Patient To Patient Transfers?

[Celliach]

Boy, for a word that does not appear ANYWHERE in the Mi Law, this site sure love that word Unambigeous.

 

 

Never thought I would see a site such as this call its membership criminals for following a law.

un believeable this site even has any members.

 

Well you can do whatever you want. We do not agree with the courts current interpretation of the law and are actively seeking to change the law to protect patients better.

 

In the meantime, we are suggesting that everyone follow the law unambiguously (so there is no doubt) to avoid ending up in a jail cell or courtroom.

 

Do we agree with it? NO, emphatically NO! We are just trying to protect innocent patients by not telling them something is legal according to some patient's or caregiver's interpretation of the law.

 

We cannot, and will not, stop you from doing whatever you want to do.

 

How many times do we have to intelligently explain this to people that cannot understand?

[JohnnyC]

Not subject to prosecution for "medical use" possession,transfer,delivery,transportation. No where states patient to patient nor caregiver to patient only. What's the difference of a patient allowed to posses plants submitting meds to dispensaries or a compassion club or simply to another patient. Just don't understand a written law that is not enforced just constantly ripped apart by law officials and prosecutions constantly uprising

[AmishRnot4ganja]

How about a scenario like this one: Two patients are passing a bowl on the porch of a private residence. A police officer spots them and confronts the pair. Could they be prosecuted for illegally transferring marijuana? If not, whats the difference between a pipe and a baggie?

 

I understand the ban on sharing prescription medicine. There are laws specifically dealing with prescriptions. Prescription meds can be lethal, ergo the ban on sharing. Medical Marijuana requires no Rx, only a recommendation. It has been proven to be non-lethal. The MMMA law specifically allows transfers for medical reasons. The common sense of allowing transfers is so glaringly obvious in the law that I am surprised there is even a debate about it.

Edited July 2, 2012 by amish4ganja

[purple pimpernel]

Not subject to prosecution for "medical use" possession,transfer,delivery,transportation. No where states patient to patient nor caregiver to patient only. What's the difference of a patient allowed to posses plants submitting meds to dispensaries or a compassion club or simply to another patient.

 

that is how I read it too--unambiguously!

 

 

We do not agree with the courts current interpretation of the law and are actively seeking to change the law to protect patients better.

 

We are just trying to protect innocent patients by not telling them something is legal according to some patient's or caregiver's interpretation of the law

 

and again never say the word sell and pot in the same sentence...ever!

 

or narrowly interpret the law ---

did not the SC state the law needs to be more broadly interpreted...??....with more latitude for a common citizen to understand

 

the medical use clause seems to always be avoided here in this forum ...and all I can guess is it's because it can be too broadly interpreted by an average mmj patient?

am I wrong or is the narrower unambiguous interpretation the better understanding if you are a stakeholder and working with the Legs because that is what they are really after...a nice neat four sided box with no room for any latitude as far as our law is concerned

 

and is it because they wish to put everyone into a box with compassion club as the label...with vetted cgs only....vetted by said clubz that are working towards expanding our affordable access though these type of venues with all the tax and regulate they could represent for the Legs?

 

I too am looking for a more lenient interpretation of the law that allows me the protections that were part of the original language of the initiative and I don't understand the logic within this forum....but I am not a stakeholder and just a patient looking for the rights I voted for

 

and I am not looking for someone else's interpretation of my rights with regards to any agenda that doesn't put my rights as a patient and my freedom of choice first and foremost....I do get the whole CC rhetoric if you want to network with others within your community...but I don't understand the narrow interpretation trying to be presented here---??

 

and it looks good to say to protect patients but after all we are all criminals in the eyes of the Feds and have no rights in their interpretation ...while they use their narco terrorist DEA to enforce their oppressive war on drugs and import all the heroin and cocaine into our major urban areas

 

no need to break it down here as we have been reading the rhetoric for months---open dialogue with liberal discussions would be appreciated

Edited July 2, 2012 by purple pimpernel

[JohnnyC]

that is how I read it too--unambiguously!

 

 

 

 

and again never say the word sell and pot in the same sentence...ever!

 

 

who said that?

