What Was The Most Significant Cannabis Related Event In Michigan In 2012?

[peanutbutter]

The cliff ..

 

They may have no choice but to end the war.

 

It's a waste of money.

[jamieuke]

I would not ask a question where i knew the answer ahead of time... I have never heard your response before, of that I can assure you.

 

thank you for your response.

 

Can I assume your position would be the same regarding legalization, that is, not supporting a legalization effort that took away the right for medical marijuana patients and caregivers to cultivate on their own?

 

Yes

[peanutbutter]

Agreed! as long as it does'nt effect the pt c.g system go for it, but the ones with all the cash are the ones trying to be the state dispenses, like in washington, and what about our good buddy out there in cali pushing for no on all out legalization, He must have spent all his cash on taxes he cant afford to be put out of biz, but he needs to be, he is not pt's friends, I have never seen any of them reality shows talk about price, only the time when their best grower got hit with mites, he claimed he lost 2k from that big sack he brought into sell! I wonder how much them compassionate mo fo's charge peeps at harbor side, yea they show some realy sick people in there getting meds, but they also all smoke on the show, thats real good for plain folks to see, oh its ok if your selling to pts to smoke and do edibles all you want, just make sure you give your pts a kiss before you phaq them!

 

Happy New Year!

 

Peace

Jim

 

Knew I didn't want to read this thread

[Dr. Bob]

.

 

Dr. Bob, it is sad that people have targeted your family and that is something unacceptable to me. However, being responsible for one's words is what makes an adult an adult. Hiding behind aliases like masks and denying that you wrote/said what you know you wrote/said is not only childish, it is the earmarks of a person that is not deserving of respect nor is it the behavior of a person entitled to represent the sick and injured of Michigan. It is a coward's way; I do not abide cowards easily. Since that is the nature of this listserv to allow aliases I am fine with that, but these are very, very public forums that can be accessed by anyone without registration and therefore anything said here is PUBLIC AVAILABLE INFORMATION. I have seen posts from the MMMA boards copied and pasted on emails and in other listservs. If that is the policy I will take advantage of it, just as I will abide by the no using real names policy.

 

 

Rick, this morning when I got up you were a respected voice in the community to me. Are you suggesting in your post above that I am somehow hiding behind the screen name I use and not taking credit for my postings? Or did you, the journalist that makes his living with the written word, not intend to justify the threats to my family by saying I was posting things I would not take credit for if I wasn't using an alias? Or did you start the thought by saying the threat was wrong and then go on to talk about the postings of others (the cowards I believe is how you referred to them)? Either way it appears as though you were talking to and about me and my postings.

 

Let's get something straight. I claim what I write, it is how I feel and my interpretation of the world around me. I put thought into it, and don't write things lightly, because there are many that listen to what I have to say and gain things from it. For example, I note your posts about your new internet magazine and dispensary locator. I read your material, looked at the site, and don't agree with your claim that you are keeping people safe by referring them to dispensaries. My understanding is they are not legal and that we have an upcoming SC decision on the matter that will settle it. Until then I don't overtly support dispensaries or directly refer patients to them. I won't be contributing to a site that promotes them.

 

People use screen names on this and other sites for many reasons. Some to protect their families from nut cases. Others because they don't want their comments traced back to them- especially when they are defamatory. Most of us know who the players are in real life. But it is up to them to share their personal identities. I have people in here that have been very hostile, I know who they are and have taken action when necessary against some of them. But I would never post their names in a public forum. It just is not done.

 

You have had an interesting 26 posts. I hope with the next 26 you pick your words better. After all, that is what you do for a living.

 

Dr. Bob

[TheHarvester]

Having said that, I have already apologized on this listserv for giving the real names of several people. I am still waiting to see where the posts that did not contain real names have gone; the embarassing things That Guy said were deleted. Hey, is that Joe Cain I see pulling the strings from behind the curtain? It sure seems like it. Deletions and bannings, that's what drove most of us away from the site in the first place.

 

I would say there is a disconnect between what is proper forum etiquette and what has been practiced in this thread. The topic for example is...What Was The Most Significant Cannabis Related Event In Michigan In 2012? and should be at the forefront of the discussion. There have been a few posts not relating to that subject in any discernible way.

 

Toward the OPs thought....

Resolving the situation of issuing cards in a timely manner was HUGE. Years from now we shall look back with great fondness at the time we all spent carrying folders with copious amounts of medical and personal information, cashed checks and letters of acceptance.

 

Hopefully 2013 will see a favorable ruling in the SC that will surprise even the most pragmatic amongst us.

[restlesslegs]

Several but for me the most significant was the SC decision clarifying section 4 and 8.

Edited January 1, 2013 by restlesslegs

[Rick Thompson]

Rick, this morning when I got up you were a respected voice in the community to me. Are you suggesting in your post above that I am somehow hiding behind the screen name I use and not taking credit for my postings? Or did you, the journalist that makes his living with the written word, not intend to justify the threats to my family by saying I was posting things I would not take credit for if I wasn't using an alias? Or did you start the thought by saying the threat was wrong and then go on to talk about the postings of others (the cowards I believe is how you referred to them)? Either way it appears as though you were talking to and about me and my postings.

