The Impact Of 4851, 4853, 4856, & 4834

[phaquetoo]

Happy holidays to you jim

 

I am a Vet so the V.A is were i go and they only let you see the Doc their 2 times a year and they send your pill''s in the mail

 

And my Hip Doc i also see but only 1 time a year and you just have to call in your pain pills and pick-up your Prescription from the office

 

I should have said this has nothing to do with vets, you guys get pooped on.....on a reg basis, its not something a person who is not a vet thinks about till it is pointed out to me/us!

 

Im sorry to hear that bob, you can go fight for our country, you can grow the amount of meds your supposed to, and yet you/vets get screwed the most!

 

Peace to You and Yours and All The Vets!

Jim

[bobandtorey]

 

 

I should have said this has nothing to do with vets, you guys get pooped on.....on a reg basis, its not something a person who is not a vet thinks about till it is pointed out to me/us!

 

Im sorry to hear that bob, you can go fight for our country, you can grow the amount of meds your supposed to, and yet you/vets get screwed the most!

 

Peace to You and Yours and All The Vets!

Jim

Thanks Jim and the same to you and yours

 

You are 1 of the few that has been supporting us from the start

and as far as being pooped one you are right if we could only get more people to feel as you do we wouldn't still in court

 

Because as we see it we are standing up for others that the courts will try to do the same too and they have Succeeded in most case's Despite what i read here that case are being dismissed all over this State

 

Our case is imported to this Community by that i mean if we are not legal then no one is

 

and how can they charge me with 21 plants and Torey with 21 plants

The last time i did any math that add up to 42 plants

 

and she only had 10 and i 11 the last supreme court ruling with the guy that they said had 88 well then everyone that had plants at that Location will be charged with 88???

 

[restlesslegs]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around that your case wasn't thrown out Bop! I hope you and Torey have a Merry Christmas. (((((HUGS))))

[bobandtorey]

Thanks and the same to you and your

 

We did get our case dismissed back almost 4 years ago

[+Malamute]

Thanks Jim and the same to you and yours

 

You are 1 of the few that has been supporting us from the start

and as far as being pooped one you are right if we could only get more people to feel as you do we wouldn't still in court

 

Because as we see it we are standing up for others that the courts will try to do the same too and they have Succeeded in most case's Despite what i read here that case are being dismissed all over this State

 

Our case is imported to this Community by that i mean if we are not legal then no one is

 

and how can they charge me with 21 plants and Torey with 21 plants

The last time i did any math that add up to 42 plants

 

and she only had 10 and i 11 the last supreme court ruling with the guy that they said had 88 well then everyone that had plants at that Location will be charged with 88???

 

Constructive possession.

 

how can 2 people be convicted of stealing 1 car?

[t-pain]

4856 started out with 'medical marihuana' in the draft

http://legislature.m...px?2011-HB-4856

thats where it started being confusing.

 

their intent in the first draft was to limit the mmma.

 

BUT, they used the term 'usable marihuana' from the mmma.

Sec. 474. (1) A person shall not transport or possess usable marihuana as defined in section 26423 of the public health code

from the act:

"(j) "Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant."

 

"usable marihuana" definition does not include the 'medical use' of marihuana.

if they used the term 'medical marihuana' i still dont think it would have applied to the mmma.

section 7 is very protective, bulletproof you might say.

see "7. Scope of Act"

under section "(e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act."

 

"acts inconsistent with this act"

 

the mmma states

"Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient ... shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner ... for the medical use of marihuana"

"(e) "Medical use" means the ... transportation of marihuana"

 

so unless 4856 changes the mmma, its 'inconsistent' and thus doesnt apply to the mmma.

i am no lawyer, dont take this legal advice.

Edited December 21, 2012 by t-pain

[bobandtorey]

We will find out in court.

[flyinstringbean]

I wonder what they say about pullin a 5th wheel or travel trailer?Would it have to be in a locked box in them too??? They are after all my "Home on Wheels".Didn't see anything on RV's.

