Some Stuff On Sec. 8 But Also Some Other Stuff And Some Bickering, Off Topic Stuff And Some Name Calling-sprinkled With A Pinch Of Tangential Opinions

[GanjaWarrior]

Read it in plain language

 

2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient,

 

for the qualifying patient, ,,,

 

not any patient

....cultivate...can you not see that word?

[GanjaWarrior]

some green house workers are better than some caregvier s

 

 

At what? do what i just did....call the first greenhouse in your phone book ask them how many dieing people they have dealt with in the last year....mine just hung up on me....

[cristinew]

.cultivate. FOR WHO CANT YOJ READ ? for the qualifying patient, Twist it the way you want .. it is clear for the qualifying patient,

Edited June 30, 2012 by cristinew

[cristinew]

does the law say i am protected from arrest to sell to any patient if so show the the protections from arrest ?

Edited June 30, 2012 by cristinew

[cristinew]

Does the law state i can grow for any patient ? no it does not say that,

Edited June 30, 2012 by cristinew

[cristinew]

The law does not say cultivate for any patient that restrictive word THE is in there

Edited June 30, 2012 by cristinew

[Dr. Bob]

You should read 4(e) in conjunction with the rest of section 4. It is not fair to pull it out of context like that. People cannot even find that line in the law with the way you quoted it, which leaves them without very valuable and important context with which to determine what it means.

 

Be very careful with interpretation of this line. It is one of the last remaining ambiguous areas for transfers. Most police are not reading the line as you seem to be implying, so keeping this activity private is important.

 

Here is the full text of that section:

 

http://www.legislatu...e=mcl-333-26424

 

This is the point of the issue, folks that are trying to justify their commercial aspiratiions tend to look at one sentence, one word, without looking at the context. It is a very shallow interpretation and will not stand in court.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[GanjaWarrior]

This is the point of the issue, folks that are trying to justify their commercial aspiratiions tent to look at one sentence, one word, without looking at the context. It is a very shallow interpretation and will not stand in court.

 

this from the man whose sole job is too charge way too much to sign a freakin paper...im sure bobs not looking out for his commercial interest when he obviously has no part in this movement but to take our money. thankfully i have a doctor not a secretary.

[Dr. Bob]

this from the man whose sole job is too charge way too much to sign a freakin paper...im sure bobs not looking out for his commercial interest when he obviously has no part in this movement but to take our money. thankfully i have a doctor not a secretary.

 

Aw, truth hurts don't it? It is a bear the law says what it says, that I became a doctor and you didn't, and clearly you have no concept of what I do or don't do for this community.

 

You reflect what is really wrong with a group of people in this community. Your entire 'post' reduces the certification process to a signature on a piece of paper, a formality so you can go do what ever it is that you do. Why pay even a dollar extra to do it properly, as required by the act? It is just a ticket getting punched right? A secretary could do it right? Well ask Dr. Proctor about that, or that doc that reportedly sold pre-signed certifications to that guy in the appliance store.

 

I don't apologize for doing my legal job. I charge what it is worth, and folks are glad to have it because I can back them up if they have a problem. You go see one of the mills if you want a cheap signature with nothing behind it. Be my guest, at least as far as your safety goes. The problem is that every dollar people like you give them means they get to keep doing it until the AG comes in and shuts them down. But not before the entire communtiy gets another black eye.

 

But what do you care, you get your signature. Screw the rest of the community, right?

 

Dr. Bob

[Kingpinn]

I just LOVE this Medical Marijuana Stuff

[Dr. Bob]

I just LOVE this Medical Marijuana Stuff

 

Yeah, me too. Folks can't stay on topic, can't present their case in a reasonable way, and the result is nothing but personal attacks. Lord if we would just listen to people instead of talking out of our tails about things we know little about it would be better. Folks need to talk less and listen a little more- look at this constant debate about the 'a' patient vs 'the' patient? How many times do they need to be clearly shown that the entire section deals with the caregiver to assigned patient relationship, how many folks need to be arrested? And still they try and push it as a 'plain meaning' interpretation.

 

Reading a law is one thing. Understanding it is quite another. You can't just pick out a word, or a sentence out of context that supports your position and try and say that is the 'plain meaning' simply because it agrees with what you want to see in the Act.

 

Dr. Bob

[SFC]

Boy, I can remember the early days of this site and this law. If a caregiver even talked about charging for meds he/she was called a "greed-head". Now that the law has been turned a bit more conservative than it was many of the same people just cannot hide their disdain for not being able to commercialize it... Wow.

