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

[Celliach]

I believe there are many things that are distinctly protected.

 

That's different than what can someone do that they will never get arrested for. That is an absolute that depends on the location and officer.

 

We are still in a transition period of time. We could wind up with dry counties .. I must say that it looks like we avoided that. However "local rule" MIGHT give us those. We don't know yet .. that's the future.

 

We need uniform application of this law across the entire state.

 

An absolute answer is that a patient and caregiver can engage in "medical use" within limits.

I also believe there are many things protected, but it doesn't matter what I think, just as it doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what a judge thinks.

[Celliach]

Posted Today, 03:44 AM

peanutbutter, on 07 June 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

 

An absolute answer is that a patient and caregiver can engage in "medical use" within limits.

 

Really, where does it say that a caregiver has the right to medically use cannabis?

[Michael Komorn]

At this moment, we know some transfers are illegal, p to p for money. Some have not been foreclosed yet, or have not been ruled upon yet ; p to p w/o money, any r/cg to any r/p comp for cost, and the r/cg to the r/p comp for costs. I think they are all legal ( operative word think) but I would be giving bad advise if I didn't warn of the higher risk of arrest for the transfers that are not being honored by LEO. Some transfers, at this point in time, and hopefully not for too much longer, are higher risk than others. This is the only point. Are those types of transfer mandatory for a successful medical cannabis community ( how does a r/cg get started), you better believe it. But this is not handled by advising patients that the behavior is lawful publicly. We are having a debate now on interpretation. We are all better versed on this act than probably every LEO in the state, but do you think that during the moment of truth, the LEO encounter they are going to let you win that argument. The point is to avoid debating compliance with LEO. That is what is being offered as a policy to protect the community from arrest. Gersh you are a champion, this is a great discussion, thanks for all that you do for this community.

 

[AKenewell]

PB: On the one hand, you 'advise' that people who are prepared to test the limits of the law should have legal fees ready to prove their point… Legal fees to take a case to the Michigan Supreme Court? Oh wait, no… I guess it would be federal law that they would likely be in violation of under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Distribution… conspiracy to distribute. On the other hand, you seem to be advocating for Farmers' Markets and the like. Those things aren't part of the michigan medical marijuana act. And any argument that they are relies on a broad interpretation on key phrases.

 

Once again, you're way out there with regard to advising the public. Past Neptune. This is drivel. It seems you like to have the last word or leave questions in peoples minds. There are no questions here. If you're a true patient advocate then you should promote only what is clearly within bounds of what is clearly legal. If you want to 'push the limits' or kick the wheels, then go do it. Stop putting forward your wild notions trying to get someone else to do it for you.

 

True, if there's no law against it, it's legal. Many politicians can demonstrate that. But in this case, it's clearly illegal under federal law. It's not legal under state law as long as there's any recompense involved and how would you propose a farmer's "market" to function if no recompense is involved?

 

This discussion should have ended a long time ago. So come on back to planet Earth. Stop inhaling the laughing gas of Neptune…. call home!

[Mememe]

Alrighty, let's get specific. Is there no uniform level of protection from county-to-county?

 

Maybe? I'm not a lawyer though.

 

in 1907 the Supreme Court decisively rejected the attempt to impose constitutional limits on state power over cities in Hunter v. Pittsburgh:

 

Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the State created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them. …... In all these respects the State is supreme, and its legislative body, conforming its actions to the state constitution, may do as it will, unrestrained by any provision of the Constitution of the United States. (pp. 178–179)

 

This extensive state power over cities has resulted in a wide variety of controls on city activity.

 

Read more: http://www.answers.c...pal-corporation

[peanutbutter]

PB: On the one hand, you 'advise' that people who are prepared to test the limits of the law should have legal fees ready to prove their point… Legal fees to take a case to the Michigan Supreme Court? Oh wait, no… I guess it would be federal law that they would likely be in violation of under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Distribution… conspiracy to distribute. On the other hand, you seem to be advocating for Farmers' Markets and the like. Those things aren't part of the michigan medical marijuana act. And any argument that they are relies on a broad interpretation on key phrases.

 

Once again, you're way out there with regard to advising the public. Past Neptune. This is drivel. It seems you like to have the last word or leave questions in peoples minds. There are no questions here. If you're a true patient advocate then you should promote only what is clearly within bounds of what is clearly legal. If you want to 'push the limits' or kick the wheels, then go do it. Stop putting forward your wild notions trying to get someone else to do it for you.

 

True, if there's no law against it, it's legal. Many politicians can demonstrate that. But in this case, it's clearly illegal under federal law. It's not legal under state law as long as there's any recompense involved and how would you propose a farmer's "market" to function if no recompense is involved?

 

This discussion should have ended a long time ago. So come on back to planet Earth. Stop inhaling the laughing gas of Neptune…. call home!

 

Oh .. federal law.

 

you win.

[CaveatLector]

Peanutbutter you are being obtuse. It's not hard to understand that when people say farmers markets are illegal, or at least arguably illegal, that they don't mean the brick and mortar building. Stop pretending to be so dense.

