Supreme Court Ruling - McQueen - Compassionate Apothacary

[mibrains]

That is interesting Mibrains. Did they leave the back door open?

 

 

PB, You are so full of it. Pure caregiver greed huh? PATIENTS CAN GROW FOR THEMSELVES!!!

 

not sure yet..

i printed the 33 pages and am reading it...

just caught my eye...

[CaveatLector]

I don't support caregivers AT THE EXPENSE OF patients.

 

So people will go to jail by avoiding a caregiver?

 

Does that make you happy? Sounds like pure caregiver greed to me.

Enjoy your glee about people going to jail.

No, sounds like you support dispensaries AT THE EXPENSE OF patients!

[+Malamute]

I agree I guess I mean FREE from the Courts and it will happen but people have to stand up and stop taking the plea deals (if they can)

 

As i told you back in 2009 Bob, this is about you and your family only. Do not make your decisions based on what "others" want you to do; do exactly what is best for you and your family at that time. I tell the same to everyone.

[+Malamute]

Membership could require a contractural agreement, whereby members attest to their intention to abide within the limits of the law.

 

Why Greg? Why?

 

Always has to be an angle to abuse.

[peanutbutter]

No, sounds like you support dispensaries AT THE EXPENSE OF patients!

 

I'm certainly NOT a cheer leader for putting people in jail!! Like a lot of folks here.

 

Like I'm not pumping a law that forces patients to avoid caregivers.

 

This ruling reduces patient access to their lawful medicine. In doing so, it elevates the probabilities of people going to jail.

Edited February 8, 2013 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

more on page 7.. i find interesting...

 

Finally, the Court noted that defendants

are not entitled to immunity under § 4(i) of the MMMA, which insulates from liability

someone who assists a registered qualifying patient “with using or administering

marihuana.”21 It explained that “[t]here is no evidence that defendants assist patients in

preparing the marijuana to be consumed” or that they “physically aid the purchasing

patients in consuming marijuana.”22

Very telling. Perfectly overlays the discussion in the other thread whether assisting a patient in using or adminstering is the same as medical use. Clearly the court would answer in the negative.

[+Malamute]

The official ruling(not syllabus) is released tomorrow. 24 hours after verdict reached.

 

gotcha...

 

thank you.. i didn't realize that was not an official copy...

 

i assume it won't change much by tomorrow when it is officially released?

 

Won't change at all likely. :-)

 

It is just a process thing.

[+Malamute]

Is this not the ruling attached to the syllabus?

 

Yes.

 

It is submitted officially for full release and placement 24 hours after. That is all. :-)

[+Malamute]

I don't support caregivers AT THE EXPENSE OF patients.

 

So people will go to jail by avoiding a caregiver?

 

Does that make you happy? Sounds like pure caregiver greed to me.

Enjoy your glee about people going to jail.

 

Your obtuseness overfloweth.

 

NO. Patients can acquire from ANYWHERE. The person they get it from is NOT PROTECTED.

 

I did not write this law. This law was written for Patients, caregivers and physicians. PERIOD.

 

Caregivers are cheaper than dispensaries. PERIOD.

 

Connecting non growing patients with capable caregivers is what you have failed to do yourself. Maybe change your direction and start training people to be caregivers instead pushing for commercialization and filling your pocketbook by being underhanded and deceptive.

 

Seriously pb.

 

You make me wonder...

[CaveatLector]

I'm certainly NOT a cheer leader for putting people in jail!! Like a lot of folks here.

 

Like I'm not pumping a law that forces patients to avoid caregivers.

Yes, because disagreeing with your interpretation of the law makes one a "cheerleader for putting people in jail."

 

The law is the law. It is interpreted by using proper English grammar and rules of statutory construction and interpretation. If, by doing that, there end up being restrictions that you don't like that does not in any way mean the interpreter wants it like that or wants people in jail.

 

You're on my last nerve with your straw man bs. Or maybe it is ad hominem attacks? Either way you should pull up your trousers because your ignorance is showing. Drop the "poor peanut" act. Drop the act where you pretend like you are so much more FOR pts than anyone else. It's sickening and tiresome. Drop the act where you pretend like others must be in shuette's corner or must be cops, or prosecutors, or maybe the devil incarnate, just because they don't agree with your interpretation.

 

Just because people don't climb aboard your bandwagon doesn't mean they want people to go to jail. Drop the grade-school bs peanut.

[+Malamute]

What i can say is this,... the original 3MA recommendations and mine were in unison. I have always remained in that interpretation because i do this weird thing called reading and researching and checking history and rulings from across the country and what the actual authors of our law say,... and well,... what i have recommended for years is exactly how it is( and it makes me sad as hell; i WANTED to be wrong) and i have kept patients and caregivers from putting themselves at risk of ending up in court. On the other hand, people that listened to the "expanded" ideas so many round here came up with have ended up in courts all over the state for pushing the limits.

