Judge Dismisses Felony Delivery Charges P2p Transfer Legal?

[SFC]

PP, I ask you again, What is CPU's ulterior motive? Show me anywhere where we have even hinted at an ulterior motive.. Other than JoJo and the cainettes, there is none. Please stop drinking his koolaid man.

[cristinew]

He drank to much of the electric koolaid

[cristinew]

I do not think the Supreme Court will ignore sec 4 b, just so people can make tons of money off patients, at markets and dispensaries ,..

[JohnnyC]

they just call sales delivery ,,, same thing same crime same time

 

Actually no it's not the same time is states if charged for the "sale" 2yrs max time and a fee where

The state charge for non medical related is 4yrs

[cristinew]

csa its the same time that is where you will wind up in most cases

[cristinew]

I have yet to see anyone charged with the 2 year , its all been the 4 year deal

[JohnnyC]

How many charges have you seen lmfao

[cristinew]

many... and i hope that people would use caution ,

[JohnnyC]

I would hope cops stick to worrying about real crime instead of patients needs calling it crime.

[cristinew]

ya but cops love easy targets

[jamieuke]

 

 

Actually no it's not the same time is states if charged for the "sale" 2yrs max time and a fee where

The state charge for non medical related is 4yrs

 

 

 

In the PHC, delivery or distribution is illegal whether or not money exchanges hands. The fact that money was exchanged, or a sale was made, is not explicitly prohibited there. Sales are only addressed in the MMMA itself and by the ruling of the COA in McQueen.

 

I recommend that those who have interest in this issue, listen to the last two webisodes of Planet Green Trees. In #100, attorney Tom Lavigne discusses this very argument as one of the most significant considerations to date. And, as mentioned before, Newburg, one of the defense attorneys for the McQueen appeal to the SC, discusses this argument and others in #101.

 

The other arguments are quite compelling, as well. The actual brief, by Newburg and Chartier, submitted to the SC on behalf of McQueen and Taylor, is very informative and interesting too, and is available for people to read.

 

http://m.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2012/06/22/episode-100-michigans-premier-medical-cannabis-radio-show

 

http://m.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2012/06/29/planet-green-trees-episode-101-the-koon-show

 

http://www.onmedicalmarijuana.com/2012/05/31/mcqueen-supreme-court-brief-submitted/

 

 

 

[purple pimpernel]

 

 

 

 

In the PHC, delivery or distribution is illegal whether or not money exchanges hands. The fact that money was exchanged, or a sale was made, is not explicitly prohibited there. Sales are only addressed in the MMMA itself and by the ruling of the COA in McQueen.

 

 

 

 

so how does 3rd coast navigate with that considering this post from u?

 

and could you give a dispensary view of the current state of the law and what your expectations might be?

 

as far as p-to-p...CG-to-p ...etc

 

delivery transfer and such---how do dispensaries believe the act should be read?

 

I would think p-to-p is what they're standing on until nov...??....

[JohnnyC]

Because they can't catch real criminals lmfao lotsa cops on this free forum

[GanjaWarrior]

PP, I ask you again, What is CPU's ulterior motive? Show me anywhere where we have even hinted at an ulterior motive.. Other than JoJo and the cainettes, there is none. Please stop drinking his koolaid man.

 

 

here we are again....nothing is real possible or valid unless it comes from the hand full of mods and their dwindling yes boys..... but should you disagree with them then you must be joe cain and everything you say is wrong....this site is joke....oh how the list grows.... the good people who would never come back to this site....

[JohnnyC]

You know the funniest Chit is when your arguing defenses in this forum with that 1 person that's so anti medical law- and you mention cops on the site- that person never responds to it lol this is not the first time nor will it be the last. don't forget people if there is cops posing as patients with cards out there... more then likely a whole lot more on a online forum....

[SFC]

Johnny , you have 53 posts and as I recall that is over just a few weeks. Cristinew has been here since the beginning sans banned time from Ganja's hero/herpe. I don't think anything he is saying is pro-LEO he is just putting out a cautious viewpoint. As someone who is involved or claims to be involved in a case I am amazed that you are encouraging others to follow you. I wish you the best of luck,but I would not want anyone to go thru what you are going to go thru. Savvy?

 

I can understand someone wanting to bend the law if you don't have a choice, but most of the people that are currently bending the law or espousing bending the law are doing it for financial gain, not altruism. The desperation to cash in bleeds thru..

 

And Ganja, I know you really want to believe in CainTown but this site is far from dead. And they are not even google tagging every word said or completely unsaid. Right?

Edited July 9, 2012 by SFC

[GanjaWarrior]

Johnny , you have 53 posts and as I recall that is over just a few weeks. Cristinew has been here since the beginning sans banned time from Ganja's hero/herpe. I don't think anything he is saying is pro-LEO he is just putting out a cautious viewpoint. As someone who is involved or claims to be involved in a case I am amazed that you are encouraging others to follow you. I wish you the best of luck,but I would not want anyone to go thru what you are going to go thru. Savvy?

 

I can understand someone wanting to bend the law if you don't have a choice, but most of the people that are currently bending the law or espousing bending the law are doing it for financial gain, not altruism. The desperation to cash in bleeds thru..

 

And Ganja, I know you really want to believe in CainTown but this site is far from dead. And they are not even google tagging every word said or completely unsaid. Right?

 

its like hes stuck on parrot....once again if anyone doesn't agree...they must be joe cain...its like your obsessed....just call him ask him out jeez get the f over it.

