Medical Marijuana Outdoor Rules/laws?

[pic book]

What HB4851 does is codify in one statute what the feds allowed in Duvall, and what can be painstakingly pieced together by perusal of MI circuit court decisions, esp. King COP.

 

HB4851 lays it out in statute code the legal basis for massive sunlight production; the beginning of legal cannabis production on a scale heretofore only seen in Humboldt "free-range" forest grows. Not a corporate grow but massive use of the sun outdoor individual CG grows, whose operators are artists whose specialty is tracking and moving the dry product punctually, in legal amounts.

 

For the addicted gardener a boon; as well as a whole new cannabis production efficiency.

For everyone the beginning of the fade-out of indoor production by any means except sunlight and the relegation of HIDs to those unable/unwilling/incompetent at growing under sunlight. The begining of the 'decosting' to produce an ounce, which should be a great positive for Patients. Also opens the way for space probes to lauch from Michigan, get close to the sun and hang there, producing plants many times larger than on earth with yield many times that grown on earth...The basis for SPACE MEDS AND A CANNABIS INDUSTRY BASED IN SPACE FROM MICHIGAN.

Edited May 5, 2012 by pic book

[pic book]

MARIHUANA PLANTS GROWN OUTDOORS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED FACILITY IF THEY ARE GROWN WITHIN A STATIONARY STRUCTURE THAT IS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:

(1) ANCHORED, ATTACHED, OR AFFIXED TO THE GROUND.

 

(2) LOCATED ON LAND THAT IS OWNED, LEASED, OR RENTED BY EITHER:

(A) THE REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT TO WHOM THE MARIHUANA PLANTS BELONG.

(B) THE PERSON DESIGNATED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENTAL REGISTRATION PROCESS AS THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR THE REGISTERED PATIENT OR PATIENTS.

 

(3) EQUIPPED WITH FUNCTIONING LOCKS OR OTHER SECURITY DEVICES THAT

PERMIT ACCESS ONLY BY THE REGISTERED PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT WHOSE PROPERTY THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED UPON.

 

(4) ENCLOSED ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT FOR THE BASE, BY CHAIN-LINK FENCING, WIRE MESH, WOODEN SLATS, OR A SIMILAR MATERIAL THAT PREVENTS ACCESS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

 

when affixed to the ground the ground is considered the floor, asssuming the walls, floor and roof are joined togetther in a facility that cannot be accessed by the public w/o the use of tools, as circuit decisions have specified, thus the decisions assume and (some courts state 6 planes). If the plants can be seen the facility is not adequately enclosed--a tree house grow with no floor wud not be legal, a 6 plane grow with mesh screen that displays the grow is enclosed, but not legal. Circuit courts consider the sighting of plants to be a public nuisance. This bill dose not have language invalidating those court views.

Edited May 5, 2012 by pic book

[Kingpinn]

Thats all fine and well but that wasnt the law of the land the day i was arrested.Maybe they should have had this all in writing before they set forth making criminals out of patients spell that

Edited May 5, 2012 by Kingpinn

[bobandtorey]

Thats all fine and well but that wasnt the law of the land the day i was arrested.Maybe they should have had this all in writing before they set forth making criminals out of patients spell that

 

sure it was

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient 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 the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying

[Ms Chocolate]

when affixed to the ground the ground is considered the floor, asssuming the walls, floor and roof are joined togetther in a facility that cannot be accessed by the public w/o the use of tools, as circuit decisions have specified, thus the decisions assume and (some courts state 6 planes). If the plants can be seen the facility is not adequately enclosed--a tree house grow with no floor wud not be legal, a 6 plane grow with mesh screen that displays the grow is enclosed, but not legal. Circuit courts consider the sighting of plants to be a public nuisance. This bill dose not have language invalidating those court views.

 

Re-read item #4

Dig four holes, add post and cement, let cure, surround three sides with fencing, and add a lockable gate to the forth side.

 

You might even do a ditch so that the bottom part of the 3 sides are encased in the cement.

[LongHairBri]

when affixed to the ground the ground is considered the floor, asssuming the walls, floor and roof are joined togetther in a facility that cannot be accessed by the public w/o the use of tools, as circuit decisions have specified, thus the decisions assume and (some courts state 6 planes). If the plants can be seen the facility is not adequately enclosed--a tree house grow with no floor wud not be legal, a 6 plane grow with mesh screen that displays the grow is enclosed, but not legal. Circuit courts consider the sighting of plants to be a public nuisance. This bill dose not have language invalidating those court views.

 

tree house grow??? lol, you and the rest of the nuts!!

[Fat Freddy]

Interesting to say the least.

