Evidence From The Statute For Dispenaries: Patients Can Obtain Marijuana From A Secondary Caregiver

[+Malamute]

...or, just matchup the patient with a caregiver that can deliver it? :-)

[bobandtorey]

I reread the definition.

 

So all of the allowed activities are related to the administration.

 

In the brownie/joint example above it seems arbitrary that helping bake med brownies is somehow different than holding the lighter. What is the difference between turning the knob on the oven and flicking the bic? either way the Pt has to do the eating or the inhaling.

 

It seems that the level of distinction that is being tossed around is counter intuitive to the intent of the act. It was supposed to be so people have access to meds to alleviate suffering. I know we are just theorizing and discussing but a people's initiative is supposed to be plain language as a lay person would understand it.

 

If this is what is to become of the act it seems like BobandTorrey may be correct. No one has any real protection as all it will take is a prosecutor to decide what the "new" definition of a word is that hasn't been to COA or SC yet. I never worried about any of this when it was all black market/gorilla growing.

 

A lot of deep analysis here though. You guys(people) are 1st rate. Keep it up.

 

Now that my mind is blown think I'll go do it again!

 

When our case started the prosecutor told us she was going to appeal every word and letter of the law And she would make sure we were in court for years

Guess what we are

[mibrains]

my thoughts would be...

 

no card..

no doctors certification..

 

no protection.

 

if grandma hires a caregiver that doesn't deliver.... grandma need's a different caregiver.

 

it is still schedule one.

 

change that..

 

all this goes away... no point in addressing the million infinite possibilities when if they change the scheduling, all that is gone.

[bobandtorey]

 

 

The ballot language? The preamble? Both of those are incredibly straightforward.

I agree the very start of Law 1 of 08 and IMHO is why Sec 8 is so important to us all with a card or without a card (if you inn up in court)

[mibrains]

i enjoy the discussions..

 

i caution the direction...

 

seems like the legislators will jump on the "clarification and regulation issue" and enact legislation that will be problematic if the schedule were to change.

 

as it's been said...we must be careful what we wish for when asking for certain clarifications.

 

Chess rules.. look ahead..

[mibrains]

my thoughts would be...

 

no card..

no doctors certification..

 

no protection.

 

if grandma hires a caregiver that doesn't deliver.... grandma need's a different caregiver.

 

it is still schedule one.

 

change that..

 

all this goes away... no point in addressing the million infinite possibilities when if they change the scheduling, all that is gone.

 

i suppose i should clarify..

 

i honestly think a family member could prevail in the above described scenario of delivering for grandma...eventually in court... they could claim a section 8 defense and after years and years probably make it through and win. it is reasonable.

 

but why would a person want to do that? and why not be safer from the get go?

[bobandtorey]

Section 8 protection is completely separate from section 4 protection. That doesn't mean that section 4 can't be seen as the intent of the law, and have that intent apply to section 8. It could be seen as section 8 mirrors section 4 with the only difference as registration. Only speculators have seen section 8 as more liberal with quantities and some sort of continuous supply clause. That might not be seen as true in the long run.

continuous supply that's when the jury comes in at if you can tell them why you had X amounts its not up to a judge

 

I was at a court hearing once when someone had 13 plants and her Lawyer told the judge that she needed them to make oil and left it up to the judge and he told him 1 plant was to many to him

 

it was a few years ago so things our getting better but only because of people our starting to stand up so that it gets better for all of us that will or may end up in court

 

Each case maybe different and the writers of the Law 1 of 08 knew that and covered us all with Sec 8

 

If someone was harvesting 1-2 plants and the Leo came in and weighted the leafs as they do you would have over your 2.5 but once the jury here's why

They would say NOT GUILTY

 

 

[bobandtorey]

Plain Language and Jury Instructions

 

 

Most jury instructions -- long winded collections of complex sentences, arcane definitions and Talmudic distinctions -- are all but impenetrable to lay people.

 

So bad are some jury instructions that Court TV Anchor and former Prosecutor Nancy Grace reports having seen jurors turn to one another while listening to instructions and mouth the question, "What are they saying?"

 

Echoing such observations was a recent description in The National Law Journal of a judge who told jurors that a murder conviction required "malice aforethought." Unfortunately though, the jury interpreted this instruction to mean that the murder had to be committed with a mallet.

 

Many studies support anecdotal criticism of legalese jury instructions. For example:

 

Forty percent of capital jurors wrongly believed that their jury instructions required them to accompany a conviction with a death sentence, according to a study by the Northeastern University's Capital Jury Project.

 

 

More than fifty percent of jurors defined "preponderance of the evidence" as a "slow and careful pondering of the evidence, according to a study of Washington DC jurors.

 

The same study found that more than 50 percent of jurors could not define "speculate," and about 25 percent did not know the meaning of "burden of proof," "impeach" or "admissible evidence."

 

 

A number of states have recently acknowledged the limitations of legalese jury instructions. First among them is California, which officially replaced its legalese jury instructions with plain English jury instructions for civil cases in 2003. The state is expected to do the same for criminal jury instructions sometime in 2005.

[bobandtorey]

 

 

You guys are not really getting what I am saying. This is a situation where the person is acting in desperation to help a family member who is ill (not a delivery service), and they should not have to go through years and years of court proceeding to ultimately avoid penalty. If an unregistered caregiver defense is really just an invitation to abuse by the court, then the court's interpretation of the law has arrived at an illogical conclusion.