[JohnnyC]

How about a scenario like this one: Two patients are passing a bowl on the porch of a private residence. A police officer spots them and confronts the pair. Could they be prosecuted for illegally transferring marijuana? If not, whats the difference between a pipe and a baggie?

 

I understand the ban on sharing prescription medicine. There are laws specifically dealing with prescriptions. Prescription meds can be lethal, ergo the ban on sharing. Medical Marijuana requires no Rx, only a recommendation. It has been proven to be non-lethal. The MMMA law specifically allows transfers for medical reasons. The common sense of allowing transfers is so glaringly obvious in the law that I am surprised there is even a debate about it.

 

exactly thats my confusion- im currently being charged and by a local city on a felony case that could ruin my life- over this bunny muffin a police- officer posing as a patient with valid card

[purple pimpernel]

 

 

exactly thats my confusion- im currently being charged and by a local city on a felony case that could ruin my life- over this bunny muffin a police- officer posing as a patient with valid card

 

sounds like entrapment...

 

.and what we can't share?

that is cruel and the first premise of kindergarten....always share kidz

 

chit I didn't know I been sharing since the 70s ...I'm glad you guys told me!

I'll try and be more selfish from now on....especially towards sick people

[Celliach]

Unfortunately what you guys think doesn't matter. It only matters what the arresting LEO thinks, and what the prosecuting attorney thinks, and what the presiding judge thinks.

If you think your behavior can get past all three of those people without you sitting in a jail cell or courtroom, then we think you should do it. Other than that we try to warn everyone about the consequences so they can make an intelligent decision.

 

As a non-profit organization we can only publicly tell you what the law is and why you should follow it. What you do in private is up to you. If you guys can't understand that simple concept I don't know an easier way to explain it to you.

sounds like entrapment...

 

.and what we can't share?

that is cruel and the first premise of kindergarten....always share kidz

 

chit I didn't know I been sharing since the 70s ...I'm glad you guys told me!

I'll try and be more selfish from now on....especially towards sick people

 

No, entrapment is when they sell you an illegal substance, then arrest you for possession of that substance. In this example they posed as a patient to get someone to sell to someone that is not covered under the the MMMA according to the current interpretation of the law by law enforcement and the courts.

 

It totally sucks. We need to change the system's interpretation of the law, but in the mean time we should all try to be safe and avoid jail cells.

[purple pimpernel]

Unfortunately what you guys think doesn't matter. It only matters what the arresting LEO thinks, and what the prosecuting attorney thinks, and what the presiding judge thinks.

 

As a non-profit organization we can only publicly tell you what the law is and why you should follow it.

 

this is a fact and you post true ....

 

but isn't the "medical use" clause a good place to start if we want our freedoms to expand and not diminish?

 

and we all know it is up for ruling in nov...but seems like the literal reading of this clause leaves a lot of room for interpretation --unambiguously

 

and shouldn't we as patients be trying harder to get that interpretation to reflect our best interests as patients and not the best interest of those opposed to mmj...??...

 

please look to another thread on p-to-p transfers I acts of tyranny where someone named peragro posted some interesting facts about the interpretation of this clause in relation to our beloved AG---

Edited July 2, 2012 by purple pimpernel

[Dilligaf]

The deal is the plain reading of the law indicates that transfers/sales are legal. Bill Schuette read it this way as quoted in this article http://www.freep.com/article/20081025/NEWS15/810250341. After losing the Proposal 1 fight and becoming Attorney General he, being a sore loser , changed his story. Transfers have not been addressed by the courts at this time and as such they are not definitively legal or illegal. Sales were ruled illegal by the COA but this required them to make up non existing laws against sales in order to justify their decision. Hopefully the Supreme Court will slap them again and overturn their fantasy ruling. I and most others do not want to be the one to test this issue. If a patient is involved in transfers/sales they may be arrested and charged, in the end the patient may be found not guilty but this will require an expensive and drawn out legal battle. The people that run this site feel that the average patient is too stupid to understand this point and choose to lie to patients and state that transfers outside of the patient/careregiver relationship are flat out illegal.;

 

What does all this mean? A patient reads on this site that transfers are illegal. Later the patient is arrested for transfers and is offered a plea deal. Thinking that transfers are definitively illegal the patient takes the deal without contacting a real lawyer. Weeks or months later the Supreme court rules in favor of transfers. Plea deals are usually not appealable so the plea stands and the patient is stuck with a conviction and criminal record. Had the patient been given the real status he may have held out on the plea but the lies promoted by this site have instead left them with a criminal record.