I have a dog kennel 6' tall x 10' deep x 12 ' long. Added half hoops to support a chain link roof. So now I plant 6) 8' tall posts in a concrete filled holes on the inside of the kennel and bolt the kennel to them. Attach bamboo curtain type screens to the walls. Ummmmm. Works for me, but will it work for me in a court?? That's the question.....

[Dr. Bob]

I've been thinking about this. I can see them saying a fenced area would not be enclosed without a 'roof'. The courts consider an enclosed structure to be 6 planes. They specifically exclude the ground, but said nothing about the roof. The way I see it, we have two choices....

 

1. put up four walls and argue the point about the roof not being mentioned from your cell OR

2. be proactive, look for objections and weaknesses the prosecutors will use and put a roof on your grow.

 

Ain't it cool we have rules for outside grows now????

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Interesting to say the least.

I have a dog kennel 6' tall x 10' deep x 12 ' long. Added half hoops to support a chain link roof. So now I plant 6) 8' tall posts in a concrete filled holes on the inside of the kennel and bolt the kennel to them. Attach bamboo curtain type screens to the walls. Ummmmm. Works for me, but will it work for me in a court?? That's the question.....

 

I don't see anything objectionable. It is secured to the ground, covered and screened. If it was mine, I'd electrify the whole dang thing...lol

[Kingpinn]

You put electricity to the plan and you catch someone .You sir will go to jail for luring this person to there demise. But im sure you already knew that

[peanutbutter]

I've been thinking about this. I can see them saying a fenced area would not be enclosed without a 'roof'. The courts consider an enclosed structure to be 6 planes. They specifically exclude the ground, but said nothing about the roof. The way I see it, we have two choices....

 

1. put up four walls and argue the point about the roof not being mentioned from your cell OR

2. be proactive, look for objections and weaknesses the prosecutors will use and put a roof on your grow.

 

Ain't it cool we have rules for outside grows now????

 

Dr. Bob

 

Which we would have had with the King ruling.

 

Now we get to do it all over again. Three or more years before we have solid answers from the Supreme Court.

 

They completely wasted the last four years of court cases. Leaving us in limbo again.

[Dr. Bob]

You put electricity to the plan and you catch someone .You sir will go to jail for luring this person to there demise. But im sure you already knew that

 

Yeah, called a man trap, but an electric fence isn't a man trap. Again, it was clearly tongue in cheek, but certainly deserves clarification. I stand corrected.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

non lethal voltage.. cows don't die You would have to post a warning. Might want to post that even if you were just bluffing.

[peanutbutter]

Man traps .. interesting idea.

 

Are you allowed to trap them with the intent of turning them over to leo? Or are we only allowed to shoot them?

[Restorium2]

You must let them go. Chase them off. This is outdoors.

[bobandtorey]

Man traps .. interesting idea.

 

Are you allowed to trap them with the intent of turning them over to leo? Or are we only allowed to shoot them?

 

you don't want to go their again lol you just got off of probation

[motownbass]

Well to me that , "anchored, attached, or affixed to the ground, six sides, located on land that is owned, and equipped with functioning locks or other security devices" Sounds like you can build a small building, or greenhouse that has glass in which you can not see through. IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!

[Dr. Bob]

Which we would have had with the King ruling.

 

Now we get to do it all over again. Three or more years before we have solid answers from the Supreme Court.

 

They completely wasted the last four years of court cases. Leaving us in limbo again.

 

PB, honest to God I like you and am not harping on you, but again you come up with something that really baffles me. Wasted court cases? Really? Why do you think they addressed it in the bill, they were addressing the fact there ARE cases and want to clarify the intent. Hats off to the pioneers that went into the unknown and got us that. Hopefully it will have bearing on their cases on appeal now that the intent is clarified in no uncertain terms.

 

Court cases come about because there is a question in the law, and currently it is county by county, case by case on outdoor grows. Some say no, some say chicken wire is ok, others want a greenhouse surrounded by a fence topped in concertina. Then when an INDIVIDUAL situation (case) goes to court there is no real guidance on what is and is not allowed.

 

Now if a case involving a grow in an uncovered dog pen is rulled against, what does that say about MY plan to have a greenhouse? Or growing on my roof 30 feet off the ground? Really nothing. If I decide to grow in a dog pen, correct the objections of the court (I cover it and secure it to the ground) does that mean MY grow is now legal? Or do I have to wait for a court case to determine if I 'did enough' to make it secured?

 

Now we have actual rules. Follow them and you are safe, don't and you are in violation. With or without agreeing with them, at least we have a standard we can follow. You object to the fact we don't have to spend years in court (and people don't have to go to jail in the meantime) while we try and get case precedence over each possible variation?

 

Come on man, rather than complain, why don't we look at what we got, figure out how to work with it, and be safe?

