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

[AmishRnot4ganja]

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.

 

 

So, since the Act specifically addresses "sales" to someone who is not a registered patient, and since the COA defined a difference between "sales" and "transfers", does this mean that if you "transfer" (not sell) marijuana to a non - registered person that the penalties do not apply?

[+Malamute]

The State bar puts them up; usually a couple days later.

 

http://www.michbar.org/courts/virtualcourt.cfm

 

VanDussen recorded today. He will likely post a video at some point.

[The Digital Nomad]

someone asked about the PHC and CSA -

 

"PUBLIC HEALTH CODE (EXCERPT)

Act 368 of 1978

 

 

333.7403 Knowingly or intentionally possessing controlled substance, controlled substance analogue, or prescription form; violations; penalties; discharge from lifetime probation.

Sec. 7403.

 

(1) A person shall not knowingly or intentionally possess a controlled substance, a controlled substance analogue, or a prescription form unless the controlled substance, controlled substance analogue, or prescription form was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of the practitioner's professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this article.

http://legislature.m...px?mcl-333-7403

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE (EXCERPT)

Act 368 of 1978

 

 

333.7303a Licensed prescriber; administering or dispensing controlled substance without separate license; use of other controlled substances; recording response; records required to be maintained; waiver of requirement under MCL 333.7303.

Sec. 7303a.

 

(1) A prescriber who holds a controlled substances license may administer or dispense a controlled substance listed in schedules 2 to 5 without a separate controlled substances license for those activities.

http://legislature.m...x?mcl-333-7303a

 

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE (EXCERPT)

Act 368 of 1978

 

333.17722 Michigan board of pharmacy; duties generally.

 

Sec. 17722.

In addition to the functions set forth in part 161, the board shall:

(a) Regulate, control, and inspect the character and standard of pharmacy practice and of drugs and devices manufactured, distributed, prescribed, dispensed, administered, or issued in this state and procure samples and limit or prevent the sale of drugs and devices that do not comply with this part.

(b) Prescribe minimum criteria for the use of professional and technical equipment and references in the compounding and dispensing of drugs and devices.

© Grant a pharmacy license for each separate place of practice in which the compounding or dispensing of prescription drugs or devices, or both, or the receiving of prescription orders in this state is to be conducted.

http://legislature.m...x?mcl-333-17722

 

"no one may prescribe or dispense a schedule 1 controlled substance"

http://www.deadivers...anual012508.pdf

[Hayduke]

I am not as optimistic as PB.

 

Mr. Block was not convincing in the GR case. I would guess it will be sent down for a section 8 hearing. But he had 88 plants and only 24 allowed on the basis of having two patients. Good luck.

 

I sure hope there is a narrow reading on McQueen that allows some sort of additional transfer besides one registered caregiver to their patient connected by the registry.

 

Less than 50 / 50 is my guess....

[Celliach]

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.

 

Really? Does that mean defenestration is legal because it's not specifically mentioned by any law?

[CaveatLector]

Really? Does that mean defenestration is legal because it's not specifically mentioned by any law?

That's funny.

[Restorium2]

I am not as optimistic as PB.

 

Mr. Block was not convincing in the GR case. I would guess it will be sent down for a section 8 hearing. But he had 88 plants and only 24 allowed on the basis of having two patients. Good luck.

 

I sure hope there is a narrow reading on McQueen that allows some sort of additional transfer besides one registered caregiver to their patient connected by the registry.

 

Less than 50 / 50 is my guess....

The prosecution has already laid the groundwork to limit the section 8 so that the 88 plants will seem like too many for two patients. Something like 'One plant will yield 2300 joints'.. So that's 202400 joints for two patients. That's what lays up the road for the continuous supply theory, that would allow more than 12 plants a patient.

[Timmahh]

Block was a disappointment, but it is what it is. His argument should of focused on intent, and how the people intent wasnt to make it harder for people to get help. A Husband/Wife proponent should of been put forth in that if both are Authorized Patients, but didnt want to be the others caregiver. Are they supposed to be expected to have two separate areas to grow each of their meds in? Should they be guilty of a crime because they are using the spare room to each grow their meds together, to reduce costs? I doubt this was the intent of any voter that passed this act, to allow patients to use cannabis as medicine, but to make it harder for them to do, and become a target for doing so.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Timmahh

[Restorium2]

Block was a disappointment, but it is what it is. His argument should of focused on intent, and how the people intent wasnt to make it harder for people to get help. A Husband/Wife proponent should of been put forth in that if both are Authorized Patients, but didnt want to be the others caregiver. Are they supposed to be expected to have two separate areas to grow each of their meds in? Should they be guilty of a crime because they are using the spare room to each grow their meds together, to reduce costs? I doubt this was the intent of any voter that passed this act, to allow patients to use cannabis as medicine, but to make it harder for them to do, and become a target for doing so.