 

Mike

[purple pimpernel]

The deal is the plain reading of the law indicates that transfers/sales are legal. Bill Schuette read it this way as quoted in this article http://www.freep.com/article/20081025/NEWS15/810250341. After losing the Proposal 1 fight and becoming Attorney General he, being a sore loser , changed his story. Transfers have not been addressed by the courts at this time and as such they are not definitively legal or illegal. Sales were ruled illegal by the COA but this required them to make up non existing laws against sales in order to justify their decision. Hopefully the Supreme Court will slap them again and overturn their fantasy ruling. I and most others do not want to be the one to test this issue. If a patient is involved in transfers/sales they may be arrested and charged, in the end the patient may be found not guilty but this will require an expensive and drawn out legal battle. The people that run this site feel that the average patient is too stupid to understand this point and choose to lie to patients and state that transfers outside of the patient/careregiver relationship are flat out illegal.;

 

What does all this mean? A patient reads on this site that transfers are illegal. Later the patient is arrested for transfers and is offered a plea deal. Thinking that transfers are definitively illegal the patient takes the deal without contacting a real lawyer. Weeks or months later the Supreme court rules in favor of transfers. Plea deals are usually not appealable so the plea stands and the patient is stuck with a conviction and criminal record. Had the patient been given the real status he may have held out on the plea but the lies promoted by this site have instead left them with a criminal record.

 

Mike

 

 

great reply! and that is why after the recent ruling no one should ever ever cop to a plea! never! let it go to jury now that the SC has made a ruling that a defense is available....and remember if you have 12 jurors...possibly 63% of them voted for this...although they screen prospective jurors to weed out possible sympathies ers

thx for your post....agreed!

[purple pimpernel]

 

Plea deals are usually not appealable so the plea stands and the patient is stuck with a conviction and criminal record. Had the patient been given the real status he may have held out on the plea but the lies promoted by this site have instead left them with a criminal record.

 

Mike

 

and consequently unable to obtain another card is that not right?

from LARA new rules---

 

and lies and disinformation are more dangerous than the truth!

 

 

 

your rights are only as strong as your diligence to exercise them--

Edited July 2, 2012 by purple pimpernel

[+Malamute]

I can 100% guarantee it was not the "intent" of the authors (MPP) to allow for patient to patient transfers under Sec. 4 of the MMMAct. I simply asked them(MPP). They did not start addressing this topic/idea until about 1 year after our law was written. The first place they(MPP) pushed legislation to cover patient to patient transfers was in Rhode Island in 2009.

 

And just as a reference, every state with similar language to Michigans has ruled Patient to Patient w/compensation is illegal. New Mexico, Montana, Hawaii, Colorado, Rhode IslandEtc.

 

BUT, just because it was not the "Intent" does not mean it may or may not exist within the law. Thousands of laws are passed that develop unintended consequences or interpretations that were not originally intended.

 

But, the COA in Michigan has ruled Patient to patient w/compensation is not legal, SO it is currently illegal in Michigan. That "may" change either by a Supreme Court ruling or by amending the law.

 

As far as patient to patient without compensation,... we do not know. Anyone who says they do is lying. There is a risk in performing such a transfer and arrest and everything that follows an arrest can result from such an action.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Malamute

[purple pimpernel]

I can 100% guarantee it was not the "intent" of the authors (MPP) to allow for patient to patient transfers under Sec. 4 of the MMMAct. I simply asked them(MPP). They did not start addressing this topic/idea until about 1 year after our law was written. The first place they(MPP) pushed legislation to cover patient to patient transfers was in Rhode Island in 2009.