 

So,... pb... you &*^$@! YOU are responsible as well as the previous leader of this site for PUTTING PATIENTS IN HARMS WAY. You my friend are and were the problem and WANTING patients to go to jail to prove your misguided philosophy was right,... when in fact, it has always been wrong.

 

So... pb,.. tell me,... was it the money, laziness, greed or something else that made you want to put patients at risk?

 

 

(tongue in cheek seriousness)

[Dr. Bob]

Your obtuseness overfloweth.

 

NO. Patients can acquire from ANYWHERE. The person they get it from is NOT PROTECTED.

 

I did not write this law. This law was written for Patients, caregivers and physicians. PERIOD.

 

Caregivers are cheaper than dispensaries. PERIOD.

 

Connecting non growing patients with capable caregivers is what you have failed to do yourself. Maybe change your direction and start training people to be caregivers instead pushing for commercialization and filling your pocketbook by being underhanded and deceptive.

 

Seriously pb.

 

You make me wonder...

 

PB, go back and look at my original advice about reading....

[+Malamute]

I mean, Next week at our compassion club, i will walk in and say " The McQueen decision has come in. It is exactly as i have told you to operate fo the past 4 years, EXCEPT, patients are not allowed to GIVE medicine away to other patients. Sorry, i was wrong about a patient sharing a joint. I know it totally suckks, i definitely didnt want to be right, but i am glad to know my advice has kept so many out of trouble these past 4 years."

 

*shrug*

[peanutbutter]

What i can say is this,... the original 3MA recommendations and mine were in unison. I have always remained in that interpretation because i do this weird thing called reading and researching and checking history and rulings from across the country and what the actual authors of our law say,... and well,... what i have recommended for years is exactly how it is( and it makes me sad as hell; i WANTED to be wrong) and i have kept patients and caregivers from putting themselves at risk of ending up in court. On the other hand, people that listened to the "expanded" ideas so many round here came up with have ended up in courts all over the state for pushing the limits.

 

So,... pb... you &*^$@! YOU are responsible as well as the previous leader of this site for PUTTING PATIENTS IN HARMS WAY. You my friend are and were the problem and WANTING patients to go to jail to prove your misguided philosophy was right,... when in fact, it has always been wrong.

 

So... pb,.. tell me,... was it the money, laziness, greed or something else that made you want to put patients at risk?

 

 

(tongue in cheek seriousness)

 

Kindly point at the location where I suggested someone open a dispensary.

 

Any location that I recommended anyone to sell to another?

 

What I have done is spend a lot of time trying to look at the law from as many different directions as possible.

 

Have I formed opinions? Sure. Sad that I haven't been able to be perfect in those.

 

So you had every bit right from the very start .. pretty good. Teach us so we all know how to do that every time.

[pic book]

 

 

By being a patient and getting them from his caregiver.

whoa! that adds a condition to being a CG, must be a patient?

[Murph]

I don't think anyone REALLY knows how many grow vs. get -- most people never have grown and it is a skill like anything else -- I know people with top of the line everything, and its crap (and vice versa) and people with hand me downs, and its great (and vice versa) but one thing is certain, demand has always exceeded supply.

 

I doubt half of the 333, 314 people grow well....its hard. It is a skill and trial and error, some just take time and practice (but one thing is for sure, many many people thought it was simple and found out it's not all that simple)...quality is hard to come by...even test numbers of THC % is but one factor...smell, taste, buzz, type, duration, ect..all figure in and different people like different things -- so it's sorta in the eye of the beholder.

 

M

 

 

Um, around 50% of patients grow their own ....

 

Sheesh.

 

How about some more support for the caregiver system instead of dispensaries.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Murph

[Dr. Bob]

This ruling is no surprise.

 

Ok, everyone wants to vent. That's fine, vent all you want.

 

But at the end of the day what we must do, are obligated to do, is figure out a way to make it work for patients and caregivers under the rules as apparently they have been clearly defined.

 

From the state, the law said 1 patient, 12 plants. 1 caregiver 5 patients. That is clearly spelled out, and I and many others have been pointing that out for several years. Well everyone had an angle. The 'a' 'their' somehow makes it 'any' patient deal that made the rounds got us here.

 

We need to return to the basis of the law. This was set up to allow patients, under certain conditions, to use an illegal substance to relieve their suffering- thank you voters of Michigan for your compassion.

 

It was also set up for SMALL growers to be able to service up to 5 patients- maybe covering the cost of their grow and their rent. Hey not everyone can grow.

 

Where it went from there had to do with money, a desire to create a retail market where none was allowed, and to print money. That experiment is over.

