Michigan Supreme Court To Hear Oral Arguments 10/11 9:30Am

[The Digital Nomad]

sigh - no one can legally acquire a schedule 1 substance PB. We tell new patients that the law says they can acquire, but the person they 'buy it from' can be in trouble, as well as risk confiscation of the meds. The point was - you cannot sell it. Do you care to define "That law" that allows people to buy marijuana from any source - and both persons protected from arrest?

 

When a patient acquires from anyone other than the CG, for sale or donation - it is not defended in the MMMAct.

 

You should use the facts - "COA has said that patients can acquire or deliver, transfer - without renumeration." it is a compassionate law, you want compassion, use it.

The COA also ruled that a CG can only service the five patients they are connected to via the registry.

 

PB is being wishful, and he will not be there in court to defend you when you get caught selling marijuana.

[peanutbutter]

The argument against us is yes, a patient must either grow their own or have a caregiver do it for them to avoid arrest.

 

A large percentage of registered patients don't have a caregiver.

 

Do you feel there is any possibility that the SC will say that patient isn't allowed to acquire?

 

Maybe I should ask is there a reasonable probability that would take place?

[+Malamute]

Which case are you speaking of where it says patients can transfer amongst themselves for no money?

 

McQueen specifically said it would not address that issue.

[Restorium2]

Does anyone believe the patient violates the law when they acquire from a dispensary?

 

Not when a patient acquires it from the caregiver on their card. The cops will still have to prove they didn't even if the MSP upholds the COA. So the dispensaries will still be open, even if the MSP spells it out clearly, that you have to have a connection on your card to legally transfer. Open, investigated, closed, with a whole lot of victims in the process. That is our future.

[+Malamute]

A large percentage of registered patients don't have a caregiver.

 

Do you feel there is any possibility that the SC will say that patient isn't allowed to acquire?

 

Maybe I should ask is there a reasonable probability that would take place?

 

They can say you can acquire from your registered caregiver or your own grow room to avoid arrest.

 

After arrest they may let you off via Sec. 8.

 

Who knows.

 

Absolutism is not needed.

 

Also it doesnt matter that i disagree with that interpretation, but to be absolutist is bad form.

[+Malamute]

Present both sides (or the many sides) to the argument and let people interpret it themselves until the court rules. We, you or any of us do not have the authority to be absolutist on these topics just yet.

[peanutbutter]

They can say you can acquire from your registered caregiver or your own grow room to avoid arrest.

 

After arrest they may let you off via Sec. 8.

 

Who knows.

 

Absolutism is not needed.

 

Also it doesnt matter that i disagree with that interpretation, but to be absolutist is bad form.

 

So then to say absolutely that dispensaries are illegal is equally bad form.

 

The SC is about to clear up debate on these issues, hopefully.

 

Some of us will be right and some wrong.

 

So transfers and delivery has been upheld even in the COA ruling in question.

 

"Sales" is the remaining question.

[Restorium2]

In my previous post I would like to add that it is the seller that would be found illegal. I still believe the law says a patient can legally acquire anywhere.

[Restorium2]

So then to say absolutely that dispensaries are illegal is equally bad form.

 

The SC is about to clear up debate on these issues, hopefully.

 

Some of us will be right and some wrong.

 

So transfers and delivery has been upheld even in the COA ruling in question.

 

"Sales" is the remaining question.

You can't even use the term dispensary logically in your arguing because there really isn't any real definition. It's like talking about a specific cloud in the sky.

[peanutbutter]

I'll do that again.

 

This worst case COA ruling has upheld p2p transfers. Even THAT ruling views such activities as covered under the MMMA.

[The Digital Nomad]

Here is some reading material on MM

 

http://coa.courts.mi..._306496.opn.pdf

"It is illegal for a person to possess, use, manufacture, create, or deliver marijuana under

the Public Health Code (PHC). People v McQueen, 293 Mich App 644, 658; 811 NW2d 513

(2011); see also MCL 333.7401(2)(d); MCL 333.7403(2)(d); MCL 333.7404(2)(d). The

MMMA permits the medical use of marijuana “to the extent that it is carried out in accordance

with the provisions” of the MMMA. MCL 333.26427(a). The MMMA “sets forth very limited

circumstances under which those involved with the use of marijuana may avoid criminal

liability;” the MMMA did not repeal any drug laws. Bylsma, 294 Mich App at 227. "

 

People Vs Mcqueen (why PB is wrong) http://brucealanblock.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/State-v-Brandon-McQueen-Apothecary-Case1.pdf

The “delivery” or “transfer” of marihuana is only one component of the “sale” of marihuana—the “sale” of marihuana consists of the “delivery” or “transfer” plus the receipt of compensation. The “medical use” of marihuana, as defined by the MMMA, allows for the “delivery” and “transfer” of marihuana, but not the “sale” of marihuana.