 

Let's get something straight. I claim what I write, it is how I feel and my interpretation of the world around me. I put thought into it, and don't write things lightly, because there are many that listen to what I have to say and gain things from it. For example, I note your posts about your new internet magazine and dispensary locator. I read your material, looked at the site, and don't agree with your claim that you are keeping people safe by referring them to dispensaries. My understanding is they are not legal and that we have an upcoming SC decision on the matter that will settle it. Until then I don't overtly support dispensaries or directly refer patients to them. I won't be contributing to a site that promotes them.

 

People use screen names on this and other sites for many reasons. Some to protect their families from nut cases. Others because they don't want their comments traced back to them- especially when they are defamatory. Most of us know who the players are in real life. But it is up to them to share their personal identities. I have people in here that have been very hostile, I know who they are and have taken action when necessary against some of them. But I would never post their names in a public forum. It just is not done.

 

You have had an interesting 26 posts. I hope with the next 26 you pick your words better. After all, that is what you do for a living.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Actually Dr. Bob I was not referring to you in any way, but feel free to twist things around to suit your needs. I see that AGAIN you sit silently while That Guy tells me to go jerk off, but you make no attempt to moderate his comments like you have done to mine. Your actions bely your bias, in support of your organizational allies, whome you refuse to rebuke in the same way you attempt to correct me.

 

Where is your call for a restoration of deleted posts that did not reveal names? You have none. Where is your call for fairness and a level playing field for all commenters? You made none. Until you attack my attackers with the same zeal you attack me with, your criticisms are worthless. PLAY FAIR. Moderators, do the same.

[jamieuke]

Several but for me the most significant was the SC decision clarifying section 4 and 8.

 

Thank you and Harvester for getting back on topic.

 

Yes, the SC decisions are definitely one of the highlights of 2012.

[bobandtorey]

Several but for me the most significant was the SC decision clarifying section 4 and 8.

 

 

Individuals may either register and obtain a registry identification card under § 4 or remain

unregistered and, if facing criminal prosecution, be forced to assert the affirmative defense in §

8.

The plain language of the MMMA supports this view. Section 4 refers to a “qualifying

patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card” and protects a

qualifying patient from “arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner . . . .”7 MCL

333.26424(a). On the other hand, § 8(a) refers only to a “patient,” not a qualifying patient, and

only permits a patient to “assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any

prosecution involving marihuana . . . .” MCL 333.26428(a). Thus, adherence to § 4 provides

protection that differs from that of § 8. Because of the differing levels of protection in sections 4

and 8, the plain language of the statute establishes that § 8 is applicable for a patient who does

not satisfy § 4.

yes and we knew this all the way ack in 2010

[Rick Thompson]

I've seen several people make comments on the actual topic of this thread- the most significant event of 2012. While the question was keyed to Michigan events, some of the most amazing things happened on an international scale. Even before the November election leaders of Western Hemisphere nations were calling for American policy change; post-election the cries have grown louder. Uruguay has legalized. European nations are changing policy. There is unprecedented pressure on the USA from outside of our borders to do something, and this President may be the guy to do it.

 

You might say, screw Uruguay. Who cares? Let's remember the wonderful hemp plant and all that is brings. It is a drought-resistant plant that can reclaim barren areas; it is used in crop rotations as a way to rejuvenate fields of monospecific crop growth have stripped all the nutrients away; the seeds are more oil-bearing than any others known, and the mantra of Food, Fuel and Fiber can be such a game-changer in places like Brazil, in Saharan Africa, in Peru and Argentina. It could save millions of lives in Somalia and other challenged areas. In the 3rd World, legalizing marijuana, and by extension hemp, could be the single most significant thing those governments do toward helping their rural citizens. Those governments can't change policy, in many cases, because of US policy and when we change that, we change the world.

[Rick Thompson]

Individuals may either register and obtain a registry identification card under § 4 or remain

unregistered and, if facing criminal prosecution, be forced to assert the affirmative defense in §

8.

The plain language of the MMMA supports this view. Section 4 refers to a “qualifying

patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card” and protects a

qualifying patient from “arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner . . . .”7 MCL

333.26424(a). On the other hand, § 8(a) refers only to a “patient,” not a qualifying patient, and

only permits a patient to “assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any

prosecution involving marihuana . . . .” MCL 333.26428(a). Thus, adherence to § 4 provides

protection that differs from that of § 8. Because of the differing levels of protection in sections 4

and 8, the plain language of the statute establishes that § 8 is applicable for a patient who does

not satisfy § 4.

yes and we knew this all the way ack in 2010

Bob, the recent Court decision from the Supremes in Bylsma reinforces the independence of Section 8. I am very interested to hear how the Thomas case plays out, because they will have the opportunity to argue before a jury how their treatment plan requires more cannabis than Section 4 allows. Having been in the courtroom for the hearings, I am sure no group of Michigan citizens would convict these seriously ill people. In your case Section 8 should afford you the opportunity to tell your story to a jury, too, if Oakland County's corrupt legal system allows it. Why these jerks are still pushing on you two is far beyond me.

[Restorium2]

We also have Raymond Yans, President of the United Nation's International Narcotics Control Board, speaking out against recreational use, and any law that would further that. Not something that we like to remember, but it was one of the significant cannabis related events that happened in 2012.