In Need Of Genetics

[CaveatLector]

I guess we are, huh?

I'm fairly sure you are confused.

[Bisharoo]

So, have reigstered or unregistered patients or caregivers been allowed to assert a medical defense in prosecutions against them for marijuana?

[CaveatLector]

So, have reigstered or unregistered patients or caregivers been allowed to assert a medical defense in prosecutions against them for marijuana?

I guess you missed the post by Komorn where he just won a Sec 8 hearing?

[Highlander]

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.

 

I dont like the 'all other parts of the Act' thing. Leaves too much room for interpretation.

 

This language also leaves one grey area transfer - pt to his CG. Pt2 his CG is not explicitly protected anywhere. How about "to whom they are or are not connected..."

Edited February 19, 2013 by Highlander

[Bisharoo]

You asked if I was making something up, which means you made something up as I posted my quote proving what I said. You are making things up to cause trouble and I do not appreciate it. As you can now re-read, someone did say that the language was not there. As you can also see, it is. Why would you accuse me of making something up? What is your purpose here? Please, try to put your brain to a more productive use. May we all find a way to live in peace this day, before we have nothing left.

Peace...

[CaveatLector]

You asked if I was making something up, which means you made something up as I posted my quote proving what I said. You are making things up to cause trouble and I do not appreciate it. As you can now re-read, someone did say that the language was not there. As you can also see, it is. Why would you accuse me of making something up? What is your purpose here? Please, try to put your brain to a more productive use. May we all find a way to live in peace this day, before we have nothing left.

Peace...

You're posting half-thoughts and interjecting them into the middle of an active discussion that involves material dealing with immunities as opposed to section 8. If you want to make a point you should do that in a way that doesn't require someone to flip back and do research to understand what the heck you are talking about. I still don't know what your point is in telling us that the language did or didn't change between the ballot box and the law. If you took as much time explaining what you mean as you just took in writing the foregoing then it would be much easier to understand you. Not attacking, just saying . . .

[Bisharoo]

Ok, I am sorry you do not understand my point. I wish I could talk as well as you. I hope someone will understand what I meant to say.

Peace...

[CaveatLector]

"Registered or unregistered". Where did that go?

Peace...

Okay, after going back to decipher your cryptic post I think I see what the problem is here. Ballot language is not carried over as a mirror image when the actual law is written after a successful initiative. The idea of the ballot language is to give the people an idea of what the law will contain. The ballot language is not the law.

 

Now, if you look at section 8, after reading the act as a whole, then you will see that there is no restriction as to whether a pt or cg need be registered if they are to employ use of a section 8 defense. So, the idea WAS carried over into the actual law. I don't know if you understand that but if you read the law then you will see that this is the case.

 

As far as you "talking" as well as me . . .I'm sure you talk just fine. The problem was the interjection of a wholly unrelated thought in the middle of an active cdiscussion without explaining what you meant. Had nothing to do with talking. Clearly you can communicate just fine.

[Celliach]

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

 

Now, you do realize that the only part of that link that was on the ballot is the part inside the border on page 1, right?

 

Exactly what do you think was changed? You can see the official version, from the State of Michigan, right here:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/State_Proposals_249429_7.pdf

[Celliach]

you sound like a politician .... yes it was, as i stated it no longer means what it did when we voted on it. i realize you read things dif than the vast majority of voters.... but ive asked a lot of em. the law we voted on said a pt could transfer.... so ignore it all you want, i know you have an agenda to stick too..... but no defecates dif now, its not what we voted on

 

Just wondering, what agenda do you think I have to stick to? Just what are you accusing me of?

[Highlander]

you sound like a politician .... yes it was, as i stated it no longer means what it did when we voted on it. i realize you read things dif than the vast majority of voters.... but ive asked a lot of em. the law we voted on said a pt could transfer.... so ignore it all you want, i know you have an agenda to stick too..... but no defecates dif now, its not what we voted on

 

A patient can transfer, when transferring is for the purpose of alleviating his condition. For example a patient can assign a CG and transfer seeds or clones to the CG. A patient can't transfer if the transfer isn't for the purpose of treating his condition. Pretty simple really.

[CaveatLector]

A patient can transfer, when transferring is for the purpose of alleviating his condition. For example a patient can assign a CG and transfer seeds or clones to the CG. A patient can't transfer if the transfer isn't for the purpose of treating his condition. Pretty simple really.

That sums it up nicely. Just because a pt can transfer, because transfer is allowed under the definition of medical use, that does not mean a pt can transfer willy nilly under any possible interpretation of the definition of the word transfer. The pt can engage in a transfer in accordance with the act. Plain and simple.

