that if a dismissal isn't warranted based on sec. 4, then sec. 8 is automatically non applicable. I'm not seeing the connection.

 

It does not exist, and I have never read the connection. The argument was rejected in the Bob Redden case, by the court of appeals, and then embraced in the P v. Larry King. The connector allegedly is section 7. Section 8 is connected to section 4, via section7.

[peanutbutter]

section eight starts out "Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7"

 

Section seven starts out "Sec. 7. (a) The medical use of marihuana is allowed under state law to the extent that it is carried out in accordance with the provisions of this act."

 

That brings in the whole act.

 

The Redden case is all that defends section eight as a stand alone defense. In one COA ruling, section eight can stand alone only as far as the ID card goes.

 

So what we have right now is that the entire act applies to section eight EXCEPT for the ID card.

 

Very odd, as that concept isn't in the law at all.

 

The King case revolves around section four. Even though "locked enclosed facility" is NOT a requirement for section 8, section 4 is still being applied. Larry has to show that he was in compliance with the whole act. If section 8 were the only yardstick needed to have the case dismissed, all of his charges would have been dropped.