In Need Of Genetics

[GregS]

it seems to me your talking about the court ruling, while i was addressing the language the average voter voted on.

 

The language the average voter voted on includes 4(d)(2).

[GanjaWarrior]

The court developed the concept of asymmetrical protections in medical use, which was not something the average voter would have been able to read in the law; in fact, it was very easy to read the opposite.

 

I think the average voter likely read it like Cavanagh, or did not read it thoughtfully at all, or were confused by the incredible number of fancy interpretations that have been flying around for the past few years.

 

Regardless, GangaWarrior, I agree with you that most participating in the program read it differently, and this law enforcement way of looking at things is likely to hamper patient access in the near term.

 

thank you zap. point expressed. wow i feel odd, lol have a good day.

[hic]

You guys work hard please take trip.

 

 

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AvLGX6Uocok

Edited February 19, 2013 by hic

[Highlander]

it seems to me your talking about the court ruling, while i was addressing the language the average voter voted on.

 

We voted on the same language, and it says the same thing today it said in 2008. If the average voter thought p2p sales would be legal, I don't know how you'd know. The average person I talk to doesn't think so. The average voter is a non-patient. The average voter doesn't think people should be able to pass Rx drugs around. The average person I have talked to sees MMJ the same way. So I don't know where you get your information about what the average voter thought.

 

Some of tried to explain this, but people didn't want to hear what needed to be explained. They thought they had it all figured out. Or they didn't want to believe it. Some of us pointed to obvious flaws in grammar people used....and bizarre ways of interpreting statute.

 

At this point, we are largely to blame ourselves. Instead of organizing and getting this p2p matter corrected, people refused to believe it would come to this.

 

In Rhode Island, they have a law nearly identical to ours. But they were smart. About two years into the program, the folks in RI added added a few simple words to their act to specifically allow non-compensated p2p transfers. Some of us brought this up many times, "Look what RI did. Let's give that a shot." But instead, many, many people insisted that they were right and that p2p transfers were OK already.

 

And in all of the back and forth about the MMMA amendments last year, did any of you people who believed in p2p transfers suggest we try to get p2p added to the law?

 

Some of you spent four years insisting p2p was already legal. I wonder what would have happened if those 4 years were spent trying to get it legal? Or trying to find ways to work within these confines we now find ourselves in.

[Highlander]

The court developed the concept of asymmetrical protections in medical use, which was not something the average voter would have been able to read in the law; in fact, it was very easy to read the opposite.

 

I think the average voter likely read it like Cavanagh, or did not read it thoughtfully at all, or were confused by the incredible number of fancy interpretations that have been flying around for the past few years.

 

Regardless, GangaWarrior, I agree with you that most participating in the program read it differently, and this law enforcement way of looking at things is likely to hamper patient access in the near term.

 

This is something people need to think a little bit more about. It doesn't matter what most participating in the program thought. Too many people are equating the average voter with the average program participant.

[CaveatLector]

The ballot language says nothing about transfer. If someone thought pt to pt would be legalized by that language it could only have been a guess.

 

I think the fact that the ballot language provided for physician approved use should have been the first signal that med mj would be somewhat tightly controlled. The average person would have likely seen that as indicating that use would be allowed by prescription. Afterall, that is generally what physician approved use of any drug means. There can be no reasonable person out there that thinks patients can share their vicodin just because they both have a prescription for it. So I really don't know how anyone can suggest that, by reading the ballot language, the average person anticipated pt to pt transfers.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't have pt to pt transfers. I'm saying that reasoning doesn't support the notion that the average voter anticipated that type of set up. As Highlander pointed out, we should be making efforts to legalize pt to pt if that is what we want. I advocated for this type of effort years ago. It was always met with a rebuttal that the law was good the way it was. Why? Because people read into the law whatever they wanted to see in it and just assumed that it would cover everything. People would insist that someone was a "LEO" or Bill Shuette's lackey, or whatever, if anyone presented a view that was contrary to a fast and loose interpretation. If people could have seen the writing on the wall and made efforts to shore up the law back then we may very well have had a neat and clear package at this point.

 

I think one huge misconception is that people think that since the law was a public initiative that means rules of statutory construction and interpretation are just thrown out the window. That isn't true. The law will still be interpreted according to standards. Language cannot be read as conflicting or superfluous, etc. One cannot read one single isolated section and assume that section isn't affected by 5 others. Etc.

[Highlander]

The ballot language says nothing about transfer. If someone thought pt to pt would be legalized by that language it could only have been a guess.

 

I think the fact that the ballot language provided for physician approved use should have been the first signal that med mj would be somewhat tightly controlled. The average person would have likely seen that as indicating that use would be allowed by prescription. Afterall, that is generally what physician approved use of any drug means. There can be no reasonable person out there that thinks patients can share their vicodin just because they both have a prescription for it. So I really don't know how anyone can suggest that, by reading the ballot language, the average person anticipated pt to pt transfers.