 

illogical conclusion their you go and I agree that is what has happened and IMHO that was judge O'Connors that started if all

[bobandtorey]

The fact of the matter is we can define a dozen different ways it could happen under the law, but in the real world it is happening according to medical need, and if the courts don't protect that because they are sticking with an illogically strict interpretation of the law, they are not doing what the voters wanted.

they are not doing what the voters wanted. Thanks I agree that's why they are fighting so hard in Oakland County against the Law

 

Because they all no it protects any one that can bring in their Doctor that signed their Rec. it shall be dismissed

 

[peanutbutter]

Just to add to my confusion a little bit.

 

Possession would surely have to include internal possession?

How can you deliver without transporting?

 

Is this pizza or court?

[peanutbutter]

With all due respect, it doesn't matter if you don't agree because the COA already ruled on this, and the matter isn't in front of the SC. So this is the way it is for the foreseeable future.

 

Because the word “administering” is grouped with the word “using,” the two words must

be given related meaning. See Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637, 650; 753 NW2d 48 (2008) (stating

that words grouped in a list must be given related meaning)

 

What a bunch of idiots!!!

 

AND could result in that. However OR means distinctly different things.

[peanutbutter]

...or, just matchup the patient with a caregiver that can deliver it? :-)

 

Or just require that patient MUST have a caregiver or do without entirely.

[Highlander]

What a bunch of idiots!!!

 

AND could result in that. However OR means distinctly different things.

 

"OR" means one or the other. or, "OR" can signify two similar things, such as "more or less," which means "about the same."

 

"OR" doesn't necessarily mean two distinctly different things.

 

 

You are protected for Using or Administering. You can have cake or ice cream.

 

Are you protected for

 

USING AND ADMINISTERING (you can do both, and they are distinctly different)

USING OR ADMINISTERING or (you can both and they are similar)

USING, OR ADMINISTERING (you can do one or the other and they are distinctly different)

 

The three phrases mean different things, and you ought to familiarize yourself with this before you call someone an idiot.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Highlander

[Dr. Bob]

http://www.wwmt.com/shared/newsroom/top-stories/stories/wwmt_michigan-supreme-court-rules-medicalmarijuana-dispensaries-not-allowed-under-2008-law-7693.shtml

 

Apparently they have ruled 4-1 against sales in McQueen. Waiting for the actual opinion.

 

Not at all unexpected, but at least it is settled.

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

"OR" means one or the other. or, "OR" can signify two similar things, such as "more or less," which means "about the same."

 

"OR" doesn't necessarily mean two distinctly different things.

 

 

You are protected for Using or Administering. You can have cake or ice cream.

 

Are you protected for

 

USING AND ADMINISTERING (you can do both, and they are distinctly different)

USING OR ADMINISTERING or (you can both and they are similar)

USING, OR ADMINISTERING (you can do one or the other and they are distinctly different)

 

The three phrases mean different things, and you ought to familiarize yourself with this before you call someone an idiot.

 

Pure bull.

 

Words have meaning or not. Wait!! that means both, right?

 

So that means that words have meaning AND they don't. 'Cause I used 'OR.'

 

Or and AND mean exactly the same thing?

Edited February 8, 2013 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

We'll miss ya. (sniff)

 

OK .. they sang ..

 

Now what?

[Restorium2]

OK .. they sang ..

 

Now what?

They keep on pretending they are just a building where caregivers are servicing their 5 patients, of course.

[Highlander]

Pure bull.

 

Words have meaning or not. Wait!! that means both, right?

 

So that means that words have meaning AND they don't. 'Cause I used 'OR.'

 

Or and AND mean exactly the same thing?

 

So you think "using or administering" and "using and administering" mean the same thing?

 

So what does "OR" mean?

 

Do you want cake or pie?

 

Can you assist with using OR administering?

 

Or means one or the other, right?

 

So which is it? You can use OR you can administer. Pick one.

 

Oh. I guess "or" means you can do both.

 

It comes down to the comma.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Highlander

[Dr. Bob]

http://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/143824%20Opinion.pdf

 

Opinion summary

[mibrains]

IV. CONCLUSION

Because we conclude that defendants’ business does not comply with the MMMA,

we affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision on alternative grounds. While the sale of

marijuana constitutes “medical use” as the term is defined in MCL 333.26423©, § 4 of

the MMMA, MCL 333.26424, does not permit a registered qualifying patient to transfer

marijuana for another registered qualifying patient’s medical use. Plaintiff is thus

entitled to injunctive relief to abate a violation of the Public Health Code.

[Dr. Bob]

This discussion is finished, I would suggest moving to the ruling thread.

 

Dr. Bob

[mibrains]

Agreed.

 

 

this topic is now officially pointless...

 

the ruling stands now.. and answers the question asked by the OP

 

in the event someone still wants to comment about this...i won't lock it at this time... because it will probably fade away...

 

link to updated topic

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/index.php?showtopic=42406&pid=427185&st=40entry427185

[peanutbutter]

So you think "using or administering" and "using and administering" mean the same thing?

 

So what does "OR" mean?

 

Do you want cake or pie?

 

Can you assist with using OR administering?

 

Or means one or the other, right?

 

So which is it? You can use OR you can administer. Pick one.

 

Oh. I guess "or" means you can do both.

 

It comes down to the comma.

 

Jeeze .. nit picking as you insist ..

 

Wrong. or is a distinct separator which contrasts that which came before and what follows. It CLEARLY is NOT a joiner, bringing two things into one single object.

[lawyercaregiver]

Just curious, is there a reason you're trying to prove the legality of dispensaries?

 

Yes, I like them. I think the Caregiver Registry system is to limited to allow the selection of multiple strains, oils, tinctures, and non-psychoactive ways to use marijuana and that an alternate distribution system was envisioned by the referendum.