Jackson Farmers Market

bobandtorey · April 15, 2012

yep thats what the law says, now how come i got 3 possesion charges since? lol, my advise is to not break any of the mmmact rules! just in case they come get you for, who knows! but if they smell mm most likly you will be in court!

Peace

Jim

when we were in court 3 years ago Matt A told the judge that if leo smells mmj coming from someones home that is no longer a crime here in Mi and they should not be able to get a search warrant

Highlander · April 15, 2012

Sir my reading and comprehension are just fine, this is an example of what my last post was about . A differing opinion doesn't need a personal attack by you or anyone else. If a person of normal intelligence reads the MMMA Act of 2008 and doesn't listen to all you wanna be lawyers you would see that implementing as read and understood by the average person would work, but no the lawyers and legislature want to define the act like it was written by a lawyer and the patients can be damned. Now if you don't like what I have to say that's fine it's my opinion, this is a forum and we are both allowed to have one. I personally believe you are the one having the comprehension problem. I also believe the Michigan Supreme Court will over rule the COA decision on P to P transfer if they agreed I don't believe they would be reviewing the decision.

I'm sorry but this is a common misguided thought. You don't interpret a public according to what the average person would think. You still need to obey all the rules of grammar, etc. A good example is a past poster who said that "a" and "any" are the same. They are simply not. The average person might think that they are the same, and it would be totally inappropriate to interpret the act with that assumption.

The average adult in the US reads at an 8th grade level. What I'm trying to get across to people is that an 8th grade level understanding of the law is not adequate to keep you safe.

Stop confusing interpretation using "plain and ordinary language" with interpretation using "the average person's understanding." There's a huge difference.

bobandtorey · April 15, 2012

like are judge said

(A person of ordinary acumen be capable of determining the legality or illegality of their conduct)

bobandtorey · April 15, 2012

like are judge said

(A person of ordinary acumen be capable of determining the legality or illegality of their conduct) so what this means is the Law is clear and any one should be able to understand it even with a 8th grad education

Restorium2 · April 15, 2012

like are judge said

(A person of ordinary acumen be capable of determining the legality or illegality of their conduct) so what this means is the Law is clear and any one should be able to understand it even with a 8th grad education

after they talk with an attorney...

phaquetoo · April 15, 2012

when we were in court 3 years ago Matt A told the judge that if leo smells mmj coming from someones home that is no longer a crime here in Mi and they should not be able to get a search warrant

Hi Bob! lol yea well all I can say is mr. abble isnt the one arresting us leo is, oh wait you already know that! my pointe is though, dont matter loose lips sink ships!

Peace

Jim

restlesslegs · April 15, 2012

All of us can have different interpretations of the law but when it comes right down to it which county, which city you are at when you get busted matters a great deal. Along with which cop, which PA, which judge, which court, your DA, and how well they do their job, what they think of MM, how well they follow the law, and how they interpret the law.

CaveatLector · April 15, 2012

like are judge said

(A person of ordinary acumen be capable of determining the legality or illegality of their conduct) so what this means is the Law is clear and any one should be able to understand it even with a 8th grad education

No offense but that isn't what that means.

a·cu·men/əˈkyo͞omən/

Noun:

The ability to make good judgments and quick decisions, typically in a particular domain: "business acumen".

The judge's comment utilizes the word "acumen" which, by iteself, implies heightened requirements in regard to reading the statute. I don't think anyone here would argue that an 8th grader is a person of "ordinary acumen."

Furthermore, that judge's comment is not law in regard to interpreting statutes. So even though he tends to convey that a heightened understanding is required, it doesn't matter. He cannot create statutory interpretation law "off the cuff." The canons of statutory construction are what they are. Keep in mind that what is said in "dictum" in a court's written opinion is NOT law. I know that joe cain has tried to engrain in everyone here that dictum IS law but it simply is NOT. The only law that comes out of a case is that which is written into the actual ruling. NOT the reasoning, commenting, etc., that is found in the body of an opinion or the footnotes.

Marijuana Ranch · April 15, 2012

By the Sea of Indecision on the Shore of Hesitation

Lies the Bleach Bones of Thousands who Waited

And Waiting Died...

marijuana_master · April 15, 2012

It doesn't need to be in the law. Transfering mj is illegal in Michigan. You are offered certain protections by the mma. If you cannot avail yourself of one of those protections then you can be prosecuted. So what you need to be looking for is "where is my protection from arrest."