 

And just as a reference, every state with similar language to Michigans has ruled Patient to Patient w/compensation is illegal. New Mexico, Montana, Hawaii, Colorado, Rhode IslandEtc.

 

BUT, just because it was not the "Intent" does not mean it may or may not exist within the law. Thousands of laws are passed that develop unintended consequences or interpretations that were not originally intended.

 

But, the COA in Michigan has ruled Patient to patient w/compensation is not legal, SO it is currently illegal in Michigan. That "may" change either by a Supreme Court ruling or by amending the law.

 

As far as patient to patient without compensation,... we do not know. Anyone who says they do is lying. There is a risk in performing such a transfer and arrest and everything that follows an arrest can result from such an action.

 

well Mal I understand your double post in two threads covering this subject....but why does everyone here try and squash any real dialogue towards this broader interpretation of the circumstances?

 

does seem like an agenda at play to progress a narrow minded viewpoint by certain members here....I wonder who they might be?( no name calling or finger pointing) but a lot of us can't understand the focus here....("well a lot of us do also)

 

and again never say the word sell and pot in the same sentence....or compensation...or remuneration....and never admit to sharing with a sick friend

 

is that how I read the controllers consensus here?

 

and no malicious intent by my post either...just honest open dialogue

Edited July 2, 2012 by purple pimpernel

[JohnnyC]

Unfortunately what you guys think doesn't matter. It only matters what the arresting LEO thinks, and what the prosecuting attorney thinks, and what the presiding judge thinks.

If you think your behavior can get past all three of those people without you sitting in a jail cell or courtroom, then we think you should do it. Other than that we try to warn everyone about the consequences so they can make an intelligent decision.

 

As a non-profit organization we can only publicly tell you what the law is and why you should follow it. What you do in private is up to you. If you guys can't understand that simple concept I don't know an easier way to explain it to you.

 

No, entrapment is when they sell you an illegal substance, then arrest you for possession of that substance. In this example they posed as a patient to get someone to sell to someone that is not covered under the the MMMA according to the current interpretation of the law by law enforcement and the courts.

 

It totally sucks. We need to change the system's interpretation of the law, but in the mean time we should all try to be safe and avoid jail cells.

 

no my father worked somewhere and was charged with delivery after a co-worker asked for a bag then found out he was working on the site undercover he did not get prosecuted due to entrapment. he beat that case

[SFC]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that Mal, nor Celli are working any hidden agenda, would you like me to swear on a bible, or my grandmothers grave? My fathers? Nor is anyone else that is a mod or admin here that I am aware of. What more could I do to convince you that everyone here you think is squashing you is actually trying to protect you/us? This is truth my friend, no agenda.

 

We are not pushing ANY distribution scheme at all here, none.

[Dilligaf]

I can tell you with 100% certainty that Mal, nor Celli are working any hidden agenda, would you like me to swear on a bible, or my grandmothers grave? My fathers? Nor is anyone else that is a mod or admin here that I am aware of. What more could I do to convince you that everyone here you think is squashing you is actually trying to protect you/us? This is truth my friend, no agenda.

 

We are not pushing ANY distribution scheme at all here, none.

 

I never stated that anyone has a hidden agenda, I know others did. I'm simply stating that Mods/admins stating transfers are flat out illegal because of their belief that people are too stupid to understand may cause harm to patients. I believe that the facts should be presented and patients are smart enough to make up their own minds.

 

Mike

Edited July 3, 2012 by AKenewell

[purple pimpernel]

well now star fleet command--my comments were more addressing the unambiguous compliance rhetoric that is over the top here IMO

 

the truth rarely needs a voice and it speaks loudly for itself...

 

I wish you not to sware on anyone's grave or anything else that seems so serious to say that....let the dead lie in peace

 

we the living need to do everything we can to pursue our health and anything that may benefit that!

 

there has been a lot of changes in our law and the rights it was to afford us....the medical usage clause within the act is the crux of our dilemma though IMO

 

the new ruling by the SC should help all of us realize that we can defend ourselves standing on the rights the law affords...with or without a card if we so choose!

