Supreme Court Ruling - McQueen - Compassionate Apothacary

[Northern Lab]

And it won't, Not with people like the Supreme Court and legislature Dismantling it 1 piece at a time

[peanutbutter]

Listen peanut,

We both talked to the same attroney back at the beginning and told us both this was going to be how it is. He's right, you are wrong, live with it. It's no surprise so quit playing the fool.

 

So what?

 

Stop ADVOCATING for putting people in jail for helping patients.

 

Why do you WANT people in jail for cannabis?

Edited February 9, 2013 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

And it won't, Not with people like the Supreme Court and legislature Dismantling it 1 piece at a time

It's the same as it was when it was signed. The attorney I asked about it in the beginning said how it was going to be so I had realistic ideas all along. It is what it was, and has been all along, for the level headed caregiver and patient.

[Restorium2]

So what?

 

Stop ADVOCATING for putting people in jail for helping patients.

 

Why do you WANT people in jail for cannabis?

Huh? You are nuts. Totally delusional. OK I'm the one, I did it ALL. You caught me behind the curtain pulling levers. You win now, transfer for big money is your prize.

[peanutbutter]

It's the same as it was when it was signed. The attorney I asked about it in the beginning said how it was going to be so I had realistic ideas all along. It is what it was, and has been all along, for the level headed caregiver and patient.

 

So what?

 

Stop pushing for people to go to jail for helping patients.

[Restorium2]

So what?

 

Stop pushing for people to go to jail for helping patients.

I help patients every single day. Every single day. Get a grip.

[peanutbutter]

I must confess, this ruling helps the caregivers of Michigan a lot.

 

At the expense of everyone else, including patients.

 

And that expense includes putting patients in jail. Find a caregiver or risk jail time.

 

Why should patients be marched at gunpoint to a caregiver?

[Highlander]

I must confess, this ruling helps the caregivers of Michigan a lot.

 

At the expense of everyone else, including patients.

 

And that expense includes putting patients in jail. Find a caregiver or risk jail time.

 

Why should patients be marched at gunpoint to a caregiver?

 

SO you're saying a patient without a CG is more likely to face jail time? How so?

 

How about you stop the fear mongering.

 

You are the one who has been trying to put people in jail. Four four years you've been telling people that p2p transfers are OK. Some of us advised caution because we talked to smart attorneys who said p2p can land you in jail.

 

You are the one with the record of encouraging illegal acts...and in your backward logic on this matter, if we say "don't do p2p" then somehow WE want people in jail.

 

In the world of peanutbutter, advising people that p2p transfer is (still) illegal is putting them at risk of arrest. Beautiful.

 

Hey folks, don't speed, you might get a ticket. Doh!! I must want people to get tickets!!

Edited February 9, 2013 by Highlander

[maxmax]

 

 

Um... Isnt this what all CC's were doing? or supposed to be doing? Heh.

 

Hooking up patients to caregivers? Educating patients to grow? Educating people on how to stay within the law?

 

 

Hmm.... No wonder it is such a mess down there. ;-)

 

Time to get it together people. This is SIMPLE stuff. Teach a patient to grow. Some of those patients become good enough to be a caregiver and the cycle repeats.

 

I thought we all agreed to do this 4 years ago.... Hahahaha//...

 

Time to get it together people. This is SIMPLE stuff. Teach a patient to grow. Some of those patients become good enough to be a caregiver and the cycle repeats.

 

It's not as simple as you think it is to grow if they have money to build a grow room and a space

1. Room for Veg

2. Room for clones

3. Room for flower

4. $$$ laying around

Then The CG would have to go to the home almost every day to check on things

Way to much time for anyone for no money make no mistake most caregivers may their money from the stores selling MMJ to the ones that could pay them

don't think any one of them will close down they are the ones with big bucks

and it's not over for them

This ruling will be appealed

[mibrains]

This ruling will be appealed

 

as much as i want to see it happen..

 

there is no appeal from the state supreme court.. not on medical cannabis..

 

this decision is final until overturned by a different supreme court ruling.

