Jump to content

Mich Sup Crt 2/8/2013 Opinion In Comp. Apothocary


Murph
 Share

Recommended Posts

FIRST, the real name is STATE OF MICHIGAN v McQUEEN but it is from (formerly, which is defunct) Compassionate Apothecary, LLC (CA)

 

Read Neil Rockind's take "Its not as bad as it seems" post on his Blog:

 

http://www.rockindla...-isnt-that-bad/

 

 

The (crappy) Opinion

 

http://courts.michig...4%20Opinion.pdf

 

(I HOPE you never vote for anyone with "Justice of the Suprene Court" NEXT TO THEIR NAME IN THE VOTING BOOTH EVER AGAIN!):

 

Read this --

http://www.qualifyingpatient.com/

 

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

 

Finally -- Do not listen to the news, they want to sell advertising -- no one (with any sense) gets legal advise from News shows or newspapers !

 

Cheers......

 

M

Edited by Murph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cavanagh seems okay, right? I thought his take was solid, and correct.

 

Yes dissents are always nice. I usually read them before anything else -- but at this level (the top in this State) it really does not matter much (as it is usually the basis and center piece of the next level (or application for leave to appeal) - but this is the SupCrt. and "that's it folks" -- no where else to go --

 

if We are going to do anything its:

(1) Legislation (doubtful as they just passed three new laws, two take effect 4/1/13, and one (having any MM in a locked container if in a vehicle, and not accessible to the driver), or

(2) another people made law, (given the attempt to legalize this past summer, it looks like we are all done there) or

(3) [which I have been advocating] is to seek making the (already existing) Michigan Medical Marijuana Program (MMMP) mainly and online system with everyone having an account (like an email or facebook account) so that costs go down in the program as they only have to start the account, ends much of the renewal stuff and the State makes more money (which helps us IMHO), and We push for everyone to becomes both caregiver AND a patient -- building of web of such proportions, well 344, 313that everyone one is connected and protected...Greg Schmid, Atty. at https://sites.google...lifyingpatients, or http://www.qualifyingpatient.com/ has a great graph where he explains the concept -- I think it is the way to go given Sect. 4 patient to patient transfers are gone......

 

The bottom line is we just want to be left alone, have some good bud sources -- right?

 

No one wants to worry about some LEO bothering us for some bud --

 

So the issue is, How? I think #3 is the quickest way as if everyone is both patient and caregiver (of course this raises some costs and application, and housekeeping hassles) and we can add and delete pateints connected to caregivers instantly online on the Registry, this pretty much establishes as non-dispensary laundry list of people to call, a online registry that can be checked ONLINE and PRINTED by any patients/caregivers (to protect from someone not keeping up with their paperwork, Doctor visits, and their end of the deal, if so skip them...and go to the next person)...and so on.

 

It's low key, relatively OK and safe -- the registry link is the key as connection to the registry makes money OK and you have 5 people you can call for bud

 

So requesting the Registry be brought online (LAMP architecture) in this day and age is a no-brainer (makes one wonder why this was not done to start with?)..as the only problem I can see is making sure it is not freely searchable -- which is a legal issue as the State has many databases that are restricted. It is an ADMINISTRATIVE change, so much easier to accomplish than passing legislation, AND it saves the State money and frees up employees (as this must be a royal pain in the arse with 333k people and growing by leaps)..

 

..I am happy to listen to suggestions, comments, critical analysis....ect..Dissent and comment is almost always a good thing, it makes one think!

 

.We got to do something to remove all remaining uncertainty -- make this rock solid and maintain the ability to have choices...especially now that any existing dispensaries will be holding "closing the doors" sale in the next few days.(which would be a smart thing given the decision) or change business model -- but you really cannot have a business building if you only have 5 customers (and I doubt sharing space will pass muster).....Dispensaries worked in Jackson, we have quite a few....but I think they are done...

 

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Cheers!

 

M

Edited by Murph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. I agree Zap -- your absolutely correct.

 

But WE have got to remember these "justices" are so far removed from

"the people" it is usually pretty funny.

 

They live in ivory tower (ever been in the SupCrt, its granite splendor) and

they are the top 1% (or close to it for Mich) in pay. They have no clue how most feel....

 

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. I agree Zap -- your absolutely correct.

 

But WE have got to remember these "justices" are so far removed from

"the people" it is usually pretty funny.

 

They live in ivory tower (ever been in the SupCrt, its granite splendor) and

they are the top 1% (or close to it for Mich) in pay. They have no clue how most feel....