I think a jury trial would be the anwer to the husband and wife growing 24 plants, and both having access. I really don't think a prosecutor is looking for those types of cases to prosecute. They want the money factor involved or they leave you alone. That's what the track record has shown.

[Timmahh]

well, by the sound of it, it appears Blysma may get a gift in the way of a new trial to discuss a Section 8. If that happens, I hope he hires a better attorney honestly.

 

I hear what you are saying Rest, but think about it If it is ok for a husband and wife, then why not 2 or 10 patients and or caregivers..... This creates two classes of people to prosecute differently, under the same color of the law....

 

I understand the Prosecution dont like those cases, but the fact is, those are the cases they are trying to prosecute via round about ways.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Timmahh

[Restorium2]

well, by the sound of it, it appears Blysma may get a gift in the way of a new trial to discuss a Section 8. If that happens, I hope he hires a better attorney honestly.

 

I hear what you are saying Rest, but think about it If it is ok for a husband and wife, then why not 2 or 10 patients and or caregivers..... This creates two classes of people to prosecute differently, under the same color of the law....

You are defintely right about the two classes. The two classifications by law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges are defined as follows;

Ones that are making money.

Ones that are not.

[peanutbutter]

You are defintely right about the two classes. The two classifications by law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges are defined as follows;

Ones that are making money.

Ones that are not.

 

Why is it wrong to earn a living?

 

I know that there are those in law enforcement that have taken a vow that no one will make money from this.

 

But why?

[+Malamute]

The worst prejudices are the last to fade.

[purklize]

Why is it wrong to earn a living?

 

I know that there are those in law enforcement that have taken a vow that no one will make money from this.

 

But why?

 

Because they understand that economic activity is the root of virtually all human activity. They know it is like driving a stake through the heart of MMJ.

[Timmahh]

JP Morgan in the 1920s said " I care Not for the laws a country makes its people follow, so long as I control the money for that nation, it is not of my concern what law they make for themselves."

 

he who controls the money, controls the world. that statement was true before this guy Jesus walked the earth, it was the reason he supposedly upturned the tables in the tabernacle, and why most Westernized Countries have a Central Reserve Banking System.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Timmahh

[Celliach]

Hmmmm. Jesus didn't overturn the money changers' tables because they controlled the world. He did it because the temple only accepted Hebrew money while Roman coin was the common coin of trade. Everyone used Roman money for all their business but had to give offerings with shekels. The money changers were charging a fee to exchange the Roman money for shekels right inside the temple so people could pay their offerings, and Jesus felt they were stealing from the people. It had nothing to do with power or control. In fact he said "My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves." Matthew 21:13 Notice he didn't say a den of power-mongers.

 

He also didn't believe anyone should charge interest (usury) on a loan.

[Timmahh]

I may be wrong, but I dust believith the tables were turned for the fact they were changing money for profits period, and did do in the Service of the Lord, to do the lords work, in the lords house. Jesus wasn't there to bring Capitalism to Jerusalem 2000 yrs ago. At least not the way any christian I hear explain it.

 

it was about the profits of man, being done in the name of the Lord, in the House of the Lord.

[Celliach]

I may be wrong, but I dust believith the tables were turned for the fact they were changing money for profits period, and did do in the Service of the Lord, to do the lords work, in the lords house. Jesus wasn't there to bring Capitalism to Jerusalem 2000 yrs ago. At least not the way any christian I hear explain it.

 

it was about the profits of man, being done in the name of the Lord, in the House of the Lord.

 

yes, that's what I just said. You said

he who controls the money, controls the world. that statement was true before this guy Jesus walked the earth, it was the reason he supposedly upturned the tables in the tabernacle, and why most Westernized Countries have a Central Reserve Banking System.

 

You were the one that said he was mad because they were controlling the power. Did you forget we have a written record of this conversation?

 

Don't go to a duel without bringing your sword.

[The Digital Nomad]

I guess my thread is off topic. follow the supreme court announcements in a new thread.