[peanutbutter]

SO you're saying a patient without a CG is more likely to face jail time? How so?

 

How about you stop the fear mongering.

 

You are the one who has been trying to put people in jail. Four four years you've been telling people that p2p transfers are OK. Some of us advised caution because we talked to smart attorneys who said p2p can land you in jail.

 

You are the one with the record of encouraging illegal acts...and in your backward logic on this matter, if we say "don't do p2p" then somehow WE want people in jail.

 

In the world of peanutbutter, advising people that p2p transfer is (still) illegal is putting them at risk of arrest. Beautiful.

 

Hey folks, don't speed, you might get a ticket. Doh!! I must want people to get tickets!!

 

Please link to the comment you are responding to.

 

I was observing the ruling helped caregivers a lot.

 

Also that the added protections to the caregiver, came at the cost of removing perceived practical safety from patients.

 

Some people will physically suffer as a result of this ruling. That would be patients. The suffering is one of the costs in exchange for protecting the caregiver.

 

In my book, it's patients first.

[CaveatLector]

SO you're saying a patient without a CG is more likely to face jail time? How so?

 

How about you stop the fear mongering.

 

You are the one who has been trying to put people in jail. Four four years you've been telling people that p2p transfers are OK. Some of us advised caution because we talked to smart attorneys who said p2p can land you in jail.

 

You are the one with the record of encouraging illegal acts...and in your backward logic on this matter, if we say "don't do p2p" then somehow WE want people in jail.

 

In the world of peanutbutter, advising people that p2p transfer is (still) illegal is putting them at risk of arrest. Beautiful.

 

Hey folks, don't speed, you might get a ticket. Doh!! I must want people to get tickets!!

PeaNUT has painted himself into a corner or idiocy, lunacy, narcissism, and clownism. Usually when he does this he skulks off, sulks for 2 or 3 weeks, then quietly returns to delete, revise, and otherwise change his postings. I think much of the time he posts during his depressive, rather than manic, stages and later realizes how crazy he has been. Don't hold it against him, it is not his fault. The disease will do that to you.

 

Let's do a peanut lucidity check. Peanut, please explain how it is that patients will go to jail under any of the scenarios people are laying out. If you are going to claim everyone wants patients to go to jail at least bless us with the privilege of knowing how this great catastrophe will take place.

[Restorium2]

Please link to the comment you are responding to.

 

I was observing the ruling helped caregivers a lot.

 

Also that the added protections to the caregiver, came at the cost of removing perceived practical safety from patients.

 

Some people will physically suffer as a result of this ruling. That would be patients. The suffering is one of the costs in exchange for protecting the caregiver.

 

In my book, it's patients first.

In your book it's peanut first. Been watching you go around the track for years now. No pretending anymore.

[CaveatLector]

 

Some people will physically suffer as a result of this ruling. That would be patients. The suffering is one of the costs in exchange for protecting the caregiver.

 

In my book, it's patients first.

Soooooooooo, all of the cg protections offered in the act are just slyly crafted measures to help promote patient suffering? I KNEW MPP worked for Schuette!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A wolf in sheep's clothing!

[peanutbutter]

In your book it's peanut first. Been watching you go around the track for years now. No pretending anymore.

 

Can't handle someone pointing out the hypocrisy of protecting caregivers at the expense of patients?

Edited February 9, 2013 by peanutbutter

[Otter]

If you think patients not having meds is AWSOME then you are a doche bag!! The law blows!

[Restorium2]

Sorry .. can't handle someone pointing out the hypocrisy of protecting caregivers at the expense of patients?

Nope. In all honesty, I can't stand someone who can't be a caregiver constantly undermining them because of that. You are all for yourself.

[Highlander]

Please link to the comment you are responding to.

 

I was observing the ruling helped caregivers a lot.

 

Also that the added protections to the caregiver, came at the cost of removing perceived practical safety from patients.

 

Some people will physically suffer as a result of this ruling. That would be patients. The suffering is one of the costs in exchange for protecting the caregiver.

