And Michigan Makes Five ..

[t-pain]

would have been more interesting if they introduced a bill to remove marijuana from the scheduled list, which would in effect put it into states rights.

 

not sure how other states are going to vote on this bill.

 

of course, thats assuming no one sits on it. i bet it wont even get voted on. whatever happened to that hemp bill from 2010?

Edited November 18, 2012 by t-pain

[Herb Cannabis]

We will soon find out ,, and should we take bets?

 

I bet the republican house will not pass a dispensary bill

 

I bet the supreme court will say you can ONLY supply meds to your patient connected threw the registry ,,, just a guess and i am willing to bet,

 

And in the meantime play safe

 

I may be off base here, but the MSC ruled that because the MMMA was the result of an initiated law, definitions must be considered through the eyes of the electorate.

 

So, how could they rule contrary to the common language of section 4 (e), A patient, A caregiver. It sure seems obvious to me. How complicated this has become and it never should have.

[SFC]

Plain meaning. That can be used for or against us. We will soon know

[mibrains]

"A" caregiver.....

 

how does one become "A" caregiver?

 

when you (as a patient) fill out all the paperwork on the application for your card you can select to grow and supply cannabis for yourself or you can appoint "a caregiver" to grow plants for you and provide cannabis to you.

that able body person becomes "your" caregiver..

they are now "a" caregiver...

they are "your" caregiver because they have a card with your name on it...they are "a" caregiver for the same reason..

 

all i am saying is...

 

the argument over the "a" thing meaning all caregivers is probably not gonna stand the eternal test of time...

 

because you must appoint a caregiver if you cannot grow your own...it does not therefore imply that you appoint all caregivers in Michigan to provide medicine and plants for you... it means you appoint a caregiver to work for you. to raise and tend to your plants specifically...

 

it all must be taken in context... but remember all context does not apply..

[cristinew]

So, how could they rule contrary to the common language of section 4 (e), A patient, A caregiver. It sure seems obvious to me. How complicated this has become and it never should have.

 

Because the LAW states this plane and clear Just is case you missed it,

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

[cristinew]

Repeat Section 6 D , a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

Common language ,Clear as a Bell there is no confusion ,,,,, people that want to deal and make profits will say anything,,

 

 

Repeat again Sections 6 D

 

a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

Now you show me where the voters voted for dispensaries?

 

People have been misleading folks on this site for years 100s have been arrested for sales to patients not connected threw the registry, its a shame

Edited November 18, 2012 by cristinew

[greenbuddha]

Yep! From the sound of these comments Michigan will remain behind the other states for some time to come.

 

Have to point out though, that Colorado MMJ patients still have ALL the rights they had before 'legalization' was voted it, didn't lose ANY of them.

 

Yeah. It'll be a while... but it IS coming. No doubt about it. It IS coming. All those against it will have to get out their crying towels.

 

Oh well...

[knucklehead bob]

Doesn't the word "primary" in the term "primary caregiver" imply a secondary and even a third source ? As in # 2 ?

 

 

pri·ma·ry

   [prahy-mer-ee, -muh-ree] Show IPAadjective, noun, plural pri·ma·ries.

 

adjective

1.

first or highest in rank or importance;chief; principal: his primary goals in life.

2.

first in order in any series, sequence,etc.

3.

first in time; earliest; primitive.

4.

of, pertaining to, or characteristic ofprimary school: the primary grades.

5.

constituting or belonging to the firststage in any process.

Edited November 18, 2012 by knucklehead bob

[Highlander]

Doesn't the word "primary" in the term "primary caregiver" imply a secondary and even a third source ? As in # 2 ?

 

 

pri·ma·ry

   [prahy-mer-ee, -muh-ree] Show IPAadjective, noun, plural pri·ma·ries.

 

adjective

1.

first or highest in rank or importance;chief; principal: his primary goals in life.

2.

first in order in any series, sequence,etc.

3.

first in time; earliest; primitive.

4.

of, pertaining to, or characteristic ofprimary school: the primary grades.

5.

constituting or belonging to the firststage in any process.

 

Is there someplace in the law that allows a secondary CG to get paid? I only see where a primary CG can get paid. I guess the secondary CG works for free? That works for me. Will you be my secondary CG?

Edited November 18, 2012 by Highlander

[Highlander]

"A" caregiver.....

 

how does one become "A" caregiver?