 

Are "chop shops" legal? Well the brick and mortar is but what goes on there isn't. Therefore, in common parlance, we say a chopshop is illegal. Stop playing semantics games.

 

The CSA makes marijuana illegal. The MMA gives immunity to some. If you don't qualify for MMA protections then your possession and/or selling marijuana is illegal. Ergo, FM activities are arguably illegal.

[peanutbutter]

The CSA makes marijuana illegal. The MMA gives immunity to some. If you don't qualify for MMA protections then your possession and/or selling marijuana is illegal. Ergo, FM activities are arguably illegal.

 

If you do qualify for those protections, it doesn't matter what building you are in.

 

Does it click yet?

 

Yes .. it is the activity that takes place that may or may not be illegal.

 

So the discussion is about p2p .. not what buildings these transactions may take place within.

 

If those actions are illegal, it doesn't matter if it is a FM or a dispensary or your back yard.

 

Singling out Farmers Markets may give people a false sense that a dispensary is OK and a FM is not. Or some other strange thing.

 

To be clear. People should be focused on the nature of transactions rather than the label on the building.

 

And if the transactions are legal then so is the building.

Edited June 7, 2012 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

To ensure our safety, it is of utmost importance that every county is educated about the latest Supreme Court ruling.

 

We can take the offensive or hope they figure it out right.

 

We need to drive to get prisoners released. There are people in jail right now based on flawed law.

[peanutbutter]

The Supreme Court is going to look at dispensaries in the near future.

 

In doing so they will probably go further than the strict confines of the CA case. I'm guessing they will examine several potential business models.

 

They may make a blanket statement about 1 caregiver to 5 patients only .. Yep, they sure could.

 

But the case is going to arrive soon. It has a good probability of answering the old patient to patient transfer question.

 

So how will this court rule? See the latest ruling. This court seems to be reasonable. This court isn't drinking the BS coolaid.

 

Safe access is reasonable.

 

The right ruling in the CA case and we won't need a dispensary bill.

[+Malamute]

We all hope for a good reading by the justices. At least some of what we speak about will be decided in the next year i would guess.

 

Then we don't have to bicker about it.

 

Because, int he end it doesnt matter what anyone round here says about the law, it only matters what the Justices say about the law, the Attorneys we pay to fight these cases, and the Legislature that could amend the law.

 

And i would beckon to say that none of them give a holy freakin helll what any of us say in these forums.

 

I agree, the awesome and unlikely chance that the SUpreme Court allows extensive interpretations of transfers would be a day to celebrate and every single person involved in the MMj program is hoping for that type of a ruling.

 

Will this case be the one that sets us free or puts on the chains.

[+Malamute]

[peanutbutter]

We all hope for a good reading by the justices. At least some of what we speak about will be decided in the next year i would guess.

 

Then we don't have to bicker about it.

 

Because, int he end it doesnt matter what anyone round here says about the law, it only matters what the Justices say about the law, the Attorneys we pay to fight these cases, and the Legislature that could amend the law.

 

And i would beckon to say that none of them give a holy freakin helll what any of us say in these forums.

 

I agree, the awesome and unlikely chance that the SUpreme Court allows extensive interpretations of transfers would be a day to celebrate and every single person involved in the MMj program is hoping for that type of a ruling.

 

Will this case be the one that sets us free or puts on the chains.

 

This court has shown itself to be fair toward the MMMA. They take into account the people the law was intended to protect and the voters that caused the protection to exist.

 

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the justices realize full well what 63% means. If that CA case is determined before the election, any political pressure could actually come from our side ..

 

Of course it would be improper to decide a case on politics instead of law.

 

Yeah .. popcorn ..

[trix]

To ensure our safety, it is of utmost importance that every county is educated about the latest Supreme Court ruling

 

We need to drive to get prisoners released. There are people in jail right now based on flawed law.

 

There were many posts that I mutiquoted then were redundantly answered so I didn't keep them around to reply back to.

 

This very last thing you said here is what matters more than anything freeing the prisoners from prison and keeping them out of the Court system, they are there because what they did was considered illegal by someone, more than likely LEO.

 

The way to prevent anyone from going to jail, dragged through the system, would be to advise them of the cautions of such actions that could very well end them up in court then jail. The very place you want to free people from...

 

I understand fully what you say about, its not stated as ILLEGAL, but I for one don't want to be the one that goes to jail or gives the hint to a member of our community that you could go ahead and try it THEN you will have that case law saying its really offically been ruled for or against in COURT, because it would place the person in jail to get that decision, and that's the very thing you want to prevent correct?.. No one should be jailed for marijuana, but by testing the case to find out what is legal and not legal would mean someone would have to be arrested and go through the system (and that really blows). or we find another route to make it more clearer as to how to advise the community that would be to steer clear until someone tests the water to see how warm it is, or legislation comes up and writes a bill that helps clarify legal and not.

 

Safety of my/our fellow community comes first I would not advise anyone to try and spend the night or months in jail and court just to find out if FM are legal or not, in due time I really think this will be sorted out hopefully without a patient/Caregiver being arrested in the meantime to find out.