[GanjaWarrior]

A patient can transfer, when transferring is for the purpose of alleviating his condition. For example a patient can assign a CG and transfer seeds or clones to the CG. A patient can't transfer if the transfer isn't for the purpose of treating his condition. Pretty simple really.

thats not in the wording of the law...you know that thing we voted on. I know your gonna babble about what the average voter thinks...and you couldnt be more off base. we were all voters before we became pts... this is not what we voted on...plain English .

[Highlander]

thats not in the wording of the law...you know that thing we voted on. I know your gonna babble about what the average voter thinks...and you couldnt be more off base. we were all voters before we became pts... this is not what we voted on...plain English .

 

No Babble. Just the same words we both voted yes for.

 

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with

this act.

 

I trust this clears this issue up.

 

Let's move forward to how we can fix the problem.

[GanjaWarrior]

No Babble. Just the same words we both voted yes for.

 

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with

this act.

 

I trust this clears this issue up.

 

Let's move forward to how we can fix the problem.

 

you keep ignoring the over all issue... the plain language...its right there in plain English lol. while this is only one sticking point.... when you average voter sees the line about primary cg we all knew there was an option. i know this was modeled after some other bill. thats not entirely relevant as no one knew that when we voted. so if we address the wording, address the entire law, what it says in plain English, as we voted on. you dont have to explain it. i read the law before we voted, ive read the courts take on it. its not what we voted on. yes fixing this issue and getting pts options is a must.

[+Malamute]

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.

 

Um, who says it wasnt brought up? And who said it made any difference with these lame arse politicians?

 

They knew it was a holy grail item for us.

[CaveatLector]

you keep ignoring the over all issue... the plain language...its right there in plain English lol. while this is only one sticking point.... when you average voter sees the line about primary cg we all knew there was an option. i know this was modeled after some other bill. thats not entirely relevant as no one knew that when we voted. so if we address the wording, address the entire law, what it says in plain English, as we voted on. you dont have to explain it. i read the law before we voted, ive read the courts take on it. its not what we voted on. yes fixing this issue and getting pts options is a must.

You inadvertently brought up a good point that is contrary to your claim. The only place "primary cg" is mentioned in the ballot language is where pts and primary cgs are specifically allowed to use medical reasons as a defense. If, indeed, the "voters" intended for there to be "secondary cgs" they sure as heck didn't offer protections.

[Highlander]

you keep ignoring the over all issue... the plain language...its right there in plain English lol. while this is only one sticking point.... when you average voter sees the line about primary cg we all knew there was an option. i know this was modeled after some other bill. thats not entirely relevant as no one knew that when we voted. so if we address the wording, address the entire law, what it says in plain English, as we voted on. you dont have to explain it. i read the law before we voted, ive read the courts take on it. its not what we voted on. yes fixing this issue and getting pts options is a must.

 

 

You seem to think that the law says what someone with limited grammar skills thinks it says. "Plain language" doesn't mean you can ignore rules of grammar.

[GanjaWarrior]

You seem to think that the law says what someone with limited grammar skills thinks it says. "Plain language" doesn't mean you can ignore rules of grammar.

 

i never said it did? where do you get that? so get mad ignore it if you want. its English nothing to do with any level of intelligence. when you look at primary, common sense says secondary. again just one example. no where in the law did it mention the restrictions we now suffer. As ive explained i often "match" for the purpose of alleviating my symptoms, thats illegal now. not something i voted on , not the way we took the law when voted on, based on its plain english.

 

I can accept your views, you cant accept mine. moving on would be grand, as a pt i need options, as a caregiver i feel all pts deserve options, if for no other reason than a safety net to assure an uninterrupted supply.

[CaveatLector]

i never said it did? where do you get that? so get mad ignore it if you want. its English nothing to do with any level of intelligence. when you look at primary, common sense says secondary. again just one example. no where in the law did it mention the restrictions we now suffer. As ive explained i often "match" for the purpose of alleviating my symptoms, thats illegal now. not something i voted on , not the way we took the law when voted on, based on its plain english.

 

I can accept your views, you cant accept mine. moving on would be grand, as a pt i need options, as a caregiver i feel all pts deserve options, if for no other reason than a safety net to assure an uninterrupted supply.

If common sense "says secondary" then why didn't the ballot language indicate to the voters that secondary cgs would be protected? It didn't. So your claim regarding voter intent is nonsense. The ballot language could have just as easily protected "caregivers" rather than "primary caregivers," but it didn't. So please explain that away.