 

when you (as a patient) fill out all the paperwork on the application for your card you can select to grow and supply cannabis for yourself or you can appoint "a caregiver" to grow plants for you and provide cannabis to you.

that able body person becomes "your" caregiver..

they are now "a" caregiver...

they are "your" caregiver because they have a card with your name on it...they are "a" caregiver for the same reason..

 

all i am saying is...

 

the argument over the "a" thing meaning all caregivers is probably not gonna stand the eternal test of time...

 

because you must appoint a caregiver if you cannot grow your own...it does not therefore imply that you appoint all caregivers in Michigan to provide medicine and plants for you... it means you appoint a caregiver to work for you. to raise and tend to your plants specifically...

 

it all must be taken in context... but remember all context does not apply..

 

This is a fresh approach to explaining this to people who confuse "a" with "any." Well said.

[+Malamute]

MPP's model language allowed for 2 caregivers, only one got the plants. When forming that language into michigan law,... the word "primary" tagged along. It has no purpose other than being what the definition states in the law. It could say "purple polka dotted bikini" and as long as it was attached to a definition, that is all that matters.

 

So, you can look at it two ways,.. they were stupid and left it in,... Or, the framework for allowing 2 caregivers already exists, we just have to add in the rest of the MPP model language concerning having a secondary caregiver.

 

Refer to Rhode Island law.

[cristinew]

6 d ,, a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

How hard is that to understand??

[mibrains]

This is a fresh approach to explaining this to people who confuse "a" with "any." Well said.

 

thank you sir..

 

i appreciate the kind words...

 

i just figured i would chime in because i too have had many internal struggles with this issue...

 

i try very hard to remain flexible and tend to change my mind regularly based on my best current understanding of any given situation...

 

i sincerely hope everyone has a good evening and that all our pain is manageable tonight...

 

peace and god bless

[Celliach]

Doesn't the word "primary" in the term "primary caregiver" imply a secondary and even a third source ? As in # 2 ?

 

 

pri·ma·ry

   [prahy-mer-ee, -muh-ree] Show IPAadjective, noun, plural pri·ma·ries.

 

adjective

1.

first or highest in rank or importance;chief; principal: his primary goals in life.

2.

first in order in any series, sequence,etc.

3.

first in time; earliest; primitive.

4.

of, pertaining to, or characteristic ofprimary school: the primary grades.

5.

constituting or belonging to the firststage in any process.

 

A sequence can only have one unit. The number one is the first number in a series. You don't have to have a 2 or 3 or more numbers to have 1.

[peanutbutter]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/issue/?mobile=nc

 

Members of Congress Implore Feds To Back Down On Marijuana Prosecution

 

By Nicole Flatow on Nov 19, 2012 at 9:00 am

In light of the marijuana legalization measures passed in Washington and Colorado, 18 members of Congress are asking the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration not to take enforcement action against any individual complying with state law, while two others introduced a bipartisan bill Friday to formally exempt states with marijuana laws from the federal counterpart.

 

More at the link.

[Restorium2]

while two others introduced a bipartisan bill Friday to formally exempt states with marijuana laws from the federal counterpart.

 

This is ridiculous. Do it right and write a bill legalizing it federally. Make it legal federally and let states make it ILLEGAL if they want to. That's the right thing to do. Then we will have a position of strength to build from. Then the federal raids will end for ALL states. No more leverage. An even playing field across the country. Not a penny more spent by the federal government enforcing failed federal laws. When the states have to take care of this on their own then we will see them have a more realistic idea of how their law enforcement communities should be spending their time and money. The fed needs to stop enabling states to do the wrong thing in regards to cannabis. States need to set their law enforcement priorities without a leg up with some of the expense when it comes to cannabis prosecutions. The fed needs to totally take control of it or stay out of the way. This 'middle of the road' stance doesn't fit and isn't economically sound. It has to end soon.

[peanutbutter]

read it again.

 

Those are US congressmen. Not state.

 

They DID write bills for the US congress.

[cristinew]

And Obama will not approve ,,nor will most of the House or senate

[peanutbutter]

It's November 19, and President Obama Still Hasn't Responded to Legal Pot in Colorado and Washington

 

Mike Riggs| Nov. 19, 2012 11:54 am

 

 

On November 6, voters in Washington and Colorado legalized recreational use of marijuana and granted their respective state governments the power to regulate and tax sales of the drug. It is now November 19, and President Obama has yet to acknowledge that a massive shift in drug policy happened on the same day he was reelected.

