Press Release- New Dispensary Locator Service On The Compassion Chronicles

[+Malamute]

Once they agree to hear a case i think it is a 40/60 shot there will be some overturning. But "some overturning isn't necessarily changing from guilty to not guilty stuff; Many times it is to unrule a few points, clarify the ruling down to very specific means, add in a couple important points and still keep the COA opinion on anything else.

 

I don;t know about anyone else, but i can't wait for this fricken ruling to come down any longer. the waiting is horrible. :-)

 

I have always said we had a 1 percent chance. Well heck.... GO 1%!!!!

[+Malamute]

Also, let's not forget this case (McQueen) is actually about a nuisance charge. Heh.

 

The ruling could be clarifying something to do with how much power a township has over a local business. (not really, but just saying)

 

:-)

[Celliach]

Ok- I understand.

 

About 50k was by way of fundraising by holding several events for Rep Callton's PAC, around the state, over the summer. It is all posted publicly.

 

Some monies were paid for PR and lobbying efforts, but it was kind of piece meal. There will be a more consistent, concerted effort this year.

 

Attorney fees on this issue were nominal or nothing, so far. The attorneys involved have not charged me, anyway, and I continue to work with a few on it.

 

My original concern was that there was significant activity in this area, that I was unaware of, but I get it.

 

So if you agree with the amount spent, why did you spend so much if you already believe they are legal?

[jamieuke]

 

 

So if you agree with the amount spent, why did you spend so much if you already believe they are legal?

 

I did not agree with the amount spent and I answered that question when responding to Malamute.

[jamieuke]

Also, let's not forget this case (McQueen) is actually about a nuisance charge. Heh.

 

The ruling could be clarifying something to do with how much power a township has over a local business. (not really, but just saying)

 

:-)

 

The ruling could be very narrow or the Justices could choose to clarify a wide range of things. They do not take cases to simply confirm how the COA ruled as Celliach suggests. I have no idea what they will do, but I can not imagine how they could possibly keep the COA's ruling about sales in place. The COA lacked foundation and created a crime that did not previously exist. The SC does not like the COA legislating from the bench like that.

[+Malamute]

Yea.

 

I mean, what could happen is different than what i actually think will happen.

 

I have a feeling it is going to be rather straightforward, specific, detailed and not deal with half of the stuff we want it to. :-) But i also would add, we are going to find out stuff we didn't really want to know. And if not a wonderful decision, will still stake out pricinples and help codify the structure of the Act itself. I suspect a mixed bag.

 

But who knows.

 

Like i said, i am sick of waiting. Just release it ffs.

[purple pimpernel]

"they will have to close"

 

I just dont see that happening regardless of what the SC does. Dont most already pretend to be servicing just 5 patients already?

 

 

they are servicing 5pts that are CGs of 5pts...that are caregivers of 5pts that are CGs of 5pts that are CGs of 5pts.....

 

how does that jive?

 

some are completely underground and private--members only

 

 

[TheHarvester]

I remain puzzled that so many in our community feel that the SC will give us a definitive ruling (many feeling favorable) on P2P.

We all hope this is the way it goes (if it's favorable ), but when it comes to matters of law pragmatism typically serves the citizen better both in the sport of prognostication and in the practice of day to day life.

 

What scares me would be the following scenario...

The SC comes back unfavorable. BS uses this as a "mandate" to take action and issues instructions to his County PAs, the same ones who crafted the cease and desist letters to the Dispensaries so many moons ago, and then the raids begin. I would suppose LEOs have recorded "buys" in these venues already as means to pursue a case at a time of their choice and this would be the inspiration for just that. The folks enjoying the lions share of attention would be the ownership and those donating "overages" to the facilities, but I fear they would not be alone.

In the midst of all this nonsense, it would be hard to argue against patients being caught in this mess. Most of the people I know have a hard enough time budgeting for their medicine. The thought of a lengthy trial, and perhaps multiple ones, is not realistic. For these people any legal burden might be a tipping point toward the dark in a life already compromised by illness.

When I see things like Stay Legal=Dispensaries I have to wonder why any organization would ever use language like this until there is something more definitive in place than currently. Why not at least wait until the SC ruling and then pursue the Business idea of a Dispensary locator with full knowledge of the coming clarification and without the chance of poorly advising a patient?

[cristinew]

Rick Thompson Here's the Leyton quote: "Patient-to-patient sales are not allowed."

 

 

Here's the Restorium quote: "...when he said that dispensaries are illegal" Here's another restorium quote: "The prosecutor makes sure everyone knows that he thinks dispensaries are illegal"

 

Every dispensary in Michigan operating since the McQueen COA ruling uses a model that is NOT a patient to patient transfer model

 

 

Please Rick Thompson what do you operate under???

 

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

 

 

clearly stated in the law Below,,, the intent was clean

Edited January 3, 2013 by cristinew

[cristinew]

(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.