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't have pt to pt transfers. I'm saying that reasoning doesn't support the notion that the average voter anticipated that type of set up. As Highlander pointed out, we should be making efforts to legalize pt to pt if that is what we want. I advocated for this type of effort years ago. It was always met with a rebuttal that the law was good the way it was. Why? Because people read into the law whatever they wanted to see in it and just assumed that it would cover everything. People would insist that someone was a "LEO" or Bill Shuette's lackey, or whatever, if anyone presented a view that was contrary to a fast and loose interpretation. If people could have seen the writing on the wall and made efforts to shore up the law back then we may very well have had a neat and clear package at this point.

 

I think one huge misconception is that people think that since the law was a public initiative that means rules of statutory construction and interpretation are just thrown out the window. That isn't true. The law will still be interpreted according to standards. Language cannot be read as conflicting or superfluous, etc. One cannot read one single isolated section and assume that section isn't affected by 5 others. Etc.

 

I'm far from an expert on courting lawmakers, but if the community went to the legislature two years ago and said "Look, here is what the lawmakers in Rhode Island did." We would have gotten a lot farther ahead. For one thing, we would have been dealing with a less hostile collection of politicians back then. And I can't help but believe that a lawmaker in Michigan is much more likely to adopt the solution employed by his counterparts in another state than going with what some crazy potheads cook up.

 

Adding this simple sentence, borrowed from RI, (o) A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may give marijuana to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process, provided that no consideration is paid for the marijuana, and that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in § 21-28.6-4.

 

to our current law is probably the path of least resistance to address the patient-access problem people are concerned with.

 

Nice lion by the way.

[mibrains]

so lets do it..

 

lets propose a p2p or cg 2 p "if you have a card" bill.

 

no store fronts.

 

behind closed doors only. that should help the maximum number of people and keep the most big commercial interest out.

 

what do we have to do to write it?

 

i will spend all the time...energy and resources i can muster.

[Highlander]

so lets do it..

 

lets propose a p2p or cg 2 p "if you have a card" bill.

 

no store fronts.

 

behind closed doors only. that should help the maximum number of people and keep the most big commercial interest out.

 

what do we have to do to write it?

 

i will spend all the time...energy and resources i can muster.

 

Start with what Rhode Island did and just some minor polishing out to get it. It seems to me that it would be really, really hard for our lawmakers to tell us "no." to giving away MMJ for free to a legal cardholder.

 

(l) A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may give marijuana to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process, provided that no consideration is paid for the marijuana, and that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in § 4a and 4b.

[mibrains]

(l) A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may give marijuana to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process, provided that no consideration is paid for the marijuana, and that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in § 4a and 4b.

 

done.

wheres the click to submit button?

[mibrains]

or better yet

 

(l) A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may Transfer marijuana in any form to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process provided that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in § 4a and 4b.

[mibrains]

that solves the clones and seed genetic transfer problem too....

 

and the SC already said money isn't the problem... so it seems like these issues can be solved fairly simply... and quickly.

[CaveatLector]

I think the hurdle at this point would be to get lawmakers on board without them thinking that you want this purely for recreational purposes (eg: to pass a joint). So coulda, shoulda, woulda, maybe happened 3 years ago but the know-it-alls at the time decided against this. At this point I think it would be more difficult. Should you give up? No. Just saying the atmosphere isn't exactly friendly at the moment. However, using another state law as a model may make some strides in the right direction.

[Restorium2]

I think the hurdle at this point would be to get lawmakers on board without them thinking that you want this purely for recreational purposes (eg: to pass a joint). So coulda, shoulda, woulda, maybe happened 3 years ago but the know-it-alls at the time decided against this. At this point I think it would be more difficult. Should you give up? No. Just saying the atmosphere isn't exactly friendly at the moment. However, using another state law as a model may make some strides in the right direction.

I gave this advice to my leader here, Greg Fransisco, in '09, when things were ripe for an amendment like this. I pushed and pushed and eventually got canned from being an admin and banned.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Restorium2

[hic]

Yes if you wish to help the people do it...set me free.

 

To think it is seen more wise to import seeds then to get them from your neighbor is f-ing insane.

 

The other states laugh at that I am sure.

 

Getting seeds from the tude is illegal did anyone notice when I said that? No

 

But you shout the illegalities of again getting them from neighbor - insane again.

 

Heck England laughs at that fact.

 

 

 

 

[Highlander]

Yes if you wish to help the people do it...set me free.

 

To think it is seen more wise to import seeds then to get them from your neighbor is f-ing insane.

 

The other states laugh at that I am sure.

 

Getting seeds from the tude is illegal did anyone notice when I said that? No

 

But you shout the illegalities of again getting them from neighbor - insane again.

 

Heck England laughs at that fact.

 

How do you break state law by ordering seeds from the UK?

[Bisharoo]

Here is the language that someone said was not on the ballot we voted on. Here it is, plain to read if you want.

