Jackson Medical Marijuana Likely To End Up In Court, Advocates Say

[Celliach]

Where did the caregiver obtain their genetics? What came first the chicken or the egg? "We must give the words of the MMMA their ordinary and plain meaning as would have been understood by the electorate." Quit ready the Act like your the AG, obtaining genetics will probably be ruled legal as will P2P and CG2P, so please don't act like it has already been decided. Maybe "not clearly legal" is strong enough for the moment.

 

It doesn't matter where the first caregiver got his genetics. That was three years ago and doesn't apply to anything going on today. At present there are plenty of good genetics throughout the state that can be obtained legally. Are you suggesting we go back and arrest the first caregivers in the state? Why would you even bring up the idea that someone had to break the law at some point? Do you even realize that your saying to go back and press charges against he first Cgs with your argument ?

 

if you noticed I never said any of this was strictly illegal. I said it's "not clearly legal" at this point. Nobody here is trying to be a judge. We are trying to warn people about the way the court is currently interpreting the law so that patients and caregivers don't end up in a courtroom or jail cell. Whether you heed our advice or not is up to you. We are not forcing our opinions on anyone.

[Celliach]

Awesome! A different flavor of cool aide is being served....drink up!

 

Really? What flavor is that?

[Croppled1]

Many of us made many posts warning people of the dangers involved in transfers only to be shot down and have them eliminated in the past over people desiring to profit . It is difficult to be insulted accused and baited daily by those here who clearly also profit through their interaction with the patient community especially when it involves a business model of distribution many saw as the least corruptable of the alternatives .

Edited June 7, 2012 by Croppled1

[bobandtorey]

Yes I did. If a person with Dr certification is protected....where and how do they acquire meds?

i think we may have to get a marijuana tax stamp first

[bobandtorey]

FILED MAY 31, 2012 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N SUPREME COURT III. ANALYSIS The MMMA does not create a general right for individuals to use and possess marijuana in Michigan. Possession, manufacture, and delivery of marijuana remain punishable offenses under Michigan law.24 Rather, the MMMA’s protections are limited How hard is this to understand?

i agree and thats the way the judge's read it here inn oakland county

[Croppled1]

 

 

Hey Mike, why don't you give us the definition of ambiguous?

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

am·big·u·ous/amˈbigyo͞oəs/Adjective: 1.(of language) Open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.

2.Unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.

 

 

[Celliach]

On unambiguous compliance just don't post anything that could cause someone to act against the known approved behaviors accepted by law and get in trouble ? i think thats the way to go

we may need another test case for the courts and we will get that soon enough imho

 

You guys can post anything you want as long as it's an opinion. The 3MA and it's representatives, will not post anything that is not unambiguously compliant. This includes postings advertising questionably legal behavior such as dispensaries and farmer's markets. We are not saying they are illegal. We are not saying they are legal. We are saying that we don't know whether they are legal or not.

 

Because we don't know whether certain actions and behaviors are legal, we are telling people just that. "We don't know if (insert subject) is totally legal, as such we are not condoning, supporting, or advertising this behavior on the 3MA forum boards."

 

See? That's easily understandable. There's no kool-aid. There's nothing we will force you to say or do. You can make any decisions on your own. The unambiguous compliance policy is for the 3MA and it's representatives only. Everyone else is free to do what they want. We will just advise people not to do anything that is questionably illegal, that's all.

[Dr. Bob]

Nice spin, now define analogy?

 

Actually your little spin on the definition (just had to add that didn't you) better defines 'disruptive' than ambiguous.

 

Ambiguous actually refers to something with no correct answer. Unambiguous means there is a correct answer. In the case of this site, they are looking for things that all sides clearly agree on as legal activity, designed to protect people from accidently getting themselves an introduction to the criminal justice system.