 

Our job now is to help people become caregivers and help patients find those caregivers. When the venting is over, it is my hope we will turn our considerable expertise and attention to that issue.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

Kindly point at the location where I suggested someone open a dispensary.

Kindly point out where anyone here has suggested that someone should go to jail.

 

Please don't forget to address why someone interpreting the law in a way you don't like makes them schuette's stooge. Do you make it a habit to blame interpreters for the content of what they are interpreting? How about a Spanish language interpreter who is interpreting the murderous admissions of a Spanish speaking suspect? Is that interpreter, "guilty by interpretation?"

[Dr. Bob]

I mean, Next week at our compassion club, i will walk in and say " The McQueen decision has come in. It is exactly as i have told you to operate fo the past 4 years, EXCEPT, patients are not allowed to GIVE medicine away to other patients. Sorry, i was wrong about a patient sharing a joint. I know it totally suckks, i definitely didnt want to be right, but i am glad to know my advice has kept so many out of trouble these past 4 years."

 

*shrug*

 

That is a concise summary and correct.

[Dr. Bob]

Just got a report from Mt. Pleasant. Patient went to HydroWorld and knocked on the door. A COP answered and said 'Can't you read, they're closed'.

 

Wasn't there myself, but it came from a reliable source.

 

Buh Bye Danny, we hardly knew ye....

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

yep Zap, you are correct in my opinion. I too read that as the final decision.

 

Look, the glass is still half full, our law has been left alone in the core of it (12 plants, 2.5 oz, 5 patients, compensation for time and effort for caregivers). Certainly the p to p for No Remuneration is a total disappointment. That being said, people need to "help" others learn to grow, and "help" other less fortunate souls find caregivers. We have been given a chance to make the law work. It is important we give that a try. The dispensary proponents fully intend to craft a new bill (not 5580 redux). That is one we want to take a cold hard look at.

 

But this nonsense about patients going without, is manufactured, and or a bit lazy.... and sounds suspiciously like a marketing doomsday comment. I ain't buying it...

 

Note to patients: Some clarity has come in the form of this decision. You may grow for yourself, or, you may assign a caregiver. Anything else is illegal.

 

Use your heads. Bring yourselves back home safe.....

 

Finally, even though § 4 does not permit defendants to operate a business that facilitates patient-to-patient sales of marijuana, our decision in Kolanek makes clear that § 8 provides separate protections for medical marijuana patients and caregivers and that one need not satisfy the requirements of § 4 immunity to be entitled to the § 8 affirmative defense, which allows “a patient and a patient’s primary caregiver, if any, [to] assert the

 

medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana . . . .” However, by its own terms, § 8(a) only applies “as a defense to any

 

 

 

prosecution involving marihuana . .

 

From the Rock power house Lawyer

[Hayduke]

section 4 keeps you arrest proof

section 8 keeps you conviction proof

 

I think I would like to stay within section 4, thank you.

[bobandtorey]

This ruling is no surprise.

 

Ok, everyone wants to vent. That's fine, vent all you want.

 

But at the end of the day what we must do, are obligated to do, is figure out a way to make it work for patients and caregivers under the rules as apparently they have been clearly defined.

 

From the state, the law said 1 patient, 12 plants. 1 caregiver 5 patients. That is clearly spelled out, and I and many others have been pointing that out for several years. Well everyone had an angle. The 'a' 'their' somehow makes it 'any' patient deal that made the rounds got us here.

 

We need to return to the basis of the law. This was set up to allow patients, under certain conditions, to use an illegal substance to relieve their suffering- thank you voters of Michigan for your compassion.

 

It was also set up for SMALL growers to be able to service up to 5 patients- maybe covering the cost of their grow and their rent. Hey not everyone can grow.

 

Where it went from there had to do with money, a desire to create a retail market where none was allowed, and to print money. That experiment is over.

 

Our job now is to help people become caregivers and help patients find those caregivers. When the venting is over, it is my hope we will turn our considerable expertise and attention to that issue.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I agree Doc but will add

 

Our job now is to help people become caregivers and help patients find those caregivers. When the venting is over, it is my hope we will turn our considerable expertise and attention to that issue.

 

Get the sick and caregivers off the battle lines and court

[Dr. Bob]

I agree Doc but will add

 

Our job now is to help people become caregivers and help patients find those caregivers. When the venting is over, it is my hope we will turn our considerable expertise and attention to that issue.

 

Get the sick and caregivers off the battle lines and court

 

Amen to that.

[bobandtorey]

section 4 keeps you arrest proof

section 8 keeps you conviction proof

 

I think I would like to stay within section 4, thank you.

Of Of coarse you would and so would many but now we know more then we did in 09

 

And how important Sec 8 is for some one just waiting on a card with only their paper work (Rec.)