Jump to content

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

peanutbutter

By peanutbutter
in USA News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Malamute Advanced Member

+Malamute

Posted
Posted

Well, the reason Fed laws need to be known is because of their altered Prosecutorial powers discetionary policies.

 

The Feds have said via memo's, they do not find it a good use of resources to prosecute a cannabis patient or their personal caregiver; BUT they will prosecute people making large amounts of money, commercial business and large grow operations. That is very relevent in the advise given to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Timmahh Advanced Member

Timmahh

Posted
Posted

Well, the reason Fed laws need to be known is because of their altered Prosecutorial powers discetionary policies.

 

The Feds have said via memo's, they do not find it a good use of resources to prosecute a cannabis patient or their personal caregiver; BUT they will prosecute people making large amounts of money, commercial business and large grow operations. That is very relevent in the advise given to people.

 

I agree, they need to be aware of them, and I find it hard to believe anyone would think our State Law has somehow changed the Federal Law.

That is a tough argument to sell.

You ll not find me advocating anyone try to run out and open a weedworld on every corner. that would be pretty ignorant, I agree, but that does not change the fact a Pt and CG has the Right to Acquire, and under the Act, it is Only a sale if the person Acquiring is not Authorized by the Act.

 

But the fact remains, we are the STATE of Michigan, We are not the Federalized Michigan Territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Restorium2 Advanced Member

Restorium2

Posted
Posted

I agree, they need to be aware of them, and I find it hard to believe anyone would think our State Law has somehow changed the Federal Law.

That is a tough argument to sell. But the fact remains, we are the STATE of Michigan, We are not the Federalized Michigan Territory.

Never forget that the state asks the feds to help them. This was just a hand off for budgetary reasons. Make no mistake about it, this was a state generated situation. Don't be too sure that a fed decrimalization would totally solve the problem either. I believe that Schuette would keep a finger on it anyway. He's not going to just give up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Malamute Advanced Member

+Malamute

Posted
Posted

Well, there are several issues around that. "Dispensing" entails "sale" which requires a license from the Board of Pharmacy and "dispensing" is not included in the MMMAct.

 

I can go on and i can wholeheartedly say, ALL of us hopes compensation is allowed across the board.

 

We will likely find out soon. :-)

 

But your argument has holes as well as everyone elses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timmahh Advanced Member

Timmahh

Posted
Posted

Never forget that the state asks the feds to help them. This was just a hand off for budgetary reasons. Make no mistake about it, this was a state generated situation. Don't be too sure that a fed decrimalization would totally solve the problem either. I believe that Schuette would keep a finger on it anyway. He's not going to just give up.

 

Yes, and how do we fix that? that was an obvious push by BS and the PC. We can fix it by voting Dems in the Senate and as many other positions as possible in the state. We can put the spot light on Shuitte as Zap mentioned. It would totally highlight his Hypocracy and expose the douchyness that is Bill Schuette. Nothing makes a politician crindge like bad press thats Accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Digital Nomad Advanced Member

The Digital Nomad

Posted
Posted

decriminalized means that patients and caregivers are at risk to being treated as some form of criminalization - tickets. inspections, raids.

I just don't see convincing them to change federal scheduling for marijuana because people want to recreate with it. I see a better argument for patient's rights to organic medicine.

 

The MMMA is apparently work - there are 220,000 cardholders, and more next month. Are we just unhappy at the speed or direction of progress, and overlook the progress itself?

 

BTW - The Public Health Code is very strict on who can dispense or 'sell' controlled substances, it takes its rules from the CSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
greenbuddha Advanced Member

greenbuddha

Posted
Posted

Let's just face it... until MMJ users and those in favor of 'legalization' become the politicians that are running the 'show', we don't really have a snowball's chance in a hot furnace.

 

But in the meantime, we'll all still have something to go round-and-round with.

 

Fun, maybe... but....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
purklize Advanced Member

purklize

Posted
Posted

I agree.