[bobandtorey]

Yeah, me too. Folks can't stay on topic, can't present their case in a reasonable way, and the result is nothing but personal attacks. Lord if we would just listen to people instead of talking out of our tails about things we know little about it would be better. Folks need to talk less and listen a little more- look at this constant debate about the 'a' patient vs 'the' patient? How many times do they need to be clearly shown that the entire section deals with the caregiver to assigned patient relationship, how many folks need to be arrested? And still they try and push it as a 'plain meaning' interpretation.

 

Reading a law is one thing. Understanding it is quite another. You can't just pick out a word, or a sentence out of context that supports your position and try and say that is the 'plain meaning' simply because it agrees with what you want to see in the Act.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

It should be noted that many different hypothetical situations have been discussed on the board regarding the AD. While many are an interesting exercise in “what if,” in reality none of us know how the courts are going to approach and interpret the law. As with any new legislation, it will take several years and more than a few “test cases” before any determinations or recommendations can be made with confidence.

[bobandtorey]

Boy, I can remember the early days of this site and this law. If a caregiver even talked about charging for meds he/she was called a "greed-head". Now that the law has been turned a bit more conservative than it was many of the same people just cannot hide their disdain for not being able to commercialize it... Wow.

i also remember those days

[AKenewell]

Aw, truth hurts don't it? It is a bear the law says what it says, that I became a doctor and you didn't, and clearly you have no concept of what I do or don't do for this community.

 

You reflect what is really wrong with a group of people in this community. Your entire 'post' reduces the certification process to a signature on a piece of paper, a formality so you can go do what ever it is that you do. Why pay even a dollar extra to do it properly, as required by the act? It is just a ticket getting punched right? A secretary could do it right? Well ask Dr. Proctor about that, or that doc that reportedly sold pre-signed certifications to that guy in the appliance store.

 

I don't apologize for doing my legal job. I charge what it is worth, and folks are glad to have it because I can back them up if they have a problem. You go see one of the mills if you want a cheap signature with nothing behind it. Be my guest, at least as far as your safety goes. The problem is that every dollar people like you give them means they get to keep doing it until the AG comes in and shuts them down. But not before the entire communtiy gets another black eye.

 

But what do you care, you get your signature. Screw the rest of the community, right?

 

Dr. Bob

 

Well Said...Excellent Post. This is the same thing we have been trying to tell people. It's hard to understand why people don't get it yet!!

[bobandtorey]

Well Said...Excellent Post. This is the same thing we have been trying to tell people. It's hard to understand why people don't get it yet!!

they think it won't happen to them

[Highlander]

Boy, I can remember the early days of this site and this law. If a caregiver even talked about charging for meds he/she was called a "greed-head". Now that the law has been turned a bit more conservative than it was many of the same people just cannot hide their disdain for not being able to commercialize it... Wow.

 

And if you actually sit down and talk to the guys who ache to take their weed retail, maybe 25% of them have a weak grasp of the law or better; the rest have no clue at all.

[SFC]

I was talking to a friend I have not seen in awhile last night. He lives in Genessee county and one of the first things he says to me is "I am going to open up my own dispensary".. I told him I personally would not consider it right now, but wished him luck all the same. After we talked for a few more minutes it was obvious to me he was either bloviating or totally clueless as to what it going on. I turn and says to another friend, " he would be much further off just getting five patients...

[Croppled1]

Yup. That's why the law says 5. It said 5 and it means 5. You don't even have to do fuzzy math on it.

 

As they pointed out it says qualifying patient with cultivation . Many people believe this was to limit plant counts under the 5 year mandatory sentance the Federal Government dishes out at 99 plants from one site and does not restrict anything else . They then revert back to the "assisting a paitent " for transfer protection . Nobody knows what will happen in court but we all agree poeple should not find out unless their ready to spend $50 grand in legal fee's and do 12 years in prison .

 

Certain people want guarantee's and there are none were all working under a ambiguous interpretation and implementation of the law everyday . Very sad patients are not receiving the respect and assistance from society and the system of law they deserve and require to be safe because of discrimination against medical cannabis . Nobody compromised from being sick , confused and injured should be living in fear from participation in a pilot medical program . It is so sad how so many disrespect patients .