[Restorium2]

i never said it did? where do you get that? so get mad ignore it if you want. its English nothing to do with any level of intelligence. when you look at primary, common sense says secondary. again just one example. no where in the law did it mention the restrictions we now suffer. As ive explained i often "match" for the purpose of alleviating my symptoms, thats illegal now. not something i voted on , not the way we took the law when voted on, based on its plain english.

 

I can accept your views, you cant accept mine. moving on would be grand, as a pt i need options, as a caregiver i feel all pts deserve options, if for no other reason than a safety net to assure an uninterrupted supply.

You are about to lose your OPTION of being non regulated. And that would cut off almost all of your other options, like growing and affording LEGAL medical cannabis. You keep saying you want more options, while you are enjoying the most freedom with your medicine that you will ever enjoy. With the legislature we have right now, anything they do will come with added restrictions over what we are doing now. How can you fool yourself into thinking that the legislature, that we have been learning about first hand, is going to do something GOOD for you the patient? That's what I would like to know. How can you act like they are on your side all of a sudden?

Edited February 20, 2013 by Restorium2

[Highlander]

i never said it did? where do you get that? so get mad ignore it if you want. its English nothing to do with any level of intelligence. when you look at primary, common sense says secondary. again just one example. no where in the law did it mention the restrictions we now suffer. As ive explained i often "match" for the purpose of alleviating my symptoms, thats illegal now. not something i voted on , not the way we took the law when voted on, based on its plain english.

 

I can accept your views, you cant accept mine. moving on would be grand, as a pt i need options, as a caregiver i feel all pts deserve options, if for no other reason than a safety net to assure an uninterrupted supply.

 

I can't accept your views because they don't fit with what the law says. And you don't know what the law actually says.

 

A while back on here, I had a question of medical ethics, more or less. I asked Dr. Bob to weigh in, because I know very little about the topic. Dr. Bob gave it opinion. Done.

 

I guess you think you're really good at understanding grammar and English. That's great. But same as my high school education didn't prepare me to entertain questions of medical ethics, a high school level understanding of grammar isn't enough to effectively interpret a statute. And someone with a HS level of grammar education should be smart enough to know when he isn't qualified to come to his own conclusions.

 

You have your interpretation. That's fine. You can complain day and night that the supreme court F'ed you over, but it won't make any difference. But instead of complaining that tpeople more qualified with you disagree with you, how about we get to work fixing the problem. All this debate is wasted energy.

[GanjaWarrior]

You are about to lose your OPTION of being non regulated. And that would cut off almost all of your other options, like growing and affording LEGAL medical cannabis. You keep saying you want more options, while you are enjoying the most freedom with your medicine that you will ever enjoy. With the legislature we have right now, anything they do will come with added restrictions over what we are doing now. How can you fool yourself into thinking that the legislature, that we have been learning about first hand, is going to do something GOOD for you the patient? That's what I would like to know. How can you act like they are on your side all of a sudden?

 

WOW You of all people should know i dont think any government person is my friend, or trying to even look out for my best interest. as many times as we have argued that, lol come on really? That doesn't stop me from wanting options. i want a farmers market, where i can go meet you the farmer, learn something, get good meds at a fair price, if i should need them. i never said i supported this bill, nor did i ever claim to think any fek face politician was my buddy. we dont see eye to eye often, but im positive you have more of an eye on my well being than them, and id wager you dont care lol.

[Highlander]

If common sense "says secondary" then why didn't the ballot language indicate to the voters that secondary cgs would be protected? It didn't. So your claim regarding voter intent is nonsense. The ballot language could have just as easily protected "caregivers" rather than "primary caregivers," but it didn't. So please explain that away.

 

And it always tickles me to hear people scream that there MUST be a 2ndary CG....and then you look at the act and see all of the straightforward material dealing with a Caregiver and nothing at all about a secondary CG.....So I guess we are left to conclude that the authors of the Act made it clear that there are primary CGs but you have to join the secret Skull and Bones club to see anything about a secondary CG. Funny that people think the act extends protection to a category of person not mentioned even once.

 

Oh well.

[Celliach]

WOW You of all people should know i dont think any government person is my friend, or trying to even look out for my best interest. as many times as we have argued that, lol come on really? That doesn't stop me from wanting options. i want a farmers market, where i can go meet you the farmer, learn something, get good meds at a fair price, if i should need them. i never said i supported this bill, nor did i ever claim to think any fek face politician was my buddy. we dont see eye to eye often, but im positive you have more of an eye on my well being than them, and id wager you dont care lol.

 

How do you expect to get any of that if you don't trust politicians? You're going to have to trust at least one to get your ideas submitted to congress.

 

Remember, you are the government. To say that the government isn't your friend is to say that you aren't friends with yourself.