$ will not be the determining factor, nor will SC allow the convoluted def. of sale by AC to stand.

 

Yup, agreed. The MMMA legalizes sale. That which is not illegal is implicitly legal. That's how the law works in the US, but unfortunately the CoA prefers the North Korean model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Herb Cannabis Advanced Member

Herb Cannabis

Posted
Posted

Yes, and how do we fix that? that was an obvious push by BS and the PC. We can fix it by voting Dems in the Senate and as many other positions as possible in the state. We can put the spot light on Shuitte as Zap mentioned. It would totally highlight his Hypocracy and expose the douchyness that is Bill Schuette. Nothing makes a politician crindge like bad press thats Accurate.

 

We can also help "fix" it by volunteering at your local democratic HQ and befriending the candidates through hard work. That is exactly what I'm doing at this moment. I have been enjoying it very much. Before I volunteered, I went in and introduced my self and asked them what their position on MMJ was and that I was both a patient and a caregiver. They accepted me at face value and I'm thrilled to death to help them. A few hours a week is all that I can give, but, they are very appreciative and never fail to thank me for my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timmahh Advanced Member

Timmahh

Posted
Posted

We can also help "fix" it by volunteering at your local democratic HQ and befriending the candidates through hard work. That is exactly what I'm doing at this moment. I have been enjoying it very much. Before I volunteered, I went in and introduced my self and asked them what their position on MMJ was and that I was both a patient and a caregiver. They accepted me at face value and I'm thrilled to death to help them. A few hours a week is all that I can give, but, they are very appreciative and never fail to thank me for my time.

 

Excellent and Thank you for taking your duty as a citizen seriously. If we are not enguaged, we are left with decisions made for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
purklize Advanced Member

purklize

Posted
Posted (edited)

i dont get how republicans can say they are for state rights, until medical marijuana state law comes up, then they say federal rights??

 

did anyone ever call one of them on this?

did they acknowledge the hipocracy or just ignore it?

 

They are opportunists - no ideals, no principles, only greed and goals.

Edited by purklize
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timmahh Advanced Member

Timmahh

Posted
Posted

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

 

 

edit: quote added.

 

 

Does it NOT Specifically Outline a Penalty for Transferring Medical Cannabis to someone NOT Expressly Authorized to USE cannabis per the ACT?

I believe that does qualify as a right or privilege of making a Transfer WITHIN the confines and allowances of the act, otherwise, there would be no penalty for working with someone NOT authorized by the MMM Act to engage in the "Medical Use" of cannabis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
purklize Advanced Member

purklize

Posted
Posted

Yeah really, citation needed there...

 

I have read the PHC myself and there is nothing that prohibits sale. It's legal. The CoA legislates from the bench. Look how harsh the MI Supreme Court was with the CoA's dirty bag of tricks with their last ruling. They're out of control. Don't encourage them by sharing their insane "interpretation" with others, it's complete bs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanutbutter Advanced Member

peanutbutter

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

For proper definitions of what is illegal, read previous Supreme Court rulings pertaining to sales and distribution of controlled substances.

 

Not saying anyone is right or wrong, just you need to look at all defined precedent before jumping to conclusions.

 

The justices listened to the Websters Dictionary definition of transfer. It included the word sale.

 

From what I saw, it is remotely possible that the court could rule that p2p is OK but Caregiver to any patient is not.

 

The entire purpose of this law is to allow patients to medicate.

 

And as one justice said "sir, isn't what you call a "free for all" really the "free market?""

 

I believe the ruling will reflect that.

 

I firmly believe that the patient will be the real winner in this case.

 

The second case, might leave a conviction stand yet destroy the BS thing about no more than 12 plants per facility.

It is also possible that the court doesn't mention the 12 plant thing at all. I figure about a 25% chance it doesn't get mentioned. IOW most likely anyther slap down of a BS policy.

If the court DOES mention this 12 BS thing it will be to slap it down. (~90% probability.)

Then again, the court could overturn the conviction. ~50% chance, as I read it.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...