.we need to think about cultivating and expanding our freedom towards mmj....not restricting and narrowly interpretating the initiative and the rulings

 

Mals post about the intentions of the MPP and their inital drafting of the law shows what happens when unitended consequences arise out of arbitration....

 

.remember the business of arbitration is to arbitrate and sometimes those doing the arbitration have lost the big picture---IMO

 

sometimes unintended consequences arise out of making laws that are too constrictive to the people they are making the laws towards

should we as patients just sit back and whatch the Legs arbitrate our law to their advantage and to our detriment?

 

our leverage as patients in my IMO should be the new SC ruling that stated that the law should be interpreted the way the electorate intended and not the way the Legs are interpreting it

we should be using this new ruling to argue our rights within the law as it was written and voted on by the electorate...us!

 

so in my mind unambiguous compliance should be within the letter of the initiative and afforded all the rights the initiative has in it

medical usage within the act is very broad and unambiguous as the voters intended

 

I get where celli says what we think don't matter to LEO and that is a fact but we need to protect our basic right as patients towards medical use....and that is clearly....unambiguously addressed in the initiative itself

 

and for us as patients and supporters to stay in the closet on basic rights afforded within the law we are hanging ourselves out to dry

I don't believe anyone could push their agenda in regards to this plant it has it's own particular karmic reaction to those that would try and profit from it and those suffering people that need it

 

those that have a narrower view and limited vision of the act often make me wonder what they are really trying to further

this forum was born of the need to discuss the mmj situation here in Michigan...for the benefit of patients and their supporters

 

I hope the unambiguous jargon so freely thrown about here is an unintended consequence of people trying to really do the right thing for all our benefit

 

after reading Mr K comments in another thread about the Legs working on a dispensary bill with those groups pushing their own model

would be something that we as patients should be acutely interested in....what groups and whose model?

 

I won't make any accusations here towards any groups with private memberships for stakeholders only but we should all be on point about thingz like that

 

I really enjoyed your post about how splintered the groups were and the good ole days of us toiling in the shadows....I miss that comeraderie....

 

I too have embraced the magical herb from youth and just want us all to be able to share openly and peacefully....without fear or hidden agendas dominating our hopes and prayers

 

so as a true Jedi I look forward to your comments and you really have toned down your attacks (not mentioning other places) but you need not defend anyone's comments here ....they all speak loudly in and of themselves

 

 

so big up sfv...I mean SFC I-n-I as the Jamaicans say I respect I so you should respect I too!

 

but I feel the medical use clause is our next front.....with all it brings!

 

 

[Celliach]

I never stated that anyone has a hidden agenda, I know others did. I'm simply stating that Mods/admins stating transfers are flat out illegal because of their belief that people are too stupid to understand may cause harm to patients. I believe that the facts should be presented and patients are smart enough to make up their own minds.

 

Mike

We have never said they are flat out illegal. We have continuously said things like "may be illegal," and "is questionably legal."

[Celliach]

well Mal I understand your double post in two threads covering this subject....but why does everyone here try and squash any real dialogue towards this broader interpretation of the circumstances?

 

does seem like an agenda at play to progress a narrow minded viewpoint by certain members here....I wonder who they might be?( no name calling or finger pointing) but a lot of us can't understand the focus here....("well a lot of us do also)

 

and again never say the word sell and pot in the same sentence....or compensation...or remuneration....and never admit to sharing with a sick friend

 

is that how I read the controllers consensus here?

 

and no malicious intent by my post either...just honest open dialogue

 

We're not trying to squash debate. If we were, the thread would just disappear. We are just trying to publicly state the 3MA's policy, and reiterate that we cannot, as a non-profit organization condone questionably legal behavior. It's like a disclaimer in all the threads that discuss this type of thing. That's all it is.

[GregS]

P2P is the written distribution model spelled out in the law. Period.