Edited January 3, 2013 by cristinew

[Celliach]

 

Please Rick Thompson what do you operate under???

 

Honestly, I was wondering the samething. I was also wondering what tact they will use when/if P2P is ruled illegal by the SC. Many dispensary owners have already said they wouldn't close down. What makes them think they can stay open....and legal?

[Dr. Bob]

Why would LEO bother with inspection if the sale was illegal? Straight to jail without passing go, no. If we do get the holy grail can you guys send me some cash for all the time I have abstained from Fm' s because of the sound advice from yall. (attempt at humor)

 

Mal, that was my point to bob, some will stay open no matter what

 

Very true, some will stay open as long as they can or until they are no longer tolerated by the local authorities. In reality, that is not very different than the current situation, where these commercial sales are 'tolerated'. My point remains, that can change at any moment. No amount of fancy footwork to say a sale is not a sale changes that.

 

Dr. Bob

[cristinew]

Honestly, I was wondering the samething. I was also wondering what tact they will use when/if P2P is ruled illegal by the SC. Many dispensary owners have already said they wouldn't close down. What makes them think they can stay open....and legal?

 

still waiting for the Answer,,

[Dr. Bob]

All this talk of dispensaries operating on a model other than p2p, we have heard before. What has utterly amazed me from the dispensary proponents in here is that they haven't started talking about their 'legally compliant' model. I think their model ranks right up there with the 'legally compliant' model that used to be promoted here.

 

At least they don't cut and paste a bunch of disjointed quotes from the Act, court cases, etc which, when taken out of context, they feel seems to somehow show how they are 'legally compliant'. Glad to see we have grown out of that and a smarter bunch of folks are trying to put a spin on their version of 'legally compliant'.

 

Dr. Bob

[purple pimpernel]

 

 

 

they are servicing 5pts that are CGs of 5pts...that are caregivers of 5pts that are CGs of 5pts that are CGs of 5pts.....

 

how does that jive?

 

some are completely underground and private--members only

 

 

^^^^^^^^thats my understanding--

 

what about that format??

I never hear discussion on this unless I read certain threads in here

it leaves a wide berth for clubs to operate under--

at least the bigger ones are operating like this

 

then the smaller wanna make a buck ones just feel ..."if their doing that"....?

[Restorium2]

^^^^^^^^thats my understanding--

 

what about that format??

I never hear discussion on this unless I read certain threads in here

it leaves a wide berth for clubs to operate under--

at least the bigger ones are operating like this

 

then the smaller wanna make a buck ones just feel ..."if their doing that"....?

That second swap of the same bag is illegal.

[Dr. Bob]

I was always a fan of the 'neural network' model because I felt it was a shame to have a caregiver with extra while an unrelated patient went without. Especially in Lower Michigan, where there are more patients than caregivers. In this model, only direct caregiver to designated patient transfers occurred, like the tree mentioned above. The variation is the circle, where caregivers would have 4 patients with the 5th being another caregiver in the group, working around to the original caregiver.

 

While I think this has merit, there is the issue of people transferring meds to someone to be transferred to someone else. It will take a court case or two to decide if this is legal and part of medical use (indirect clearly yes, but does it have to be direct?). While this is at least a level 2 risk, and I don't recommend anyone do it, my feelings wouldn't be hurt if someone tried it as a last ditch defense and we got an answer. By last ditch defense I mean the only thing saving them from conviction after they were caught doing something. Kind of like punting on 40 and 4 and hoping you can recover a fumble.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

That second swap of the same bag is illegal.

 

I fear this may be the best answer though.

 

Dr. Bob

[purple pimpernel]

but doesn't the language--"transfer is not sales" put it in a rubics cube of semantics...?

then all the 'medical use' stuff as applied to pts-CGs

 

and the comment 'sales has to constitute delivery'-

 

 

if the patient is stepping up to the counter and there is no 'delivery' .....just transfer----?

 

the onus is on the seller but many are stratling the fence on the language--the 2nd swap comment funy!

 

and your statement that a CG has 5pts and 1 is another CG...?

 

still doesn't address the fact that many of the more valued $$clubs are operating on the system I described^^^^ collectively or co-op

 

CG w 5pts that are CG w 5pts that are CG w 5pts that are CG w.........

 

very open ended --- no?

Edited January 3, 2013 by purple pimpernel

[Restorium2]

but doesn't the language--"transfer is not sales" put it in a rubics cube of semantics...?

then all the 'medical use' stuff as applied to pts-CGs

 

and the comment 'sales has to constitute delivery'-

 

 

if the patient is stepping up to the counter and there is no 'delivery' .....just transfer----?

 

the onus is on the seller but many are stratling the fence on the language--the 2nd swap comment funy!

 

and your statement that a CG has 5pts and 1 is another CG...?