 

M

They live in ivory tower I think one of them will be living behind bars soon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

an online system with everyone having an account (like an email or facebook account) so that costs go down in the program as

 

i know this system works in other states. but honestly, michigan government does everything it can to be internet-illiterate.

how many years did it take to get https://onlineservices.michigan.gov/ExpressSOS ??

its a huge pain in the donkey to use. its only good for 2 things, the rest requires you to go wait in line.

 

i agree, the courts arent helping

the prosecutors arent helping

the feds arent helping.

the legislators arent helping

even the juries are still convicting caregivers, patients and regular people for marijuana.

getting more jury nullifications would be a nice start. especially with 50% legalize and 63% medical support.

 

we arent going to get any outside funding for a ballot drive, i think mpp is shooting for 2016 in multiple states (not ours!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished reading the decision. They decided sales are protected the mmma, all transfers must be between a registered caregiver and their registered patients, and having product in a locker does not imply ownership on the part of the dispensary worker. Good, really bad, and (maybe) good is how I read the decision with the bad being particularly harmful to patient access to medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His dissenting opinion really shows that there is a patient-oriented way to view dispensaries as a part of this law (and they still are by way of section 8 and local variances). I believe that the majority of dispensaries are operating because of the principals he laid out in his dissent. I have heard many of these arguments many times within my circle of friends.

 

I don't see how giving it away for free between patients has anything to do with dispensaries.

 

I mean seriously people,... the freakin radio ads in 2008 said " No California type dispensaries in Michigan".... " Private"... and they were paid for by MPP who wrote our law for us.

 

This isn't Rocket surgery(sic). Quit wasting everyones time on how we can find some new angle for large commercialization. It is not in the patients law currently. It was never intended to be there by the authors. We thought "maybe" as written they screwed up and allowed for some type of dispensing system outside of the actual caregiver system. But alas... most of those doors are already closed and likely the rest will close shortly. Ya want dispensaries and huge grows? Pass a law. And while you are passing that law,... i will be making sure you arent screewing over the current law and the patients, caregivers and physicians.

 

:-)'

 

That was a general statement directed at the universe. So relax zap.... Hahaha....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my view. What of the true caregiver, in the Webster book, not just a pot grower, (no offense, was way I read their ruling), helping administer an homebound bedridden victim of this rule?

 

Lets take this a step forward. The person helping administer the MMj, is their son, or daughter. Who for whatever reason cant grow. Now they must add another card and another 100 bucks to the state, and get a caregiver as well as enroll as a patient illegally so they can obtain, and help.

 

Just screams for a capable attorney to ask for a rereading if you ask me. To bad we cant take it federal. Be funny stuff.

 

What I got a real laugh at through this bunny muffin of a reading, was when I thought, hey what If I was able to possess plants, and had a caregiver. Now my plants harvest, and I have no way to transfer my overages to my cg, as I am only allowed to receive from the cg, not give to as well.

Edited by MysteryMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can transfer to your registry connected caregiver for no money if it doesnt put him/her over their limit so they could store it for you. That's kinda another discussion though. :-)

 

What part of the ruling suggests to you that is considered lawful? Covered under what part of the law?

 

I understand the ruling to say you can't do that. That a patient can not transfer to ANYONE at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a lawyer. No surprise the Court followed the law. Medical use: to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating condition. §4 Immunity for patient, but not for seller-transferror unless "he or she is connected through the department's registration process." Seems flawed that analysis of dispensaries as nuisance requires determination of whether (unconnected) patient to patient transfers are valid. Common sense says that if both are registered patients, or one is unconnected caregiver, all should be immune as registered. But thats what the law says and thats why they had to decide it this way. One poster was right about thats how Prop 1 was passed: no california type dispensaries.

 

They could have been less cynical and more understanding in light of the defendants business model & investment, and by explaining they are constrained to follow the law, until the legislature will address the shortcomings and irony of the present restrictions. They could have suggested the legislature consider the dispensary models in the other states statutes they cite. I dont favor the suggestion of a state run on line clearing house. My feeling is that there needs to be another voter initiated proposition, giving immmunity to those registered who choose to associate (un)connected with each other, permit licensing & regulation of dispensaries, and decriminalize it statewide. Better be cool until then.

Edited by Flybare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes dissents are always nice. I usually read them before anything else -- but at this level (the top in this State) it really does not matter much (as it is usually the basis and center piece of the next level (or application for leave to appeal) - but this is the SupCrt. and "that's it folks" -- no where else to go --

 

if We are going to do anything its:

(1) Legislation (doubtful as they just passed three new laws, two take effect 4/1/13, and one (having any MM in a locked container if in a vehicle, and not accessible to the driver), or

(2) another people made law, (given the attempt to legalize this past summer, it looks like we are all done there) or

(3) [which I have been advocating] is to seek making the (already existing) Michigan Medical Marijuana Program (MMMP) mainly and online system with everyone having an account (like an email or facebook account) so that costs go down in the program as they only have to start the account, ends much of the renewal stuff and the State makes more money (which helps us IMHO), and We push for everyone to becomes both caregiver AND a patient -- building of web of such proportions, well 344, 313that everyone one is connected and protected...Greg Schmid, Atty. at https://sites.google...lifyingpatients, or http://www.qualifyingpatient.com/ has a great graph where he explains the concept -- I think it is the way to go given Sect. 4 patient to patient transfers are gone......