 

In my book, it's patients first.

 

How is it that the ruling helps CGs? Every CG I know wants a dispensary to sell to. It is basic business. This ruling was a huge loss for CGs too.

 

 

OK it is patients first.

 

Patients need help TODAY

 

5580 is a distant dream.

 

Patients needs meds TODAY

 

 

You've said nothing about trying to align competent caregivers with needy patients. Your signature touts a dispensary bill. Great. But patients need meds TODAY.

 

We have a system in Michigan that gets meds to patients TODAY. But you're gonna focus on the system that might get meds to patients NEXT YEAR.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Highlander

[Highlander]

If you think patients not having meds is AWSOME then you are a doche bag!! The law blows!

 

Did you vote for it?

[CaveatLector]

Sorry .. can't handle someone pointing out the hypocrisy of protecting caregivers at the expense of patients?

Are you really that ridiculously-minded or are you playing the classic obtuse peanut? Yesterday's opinion wasn't about protecting cgs. It was about announcing what the law covers. Dispensary models were not shot down to protect cgs. Dispensary models were shot down because they were interpreted as illegal. Whether cgs benefit from that depends on what the law allows, right? If I'm arrested for selling vicodin was that arrest made to protect pharmacies? Uhhhhh, no. It was made because I broke the law. Get with it peanut.

[peanutbutter]

How is it that the ruling helps CGs? Every CG I know wants a dispensary to sell to. It is basic business. This ruling was a huge loss for CGs too.

 

I was responding to "F**K legalization."

 

That is someone promoting putting people in jail.

[Highlander]

Are you really that ridiculously-minded or are you playing the classic obtuse peanut? Yesterday's opinion wasn't about protecting cgs. It was about announcing what the law covers. Dispensary models were not shot down to protect cgs. Dispensary models were shot down because they were interpreted as illegal. Whether cgs benefit from that depends on what the law allows, right? If I'm arrested for selling vicodin was that arrest made to protect pharmacies? Uhhhhh, no. It was made because I broke the law. Get with it peanut.

 

That CGs benefits from this ruling is another straw man argument. Don't be fooled. Think about the basic economics.

 

There is a group of people (suppliers) who can grow enough, and well enough, that other people want these meds and are willing to buy them. It doesn't make a difference if dispensaries are legal or not. We have X number of people with the aptitude to grow either way.

 

It follows that the suppliers, who are the only suppliers, would want to increase demand. And what is the best way to increase demand for MMJ? Increase availability. And the best way to increase availability - dispensaries.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Highlander

[Northern Lab]

I predict a price increase at the cg level, and further scarcity of good cgs.

 

I think these are the real world implications.

[maxmax]

 

 

Does this imply that if there had been "evidence" that the defendant was "assisting with using or administering marihuana" that they would have been insulated from liability? In other words, if the defendant had been selling rolled up joints would this have been evidence that the defendant was assisting the patient in preparing the marijuana? Also, if the defendant was selling bong hits would this be evidence that defendant was physically aiding the patient in consuming the marijuana? Anyone who assists a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marijuana is insulated from liability.

 

I see your point their should of been more Lawyers working together on this but these Lawyers wanted to blow their own horn

some Lawyers just want to go to the SC its a dream come true win or lose some want to go their and win

and the way I see this is the high court didn't have all the facts on hand

 

Now their will have to be another case their again and someone will have to be the lamb to slaughter or Meekness and innocence and be able to prove it

 

[peanutbutter]

Are you really that ridiculously-minded or are you playing the classic obtuse peanut? Yesterday's opinion wasn't about protecting cgs. It was about announcing what the law covers. Dispensary models were not shot down to protect cgs. Dispensary models were shot down because they were interpreted as illegal. Whether cgs benefit from that depends on what the law allows, right? If I'm arrested for selling vicodin was that arrest made to protect pharmacies? Uhhhhh, no. It was made because I broke the law. Get with it peanut.

 

Actually holding back in getting with it. My family has zero patients right now. Could fill ten slots.