 

Now you have been told what the definition of ambiguous is, hopefully you better understand the issue. Telling people I and others (especially the lawyers) are wrong because the issue hasn't been settled pretty much means you are acknowledging they are ambiguous.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 7, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

Cannabis is not legal in Michigan at all

 

FILED MAY 31, 2012

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

SUPREME COURT

 

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

SUPREME COURT

 

III. ANALYSIS

 

The MMMA does not create a general right for individuals to use and possess

marijuana in Michigan. Possession, manufacture, and delivery of marijuana remain

punishable offenses under Michigan law.24 Rather, the MMMA’s protections are limited

 

Here are the Protections

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[28]

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 patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility.

 

Clearly, § 4 applies only to “qualifying patients” who have obtained registry cards.

 

How hard is this to understand?

 

not hard for me but it's not me that matters it's the judge and i think they read it as of that way also and thats why they(Leo) don't like the Law

[bobandtorey]

There are individual officers that don't care what the MMMA says. There is nothing that can protect patients from such officers. In Oakland county, those individuals are high up within the court system. IF IF IF cases start being reversed in Oakland county, there will be some safety there. More than there has been. I think we can give advise that will put people in the least likely to be arrested category. But it's impossible to give absolute advice that way. Are people likely to be arrested inside a Farmers Market? none that i no but they could be witnesses like i am against one Not if they are just being patients. Not likely, yet not impossible. How many of the patients that were simply customers have been arrested in Oakland county dispensaries? That was the worst case. The people at risk would be those at tables. Those people are the ones taking the risk.

[Spartyon]

Celliach has got it we just dont know. Still at least one moderater seems to have his own agenda the "not legal" to be a fact PB and cropped kudos give it to them.

[peanutbutter]

This I know for a fact.

 

Zero gray area .. crystal clear ..

 

There has never been a law passed that singles out "dispensaries" or "Farmers Markest" as crimes.

 

If no law has been passed against them, there has been no law passed against them.

 

Why is that a bad thing to say?

[CaveatLector]

This I know for a fact.

 

Zero gray area .. crystal clear ..

 

There has never been a law passed that singles out "dispensaries" or "Farmers Markest" as crimes.

 

If no law has been passed against them, there has been no law passed against them.

 

Why is that a bad thing to say?

No law against chopshops either! Maybe you should encourage people to shop there for auto parts!

[Celliach]

This I know for a fact.

 

Zero gray area .. crystal clear ..

 

There has never been a law passed that singles out "dispensaries" or "Farmers Markest" as crimes.

 

If no law has been passed against them, there has been no law passed against them.

 

Why is that a bad thing to say?

 

It's a bad thing to say because it's misleading and only playing with semantics. The action taking place at the farmer's market or dispensary may be illegal. We don't know yet. To simplify the term we say that FMs and dispensaries are not unambiguously legal. Your parsing words and making it look like the behavior is legal. that's what's wrong with what you're saying even if it is technically correct due to semantics. The problem is many people don't know what semantics means and maybe never will. It's those low information patients that we have to communicate with. As a result, pulling semantic tricks isn't helping to educate those low information patients. We, here at the 3MA, are trying to make it easily understandable for everyone, not just geniuses like you Gersh.

[CaveatLector]

This I know for a fact.

 

Zero gray area .. crystal clear ..

 

There has never been a law passed that singles out "dispensaries" or "Farmers Markest" as crimes.

 

If no law has been passed against them, there has been no law passed against them.

 

Why is that a bad thing to say?

 

Saying there is no law against dispensaries or FMs is a very deceitful way of trying to get people to utilize them. Stop being so obtuse and misleading people.

[Dr. Bob]

This I know for a fact.

 

Zero gray area .. crystal clear ..

 

There has never been a law passed that singles out "dispensaries" or "Farmers Markest" as crimes.

 

If no law has been passed against them, there has been no law passed against them.

 

Why is that a bad thing to say?

 

This is what you and many of the others promoting the same line of reasoning don't understand. If something is illegal, you only have to say it once. The public health code says distribution of marijuana is illegal. Period.

