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

[+Malamute]

Natural herb greenhouse workers prepare different ways for people to ingest natural herbs.

 

I would guess just as many greenhouse workers go see dieing customers int he hospital as do caregivers.

 

I would guess most greenhouse workers work with more dying people than caregivers since caregivers can only have 5 patients.

 

I am sure greenhouse workers give away herbs as well.

 

Greenhouse workers are regulated as well.

 

 

 

I stand by my comment and your extreme examples do not reflect the majority of caregivers.

[GanjaWarrior]

Natural herb greenhouse workers prepare different ways for people to ingest natural herbs.

 

I would guess just as many greenhouse workers go see dieing customers int he hospital as do caregivers.

 

I would guess most greenhouse workers work with more dying people than caregivers since caregivers can only have 5 patients.

 

I am sure greenhouse workers give away herbs as well.

 

Greenhouse workers are regulated as well.

 

 

 

I stand by my comment and your extreme examples do not reflect the majority of caregivers.

 

my examples reflect a possibility.... you may think your self some kind of higher power but you have no more knowledge of the "average" caregiver than i....so my examples stand. you can guess about green house workers all you want...but your wrong. ive been a greenhouse worker. no regulation of any sort...only herbs we ever gave away we stole or they bugs...nope i never not once saw a dieing person working in greenhouses...you have a lot of guesses...i know. thanks for your guessers though

[SFC]

I stand by my comment and your extreme examples do not reflect the majority of caregivers.

 

Am I crazy Ganja or did you just call Bob "hyperbolic" and now you make a post that is way more extreme than anything he has ever said here.

 

Let's keep it real, shall we? Most caregivers are growers first and foremost. Do we on occasion go above and beyond? Yes, absolutely, but I have yet to receive a call at 1am looking for meds and if I did I can promise you I would be pissed!.

[SFC]

I had one patient die, my Dad. The vast majority of patients in the registry are also not terminally ill. No, you are just once again making a mountain from a molehill and obscuring reality.

[GanjaWarrior]

Am I crazy Ganja or did you just call Bob "hyperbolic" and now you make a post that is way more extreme than anything he has ever said here.

 

Let's keep it real, shall we? Most caregivers are growers first and foremost. Do we on occasion go above and beyond? Yes, absolutely, but I have yet to receive a call at 1am looking for meds and if I did I can promise you I would be pissed!.

 

look if you wanna root for bob just do it....you wanna be a part of the join us or your wrong crew here join them.... there was no mole hill, nor any mountains. lets keep it real....only talk about your experience...i already dealt with mals guesses. have i had a phone call at 1 am?....yes and it sucks but if you have felt pain you dont get to far bent out of shape over it. i have watched 3 pts die, one my mother law. so because you dont do something doesnt mean it doesnt get done. i wont guess about other cg not my place, but i can say what ive done.

[SFC]

Well, truth be told my patients don't run out between visits so I guess that may be why I don't get 1am calls. I am sorry about your mother in law, seriously. I don't doubt or have any way of knowing what you do for your patients but when you make a post as out there as the one I am questioning you on....

 

Look Ganja, I have followed many of your posts, you do have a brain in your head man. Just don't follow leaders and watch your parking meters.... Savvy?

Edited July 1, 2012 by SFC

[Dr. Bob]

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.

 

I always take these posters that love to cut and paste part of the Act, to support their 'opion' about things that will get their friends put in jail, with a grain of salt.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Hey Ganja, peace be with you man. You know nothing about me, but are entitled to your hatred. No one ever said you had to have anything to do with me, and I've not really noted anything in your posts lately that have had any impact on the subject or contribution to the conversation. There is a difference between writing and typing. You are a typer.

 

Take care.

 

Dr. Bob

[imiubu]

Hey Ganja, peace be with you man. You know nothing about me, but are entitled to your hatred. No one ever said you had to have anything to do with me, and I've not really noted anything in your posts lately that have had any impact on the subject or contribution to the conversation. There is a difference between writing and typing. You are a typer.

 

Take care.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I've not found much pertinence in most of your posts either doc.

It is as if you talk just to hear yourself.

[Dr. Bob]

Some folks listen that is enough for me, have a nice day. No one says you have to be one of them. But I think the problem is that YOU don't see what is in the posts. Most others can see the content just fine.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 2, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[imiubu]

Lol, you just can't help yourself can you ?

[GanjaWarrior]

Hey Ganja, peace be with you man. You know nothing about me, but are entitled to your hatred. No one ever said you had to have anything to do with me, and I've not really noted anything in your posts lately that have had any impact on the subject or contribution to the conversation. There is a difference between writing and typing. You are a typer.

 

Take care.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

um.... i have far better things to do than hate some one on your level...you know they whole bigger, maybe even relevant fish to fry....I do find it telling that while i "dont know you" you still feel im entitled to hate you.... maybe a Freudian slip...now if you could just stick to commenting on things you know about....

[Dr. Bob]

um.... i have far better things to do than hate some one on your level...you know they whole bigger, maybe even relevant fish to fry....I do find it telling that while i "dont know you" you still feel im entitled to hate you.... maybe a Freudian slip...now if you could just stick to commenting on things you know about....

 

Hey thanks man, I do. Perhaps hate is the wrong term, I would say your comments are decidedly unfriendly and lack much of a foundation. So like I said, I post accurate information for those that want to accept it, for those that do not, it is a free country and you can do what you want, just don't damage the Act.

 

Happy 4th y'all.

 

Dr. Bob

[Pain]

I've not found much pertinence in most of your posts either doc.