 

The bottom line is we just want to be left alone, have some good bud sources -- right?

 

No one wants to worry about some LEO bothering us for some bud --

 

So the issue is, How? I think #3 is the quickest way as if everyone is both patient and caregiver (of course this raises some costs and application, and housekeeping hassles) and we can add and delete pateints connected to caregivers instantly online on the Registry, this pretty much establishes as non-dispensary laundry list of people to call, a online registry that can be checked ONLINE and PRINTED by any patients/caregivers (to protect from someone not keeping up with their paperwork, Doctor visits, and their end of the deal, if so skip them...and go to the next person)...and so on.

 

It's low key, relatively OK and safe -- the registry link is the key as connection to the registry makes money OK and you have 5 people you can call for bud

 

So requesting the Registry be brought online (LAMP architecture) in this day and age is a no-brainer (makes one wonder why this was not done to start with?)..as the only problem I can see is making sure it is not freely searchable -- which is a legal issue as the State has many databases that are restricted. It is an ADMINISTRATIVE change, so much easier to accomplish than passing legislation, AND it saves the State money and frees up employees (as this must be a royal pain in the arse with 333k people and growing by leaps)..

 

..I am happy to listen to suggestions, comments, critical analysis....ect..Dissent and comment is almost always a good thing, it makes one think!

 

.We got to do something to remove all remaining uncertainty -- make this rock solid and maintain the ability to have choices...especially now that any existing dispensaries will be holding "closing the doors" sale in the next few days.(which would be a smart thing given the decision) or change business model -- but you really cannot have a business building if you only have 5 customers (and I doubt sharing space will pass muster).....Dispensaries worked in Jackson, we have quite a few....but I think they are done...

 

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Cheers!

 

M

 

I agree it's the part of the Law that says you can't be arrested part I like

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it's the part of the Law that says you can't be arrested part I like

 

I have always thought you were in the very center of the laws protections.

 

I still do.

 

Of the various cases that have taken place, your situation should have the one with the most protections.

In your home.

No sales involved.

Clearly qualified.

 

You kind of case is the one least likely to get raided today.

 

Is there anyone that thinks Bob may not have been a completely compliant patient when he was raided?

 

The fact that they are still dragging you through mud is horrible. They have no excuse for doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but in a county with over zealous prosecutors trying hard to keep a defendant in the system, as a means to punish rather than try (when they cannot win the case at trial), all bet are off. Bob and Torey clearly were within their rights under section 8, and really section 4 as well in my opinion. It is very hard to look at this case and not see it as an example of a persecution rather than a prosecution.

 

Shame on Beth Hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

4(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

DEFINITIONS

 

3(g) "Primary caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs.

 

3(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

3(h) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

 

 

That is my story and I'm sticking to it. How hard is it to interpret these 2 paragraphs? A qualifying patient means any qualifying patient. Not my qualifying patient, or one of the 5 patients I have registered to me, but any. This is meant to give caregivers a way to rid themselves of overages so they are in compliance of the act under section 4. Medical use means use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of . The MMMA of 2008 was written as a protection act, not an instrument to use against patients, caregivers, and doctors.

 

 

I am hoping that Genesee County will remain as an island of sanity amongst the sea of insanity the rest of the state of Michigan is in.

Edited by Indica Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

4(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

DEFINITIONS

 

3(g) "Primary caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs.

 

3(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

3(h) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

 

 

That is my story and I'm sticking to it. How hard is it to interpret these 2 paragraphs? A qualifying patient means any qualifying patient. Not my qualifying patient, or one of the 5 patients I have registered to me, but any. This is meant to give caregivers a way to rid themselves of overages so they are in compliance of the act under section 4. Medical use means use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of . The MMMA of 2008 was written as a protection act, not an instrument to use against patients, caregivers, and doctors.

 

 

I am hoping that Genesee County will remain as an island of sanity amongst the sea of insanity the rest of the state of Michigan is in.

 

do you ignore section 6 d do you ignore our law?

 

A caregiver can only assist 5 patients with medical USE section 6 d (e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, the law

 

also remember that the DEA has special prosecutors that can override the county PA

Edited by cristinew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...