[JohnnyC]

never called anyone out just said if you people really believe that there is no leo on these sites your all insane. 2 different topics ive mentioned it and both times all the members judged immediately to who i was referring to. besides the actual one i was lol. And i was not talking about bending laws neither only stating obvious that its easily misunderstood. and not about financial gain either lmfao meds have never been about finances to me i just hate the fact that so many of the caregivers are a disgrace and even though 50 percent of this state seems to be growing only about 12 percent have a clue on good meds. to much nasty bunny muffin floating around not barely good enough to be called medical. and true Michigander's can agree meds were better before 2008!!!!! no offense

[medicineman420]

Christine and the others are blinded by their own misinterpretation of the supreme courts 7-0 ruling which clearly states the plain interpretation of the law and what voters intended when they read the ballot....

 

no wonder why greg sold this site

 

4b is to protect caregivers from things like cps takin their kids or a professional license from a board

 

Sec. 4 (b) A primary caregiver 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 assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

 

if this was it o'keefe would not have added sec e or the clause that allows for uninterrupted supply.....(do i wanna be that test case? hellz no but it is their for a reason honey)

 

(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.

 

 

 

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

 

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

i dont understand why you all are him-hawing this subject claiming it jeopardizes your alleged 501c3......right

[JohnnyC]

even newbie people could go onto this site click on 1 link and read this only as a concept of the law...

even though when you click on the inside link it says oops...it doesn't say don't. no where in any part is it labled...

 

We now have a patient to patient transfer sub-forum in the general services forum. If you have extra meds and would like to help out another patient please post in the new sub-forum. We know LEO reads these forums so please be safe in any transfer you engage in.

 

Patient to patient transfer forum

 

Posting rules for the patient to patient transfer forum.

 

No posting of prices or quantities will allowed. Threads that violate this rule will be deleted without notice to the thread starter. Members who violate this rule repeatedly will be given a three day vacation.

 

When replying to a member please do so through PMs or email. This is for your safety and the safety of the member who is offering the transfer, as well as replying to your own thread constitutes a bump.

 

Having another user bump your thread is also disallowed though can be harder to catch. If we do catch this activity both accounts are banned with no ability to appeal the action. You can't stop people from repying in your thread, but if we find you are attempting to circumvent the sites rules, action to keep you from posting again will soon follow.

 

If you are offering meds for transfer please specify what you will need to make said transfer. Will you only work with card holders or will you take paperwork with cashed check, etc.

 

Give your location and whether you will travel and how far.

 

Members posting meds for transfer will only be allowed the one thread. If multiply threads are started by the same member all but one will be deleted and said member will be given a warning. A second offense will result in the members posting rights be put on post moderation.

[JohnnyC]

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

"if any" were engaged... why if any? becuase its known that there are not only primary caregivers but there are also patients allowed to posses plants so wouldnt "if any" mean?

[CaveatLector]

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest . . . for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act . . .

emphasis added

 

 

Okay, Johnny, Ganja, et al. Read 4(b). Did you read it? Read it again. Did you do that? Okay, one more time for me.

Have you absorbed what 4(b) reads?

I'll GUESS that you have after those 3 reads.

 

So, now that you have read it all of the way through for the first time bear the following in mind:

 

Standard rules of statutory construction and interpretation tell us that every word within a law has meaning and that nothng is inserted as "extra" or "for kicks" or for the sheer fun of reading. Okay, now, do you get that? That is one rule that an appellate judge generally must follow when interpreting a statute. So, are we set? Can we move on? Good!

 

So with that rule in mind read 4(b) AGAIN.

 

Did you read it? Good! Now, what jumps out at you as odd given the statutory rules of interpretation cited above?

 

Give up? Okay, I'll help.

 

In pertinent part the sections reads:

 

A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest . . .

for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through . . .

 

The important words here are: ". . . to whom he or she is connected . . ."

If the intent of the statute was to protect a primary caregiver assisting ANY qualifying patient then there would be no need for, ". . . to whom he or she is connected . . ." because they would only need say a "registered qualifying patient."

 

Therefore, interpreting the statute your way renders the "connected" aspect of this section nugatory. It becomes useless and "extra" language with no real purpose. That is a no-no when interpreting statutes. Therefore it must be interpreted in such a way as to NOT render any of it nugatory. It must be given meaning. Doing that, we come to one conclusion. Namely, you, as a cg, must be connected to a qualifying patient by the dept. If you are not thusly connected then the converse holds true--you ARE subject to arrest, prosec., etc.

 

There is no arguing your way out of that.

[+Malamute]

I have always felt that patients will have more leeway in the pt/pt without compensation than caregivers do because of that line(Sec. 4(b) ).

 

i tell people to read it this way:

 

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, ... for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is NOT connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act,

 

We will just hope we can get favorable ruling from the courts on the transfers issues and see what happens.

[Celliach]

never called anyone out just said if you people really believe that there is no leo on these sites your all insane. 2 different topics ive mentioned it and both times all the members judged immediately to who i was referring to. besides the actual one i was lol. And i was not talking about bending laws neither only stating obvious that its easily misunderstood. and not about financial gain either lmfao meds have never been about finances to me i just hate the fact that so many of the caregivers are a disgrace and even though 50 percent of this state seems to be growing only about 12 percent have a clue on good meds. to much nasty bunny muffin floating around not barely good enough to be called medical. and true Michigander's can agree meds were better before 2008!!!!! no offense

.I don't agree with most of what you're saying and it certainly doesn't hold true in my part of the state. I do agree that there's LEO on the forums though.

[BassManD]

Christine and the others are blinded by their own misinterpretation of the supreme courts 7-0 ruling which clearly states the plain interpretation of the law and what voters intended when they read the ballot....

 

 

There is no arguing your way out of that.