[wozerdozer]

My felonys were 20 years ago and they were not violent or a drug related.

Will I have to prove they werent violent or drug related? Will I have to adress it at all?

 

 

Thanks

Wozer

[Restorium2]

My felonys were 20 years ago and they were not violent or a drug related.

Will I have to prove they werent violent or drug related? Will I have to adress it at all?

 

 

Thanks

Wozer

The only way you will know for sure is to get your ICHAT report and see how the charges are spelled out.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Restorium2

[wozerdozer]

The only way you will know for sure is to get your ICHAT report and see how the charges are spelled out.

 

What is an ICHAT report and where do I get it?

 

Thanks

Wozer

[Restorium2]

What is an ICHAT report and where do I get it?

 

Thanks

Wozer

http://apps.michigan.gov/ichat/home.aspx

[wozerdozer]

Thanks Restorium. What exactly am I looking for? What wording?

Do I have to print anything off to have proof?

 

 

Thanks

Wozer

[Restorium2]

Thanks Restorium. What exactly am I looking for? What wording?

Do I have to print anything off to have proof?

 

 

Thanks

Wozer

You would want to look at how your charges are worded to see if it's spelled out in a way that LARA will not say that they can't tell if you are eligible or not. They play stupid if your record isn't spelled out perfectly for them. It wouldn't hurt to take a look. Or you could just take your chances.

[SFC]

I see my regular Dr every 60 days or so and I see my certifying Dr at least once a year, but I talk to him all the time here on the forums and even Facebook. We ARE in regular contact.

[maxmax]

IMHO it won't work it's up to a judge if he says

You don't have a Doctor patient relationship then

You will not be able to use a medical Defense

 

or you are in a city court room as we were 4 years ago and our judge dismissed our case

 

Then if the Prosecutor does not appeal it your good

[wozerdozer]

I read in another post on here that no felons can be certified or be growing for any patients.

Does the sunset rule appply or did we get screwed all the way around?

Please someone clarify this for me.

 

Thanks

Wozer

[Rick Thompson]

I've repeatedly seen people refer to locking their medicine in a case. Although locking the case is a plus, it is not required under the language passed by the legislature. Enclosed in a case is the only standard established in law; they do not define case, leaving that as a grey area.

 

Dr. Bob's insistence that physicians are the ones to make the determination of reasonable expectation for follow-up care has been borne out on the courts, at least lower courts. The Thomas case featured testimony from a Genesee County doctor who saw the patients once and made a second appointment for them in one year. The judge found that to be a credible definition of follow-up care, especially in light of the fact that the recommending doctor was not their primary care physician. He has advanced their case to a jury trial for a Section 8 defense. Although that 1 year period may not be an acceptable time for some physicians, the judge accepted the doctor's statement.

[Rick Thompson]

Violent felons and drug felons are banned forever from being a caregiver for someone else but are not banned from growing for themselves. All other felons are able to apply for caregiver status if their felony is over ten years old.

 

Anybody that knows- ten years from the date of conviction, right? I am unsure.

[GregS]

By and large, these are acceptable. What remains is to watch for legislative creep and to look toward the courts to resolve any outlying issues.

 

Good work ppl.

[GregS]

after re-reading 4856, i find that the mmma still gives patients full section4 protection to 'transport' marihuana in motor vehicles without a locked box.

 

Let us know when you find out.

[cheesewreck]

i think the felon thing is total moo poo who are they to pass judgment .lot of patients losing out from this

[wozerdozer]

Why does another post on here say all felons are not able to be certified or grow marijuana for anybody else?

Is the sunset law set in stone now or will they be still trying to screw all of us felons?

 

 

Thank

Wozer

[Dr. Bob]

Wozer, have a look at my previous post, that should answer your question.

 

Dr. Bob

[wozerdozer]

Thanks dr. Bob. But I can't seem to find the post you refer too. I'm stuck on my phone for internet today. I'll have to check later when I get my internet back up.

 

Are you the same dr. Bob that has an office next to grow mart in sagunaw?

 

Thanks

Wozer