Clare County Compassion Club

[Restorium2]

Jamie Quote; These restrictive prohibitive ordinances come from the opposition, not dispensaries.

 

Then the opposition also wrote the new law you are promoting. Did I just connect the dots for you?

[maxmax]

Thank you. Your response appears reasonable, but I am still troubled. Are we to expect that these nonsensical prohibitions will diminish if 4271 succeeds? It is to be expected that if people in a given community that have influence become involved in establishing dispensaries that it will be in their interest to elilminate competition on the part of caregivers. I have, while in business, devised systems to work around and eliminate competition. That was business, and competitive practices are all part of the game. This, however, is a a public health issue where people, many of us poor, are seeking relief from suffering. I will not go the way of the medical establishment and render things unnecessarily more unaffordable and difficult for them, and I live every day with medical providers who refuse to treat or to treat adequately because they do not see enough bang for the buck in providing quality treatment at prices we can afford. Subsequently we see physicians who give patients all of two minutes in consultations because to do otherwise is to cut into their paychecks. In many cases we are turned away forthwith. That is part of the human condition, and has to be fully expected to be at work if 4271 passes.

 

I was not always poor, but having been taken down by health issues, some brought on in service to predatory employers, do not wish cannabis to become prohibitively expensive. Knowing full well that the incentives for dispensaries, and especially those that involve government that wants to tax at high rates, are diametrically opposed to the interests to those of patients and their caregivers, who are engaged in loads more personal and direct contact and service, . Profits and revenues are the primary drivers for both dispensaries and government. Everything else is secondary. I think I speak for many here when I say that I have seen the press reports of dispensary interests, and I agree the political opposition, making statements intended to harm pt/cg relationships, the latest beiing Mediswipe in their statement that parking lot transactions will be a problem if they do not get what they want. Friedman's statement that “MediSwipe has nothing to do with the medicine, we’re completely agnostic about it,” speaks volumes and begs the question, what is their angle?

 

Then there is our very own cash cow. We have been granted a small cottage industry. It is impossible for many of us to readily work and earn. Managing a small garden is much more within our grasp and is therapeutic in itself. Caregiving is a means to supplement pathetically limited income and to interact with other people. Speaking for myself, I have been largely unalble to walk and leave the house for months on end. My ability to earn has been seriously compromised. Hell, I could not keep up with operating a compassion club, a part time, low impact, kind of thing. Others are in the same boat. Inasmuch as Resto is a d!ck, I do feel compassion for him because I know that he lives in pain daily, as do I, and as do plenty of other patients. I attribute much of the b!tching and infighting to this. We are miserable, there is a degree of anonymity online, and it can be tough to refrain from llashing out. Subsequently we are less inhibited in venting compared with healthy populations, but our arguments are not always out of line. Rather, the delivery can be and is often clumsy.

 

If you wish to be taken as a serious advocate here, you will please consider making the law work as is already established and now clarified, and put your apparent glee for dispensaries away. We are the people who need access to cannabis. We enjoy low prices and high quality under present circumstances, and are adamant that things not be changed to prevent that. Dispensary prices are typically twice that of the stuff we produce for ourselves and each other. Expected taxation can only drive prices further. Otherwise you can expect to be bereated within this, the legitimate community of cannabis users.

 

making the law work as is already established and now clarified what part ?the dispensaries part most are still open

[SFC]

making the law work as is already established and now clarified what part ?the dispensaries part most are still open

 

Translation please?

[maxmax]

every farmers market i go to nothing has changed and all of the Dispensaries that i go to are still open i don't go to buy meds i just go and talk to people and ask them if they know about the risk they are taking now that the S.C has spoken that they are illegal and they say yes but we are a privet club so their is no risk for us

[GregS]

Translation please?

 

I mean to say that McQueen spells out and clarifies the tenets of the law as it was written, to expressly state that cg/pt relationships or pt growing are the only legitimate means of access. The government has shut down many dispensaries since the ruling, and I fully expect it is only a short matter of time untl the rest are, sans 4271. Because they continue to tempt fate, they will likely get burned.

[knucklehead bob]

I must say , these places that are still operating must be doing so with a huge stash-o-cash . I'm surprised Bill Schuette isn't heading up one of his own muti-jurisdictional S.S. units and locking them all up . Forwarned is forarmed . . . or sumthin' like that .