First, § 4(e) authorizes a registered primary caregiver to receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana. MCL 333.26424(e). However, § 4(e) goes on to state that “[a]ny such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.” Id. This quoted sentence would not be needed if the definition of the “medical use” of marijuana included the “sale” of marijuana. No statutory provision should be rendered nugatory. Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). Consequently, § 4(e) actually supports the conclusion that the medical use of marijuana does not include the sale of marijuana.

Restorium2 · April 15, 2012

..connected through the registration process....

restlesslegs · April 15, 2012

..connected through the registration process....

Which does not state a specific registered patient only a registered patient. OK this is going to go in circles again! LOL Shall we play a game. :rolleyes:

CaveatLector · April 15, 2012

:thumbsu:

If one does as you are recommending, interpret the law as a layman, I would recommend running that interpretation past an expert, such as an attorney, prior to either:

1) Acting upon said interpretation out in the open where police can see you, film you, buy marijuana from you, etc.

2) Telling anyone else that you are right and that they should do the same.

If one person desires to act upon a liberal interpretation without consulting an attorney it is obviously their business alone.

The issue we are having is that the courts in many jurisdictions have had an opportunity to interpret the law, and many do not agree with us. In addition, the vast majority of the time the COA has also not agreed. Also, law enforcement doesn't agree in most areas for obvious reasons. Therefore, if you as a layman give legal advice that ends up getting somebody into court, they will likely end up not being protected depending upon things that neither you nor I have any control over.

That is what we are talking about here, not about whether or not a Farmer's Market business model is legal or not. A Farmer's Market needs a lawyer no matter what in this environment. Anyone who sits behind a table in a Farmer's Market should know that they are exposed and the Farmer's Markets in the state that have been raided the selling caregivers have been arrested and forced to defend themselves as have the owners. Patients attending a Farmer's Market should know that they can and have been raided, though the patient customers have not been caught up in the legal action afterwards, to my knowledge.

Though there is much to be said for having the blessing of local officials and law enforcement, both state and federal law enforcement have already jumped over local law enforcement in several areas leading to raids of locally-approved medical marijuana facilities.

:thumbsu:

Very good summation.

I think it would do people well to stop acting like I am the enemy for advocating safe access. I am NOT against a farmer's market. Not in the least. I am simply imploring you to give full disclosure of the risks involved and not pretend like there are none by using words such as "safe access" and "legally compliant."

I think that the mmma, as a pt and cg advocacy organization, does advocate SAFE access. So for a moderator here to make claims that are not supported by common sense readings of the law, AND the environment in which this is happening, is negligent in my book.

If I were running the farmer's market this would be my pitch.

The market has been approved by the city (insert official's position), and the county, (insert official's position).

The local regional drug task force has taken (or not)xyz position on the market. The Michigan AG has taken (or not)xyz position on the market.

We are confident that we will get no trouble from the city or county for the following reasons...

The local drug task force, which also contains elements of the DEA, has not given its approval so there is some degree of risk associated with that fact. The state AG is clearly positioned against any med mj and the AG has its own investigative team so there is some degree of risk associated with that.

There is a history of drug task force teams disregarding local LEO and proceeding without their blessing (eg: Blue Water CC, ferndale disp?)

It is my NON-LEGAL opinion (unless of course you can cite a lawyer who advised) that the market should be safe regardless.

So there you go, full disclosure.

Mind you that I don't have a problem with private individuals hawking the farmer's market. I'll debate them and people can decide what they want. My problem comes when a moderator hawks the market. Why? Because many would take that as an MMMA position on the matter and, knowing the MMMA is headed by a lawyer, assume the market has no risk associated, as is being presented as fact. So, hey mods, how about you jump on a different psuedonym to push the market if you feel the need. That, or ask to have your mode status removed. Or maybe I'm out of line here, maybe the MMMA has no problem with their mods pushing that agenda? If that's the case I'll withdraw my objection but I will still feel it is unfair, unwise, and just plain mean to mislead anyone into thinking it is "legally compliant."

phaquetoo · April 15, 2012

You are right to an extent, but the county and city you are busted in matter not at all when you get to the COA, which is where these cases are ending up a great deal of the time. And that is where we have lost our protections so far.