 

There are people here who continually state that we must abide by the Schuitte and COA Justice O'Connel diatribes that are certainly inventive, but have nothing to do with our law at all. It is as though the opposition, in the incarnations of legislators, prosecutors' and police interests, in addition to the courts and the AG, has put its people here, on a public forum, to dissuade the protected class of patients and caregivers from enjoying the full protection of the law. One among them is an admitted participant in league with one or more legislators who have been instrumental in writing amendments to the law that do absolutely nothing to help qualified individuals, but are intended to hand more authority to law enforcement at the expense of confidentiality and interject requirements that are onerous and nonsensical. Another has a conflict of interest but demands that we all act like good little boyzngrrlz in being sure to get our certs from him, and bad mouths other providers. These people demand that we ignore our guarantee that we can present an affirmative defense in court,without judges ruling that we cannot mention medical marijuana to the trier of fact, a jury. We are thus admonished to stay the hell away from protected activities within the law that, if we do not take and own, the opposition will take and own. They are only too happy to interject discord among us to splinter the activist community, thus rendering us impotent.

 

The insistence on unambiguous compliance is not misplaced until, as is happening, other reasoned perspectives are not permitted in the argument. Much of the conservative argument spelled out by O'Connel, the AG, and the schitheads in the legislature, is without any degree of accurate and precise reference to the authority found in the written words of the law, or without any historical support. The Supreme Court can, I think, be counted on to continue to rule on the law on the behalf of patients and caregivers first, and let law enforcement suk hind teat. Meanwhile, I think it better to push the limits of the law than to behave like frightened children. In other words and in the end, we can expect to be vindicated in the most liberal meaning of the law.

 

I have been accused of being a one trick pony by those who lost their dog in their own dog and pony show. It has been suggested that I back down in my support of a liberal take on the law while those who persistently demand that what they post is the ultimate authority, again without any mention of authority beyond a lawyer they may have seen once, and keep quiet while they continue in their long winded persistence. l flatly refuse to buy that. They are wrong in their not seeing, every bit as much as the people in Plato's cave.

 

i hope that some indication of adequate leadership arises sometime soon with this organization. It is that, as much or more than any other factor, that has diminished its standing in advocacy. The immediate former leadership was clearly inadequate, put a bad light on our reputation, and I had hoped that the present management would be more effective in getting points across and engaging the community in a way that provides good participation. Instigation of projects and events are necessary. Delegation is key. Contact with key players on a continuing basis is conspicuously absent.

Edited July 3, 2012 by GregS

[Celliach]

P2P is the written distribution model spelled out in the law. Period.

 

There are people here who continually state that we must abide by the Schuitte and COA Justice O'Connel diatribes that are certainly inventive, but have nothing to do with our law at all. It is as though the opposition, in the incarnations of legislators, prosecutors' and police interests, in addition to the courts and the AG, has put its people here, on a public forum, to dissuade the protected class of patients and caregivers from enjoying the full protection of the law. One among them is an admitted participant in league with one or more legislators who have been instrumental in writing amendments to the law that do absolutely nothing to help qualified individuals, but are intended to hand more authority to law enforcement at the expense of confidentiality and interject requirements that are onerous and nonsensical. Another has a conflict of interest but demands that we all act like good little boyzngrrlz in being sure to get our certs from him, and bad mouths other providers. These people demand that we ignore our guarantee that we can present an affirmative defense in court,without judges ruling that we cannot mention medical marijuana to the trier of fact, a jury. We are thus admonished to stay the hell away from protected activities within the law that, if we do not take and own, the opposition will take and own. They are only too happy to interject discord among us to splinter the activist community, thus rendering us impotent.

 

The insistence on unambiguous compliance is not misplaced until, as is happening, other reasoned perspectives are not permitted in the argument. Much of the conservative argument spelled out by O'Connel, the AG, and the schitheads in the legislature, is without any degree of accurate and precise reference to the authority found in the written words of the law, or without any historical support. The Supreme Court can, I think, be counted on to continue to rule on the law on the behalf of patients and caregivers first, and let law enforcement suk hind teat. Meanwhile, I think it better to push the limits of the law than to behave like frightened children. In other words and in the end, we can expect to be vindicated in the most liberal meaning of the law.

 

I have been accused of being a one trick pony by those who lost their dog in their own dog and pony show. It has been suggested that I back down in my support of a liberal take on the law while those who persistently demand that what they post is the ultimate authority, again without any mention of authority beyond a lawyer they may have seen once, and keep quiet while they continue in their long winded persistence. l flatly refuse to buy that. They are wrong in their not seeing, every bit as much as the people in Plato's cave.