[Celliach]

every farmers market i go to nothing has changed and all of the Dispensaries that i go to are still open i don't go to buy meds i just go and talk to people and ask them if they know about the risk they are taking now that the S.C has spoken that they are illegal and they say yes but we are a privet club so their is no risk for us

 

Just because they say it, doesn't make it true.

[Celliach]

I must say , these places that are still operating must be doing so with a huge stash-o-cash . I'm surprised Bill Schuette isn't heading up one of his own muti-jurisdictional S.S. units and locking them all up . Forwarned is forarmed . . . or sumthin' like that .

 

It takes awhile to make buys and build up evidence.

[maxmax]

and i do agree they (Leo) must not know anything about google

[Highlander]

and i do agree they (Leo) must not know anything about google

 

Google research isn't going to convict anyone. Controlled buys will; and that takes time.

 

Anybody care to guess what fraction of retail sales outlets have already sold to undercover cops? or informants?

[SFC]

Good point guys. I hadn't even considered instead of just going in and shuttering them they may actually build full on cases.. Scary..

Edited March 13, 2013 by SFC

[Highlander]

Good point guys. I hadn't even considered instead of just going in a shuttering them they may actually build full on cases.. Scary..

 

If I were a LEO I'd be thinking about all of the people I could bust who have sold to the dispensary. Lots of people seem to forget/not realize that any unconnected transfer in one's past is fair game for felony charges even if the transfer predated McQueen. If LEOs just button up the dispensary and forget the supplies, they are leaving a lot of meat on the bone. I'm not advocating this, but recognize it as the probable reality.

[GregS]

If I were a LEO I'd be thinking about all of the people I could bust who have sold to the dispensary. Lots of people seem to forget/not realize that any unconnected transfer in one's past is fair game for felony charges even if the transfer predated McQueen. If LEOs just button up the dispensary and forget the supplies, they are leaving a lot of meat on the bone. I'm not advocating this, but recognize it as the probable reality.

 

And with arrests they can feed their tapeworm that lives on fines and asset forfeiture. Some might call this 'following the money.'

Edited March 13, 2013 by GregS

[SFC]

I don't see them doing all that Highlander. A ledger isn't going to be enough imo. I also believe they are aware of the political fallout of doing something like that.

Edited March 13, 2013 by SFC

[jamieuke]

Good point guys. I hadn't even considered instead of just going in a shuttering them they may actually build full on cases.. Scary..

 

Informants and undercovers participating in a simple transaction, and using it as a basis for some type of action, has been the mo in these cases. I'm sure that every place that has been open for a little length of time has a very good chance that this scenario has occurred, whether or not any action has been taken or considered.

 

The building that the transaction took place in, could get shut down under a civil suit, depending on the circumstances, if the investigators or someone else made a complaint about it and the city or prosecutor or state chose to act on it.

 

They could also take a criminal approach instead or in addition to a civil pursuit. The positives that remain in the midst of, what I consider to be a horrible and obviously politically motivated ruling by the MSC, are the rulings in King and Kolanek and the reversal of the COA in McQueen on the "sales" issue.

 

Because of this, the affirmative defense, should become a much more prevelant tool in shaping enforcement policy.

 

Of course, it is a defense, so if it is being used, it means an arrest was made, and all kinds of horrible possibilities could ensue, depending on the circumstances.

 

If people are going to be involved with a transaction that is not protected, it is extremely important to understand section 8, the risk of arrest and how best to demonstrate that the behavior is consistent with the criteria necessary to have a chance at a dismissal or acquittal, if it has to go to a jury.

 

I will definitely be discussing this more at the meeting in Clare.

 

 

 

[Herb Cannabis]

Look at what all that schooling got me ahhh rats fooled by a nut. ahhhh shucks.

 

my friend said he would go herb!

 

I am out of here they feel me, their too smart not too.

 

till 23rd - see ya herb

 

Justin is name... I will find you

 

 

Hi guys nice to meet again.

 

Justin, I know that you are my friend, but, as a friend, I ask you to take the high road, PLEASE, take the high road. If you are insulted or called a name, by all means, report it and reply pointing out their short falls. We can not be uncivil and get anything accomplished. I understand that you are upset with the folks on the other side of this issue, they can get under ones skin, but, my goal is to make this site more attractive to others. I come here to share information, not to fight. We fight at the ballot box, we collect signatures, and we contact our reps and let them know how we feel, here, we should be in a discussion to learn where we are and where we want to go from there.