 

still doesn't address the fact that many of the more valued $$clubs are operating on the system I described^^^^ collectively or co-op

 

CG w 5pts that are CG w 5pts that are CG w 5pts that are CG w.........

 

very open ended --- no?

LOL If you were giving it away then maybe. But we know you are not. The law was limiting and that is going around the obvious limitations.

[purple pimpernel]

"I" don't sell pot -- and I never say the word 'sell' and 'pot' in the same sentence---especially with strangers

 

(your inference)

 

I go to lots of clubs to chk out what they are about but rarely have more than one visit--

there are a couple I frequent and enjoy their services and access to unique medicinal items---

as a pt/CG I believe I am allowed to do that--

 

and never ...never...would I buy pot for 400$+an oz.....

all though I will admit I have in another state where I was a patient but it WAS worth it!

 

I have seen very little at all the clubs around mich that is worth that much! not even 300$ or 200$ ---but maybe a small percentage is worth that to some

I haven't 'paid' for medicine in 20+yrs--

it's free if you know how to go about it----just grow your own

 

I allready see how the clubs here are having a hard time with such a depressed economy--how can they survive if the quality is not there and then who has the $$ to pay the prices they are seeking? I don't know any-

 

they make most of their $ from small sales like grams and such--

can you imagine how many grams you need to sell to pay all the bills...?

 

I am discoursing this on the forum bcuz I am interested to see others interpretations of this---period

 

the CG-5pts that are CGs -5pts that are CG-5pts......

 

is what I see in and around washtenaw....

and a lot of support for that

 

and I see their point and loophole---

 

 

I mean if you have a CG ------ CG

CG CG CG CG CG

CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG CG

 

 

that is my point and wat separates them once they have all signed up together....?

 

they are all connected thru the registry by virtue of their pts--(CGs)

 

this I believe is what their teams of lawyers are telling them and I clearly see it--

and remember the clubs that originated west in Cali and colo were operating as non-profits

 

harbourside with 20million sales annually--hah

and the clubs in Montana that they broke their backs by telling them they have to operate from a free of charge model--

then Colorado where they have 'seed to sales' regulation and monitoring! I hope this never comes here!!

 

next caller--

[rhinoman]

that system didnt help with the good people of the blue water compassion club. and now there charged with running a crimminal enterprize.

[purple pimpernel]

yeah but that is a conservative co and I would xpect that there--^^^^^^^^

 

I believe the authorities also want to try and make examples in some areas to send the msg--in other areas they seem indifferent

 

I am talking about the green zones we all know about--

there is strong support there

 

and if your foolish enough to open a dispensary in any place but those areas I think you are stepping out and should not be surprised if something like this happens

 

I am not arguing the clubs perspective(well mayb) nor am I a strong proponent of them even tho it looks like it....they are here tho and are not going away IMO

the crux is how to unify and coexist within the parameters of the law so there is no divisiveness

a lot of folks prefer the convenience of clubs---

 

I am trying to fully understand some of the loopholes these folks are jumping thru-- and I see them

 

and what difference in CC like leyton said ....if you have a CG with 5pts and want to start a 'club'...?

evn tho the CGs are vetted thru the cc format the meds still get passed around

I mean if I belong to a CC and your meds as a CG are better than mine or more attractive to my pts then--

I get it tho

 

but please that's not the basis for my argument and I understand the unambiguous compliance of the CCs to keep in balance with the letter of the law

 

I am trying to understand the language of the format I put up--

 

it is a loophole unless you don't want to acknowledge that.....?

 

I get the jest of the members here standing on the CG-5pts model but....

 

I think without the clubs we will all be under more scrutiny as pts/CGs but the distribution aspect is the next scene in the movie--

and the more dialogue the better until consensus is reached

 

who controls that is what I am worried about regardless of how many people keep posting the current language as it is written..

there are folks out here with differing views on the spirit of the law

and as long as the control of the pt/CG model is left to us I will be happy-

I guess a few more court cases will define this and then the SC ruling....too bad for those folks that will go thru that

 

if you role the dice you have to pay the price ---

 

 

and then there is the 'private' clubs--

 

and I am really more inclined to the farmers market model with all the wiggle room it provides but--

I go for social aspect and not to buy or sell....

 

not to keep beating a dead horse--

[rhinoman]

Well just can't trust our Gov. or the courts to do whats right when money is involved. its got to be the people that decide this.

[Chauncy Gardner]

This whole argument of who can do what with marijuana is kind of absurd. If it is legal for me to posses it and it is legal for you to posses it, what the hell business is it of anyone else what we do between each other with this legal substance?

 

I know the argument: "It really isn't legal. You only have protection from arrest if you are operating within the law." Someone please explain the difference between "legal" and "not subject to arrest". It is legal for me to posses alcohol so I am not subject to arrest for possessing it. I can also share it with other adults with no repercussions.