 

i hope that some indication of adequate leadership arises sometime soon with this organization. It is that, as much or more than any other factor, that has diminished its standing in advocacy. The immediate former leadership was clearly inadequate, put a bad light on our reputation, and I had hoped that the present management would be more effective in getting points across and engaging the community in a way that provides good participation. Instigation of projects and events are necessary. Delegation is key. Contact with key players on a continuing basis is conspicuously absent.

 

It's mostly been suggested that you tone it down because if people read your advice here in the forum and follow it, they are in danger of ending up in a courtroom. I'm sure that's something you would rather not see happen. At least I would hope that you would prefer people stay safe instead of being arrested for following your advice.

 

Your argument may well be right. Some day the COA may overturn a case based on your interpretation. That would be freaking awesome! We just want people to be safe in the mean time.

[purple pimpernel]

 

 

We're not trying to squash debate. If we were, the thread would just disappear. We are just trying to publicly state the 3MA's policy, and reiterate that we cannot, as a non-profit organization condone questionably legal behavior. It's like a disclaimer in all the threads that discuss this type of thing. That's all it is.

 

 

and as a non profit I would expect that ----

 

i just wonder about the medical use aspect as i feel IMO all the rest of the equation is in there..and I have felt that way from the beginning feeling that all our needs as patients were addressed in the bill and all the solutions towards .patients rights and distribution questions

and I don't think I am alone

I mean if we as patients give up our right to share our medicine between ourselves....??...isnt that our basic right to be able to access and help each other without fear of arrest as written in the medical use section?

why is there no defense when it is of critical juncture

what is the agenda of some folks? or their vision for us all?

CCs that we all have to be vetted thru?

or provision centers monitored and taxed and regulated thru localities?

or we can only get our medicine from a vetted caregiver sanctioned by their own sanctions...??...

 

that is why I believe more creative solutions should be discussed and explored within our community even fringe potential....we need to try and interpret our law the way we intended as the court supported with their decission...to express the electorates intention and not the legislations interprettation...as they said: " we must give the words to the mmma their ordinary and PLAIN meaning as would have been understood by the electorate"

that is the ruling I read....

 

and I have allready had a friend tell me he was solicited from a legal firm off the registry as a patient and were offering 'pre paid' legal services at a 10% discount for cardholders should they need legal representation and when he asked the person how they got his number they hung up! this is true!

 

and as with most others I am just here to engage in stimulating and thought provoking dialogue and pushing the envelope on possibilities or solutions not trying to put it in a bottle and cork it

 

i am seeking answers to questions that remain to be answered

 

and I believe a lot are searching for the answer to the same questions

 

it is nice to be civil in our dialogue though as the tension within this community has been very intense!

it would be nice if someone could remain neutral and engage all sides without fear of prejudice or character assassinations that serve no purpose other than to vent bruised egos and resentments.....

there is a lot of plain old hostile energy mixed with a lot of anger here in cyber space

 

we should all leave our ego at the door ...and put our principles above our personalities and try and move forward as a whole instead of a million points of light----

 

but I do feel an expansion of our thought process towards what the law clearly unambiguously staes is worthy of exploration....

[GregS]

Tis good to afford them the opportunity to remain safe within the demands of Messr's Schithead and the retards in the COA, but not at the absolute refusal to allow other reasoned points that are unambiguously within the protections of the law, in humble obedience to republitard nonsense. The extensive noise that has been made to drown out any counter argument while holding posters with different perspectives in clear contempt is illegitimate. Is this intended to try and force us into a corner?

[MightyMightyMezz]

The only delivery that is unambiguously legal in Michigan is between a caregiver and his/her registered patient.

 

P2P with renumeration is definitely illegal. You cannot transfer meds to anyone that is not your registered patient for anything. You cannot trade for smoothies, labor, or anything else!

 

We have never said they are flat out illegal. We have continuously said things like "may be illegal," and "is questionably legal."

Edited July 3, 2012 by MightyMightyMezz