P2P In The Future.

[cristinew]

Hey PB open up a dispensary in Chippewa County or Oakland County , see how long you last,,, and how Legal you are,,, go for it dude...

[cristinew]

NO this guy http://michiganmedic...__fromsearch__1

 

 

this guy listend to your advice and sold see what happens when people listen to you and peopel like you ,, your dangerous

Edited December 5, 2012 by cristinew

[peanutbutter]

So every time someone is arrested, not convicted simply arrested, for anything at all, that makes it illegal?

 

I guess under that definition EVERYTHING is illegal. You could potentially be arrested for ANYTHING.

 

Making ANYTHING and EVERYTHING illegal.

[cristinew]

I am just trying to keep people from getting arrested and your encouraging acts that will get people busted you must be proud

[Restorium2]

So every time someone is arrested, not convicted simply arrested, for anything at all, that makes it illegal?

 

I guess under that definition EVERYTHING is illegal. You could potentially be arrested for ANYTHING.

 

Making ANYTHING and EVERYTHING illegal.

No. What was said was: If you go around here giving bad advice, patients get the wrong idea, and do things that put them in harms way, and in jail. As was proven with the link provided. It's on you and you don't seem to give two hoots about it.

[peanutbutter]

remember that guy attacked in Clinton township he believed sales to anyone was legal he listened to people on this board,, and got busted

 

7 felonies because they took false legal advice from here,

 

As we all know by now what is legal depends on the cop, prosecutor, county, weather that day, and so on.

 

Yes what you can do in one county you cannot in the other,, So be safe and hope they settle this in our favor ,

[peanutbutter]

I am just trying to keep people from getting arrested and your encouraging acts that will get people busted you must be proud

 

Please show me the link where I told him it was OK to make that sale. That I advised him to do it.

[CaveatLector]

Accepting the statement at face value aids the smear campaign against patients and caregivers in Michigan. Aids the smear campaign emanating from the office of the AG.

 

Who wants to help the AG to smear us?

The FACT is that the MMA does not make marijuana legal. It provides immunities to certain individuals. Pretending like the PHC makes all controlled substances illegal is nonsense and wrong. The PHC allows for the prescribing of certain drugs. It isn't a loophole it is a deliberate act.

 

Pretending that the MMA makes something legal isn't going to get you anywhere. Basically what you are saying is that, unless we call it legal, pts will be stigmatized as criminals. So you suggest that we pretend like it is legal.

[peanutbutter]

The FACT is that the MMA does not make marijuana legal. It provides immunities to certain individuals. Pretending like the PHC makes all controlled substances illegal is nonsense and wrong. The PHC allows for the prescribing of certain drugs. It isn't a loophole it is a deliberate act.

 

Pretending that the MMA makes something legal isn't going to get you anywhere. Basically what you are saying is that, unless we call it legal, pts will be stigmatized as criminals. So you suggest that we pretend like it is legal.

 

And the MMMA trumps the PHC. It modified the PHC.

 

Can you sell Vicodins on the street corner?

 

They are every bit as illegal as marijuana.

[jeff from bad axe]

Appeals court overturned my conviction in Bad Axe.The judge was wrong in my case.This only happened because I hired a great attorney.Michael Komorn is the attorney you need if in trouble with law.My case has been going on since Sept 25,2009.

[CaveatLector]

And the MMMA trumps the PHC. It modified the PHC.

 

Can you sell Vicodins on the street corner?

 

They are every bit as illegal as marijuana.

How, pray tell, did it "modify" the PHC?

[peanutbutter]

How, pray tell, did it "modify" the PHC?

 

It made it of no effect if the person is compliant to the new law.

 

Like one section of the PHC is of no effect if the person is compliant to another section of the PHC.

 

For the record, I deeply resent being painted as a criminal, even if I am in complete compliance with the law.

 

I am deeply offended by persons that paint the entire state of patients and caregivers that way.

Edited December 5, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

It made it of no effect if the person is compliant to the new law.

 

Like one section of the PHC is of no effect if the person is compliant to another section of the PHC.

 

For the record, I deeply resent being painted as a criminal, even if I am in complete compliance with the law.

 

I am deeply offended by persons that paint the entire state of patients and caregivers that way.

What you deeply resent is having to deal with the consequences of shooting someone in the back and not being able to be a caregiver. We understand your situation well. Misery loves company.

[CaveatLector]

It made it of no effect if the person is compliant to the new law.

 

Like one section of the PHC is of no effect if the person is compliant to another section of the PHC.

 

For the record, I deeply resent being painted as a criminal, even if I am in complete compliance with the law.

 

I am deeply offended by persons that paint the entire state of patients and caregivers that way.