So, who and when did this language get removed? We voted to let registered or unregisterd patients and caregivers use this as a defense against any prosecution involving marijuana. It says so right there and we voted on it. Why would anyone say it was never there? I am very curious about motive here. I am sure there is a rational explanation for it, but I haven't found it yet, so please enlighten me. Does it not say registered and unregistered patients and caregivers shall be allowed to assert medical reasons for any prosecution involving marijuana. That is what we voted on. Where did it go? And why would anyone say it never existed?

 

http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/Michigan_Ballot_Proposal_2008.pdf

[CaveatLector]

that solves the clones and seed genetic transfer problem too....

 

and the SC already said money isn't the problem... so it seems like these issues can be solved fairly simply... and quickly.

People are reading way too much into the supreme's ruling by saying money isn't the problem. The supremes did not address the issue by framing it as ANY transfer (sale). They basically told us that transfer includes sale and therefore sale is not an issue. However, overlay that with the outcome of the case. The supremes told us that the only allowable transfer was between connected cgs and pts. So they did not need to address any sale other than that conducted between the cg and pt.

 

I guarantee you that if the law is changed and allows transfers between people OTHER than connected cg and pt that there will be a challenge regarding a sale in that context. The statute tells us that a cg can receive compensation. The court interpreted the law to allow transfers for ONLY the connected cg and pt. That means compensation is allowed for ONLY the connected cg and pt. The law is specific in allowing compensation for the cg (interpreted as connected cg by the court). That means, under standard rules of statutory construction and interpretation, that that no one else can receive compensation. When a law explicitly names a group to benefit then rules of construction tell us that all other groups are excluded. For that reason I do not think you will be able to back-door compensation for those who are not connected.

 

So, if you want pt2pt with compensation then it needs to be explicit.

[mibrains]

Here is the language that someone said was not on the ballot we voted on. Here it is, plain to read if you want.

So, who and when did this language get removed? We voted to let registered or unregisterd patients and caregivers use this as a defense against any prosecution involving marijuana. It says so right there and we voted on it. Why would anyone say it was never there? I am very curious about motive here. I am sure there is a rational explanation for it, but I haven't found it yet, so please enlighten me. Does it not say registered and unregistered patients and caregivers shall be allowed to assert medical reasons for any prosecution involving marijuana. That is what we voted on. Where did it go? And why would anyone say it never existed?

 

http://www.procon.or...oposal_2008.pdf

 

thanks bish.. i am reading it again now.

 

i would like to know the answers to your questions as well.

[Bisharoo]

"Registered or unregistered". Where did that go?

Peace...

[mibrains]

People are reading way too much into the supreme's ruling by saying money isn't the problem. The supremes did not address the issue by framing it as ANY transfer (sale). They basically told us that transfer includes sale and therefore sale is not an issue. However, overlay that with the outcome of the case. The supremes told us that the only allowable transfer was between connected cgs and pts. So they did not need to address any sale other than that conducted between the cg and pt.

 

I guarantee you that if the law is changed and allows transfers between people OTHER than connected cg and pt that there will be a challenge regarding a sale in that context. The statute tells us that a cg can receive compensation. The court interpreted the law to allow transfers for ONLY the connected cg and pt. That means compensation is allowed for ONLY the connected cg and pt. The law is specific in allowing compensation for the cg (interpreted as connected cg by the court). That means, under standard rules of statutory construction and interpretation, that that no one else can receive compensation. When a law explicitly names a group to benefit then rules of construction tell us that all other groups are excluded. For that reason I do not think you will be able to back-door compensation for those who are not connected.

 

So, if you want pt2pt with compensation then it needs to be explicit.

 

ok.. lets do that then.

 

(l) A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may Transfer marijuana in any form with or without compensation to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process provided that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in § 4a and 4b.

 

see how easy this is..

together we are all writing a proposal.

[CaveatLector]

Here is the language that someone said was not on the ballot we voted on. Here it is, plain to read if you want.

So, who and when did this language get removed? We voted to let registered or unregisterd patients and caregivers use this as a defense against any prosecution involving marijuana. It says so right there and we voted on it. Why would anyone say it was never there? I am very curious about motive here. I am sure there is a rational explanation for it, but I haven't found it yet, so please enlighten me. Does it not say registered and unregistered patients and caregivers shall be allowed to assert medical reasons for any prosecution involving marijuana. That is what we voted on. Where did it go? And why would anyone say it never existed?

 

http://www.procon.or...oposal_2008.pdf

Who said it didn't exist??? Are we making things up this afternoon?

 

The language you point to allows one to use medical as a defense. That means you are in the system already. What is being discussed here is what activities for which you have immunities. There is a difference.

[Bisharoo]

In answer to th first question above: No, it did not say that. The language was not changed after the vote.

[mibrains]

i will now add

 

(l) A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may Transfer marijuana in any allowable form with or without compensation to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process provided that the recipient remains compliant with all other parts of the act.

 

so that outdoor and transportation issues are not affected.

[Bisharoo]

Who said it didn't exist??? Are we making things up this afternoon?

 

The language you point to allows one to use medical as a defense. That means you are in the system already. What is being discussed here is what activities for which you have immunities. There is a difference.

I guess we are, huh?