It is as if you talk just to hear yourself.

i agree 100%. He is a Doc, not a Pateint, i find imo, hes treating us as little kids. raggin on everyone thats done alittle wrong. I've been around a long time, way before weed was legal. and learned when to shut my mouth, enuff said.

[Dr. Bob]

i agree 100%. He is a Doc, not a Pateint, i find imo, hes treating us as little kids. raggin on everyone thats done alittle wrong. I've been around a long time, way before weed was legal. and learned when to shut my mouth, enuff said.

 

Gosh, try and be nice and more just pipe in. I know when it is a good time to hit the ignore button. Take care and happy 4th.

 

Dr. Bob

[Pain]

i agree 100%. He is a Doc, not a Pateint, i find imo, hes treating us as little kids. raggin on everyone thats done alittle wrong. I've been around a long time, way before weed was legal. and learned when to shut my mouth, enuff said.

geesh drbob the only kid on the block with a ball, and runs away with it shouting nah nah nah. you can say you speak for patients (you are not one). But you DO NOT Speak for me. OK, get the last Nah Nah Nah in............

[Dr. Bob]

geesh drbob the only kid on the block with a ball, and runs away with it shouting nah nah nah. you can say you speak for patients (you are not one). But you DO NOT Speak for me. OK, get the last Nah Nah Nah in............

 

I don't wish to speak for you. But apparently folks think I have some important views on the subject, and the folks that make the decision seem to listen to believe I have important views on the subject. You are more than welcome to speak to them yourself.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

What are expectations of when the SC might announce another medical cannabis ruling?

 

I believe that the very next case will determine patient to patient transfers.

[peanutbutter]

I think the SC will see, again in the plain language of the law, that patients are permitted to transfer among each other, to include for a price, and that non-patient caregivers will be required to work only with those patients who have designated them.

 

This Supreme Court has shown that it doesn't like it when words are inserted into law when those words don't exist in the law already.

 

"Sales" is NOT in the PHC. It is NOT an element for conviction for delivery. I would expect this court to view the way "sale" was used very dimly. They won't like it.

 

You can say "The MMMA does NOT allow for purple buds." (yes I know, silly for example purposes) Would that be grounds for a PHC possession charge? Of course not.

 

Oh .. and who is the unregistered patient allowed to transfer with? The SC and BS have both said that section eight applies to both registered and unregistered.

Edited July 21, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

True, why explore ways to show more involved ways to show non-compliance when they could get a motion to deny mention of a medical defense on something as simple and common as an unlocked front door? As far as income, the IRS doesn't recognize marijuana businesses, and collects taxes off gross so the more the merrier as far as they are concerned.

 

Dr. Bob

 

That method was neutered by the SC.

[Restorium2]

Oh .. and who is the unregistered patient allowed to transfer with? The SC and BS have both said that section eight applies to both registered and unregistered.

 

It could be that section 8 applies to unregistered patients in ways not pertaining to transfer/sales. Just because they say it applies in some way doesn't specifically mean it applies in regard to transfers/sales. It could, but your logic has a hole in it. This is just a trouble shooting adventure on my part. I see trouble with your hypothesis.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Restorium2

[peanutbutter]

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

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.

 

THAT is NOT one of the required elements for a section eight defense. Notice that it starts with "A registered." This is a part of the protections afforded by section 4. IOW that makes it so the court doesn't even see the case. The police DON'T make an arrest. The PA doesn't prosecute a case.

 

In a world where the state obeys the law. And THAT is the reason for the debate here. The state has broken this law for every single patient and caregiver that has ever been registered. Cases that clearly SHOULD be dismissed have been drug through the system for YEARS.

 

This is the government thumbing it's nose at the voters. Every tiny bit of this law is being obeyed only when the state is FORCED to.

 

And THAT is the entire reason for the need for this thread. In what ways do we expect the state to break this law next.

 

When the police and PA ignore the law and arrest/prosecute anyway, then section eight comes into play.

So if the limit is 5 in section eight, please show me that. That limit doesn't exist in eight.

 

Section four motions show the state lacks the ability to continue the case. Starting with the street officer, before the arrest. It includes the PA lacking the ability to prosecute the case.

While section four is an order to every level of the system, section eight is an order to the judge.

Edited July 21, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

No matter how many times you quote this out of context it won't make it unambiguous. The definition of ambiguous is having more than one interpretation, and when you are talking about protection from arrest, it is mostly the police's interpretation that matters.

 

Here's a quiz for you: you've located the passage of the law that protects transfer of money from a patient to a caregiver, but in what section is the transfer of the marijuana from the caregiver to the patient protected?

 

patient's money -> caregiver = 4(e)

caregiver's cannabis product -> patient = ?

 

Transfers and delivery are protected in section eight also. And the SC just ruled that you don't have to be registered to have the protections of eight.

 

Bill Schuette agrees that a doctors letter gives you the protections of eight. At that point, to make a case, they will have to select which verbs apply and which don't.

That didn't work the last time. They (the SC) wanted to see the method with which legal "cherry picking" existed in law. Where in the law does the PA pick which protections apply and which don't?

 

THAT's ambiguous. Some words apply and some don't according to the whims of the PA?

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

That would violate what the SC said. You don't have to fulfill section four to qualify for section eight.

[SFC]

Well I guess we will soon find out won't we. I am fairly confident it is not going to be the free for all some would like it to be. The law didn't specify the stuff we would like anymore than it did the stuff they did either. I think we will get a fair shake from the supremes but again, limited. Plus if they go to far it will darn sure embolden the likes of Jones to go after us on their end that much harder. We are on a double edged sword.