 

Good luck, much respect to all of you, wish the best for everyone.

 

Trix

[Mickeydee]

You get an established caregiver and keep possession of your plants. You then get your genetics, seeds or clones from your caregiver. Also, while it is probably legal for you to obtain the genetics, it is probably not legal for someone to transfer them to you unless they are your registered caregiver. Following this logic, which hasn't been proven in court yet, one could get genetics from anywhere. This is a straw man argument as there are plenty of genetics now in Michigan that can be obtained legally.

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.

[Mickeydee]

I hate this .. this site has suddenly turned into a mouthpiece for Bill Schuette. Laws are being invented where none existed before and we are being required to teach new people that these fabrications are in fact law. I won't buy into it.

 

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

[restlesslegs]

At this moment, we know some transfers are illegal, p to p for money. Some have not been foreclosed yet, or have not been ruled upon yet ; p to p w/o money, any r/cg to any r/p comp for cost, and the r/cg to the r/p comp for costs. I think they are all legal ( operative word think) but I would be giving bad advise if I didn't warn of the higher risk of arrest for the transfers that are not being honored by LEO. Some transfers, at this point in time, and hopefully not for too much longer, are higher risk than others. This is the only point. Are those types of transfer mandatory for a successful medical cannabis community ( how does a r/cg get started), you better believe it. But this is not handled by advising patients that the behavior is lawful publicly. We are having a debate now on interpretation. We are all better versed on this act than probably every LEO in the state, but do you think that during the moment of truth, the LEO encounter they are going to let you win that argument. The point is to avoid debating compliance with LEO. That is what is being offered as a policy to protect the community from arrest. Gersh you are a champion, this is a great discussion, thanks for all that you do for this community.

I am glad you started posting. This makes more sense then anything I've seen yet.

[restlesslegs]

Majority of the last few pages of this really turned this discussion around. It is nice to see actually discussion instead of fighting about nonsense.

[SFC]

I don't understand why you won't just ban these trolls. And I really don't understand why you keep feeding them.

 

Just ignore them. Pretend they don't exist and they will eventually go away.

 

This site finally has a collection of people who know what they are talking about and can express those thoughts in clear, readable English. Its a shame their voices are muddled by a bunch of trolls asking the same pedantic questions and making the same passive aggressive statements day after day.

 

As far as this thread, I think you are trying to explain something to a bunch of people who don't know what ambiguous means.

 

I am still several pages behind but I just wanted to applaud Petyr's post. My hats off bro..

[SFC]

The thread did turn around and that is great. Michael is also right in that most of us here are very well versed in the law and its meanings,the average LEO and the average Patient and Caregiver are not. This is why preaching being careful is so important. The last thing any of us want is someone getting arrested and going broke fighting for their freedom.

[Dr. Bob]

Well this one is not accurate for a start. Farmers markets are in limbo, their legality has not yet been determined. What is the site policy regarding moderators stating that their OPINIONS are facts?

 

Mike

 

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

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

It took me a while to get it but I think I do . Your saying the Famers Market is not legal because it is not expressly provided for in the Act and any operation would still hinge on CTG to P outside a declared registred relationship by the State being upheld by the Courts . This has not occured so it is NOT LEGAL .The MMMA would be remiss to infer otherwise and have people operate on hope and need . God I am dense at times . I really am sick and dehabillitated I swear . I am so far benind in my work but I post when I can't do anything but sit in my chair often days at a time next to the computer .

 

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 ?

 

 

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

[Dr. Bob]

Look, as far as I am concerned a real lawyer, Michael among others, has chimed in and settled the issue. I am not going to try and explain the concept of an analogy, justify my position (which apparently is correct), or argue with folks that are using faith based logic (FBL) which is better suited for other sites.

 

I would suggest we take a couple of the valid points in here, like MiBrain's discussion on obtaining genetics, and make a new thread. The FM issue is settled, it is ambiguous as clearly indicated by the variety of opinions here. Therefore it appears to be an issue this site cannot recommend. I'm not going to argue with the professionals in the field and I think it is pointless for those using FBL to do so either.

 

Let's move on.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 7, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[restlesslegs]

Back to the original topic, Roger Maufort of Jackson Compassion Club will be on Planet Green Trees tonight to give us the lowdown on the situation in Jackson.

Cool gonna listen to this. Folks who want to support or give testimony can do so Tuesday June 12th at the Jackson committee meeting.

[bobandtorey]

Nobody wants you to comply with anything in the real world. Unambiguous compliance has to do with this site. The management, admins, and mods will not post any advice or information that is currently not known to be completely legal. We do not want to give anyone advice that will end up in them being arrested. We also cannot advertise, or condone any activity that is not strictly legal on this site. For example, we cannot tell people to start a dispensary, nor can we advertise the dispensary in the forum threads, as that is not unambiguously legal under current law.

 

What you do in your private life is your own affair. We will just tell you what is unambiguously legal at present to help keep you out of the courtroom, while we fight to further the rights of patients.

i agree that is the Best way for the MMMA it was always like that when this site started back in 08 i wish we still had all of them post they were great one's