That's like saying that a diplomat with diplomatic immunity modifies criminal laws in this country. It doesn't. Immunity doesn't modify laws it prevents prosecution of the laws. ZERO modification of the law. The modification goes to the power to prosecute for violating the law not to the law itself. There is a distinct difference and just because it hurts your feelings that you are being "painted as a criminal" doesn't change anything. What you are arguing is that it isn't "politically correct" to call you a criminal. Uhhhh, maybe. But it IS technically correct.

[peanutbutter]

There is a distinct difference and just because it hurts your feelings that you are being "painted as a criminal" doesn't change anything. What you are arguing is that it isn't "politically correct" to call you a criminal. Uhhhh, maybe. But it IS technically correct.

 

So arrest us all and let the courts sort it out?

[Restorium2]

Only criminals if convicted. Suspects until then.

[CaveatLector]

The ballot language used the word "permit." That means legal to most people.

And colloquially we call it legal, right? But technically it isn't. As far as that goes, if you are operating under the MMA you are also likely a federal criminal. So, yes, you are a criminal. But so what? THAT should be the attitude.

[Restorium2]

Federal persons of interest. They aren't pressing charges if you are following the state COA ruling.

[peanutbutter]

And for most with a legal question that they post here, the first question is about if something is "legal" or not.

 

Most of the time someone will answer "that is illegal." Based on this black painting of the patients and caregivers of the state.

 

Someone gets arrested for the exact thing the person was asking about. That reenforces the BS logic posted here.

[Restorium2]

And for most with a legal question that they post here, the first question is about if something is "legal" or not.

 

Most of the time someone will answer "that is illegal." Based on this black painting of the patients and caregivers of the state.

 

Someone gets arrested for the exact thing the person was asking about. That reenforces the BS logic posted here.

It's what the COA said. We don't care what Schuette said. You know that but you keep putting out the same, mind numbing, thick skulled, comments.

[peanutbutter]

It's what the COA said. We don't care what Schuette said. You know that but you keep putting out the same, mind numbing, thick skulled, comments.

 

While many here present the sickening message that we are all criminals.

 

We passed a law to change that.

Edited December 5, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

That is the dumbest argument I've ever heard, but of course that is what they (the COA, and in King, the Supreme Court) say, "you can't be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized, but all this is still illegal, even for you!"

Sure it's a dumb, but true, argument. But it's what happens when a law is crafted without attention to the need for changing other laws.

 

Again, I will use a diplomat as an example. A diplomat can rob a bank and cannot be prosecuted. Does that mean it is NOT illegal for him to rob a bank? No, it means he has immunity from prosecution. Similarly, co-defendants may get a guarantee of immunity from prosecution if they turn on their partners in crime. Does that mean what the co-def did was legal? OF COURSE NOT! What they did was 100% illegal but they have IMMUNITY from prosecution.

 

So now envision a diplomat robbing a bank. I'll use your very own words. "You can't be arrested, prosecuted, or penalized, but all this is still illegal, even for you!" That's right. All a true statement.

[Restorium2]

While many here present the sickening message that we are all criminals.

We equals you and the mouse in your pocket. I'm following what the COA said to do for now when I'm attempting anything medical marijuana related. And get your wording right, you are only a criminal after being convicted. What you are saying is an insult to anyone with average intelligence.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Restorium2

[peanutbutter]

And it is NOT proof of criminal activity if someone pleads guilty.

 

It is simply proof that the state can bring pressure against anyone.

[CaveatLector]

That is crap. The word immunity is nowhere in the law or ballot language. You are using that example simply because it fits the current broken situation.

 

Diplomats did not get a law passed that said "Permit robbing banks for those with diplomatic credentials."

No I am using that because that is what the courts have told us. The COA, in McQueen, described it as immunity. Make no mistake, I don't agree with that. But what I agree with isn't what I am arguing. (I agree with gay marriage, marijuana legalization, and lowering the drinking age to 18 too but that doesn't mean I can't argue the present state of the law.)

 

I have heard it first-hand from many judges that issuance of a search warrant based on the probable presence of mj alone is valid. Why? Because mj is illegal.

 

Show me a case where such a warrant was issued and I will donate heavily to seeing it go upstairs to try and have it overturned. However, there is then also the risk of bad law being created if such a case is lost at the COA. Then imagine the hell for the months leading up to a S Ct hearing on it--and the similar hell if the supremes upheld. Open season on everyone. But I digress. The COA described the protections as immunities. That, while not precedent, is a VERY good indication of how that will turn out should it be pressed. So, again, I am describing the current state of the law. Don't shoot the messenger and make this personal.

Edited December 5, 2012 by CaveatLector