I want everyone to understand this, that the Legislature has not changed our law but the courts have. They will continue to change it as we continue to give them test cases.

It is very important that we all ask for a jury trial, In most cases (not the big ones like bob and others that have changed or rights/law?)

Hey Cav! Who are you? lmao, Do I know you? dont pm I cant get into mine, dude Your a good writer, and im a terrible speller(go figure i got good grades in english too) are you an attny or an attny's assnt? Im only asking becuase man You can make a good argument. I been watching you, In a good way, Probably because I dont feel like getting a tounge lashing from you, and most times have to agree with you!

Ok back to jury trials, for people like me, that only get a lil possesion charge here and there, fight it to the end, trust me dont get a lawyer (until you absolutly have to) do everything you can on your own, and dont sit on your butt and think you have plenty of time! You need to get witnesses supoened <lol im sure you know waht it says, you need to get on your case and make sure the prosecutors office recieves a copy of the subpeona's ( i mite get it rite one of these times) from your own hands, dont messs around, when the judge tells you 10 days before your jury trial you have to do this this and that, say ok and do it, and if you dont know what it means google it! lmao, I have had 3 possesion charges since becoming legal, the only one I needed an attny in was the 1st one, and I didnt ask for him till the bitter end! and I got a court appted one, had another attny contact him and tell him what to say to the prosecutor, done, never seen the trial, didnt get possesion special wtvr fellony! got my bond back and had to pay 200 for the court apptd attny, no harm no foul!

They say that only around 20% of jury trials make it to trial, most cop plea's and 80% of them are indigent (poor foks)! Unfortunatly some good people got caught up in the snag/hook/barb of a new law and had no choice but to take it all the way, and go thru the coa, which makes it law in the courts,,until or if the supreme court over turns it!

I have a high skewl diploma, and prob cant spell anything right!, why do I feel like im back in highskewl and english class all of a sudden :rolleyes:

and by no means do I claim to be an attny or a attny, and this is not advise! it is real though, I was there! and I dont even want to deal with it again!

Peace

Jim

CaveatLector · April 15, 2012

First, § 4(e) authorizes a registered primary caregiver to receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana. MCL 333.26424(e). However, § 4(e) goes on to state that “[a]ny such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.” Id. This quoted sentence would not be needed if the definition of the “medical use” of marijuana included the “sale” of marijuana. No statutory provision should be rendered nugatory. Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131; 730 NW2d 695 (2007). Consequently, § 4(e) actually supports the conclusion that the medical use of marijuana does not include the sale of marijuana.

And your point is....?

That cut and paste, which I will assume is form the COA opinion in McQueen, says nothing other than that the COA was't going to decide p2p w/o remuneration since it didn't need to in making the decision it made.

Restorium2 · April 15, 2012

Which does not state a specific registered patient only a registered patient. OK this is going to go in circles again! LOL Shall we play a game.

..connected... not kindred in the registry.... it's connected through the process of registering... that's what the courts say...

restlesslegs · April 15, 2012

Oh good grief! this is ridiculous. What happened to a normal conversation around here nothing can be said without someone correcting everything written.

Yea hey anyone should know if they read anything here or anywhere else you have to make the decision for yourself on what is going on in this state regarding how the law is interpreted by the folks that can lock your butt up or let you go. When it comes right down to it no matter what someone says or how they interpret the law when you look that cop in the eye or stand in front of a judge if that person decides MM is OK or not is what is going to count.

CaveatLector · April 15, 2012

Hey Cav! Who are you? are you an attny or an attny's assnt?

I'm the assistant to the custodian at a small law firm of 1.5 lawyers. When I'm not cleaning up some kid's vomit, from his gastroenteritis, I often put a glass to the wall and listen for tidbits of info that I can parrot back to you people in an effort to at least SOUND smart.

Where is that "I've got my eyes on you," emoticon?

CaveatLector · April 15, 2012

:thumbsu:

..connected... not kindred in the registry.... it's connected through the process of registering... that's what the courts say...

Well put.