 

The entire list here:

http://brucealanbloc...na-cases-forms/

• Ter Beek v City of Wyoming (August 2012) TerBeek v City of Wyoming
  
• State v Nicholson (June 2012) People v Nicholson (Court of Appeals)
  
• People v King People v King (May 2012) (Michigan Supreme Court)
  
• State v Koon. People v Koon (April 2012), (Medical Marihuana Driving Case)
  
• State v Brandon McQueen Apothecary (8/2011). State v Brandon McQueen Apothecary Case
  
• Michigan Attorney General Bill Shuette's Schuette MMMA Opinion (6/2011)
  
• People v Anderson People v Anderson Majority People v Anderson Concurring Opinion (2011)
  
• People v King People v. King Majority People v King Dissent (2011)
  
• People v Kolanek People_v_Kolanek_COA_opinion (2011)
  
• People v Redden People_v_Redden Concurring Opinion: People_v_Redden_Concurrence (2010)
  

</p>

[Timmahh]

I was generally referring to a Brick and Mortar store, with sidewalk space, parking lot, a regular Store is all.

 

I agree with many of your points, but when it comes to a stand alone brick and mortar type facility, I don't believe the MSC will make much of a point to it, other than they are not prohibited, nor allowed via the intent of the Act, mostly because the wording lends the belief any transfers or deliveries, manufacturing ect, would be done between Pts and Caregivers directly, which is why I think the will state remuneration between any 2 parties, both allowed to "USE" per the Act, are protected by the act. Once a Business party in involved, which is what the CoA said was Illegal though they made it seem like all of them were, is where I believe they will put the line.

 

A Farmers Market is an open market of growers dealing directly with the end user, and I would like to think they will see these as acceptable, but I feel they will only go so far as to up hold direct transfers with remuneration between Pts and Cgs that are authorized under the act, ie, Registered or Qualified.

 

In the Penalty area, it states:

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

This area states in no uncertain terms the penalty for providing cannabis to someone not authorized by the act, and even goes to say it would constitute a "Sale". So this clearly intends to state if you are Qualified, Registered or not, any transfers with remunerations are NOT Sales, thus allowable under the Act so long as the Pt or CQ is Qualified.

 

I believe that is the most probable opine scenario we ll see in regards to Dispensaries, and remuneration. I Believe I have sufficiently backed it up with the Act and the Penalty section quoted as far as the donations.

[+Malamute]

Yea. I mean the argument about "dispensing" is really an argument over transfers and sales.

 

Attach wtvr terms you like to those concepts, those are the determining factors.

 

And, yes. We have no idea what the Supremes will rule on transfers and sales. We can speculate and discuss, but we should present all arguments surrounding the discussion and not assume absolutism.

 

:-)

[The Digital Nomad]

I am not sure how this helped?

" Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana."

 

"In addition to other penalties for the distribution of marijuana" - that means the CSA.

 

So besides being charged under the CSA for selling marijuana to someone who is not allowed, you can also be served with the above penalties. Double whammy ouch.

[Timmahh]

We must not convolute Federal Law with State Law.

 

33.26422 Findings, declaration.

 

2. Findings.

Sec. 2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:

(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.

(b) Data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports and the Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics show that approximately 99 out of every 100 marihuana arrests in the United States are made under state law, rather than under federal law. Consequently, changing state law will have the practical effect of protecting from arrest the vast majority of seriously ill people who have a medical need to use marihuana.

© Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law. The laws of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Washington do not penalize the medical use and cultivation of marihuana. Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens.

 

 

History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008

Compiler's Notes: MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:10. Severability.Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.

 

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

 

Federally is out of our concern, we are dealing with States Rights.

As a State of Citizens, We have stated it IS medicine, and Federal Scheduling is not our Concern any longer.

Sorry DN, gotta disagree on this point. the Act even brings attention to the Fact any one can STILL be charged Federally and that the Act itself does not supercede federal law. But again, we are the State of Michigan.

[+Malamute]

I am not sure how this helped?

" Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana."

 

"In addition to other penalties for the distribution of marijuana" - that means the CSA.

 

So besides being charged under the CSA for selling marijuana to someone who is not allowed, you can also be served with the above penalties. Double whammy ouch.

 

 

Exectly, it is an additive penalty. It does not define or bestow a privilege. :-)

 

 

edit: quote added.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Malamute

[+Malamute]

We must not convolute Federal Law with State Law.

 

 

Federally is out of our concern, we are dealing with States Rights.

As a State of Citizens, We have stated it IS medicine, and Federal Scheduling is not our Concern any longer.

Sorry DN, gotta disagree on this point. the Act even brings attention to the Fact any one can STILL be charged Federally and that the Act itself does not supercede federal law. But again, we are the State of Michigan.

 

I would guess the Duvalls are concerned about Federal.

[Timmahh]

Which case are you speaking of where it says patients can transfer amongst themselves for no money?

 

McQueen specifically said it would not address that issue.

 

CoA stated they would not specifically address CG to Pt sales/transfers only. but, impo they did Try to make it seem as if any pt 2 pt sale for remuneration was not allowed, but what was legally said was no 3rd party transfers with remuneration was allowed. Do you really thing Bull Schuitte and the Prosecution Crew would of let any FMS or any things stay open of the CoA took that full Stance? OConnel knew he had No way to convolute the CG to Pt transfer and twist it to the liking of his knob buddy Bull Schuitte.

[The Digital Nomad]

"Sorry DN, gotta disagree on this point. the Act even brings attention to the Fact any one can STILL be charged Federally and that the Act itself does not supercede federal law. But again, we are the State of Michigan."

 

what?

[Timmahh]

I am not sure how this helped?

" Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana."

 

"In addition to other penalties for the distribution of marijuana" - that means the CSA.

 

So besides being charged under the CSA for selling marijuana to someone who is not allowed, you can also be served with the above penalties. Double whammy ouch.

 

It clearly states that any non authorized person acquiring medical cannabis from any Authorized "User" of medical Cannabis, is a sale, and constitutes a felony. Now it is a Sale! Only After an Authorized "user" transfers, delivers ect to a NON Authorized User.

 

I have said it a few times, there were major arguments missed in the McQueen CoA hearing imo.

[Timmahh]

I would guess the Duvalls are concerned about Federal.

 

As nice as it would be to eventually be the State that Turns the Federal Law on it's head, fact is, we are still the State of Michigan.

I agree, but they were charged under Federal Laws, not State Laws. While I agree with all points they were under the statues of the State Law, they were eventually charged in Federal Court.... that was taken out of the states hands, even though it was an injustice. It was a Federal Injustice...

[The Digital Nomad]

or state injustice?

 

???Didn't you just contradict yourself?

 

"Federally is out of our concern, we are dealing with States Rights.

As a State of Citizens, We have stated it IS medicine, and Federal Scheduling is not our Concern any longer."

 

and now

".. While I agree with all points they were under state law, they were eventually charged federally.... that was taken out of the states hands, even though it was an injustice. It was a Federal Injustice.."

 

So I guess- for the record we have to consider the Controlled Substances Act as well as the MMMAct?

 

I hate circle talk - here is an example:

 

soldier: "Where are the guns"

Iraqi: "we have no guns"

solider points at gun they found under his bed "You have guns, you lied"

Iraqi shrugs shoulder, "We have guns because of taliban"

Soldier "Where are Taliban?"

Iraqi "No taliban here"

soldier: "so why do you have guns?"

Iraqi: "because of taliban"

Soldier :Where are taliban?"

Iraqi :"Taliban not here"

 

 

So do we agree or are we disagreeing? Timmah - you leave out the CSA.

"It clearly states that any non authorized person acquiring medical cannabis from any Authorized "User" of medical Cannabis, is a sale, and constitutes a felony. Now it is a Sale! Only After an Authorized "user" transfers, delivers ect to a NON Authorized User."

 

the MMMA did not change any laws, it only added protections as long as people follow the act itself.

[+Malamute]

Sub cite McQueen COA:

 

16

 

In addition, because the “medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana,

defendants are not entitled to receive compensation for the costs of assisting in the “sale” of

marihuana between CA members. See MCL 333.26424(e) (“A registered primary caregiver may

receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the

medical use of marihuana.”). Also, in regard to § 4(e), the parties disagree whether a registered

primary caregiver may receive compensation for the costs associated with assisting

any

registered qualifying patient in the “medical use” of marihuana or whether a registered primary

caregiver may only receive compensation for assisting the qualifying patients with whom he or

she is connected through the MDCH registry process. Because of our conclusion that the

“medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana, we need not, and therefore

do not, resolve this dispute.

17

 

Plaintiff and the Attorney General, as amicus curiae, ask us to hold that patient-to-patient

conveyances of marihuana that are without compensation are not permitted by the MMMA.

Their position is that the only conveyance of marihuana permitted by the MMMA is the

conveyance of marihuana from a primary caregiver to his or her patients. Because defendants’

operation of CA involves the selling of marihuana, and because the selling of marihuana is not

permitted by the MMMA, we need not, and do not, reach the issue whether the MMMA permits

uncompensated patient-to-patient conveyances of marihuana.

 

I just figured these are the things we are talking about, so i would put them up.

[greenbuddha]

If 'legal' (or decriminalized) at the federal level, all this BS goes away !!!

[Timmahh]

what?

"Sorry DN, gotta disagree on this point. the Act even brings attention to the Fact any one can STILL be charged Federally and that the Act itself does not supercede federal law. But again, we are the State of Michigan."

33.26422 Findings, declaration.

c.

Although federal law currently prohibits any use of marihuana except under very limited circumstances, states are not required to enforce federal law or prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law

Edited October 10, 2012 by Timmahh