 

BTW, in the king case. If that was my case I would talk to my lawyers about presenting the dog pen issue as something the legislature later specifically approved, and look at the small errors made (securing to the ground/covering) as simple mistakes directly due to the lack of guidance. Had the guidance been in place originally as the legislature clearly now intends for it to be, I would have secured and covered the grow and we wouldn't be here in court. Due to the changes, he now has a powerful argument that he did nothing criminally wrong, it was AT MOST simple neglegence or a well meaning grower trying to keep within the law despite the lack of guidance at the time. Strong case to withhold adjudication and let him slide on that one.

 

As for the 'simple mistake so you don't get the Section 8 defense' argument, that was addressed too. Clearly the intent of the new bill isn't to deny folks like that the right to have their day in court. Only if they are clearly violating specific sections of the Act, sections that clearly demonstrate intent to work outside the Act, is denying them the right to the Section 8 defense an option of the prosecution or the court.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Well to me that , "anchored, attached, or affixed to the ground, six sides, located on land that is owned, and equipped with functioning locks or other security devices" Sounds like you can build a small building, or greenhouse that has glass in which you can not see through. IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!

 

I've not really studied this in detail, but I am not sure there is a requirement you can't see the plants (thought it is a good idea anyhow). But this is my point exactly, now that we know what to do to be safe, we can do it and BE SAFE. It sounds to me like what you describe is perfectly legal, but check with your attorney before doing it, especially if you plan on being the first kid on the block with a greenhouse.

[Restorium2]

Well to me that , "anchored, attached, or affixed to the ground, six sides, located on land that is owned, and equipped with functioning locks or other security devices" Sounds like you can build a small building, or greenhouse that has glass in which you can not see through. IS PERFECTLY LEGAL!

Heck yes. The feds even said it was ok as long as there are not more than 72 plants in there. The state wants numbers according to the act and the feds wants 72 or less plants.

[Restorium2]

I've not really studied this in detail, but I am not sure there is a requirement you can't see the plants (thought it is a good idea anyhow). But this is my point exactly, now that we know what to do to be safe, we can do it and BE SAFE. It sounds to me like what you describe is perfectly legal, but check with your attorney before doing it, especially if you plan on being the first kid on the block with a greenhouse.

Not the first kid. The feds helped a lady with her greenhouse.

[bobandtorey]

As for the 'simple mistake so you don't get the Section 8 defense' argument, that was addressed too. Clearly the intent of the new bill isn't to deny folks like that the right to have their day in court. Only if they are clearly violating specific sections of the Act, sections that clearly demonstrate intent to work outside the Act, is denying them the right to the Section 8 defense an option of the prosecution or the court

is this right he can now have his case dismissed? or can he go to court and use his card to tell the jury?

[Dr. Bob]

Let me rephase it as well- The first kid on YOUR block not ANY block to have a greenhouse.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited May 7, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

As for the 'simple mistake so you don't get the Section 8 defense' argument, that was addressed too. Clearly the intent of the new bill isn't to deny folks like that the right to have their day in court. Only if they are clearly violating specific sections of the Act, sections that clearly demonstrate intent to work outside the Act, is denying them the right to the Section 8 defense an option of the prosecution or the court

is this right he can now have his case dismissed? or can he go to court and use his card to tell the jury?

 

Again look at the context of the post. I suggested he approach his attorney with the idea. I think that is a rather powerful argument based on new guidance from the legislature. They could always counter it by saying 'yes, but AT THE TIME, it wasn't in place. and he didn't follow the new regulation anyhow' but it is a good argument.

 

Personally, and call me biased, had I been the judge, I would look at justice vs the letter of the law and made a ruling. I think I would let him slide, especially in light of the new bills clarifying the issue. Even if I didn't believe in MMJ I think, as a judge, I could live with that and know justice was served.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

BTW, in the king case. If that was my case I would talk to my lawyers about presenting the dog pen issue as something the legislature later specifically approved, and look at the small errors made (securing to the ground/covering) as simple mistakes directly due to the lack of guidance. Had the guidance been in place originally as the legislature clearly now intends for it to be, I would have secured and covered the grow and we wouldn't be here in court. Due to the changes, he now has a powerful argument that he did nothing criminally wrong, it was AT MOST simple neglegence or a well meaning grower trying to keep within the law despite the lack of guidance at the time. Strong case to withhold adjudication and let him slide on that one.

 

He has no more case to present. It has all been presented.

 

The first mmj case to arrive at the MI Supreme Court. Had the legislature waited for another few days this would have been settled. Instead they caused a rewind. Nothing will be settled for years now.

 

Instead, they destroyed every iota of the purpose for the King Case.