 

The gift from the voters of Michigan known as the MMMA does give some exceptions to prosecution on a compassionate basis. I don't need to show you where it says the FM is illegal. YOU have to show me where it is LEGAL as clearly as the MMMA lays out the caregiver to designated patient relationship. You have an argument, yes, that it can be justified. The cops and courts have one that says it is not. But you cannot clearly and unquestionably show me a section of the law that says it is ok to sell (transfer with compensation is a sale per the common meaning of 'sale' and as defined by the COA in McQueen) marijuana to anyone outside of the caregiver to registry designated patient model.

 

Not saying it is illegal, not ruling on it in a footnote, and ANY of the other FBL argument presented to date does not change that fact. I am not going to argue the illegality of the distribution of a schedule 1 controlled substance. You have to show where it clearly and unambiguously SAYS in the act that a patient or caregiver can transfer for compensation to ANY patient. You have to show the word ANY in the act without relying on your or anyone else's opinion as to why this word or this section could be interpreted Lto mean "any". Show me the word. If you cannot, Cl is right and you are misleading people about 'legally compliant farmers markets'.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 7, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

So it's a good thing to lie to new people and a bad thing to tell them the truth.

 

I see what the site has turned into ..

[Shredder]

This I know for a fact.

 

Zero gray area .. crystal clear ..

 

There has never been a law passed that singles out "dispensaries" or "Farmers Markest" as crimes.

 

If no law has been passed against them, there has been no law passed against them.

 

Why is that a bad thing to say?

 

It's only a bad thing for moderators to say. I doubt the boss wants to be seen as encouraging behaviour that could land the site mods or him in trouble. Givin the last moderator's reign it's understandable. The timing of the "new" rule was a little awkward though coming right before the supremes announcement. but despite all the opinions on law here we will know soon enough if the law says what we think it says or not. It would take some big time finaggling to say someting else, but we'll see. With the latest affirmation of section 8 I remain hopeful. Then the battle will get local with ordinances and dispensary bans I suppose, just like big bro cali........shredder

Edited June 7, 2012 by Shredder

[Spartyon]

Utilize them I believe we the people are educated enough to disiminate our own information on the legallity or risk of useing a fm or disp.

[Dr. Bob]

Saying there is no law against dispensaries or FMs is a very deceitful way of trying to get people to utilize them. Stop being so obtuse and misleading people.

 

I think it all breaks down to this. All this FBL about farmers markets. The test is to sit back and say 'do it for free then' because the transfer without compensation is clearly part of medical use, the sale is not. If you are a true believer in the legitimacy of the FM as a way of getting meds to patients that need meds (ie compassion) then this should be no problem. If it is the money you are concerned about you will continue to insist that the FM is a legal commercial option based on YOUR interpretation of the Act.

 

End of debate.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 7, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

Yes, that was maybe a poorly chosen example on my part.  I wasn't using chopshop as defined by law, rather it was being used as a pejorative.  In other words, I am still calling it a chopshop even it it is used to just sell stolen parts not disguise the stolen parts as in necessary under the definition.</p>

[Beans]

peanutbutter, if there is anyone here lying to others, or trying to mislead them, it is you. People working in ambiguous areas need to discuss their arguments with their lawyers. Trying to make people believe that the law currently protects, or even that it will protect, transactions outside the registered patient->caregiver relationship is definitely not truthful.

 

With respect to your previous arguments re: dispensaries:

 

Farmer's Markets = Dispensaries = 4(e) transfers = Ambiguous

 

Truth.

 

This thread is a shining example of why a general defense fund will not work

 

Too many people willing to say "it depends on what your definition of is , is?"

[Shredder]

Farmer's Markets = Dispensaries = 4(e) transfers = Ambiguous

 

You have come far in the last few pages, FM's were illegal yesterday, now it's apparently open to question. I'm glad the boss settled this for you........shredder

[Dr. Bob]

Yes, that was maybe a poorly chosen example on my part. I wasn't using chopshop as defined by law, rather it was being used as a pejorative. In other words, I am still calling it a chopshop even it it is used to just sell stolen parts not disguise the stolen parts as in necessary under the definition.

 

Didn't we define the term 'analogy' in another thread?

[restlesslegs]

I think this thread is dying a very slooooooww death beating a dead horse at this point