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed

Please understand that this common misinterpretation regarding the "connection" is easily resolved using the canons of statutory interpretation. Every word in a statute is to be given meaning and purpose. To interpret "connected" in a way that just means registered would render the word "connected" nugatory in the statute. Why? Because it would be unnecessary and the sentence would merely need to be read, "for assisting a qualifying pt who is registered with the dept." Therefore, no court is going to read "connected" in that liberal manner that some are asserting it means. Connected means the link created when the pt and caregiver executed the proper documents and sent them into the dept and waited the requisite 20 days. That "link" is only between ONE caregiver and the patient. So the cg is protected only when that link exists. You simply cannot argue your way out of that.

MMJ Intern · April 15, 2012

When is this bickering going to stop. I keep hoping i will come here and not get upset over what is written. The threads are a jumble with hostility and mean spirited comments.

I second that restlesslegs! I loved coming to this board's member to member section but now I go to straight to the grow pages. I feel sorry for the newbies on this board because it use to be really awesome.

When this clusterfunk happened, a convo between actors Michael J Fox and Michael Douglas (from the movie "The American President") came to mind:

Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

I'm off to the grow pages. Hopefully the dust settles soon :jig:

marijuana_master · April 15, 2012

Footnote 18 Supreme Court Judge caveat forgot to read the decision. CPU trolls converge anytime they don't like something. The mods watch the abuse. . Also, in regard to § 4(e), the parties disagree whether a registered

primary caregiver may receive compensation for the costs associated with assisting any

registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana or whether a registered primary

caregiver may only receive compensation for assisting the qualifying patients with whom he or

she is connected through the MDCH registry process. Because of our conclusion that the

medical use of marijuana does not include the sale of marijuana, we need not, and therefore do

not, resolve this dispute.

cristinew · April 15, 2012

You and fred should relly learn how to cut N paste

we need not, and therefore do

not, resolve this dispute.

get busted take them to court, see if u win, be a test case, go for it,

then tell us if its legal or not,

CaveatLector · April 15, 2012

I second that restlesslegs! I loved coming to this board's member to member section but now I go to straight to the grow pages. I feel sorry for the newbies on this board because it use to be really awesome.

I'm off to the grow pages. Hopefully the dust settles soon

The trouble is joe cain kept a noose on this website and he would tighten it anytime he pleased. Normal, healthy, debate was generally forbidden if one side was arguing contrary to cain's personal position. It was cain's way or the highway. That's what a lot of people around here don't understand. When you stifle debate then you can expect a ton of it once the lid is lifted.

I suspect that once things are hashed out for a while and people begin to see the bad information that was imposed on them for so long then things will settle.

When Egypt overthrew its dictator last year did you expect the dust to settle the next day? Of course not. They had decades of problems that built up in the absence of a democratic process. It will probably take years for them to iron out issues such as women gaining rights, etc. Heck, we have ongoing debates in this country over tons of issues and we've been democratic for 250 years. I think it is unrealistic to pretend people can get things out in a few days or a week or two. When you've been mislead and stifled for a long time it is going to take a while to get the free flow of info back into place and to correct the misconceptions that have been reinforced over time with the suppression of contrary points of view.

Lastly, I don't consider this current debate bad. I don't hold anything against those who hold a contrary point of view. I am glad we can debate and hash things out. We aren't calling eachother a-holes or threatening violence. we are debating. Since when is debating EVER a bad thing?

bobandtorey · April 15, 2012

You are right to an extent, but the county and city you are busted in matter not at all when you get to the COA, which is where these cases are ending up a great deal of the time. And that is where we have lost our protections so far.

I want everyone to understand this, that the Legislature has not changed our law but the courts have. They will continue to change it as we continue to give them test cases.

we did not loos one unregistered people

CaveatLector · April 15, 2012

You and fred should relly learn how to cut N paste

we need not, and therefore do

not, resolve this dispute.

get busted take them to court, see if u win, be a test case, go for it,

then tell us if its legal or not,

:goodjob:

Yes, the cut and pasted paragraph lends nothing to the discussion here one way or the other and s/he hasn't articulated what s/he is attempting to accomplish with the cut and paste.

Understand that p2p without remuneration is NOT resolved please. And, as Zapatosunidos says, in the current climate a test case is going to create more bad law. Do you want to live with that or would you rather wait a couple of years and see if we can turn the COA by adding a few more liberal judgesor, at the very least, try and turn the Sup Ct around? It has become crystal clear that the current make-up of the COA will NOT be friendly and they will not give an inch.

Sign In

Jackson Farmers Market

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived