Logic And Common Sense?

[Kingdiamond]

doesnt say all the time either

 

Read the law anyway you like it still boils down to what the courts say they arrest you take your stuff force you to hire an attorney and make you prove your legal theres no true protections from any charge as long as law enforcement sees things differently .

[LongHairBri]

SORRY, but changing the ordinary meaning of the words in our law to fit your own personal veiws only works if your sitting on the COA

[nthlghts]

Take this straight to jury trial do not pass go do not talk to them, negotiate or have motions, go straight to jury trial. Once there reference you local pharmacy, who would never open with these conditions, pharmacist present, but others have access. Then pharmacy locked at night, simple! No jury will convict!

[The Digital Nomad]

you need a lawyer friend - you left the plants outside, even for a short time.

[northerngal]

This is BAD information!!! Perhaps it is an interpetation Joel believes in, because he has to defend himself in court, but this example SHOULD NOT be followed. (or people will end up proving there case in court as well)

 

Why not make this simple and keep your plants ENCLOSED and LOCKED!!!! Joel believes his interpetation BUT he also has to convince a jury of this interpetation. While I don't agree with prosecution for mmj, I believe he will have a VERY tough time using that defense. (unless he has a jury comprised of mmj patients OR mentally deficient)

 

If you read the sentence - KEEP prescription medicine away from children. Would a common person understand that as....when I don't have it stored on the porch, I must KEEP it away from the kids? OR That AT ALL TIMES the precription should be KEPT away from children.

 

Joel obviously needs this defense for his case but I DO NOT SUGGEST anyone use his interpetation until he has defended it successfully!!

 

As a side note: I was not claiming to support the bills introduced, I was merely stating that there was a house bill proposed that would help define what was being debated. I wonder if cases like these are what is pushing our lawmakers to define such things in proposed bills. The more we push areas, perhaps the more they shall "define them". (hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm)

[mibrains]

i merged this thread with the other thread to keep the boards clean....

 

Joel...

 

it's really this simple...

 

yes.. the protection from prosecution in the act states that u must keep your plants in an enclosed locked facility.

so then i should think everyone would agree that yes you must.

 

at all times.

 

there is no exceptions listed anywhere that i could find....

 

i mean if they are not kept they are un-kept which is not allowed... if you by accident or purpose remove your plant from the facility it is no longer kept there... and you are most likely NOT going to be protected.

 

put your plants in a kennel to treat them or to quarantine them and make sure it comes with a roof and walls.. do not take them to the herbicologist... or to a friends house.. do not for any reason take a plant outside it's facility...

to maximize your protection to avoid arrest that is...

 

you proclaim it to be safe and allowed yet you must now stand in front of a judge and try to get them to buy into this thin layer of reason...

 

i am not trying to belittle you or the concept of your self proclaimed legal defense only to protect other people who may read this.

 

it is clearly written...

 

keep the plants locked up.

 

PS in my opinion it's silly and stupid to do so...

as a plant it's the only time the cannabis is not usable. i mean its worthless as a plant growing... it's not until u dry it, or extract the fruit that it has value.. and none of the preparations or meds are required to be locked up...

so the law is not perfect

and it is not designed for everyone...

it is what it is.

 

use it the best way you can.

 

i wish you luck in your endeavor.

[Joel]

Sorry

Edited September 23, 2012 by Joel

[cristinew]

I think section 8 should cover this case ,, it should anyway

[Herb Cannabis]

SORRY, but changing the ordinary meaning of the words in our law to fit your own personal veiws only works if your sitting on the COA

 

That doesn't work either, the COA still must answer to the MI Sup Ct and those people know how to interpret an initiative by the people of this great state. They have already made a difference to many of us with their AD ruling on King/Kolanek, May 31, 2112.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

This is completely absurd and the police are playing semantics with Joel. Go to a jury and have them decide. I really like the comparison of Joel's situation with a pharmacy. The pharmacy I go to has opiates displayed behind the counter in full view. Shouldn't those, if anything, be "kept in a locked, enclosed facility"? The pharmacist couldn't do business if the police applied the same rules to him as they are applying to Joel.

[Fat Freddy]

This is completely absurd and the police are playing semantics with Joel. Go to a jury and have them decide. I really like the comparison of Joel's situation with a pharmacy. The pharmacy I go to has opiates displayed behind the counter in full view. Shouldn't those, if anything, be "kept in a locked, enclosed facility"? The pharmacist couldn't do business if the police applied the same rules to him as they are applying to Joel.

 

What about alcohol??? It is displayed in coolers right next to soft drink coolers. Or for that matter cigarettes and tobacco products being displayed on the same counter that candy is??? Seriously??? I am still awaiting that popping sound of heads coming out of the sand.

[Timmahh]

The Key is equal application of the Law. That is part of the problem as we ALL know and understand that the Law is Subjective, mostly to a person's station in life, but most importantly, on a person's knowledge and understanding of the Law itself.

[The Digital Nomad]

the police POV - the unattended plant - even for a few minutes could have been stolen. Then they would have to deal with parents of kids who stole your plant and got high. Or maybe someone sees your plant, and comes back at night to tie your family at gunpoint for your drugs. From a pro-active POV, they are trying to avoid some real tragedies.

 

 

Why are people playing with this rule - why not show you are responsible?

If you were confused about "secure, enclosed facility" fine, but if not - why expose yourself to danger? Remember when we used to keep medicine in the medicine cabinet - when did it become ok to keep pain meds on the kitchen counter, next to vitamins and kid's kool aid mix? If kids are assuming drugs are ok because of the way we handle them, I rather send a message to kids that medicine is medicine, it is not a vitamin, nor candy, and it is kept secure.

 

People say "its just a plant" - really it is a new law, and the police are watching us to see if we are responsible enough for it. The police also still do the job of protecting us from rippers and real killers. And BTW, it was not the cops that caught you - it was your neighbors who called the cops remember, that is who you are hiding your medicine from.

[t-pain]

the police POV - the unattended plant - even for a few minutes could have been stolen. Then they would have to deal with parents of kids who stole your plant and got high. Or maybe someone sees your plant, and comes back at night to tie your family at gunpoint for your drugs. From a pro-active POV, they are trying to avoid some real tragedies.

 

this is the dumbest argument i've seen all week. congrats.

replace plant with any other piece of property to see why.

 

the police POV - the unattended car - even for a few minutes could have been stolen. Then they would have to deal with parents of kids who stole your car and got into an accident. Or maybe someone sees your car, and comes back at night to tie your family at gunpoint for your cars. From a pro-active POV, they are trying to avoid some real tragedies.

[CaveatLector]

this is the dumbest argument i've seen all week. congrats.

replace plant with any other piece of property to see why.

 

the police POV - the unattended car - even for a few minutes could have been stolen. Then they would have to deal with parents of kids who stole your car and got into an accident. Or maybe someone sees your car, and comes back at night to tie your family at gunpoint for your cars. From a pro-active POV, they are trying to avoid some real tragedies.

You are disregarding the scarcity of resources point I think DN is making. No one needs to tie up a family to steal a car, as they are everywhere. What if we replaced "car" with "gold." People are more likely to rob you of your gold at gunpoint, right? Furthermore, most major municipalities in this state have ordinances making it illegal to leave your car unattended while running. Why would that be? Because it makes it easier for people to steal it and it can be dangerous to curious kids.

 

Lastly, and again, you cannot replace "plant" with any other piece of property. Why? Because not every other piece of property is REQUIRED BY LAW to be kept secure. Get it?

 

Furthermore, security IS an issue within the act that WE voted for. This isn't a police POV as much as it is just a plain requirement in the act.

Edited September 26, 2012 by CaveatLector

[The Digital Nomad]

"""this is the dumbest argument i've seen all week. congrats.

replace plant with any other piece of property to see why.

 

the police POV - the unattended car - even for a few minutes could have been stolen. Then they would have to deal with parents of kids who stole your car and got into an accident. Or maybe someone sees your car, and comes back at night to tie your family at gunpoint for your cars. From a pro-active POV, they are trying to avoid some real tragedies. """

 

 

 

Yes, let's use the car as an analogy.

 

It is unlawful to leave a RUNNING vehicle unattended, you left you car running while you were inside a store. Yes, the police would have to respond -

1. to make sure a lawful owner is around, and this was not a crime scene

2. the owner of the car is responsible for operating the vehicle in a lawful manner, so he could get a ticket.

3. they would secure your vehicle until they found you. That is a basic duty of 'serving and protecting'

 

The police POV is real, it is just like your POV as a citizen with no LE experience, - your POV is real too.

[t-pain]

the plant was secured in his fenced backyard. the only way someone could take it is if they did some B&E.

if 'some kid could...' argument was true, they would charge him with 'child endangerment' like if he left a pistol unlocked .

 

unlawful to leave a car running? what? so all of those remote starters are illegal?

[CaveatLector]

the plant was secured in his fenced backyard. the only way someone could take it is if they did some B&E.

if 'some kid could...' argument was true, they would charge him with 'child endangerment' like if he left a pistol unlocked .

 

unlawful to leave a car running? what? so all of those remote starters are illegal?

Sec. 5.58. Requirements when leaving motor vehicle unattended; violation as civil infraction.

 

 

 

(1) A person who has control or charge of a motor vehicle shall not allow such vehicle to stand unattended on any street or any other place without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, removing and taking possession of the ignition key, effectively setting the brakes thereon, and, when standing on any grade, turning the front wheels of such vehicle to the curb or side of the street. The provisions of this section that pertain to the locking of the ignition and removing and taking possession of the ignition key do not apply to motor vehicles that are manufactured with an ignition 3ystem which does not have a key and which is incapable of being locked.

 

 

 

FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM "UNATTENDED" SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN A MOTOR VEHICLE WITH AN ENGINE THAT HAS BEEN ACTIVATED BY A REMOTE STARTER SYSTEM, WHEN THE VEHICLE IS LOCKED, AND WHEN THE IGNITION KEYS ARE NOT IN VEHICLE.

[CaveatLector]

the plant was secured in his fenced backyard. the only way someone could take it is if they did some B&E.

if 'some kid could...' argument was true, they would charge him with 'child endangerment' like if he left a pistol unlocked .

 

unlawful to leave a car running? what? so all of those remote starters are illegal?

Entering someone's backyard isn't a "B&E." It's called trespass.

 

If this section of the statute were to be interpreted I would guess that the "other security" would be interpreted as keeping your plants at least as secure as an "enclosed, locked facility." It wouldn't make sense to require plants be kept in an enclosed, locked facility but then add a provision in the law, immediately thereafter, that would allow a LESSER degree of security.

[Joel]

I am having a problem understanding some of the comments I have been reading.

 

"SORRY, but changing the ordinary meaning of the words in our law to fit your own personal veiws only works if your sitting on the COA"

 

I have a big problem with that one. It is not I who is changing the ordinary meaning of the words, but the prosecutor's office. I gave examples. Perhaps you missed that part.

 

Let's try again: I have a car for sale, in the classified I wrote "1999 Chevy Blazer Low miles kept in a heated locked garage $5,000 OBO" does a person reading this have the expectation that the car was never removed from the garage? No. They will assume it was driven to work, to the market, to the grandkids baseball games, maybe even to Florida on vacation. Their only expectation, is that when the car was at home, it was "kept in the heated, locked garage".

 

"I have always kept my pencils in a locked drawer of my desk." If I take one out to write a note, or bring one out to my deck, or to a friends house." Does that make the original statement a lie? Of course not.

 

I challenge you to give a similar example that means that something "MUST BE KEPT LOCKED UP AT ALL TIMES", in the example, with out adding words of that nature.

 

I'm sorry, but it is not I that is changing the meaning of the words, it is the prosecutor's office. They want us to believe the plants must be locked up at all times.

 

The framers of the law gave us other rules where exceptions were used. Marijuana cannot be brought onto a school bus, into a school, or to a correctional facility. This list is a short one.

 

However, the list of places you may find a need to bring your plants is way more complicated. There was no way to forsee all of the possible exceptions to a rule that prohibited us from taking the plants out. So they did the next best thing. They left it up to us to use common sense.

 

You will want the plants in a closed locked facility if: Your son brings over a bunch of teenage friends, or you have workers such as plummers or electricians in the house, or your son is bringing your grandkids over. That list goes on as well. Use common sense and "lock it" if you are not sure.

 

Another thing of note is that the word "unattended" is absent. If I were to walk away from the plants to answer the door, will I have broken the law? Not as it is written. Please, read it again. Plug in your own examples.

 

If you find even one where there is an expectation of "locking the plants away at all times" without adding qualifying words, I would be very interested in hearing them. I am always willing to admitt when I am in error.

 

I AM NOT suggesting that you keep your plants outside. I have not taken any out since the incident two years ago. I continue to believe I am right about all of this, but until I hear the words "NOT GUILTY", I won't. I don't recommend you do either.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Joel

[CaveatLector]

Reading the law in a vacuum isn't going to help you. You cannot parse the law. It needs to be read in context.

 

© "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

The requirement of an enclosed, locked facility is clearly intended to only give access to plants to the cg or pt. That is the idea behind it. So, while I agree that they need not be KEPT in there 24/7 I do not agree that you can skirt the intent of the law. So if you bring your plants out to spray them, fine. That is all well and good as long as you are providing security that is equivalent to an enclosed, locked facility. The minute you fail to provide that level of security is when your argument falters.

[CaveatLector]

I would also point out, if I remember correctly, that trespass isn't a crime in Michigan unless the owner/occupant first forbids you from entering the land. That is why you see "no trespassing" signs. So, if someone comes into your backyard they generally are not committing a crime and they generally DO have access to your plants if they are on your deck. Sucks but it's true.

[CaveatLector]

Actually, your wrong. i have vacant land that is neither posted or fenced. My neighbor across the street seen a kid riding his dirtbike on my land. He called the police and they issued the kid a trespass ticket. The Police then came to my house to inform me of the incident. I didnt make the call. The guy across the street did and he told the police it was private land. Unless you have written permission from the landowner, you are trespassing. Any State trooper will tell you the same thing. Medcnman.

Hmmm, I don't think I am wrong. I would guess the cop gave him a letter of trespass or a warning. That or the local municipality has a trespass law and he got a ticket for violaton of an ordinance. However, a state cop wouldn't be citing someone for violating a local ordinance. I don't believe you are correct under state law.

[Fat Freddy]

Well in a nut shell we will need to see how the court rules on this.

I see some good points on bith sides, but this is at best tha court of public opinion.

And does not carry the weight that it will if CoA rules on it or the Sct.

I again express play it safe, when in doubt abide by what you know and that is backed by law.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Fat Freddy

[CaveatLector]

so then is a prison yard a locked enclosed area? no roof on a prison yard.

 

 

 

it doesnt say locked it say equipped with locks, big diff.

Talk about parsing the act. Again, the act doesn't exist in a vacuum. Using your interpretation would mean all you need is a lock on the door but NEVER need actually lock the door. The intent of the law is clear. It states:

 

. . . equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

If a lock is unlocked then does it permit access to others? Your interpretation is so far from reality.