At Obama's first post-election press conference, reporters declined to ask a single question about marijuana. Executive branch agencies have issued non-responses. The D.C. offices of the DEA and the Justice Department said their responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act "remains unchanged." Seattle DEA Agent Jodie Underwood told Reuters, "The state law is not going to change how the DEA operates."

While the responsiblity for changing America's drug laws belongs to Congress, Obama has a role in that process. Without Holder and Obama, after all, the sentencing disparity between crack cocaine and powder cocaine would have never been reduced.

Furthermore, members of Congress--Republicans and Democrats both--have already responded to the ballot initiatives, by introducing legislation to exempt Colorado and Washington from the Controlled Substances Act, and by asking the Department of Justice, the DEA, and the White House to respect the will of Colorado and Washington voters.

This isn't going away. Legislators in Rhode Island and Maine--states that already have medical marijuana--are introducing legalization bills in 2013. The 2014 election will likely see more marijuana-related ballot initiatives.

If a more nuanced response is in the works, Obama should not only say so, he should be the one to deliver it. And because it's never too late to lead from behind, we'll be counting the days until he decides to do so.

[SFC]

I tend to agree here, the longer Obama and Holder take to issue an opinion the better it will fair for us.

[peanutbutter]

Been waiting for four years.

[SFC]

Since the Colorado/Washington legalization? No...

[peanutbutter]

.

Edited November 20, 2012 by peanutbutter

[cristinew]

Obama said he is NOT for the legalization of cannabis,,,,,, at least he did not say he would not fight it tooth and nail ,,like Mitt

[phaquetoo]

my .02

 

right now all we as a PATIENT have is...

 

a person who has an identified severe and debilitating condition can see a doctor and get a recommendation to use cannabis to alleviate the symptoms of that condition.

 

that patient can then :

 

A) grow it and provide it for themselves

B) hire one other person to grow it and provide it for them.

 

that's all the act as written expresses right now.

 

two other states just took the initiative to say "that's not enough. we want it for any legal adults"

 

in my humble opinion...

 

the future is simple and seems absolutely clear.

 

enjoy while you can being a caregiver. the American way is that of big business. cannabis will be legal and you will be able to grow your own just like you can grow your own tobacco or any fruit or vegetable... and even brew your own beer, wine and you can even get a license to distill liquor. you just can't ever sell any of it.

eventually our cannabis will go "American" and to the way of all business...

 

most likely scenario plays out that traditional business models will dominate and small cannabusiness will eventually end up "squashed" and relocated to the curbside in some type of home-brewed "fruit and veggy" style cottage food law type marketplace...

 

who knows what will happen...

 

right now..

 

i get to have, produce and use the finest organically grown cannabis to treat and relieve my afflictions... i could not be happier with that.... anything more is just a bonus.

 

thank you to all our veterans....

 

Peace and Happy Holidays everyone...

 

and..

 

as far as MMMA sanctioned fighting events... i personally don't think our opponents would skip a beat using that type of an event to show just how sick we really must be... patients fighting patients...

 

The mma fighting event sure does sound exciting, I was wondering the same thing, now how is that going to look, are we not disabled? lmao

 

I been on ssdi for quite a long time now, If I was to actualy get into a fight with some one it surely wouldnt be going virul on youtube, I dont know about the rest in the fighting converstation, but a few of them said they work out every day and are strong as an ox( oops I mean gorilla lol), me Im just phaqing nuts, I usual bring an f-16 to a knife fight! Im a lil older than some of these guy's, only one person(the main contender with me told us his age) nobody else answered that question, well I did, and always do, your only as old as you feel, right now I feel about 75 hopefuly by noon I feel at least my age, my mind wants to be 17 though. them days are gone for me,

 

but yea mibrains you have a good point about the mmma fights, I dont have a prob fighting to protect me and mine, im not a profesional fighter, (thank god) my head wouldnt just be messed up now and than, it would be permantly damaged and alot of people would have broken hands, lol, I like to use my head as a defense also!

 

I gotta say it was fun to think about and talk about a big fight event like that, but Id much rather do mine on a pig farm or any where others are not!

 

I actualy almost got what I wanted out of the conversation in this thread but not quite,,, I guess alot of people know that Loose Lips Sink Ships!

 

Peace

Jim