Edited July 1, 2012 by Croppled1

[Restorium2]

Every single judge is going to latch onto the part of the law that quantifies and limits the distribution to 5. It a good starting point for a logical mind. They will always reach the conclusion that if you want a larger distribution network then you had better get a new law that covers that. This one is limited to 5.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Restorium2

[Croppled1]

Boy, I can remember the early days of this site and this law. If a caregiver even talked about charging for meds he/she was called a "greed-head". Now that the law has been turned a bit more conservative than it was many of the same people just cannot hide their disdain for not being able to commercialize it... Wow.

 

I have long been confused why people think they can profit from patients ? In a sole proprietorship which is what caregiving is Revenues - expenses = profit . Labor is not a cost to a sole proprietor unless it is paid for to someone else for their services . This is normal accounting under FASB . Obviously you would have very few with incentive to help patients without more then intrinsic compensation .But where does it say caregivers can profit ? Doesn't it say their only allowed compensation for reasonable expenses ? Unambiguous compliance seems to be openning up allot of new thoughts .

 

I have not found one caregiver that didn't want to control the plants yet I can assure individuals there is demand for people that can come in and make products for qualified patients who control their own plants among those with the financial resouces to pay for this service . The problem also is the same with finding emergency supply : how can a patient who is vulnerable and already dehabillitated screen others without giving away their identity plus where they live to criminals out fishing to prey on them ? Especially when many are homebound and unable to drive per the Koons decision or afraid of being associated with a compassion club or other cannabis institution .

Edited July 1, 2012 by Croppled1

[GanjaWarrior]

Aw, truth hurts don't it? It is a bear the law says what it says, that I became a doctor and you didn't, and clearly you have no concept of what I do or don't do for this community.

 

You reflect what is really wrong with a group of people in this community. Your entire 'post' reduces the certification process to a signature on a piece of paper, a formality so you can go do what ever it is that you do. Why pay even a dollar extra to do it properly, as required by the act? It is just a ticket getting punched right? A secretary could do it right? Well ask Dr. Proctor about that, or that doc that reportedly sold pre-signed certifications to that guy in the appliance store.

 

I don't apologize for doing my legal job. I charge what it is worth, and folks are glad to have it because I can back them up if they have a problem. You go see one of the mills if you want a cheap signature with nothing behind it. Be my guest, at least as far as your safety goes. The problem is that every dollar people like you give them means they get to keep doing it until the AG comes in and shuts them down. But not before the entire communtiy gets another black eye.

 

But what do you care, you get your signature. Screw the rest of the community, right?

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

What truth bob? I missed it could you say it again?I know all about what you do bob. My entire post reduced nothing, simply showed what i think of you. My paper has been signed multiple times by the same man who has been my primary doctor for over thirty years, the same doctor who ordered all my test, multiple times, the same doctor who saw me turn down pills for year and years and years..

" what a secretary could do it? "well yes, as i pointed out when i first said that....saying a caregiver is the same as a greenhouse worker is the same as saying....

 

Whats with all the hyperbolic bullchit? I have never once said anything about going to some card mill, never suggested anyone did...where do you get all that mud your trying to sling?

[GanjaWarrior]

Boy, I can remember the early days of this site and this law. If a caregiver even talked about charging for meds he/she was called a "greed-head". Now that the law has been turned a bit more conservative than it was many of the same people just cannot hide their disdain for not being able to commercialize it... Wow.

 

who said anything about commercialization? i keep seeing people making references to all the talk about greed....but i cant find the actual greedy talk?

Edited July 1, 2012 by GanjaWarrior

[+Malamute]

I still think there is no difference between a caregiver and a natural herb greenhouse worker myself.

 

If you think it is, you think too much of yourself then.

[GanjaWarrior]

I still think there is no difference between a caregiver and a natural herb greenhouse worker myself.

 

If you think it is, you think too much of yourself then.

 

or maybe you think to little....just as a brief example...does the greenhouse worker ever prepare dif ways for you to ingest said herbs? does a greenhouse worker ever go to the hosp and visit his costumers? as i said before....how many dieing people does a greenhouse worker work with? does the green house worker ever go out of pocket to be sure you have your herbs? does a greenhouse worker need to know the ins and outs of any laws. how much of greenhouse workers job goes home with him/ i mean can you call him at 1 am cause it hurts really bad/ now when he brings you your herbs is he risking his life and freedom? you either know nothing about being a caregiver or nothing about working in a greenhouse...either way you dont know what your talking about.