 

I love your enthusiasm Justin, but, for the good of this site, please, please tone it down. You are going to end up banned from here and then you will never be heard. I feel that is not what you want, I also feel that you care about this site as much as anyone and don't want to see her go down.

 

I look forward to meeting you on the 23rd, Just ask for the "Old Hippie."

[GregS]

Informants and undercovers participating in a simple transaction, and using it as a basis for some type of action, has been the mo in these cases. I'm sure that every place that has been open for a little length of time has a very good chance that this scenario has occurred, whether or not any action has been taken or considered.

 

The building that the transaction took place in, could get shut down under a civil suit, depending on the circumstances, if the investigators or someone else made a complaint about it and the city or prosecutor or state chose to act on it.

 

They could also take a criminal approach instead or in addition to a civil pursuit. The positives that remain in the midst of, what I consider to be a horrible and obviously politically motivated ruling by the MSC, are the rulings in King and Kolanek and the reversal of the COA in McQueen on the "sales" issue.

 

Because of this, the affirmative defense, should become a much more prevelant tool in shaping enforcement policy.

 

Of course, it is a defense, so if it is being used, it means an arrest was made, and all kinds of horrible possibilities could ensue, depending on the circumstances.

 

If people are going to be involved with a transaction that is not protected, it is extremely important to understand section 8, the risk of arrest and how best to demonstrate that the behavior is consistent with the criteria necessary to have a chance at a dismissal or acquittal, if it has to go to a jury.

 

I will definitely be discussing this more at the meeting in Clare.

 

Dispensary operators, their employees, and participants in FMs will not be protected by the AD by token of the fact that they are not the immediate caregiver to the patients they are selling the stuff to.

[Celliach]

Didn't they use the sales ledgers in at least one case to get CGs to testify that they had made sales to the dispensary? I remember reading about a case where they threatened the sellers with prosecution if they didn't testify they had sold to the dispensary.

[jamieuke]

 

 

Dispensary operators, their employees, and participants in FMs will not be protected by the AD by token of the fact that they are not the immediate caregiver to the patients they are selling the stuff to.

 

If the transaction consisted of primary caregiver and directly connected patient, they would not need the AD unless the transaction included circumstances outside of the protections in section 4.

[GregS]

4271 might be unconstitutional. The MMA lays out the rules that contain transactions between pts and their cgs. To carve out something that is in agreement with that, and it is the superior law considering that it supercedes any other law by statute, can we really expect they will not come after us? It is not legitimatey possible to permit anyone else to engage in medical use. I will read the bill again to clarify the facts, follow as it moves, and be interested in how they might do that.

Edited March 13, 2013 by GregS

[SFC]

I believe it did happen once Celli, but I doubt they are going to attempt something like that on a large scale, although they probably could.

[Herb Cannabis]

If I were a LEO I'd be thinking about all of the people I could bust who have sold to the dispensary. Lots of people seem to forget/not realize that any unconnected transfer in one's past is fair game for felony charges even if the transfer predated McQueen. If LEOs just button up the dispensary and forget the supplies, they are leaving a lot of meat on the bone. I'm not advocating this, but recognize it as the probable reality.

 

I am probably wrong here, but I'm gonna throw out a thought. Could it be that these operators are placing their faith in Section 8. There are only 3 elements that are required, numbers of patients, plants and registry are none of them! I'm not saying that they are or that they would be right or wrong if that is what they have in mind.

 

Could it be that these prosecutors are well aware of the risk that an AD presents to their won/loss record?

 

Just thought that I'd throw that out there for your astute observations.

[SFC]

One thing for certain, we will soon have some answers.. One way or the other.

[Herb Cannabis]

Dispensary operators, their employees, and participants in FMs will not be protected by the AD by token of the fact that they are not the immediate caregiver to the patients they are selling the stuff to.

 

Greg, with all due respect, connection to the registry is not one of the elements required in a sec 8 AD.

 

The 3 elements are:

 

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

 

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

 

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

 

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

[jamieuke]

 

 

I am probably wrong here, but I'm gonna throw out a thought. Could it be that these operators are placing their faith in Section 8. There are only 3 elements that are required, numbers of patients, plants and registry are none of them! I'm not saying that they are or that they would be right or wrong if that is what they have in mind.

 

Could it be that these prosecutors are well aware of the risk that an AD presents to their won/loss record?

 

Just thought that I'd throw that out there for your astute observations.

 

You can not use section 8 in the civil suit, only in defense of criminal charges.