Hb 4271 Distribution Bill

[SFC]

They our Lawyer How Legal does some one have to be ?

 

 

Say what?

 

I am fairly sure someone edited my original post from say to saw. Knock it off.

Edited May 29, 2013 by SFC

[CaveatLector]

 

The Supreme Court's ruling in McQueen did not outlaw all dispensaries, Lavigne contended. He said each time a court rules, opponents of the state's medical marijuana law predict the end of dispensaries. Each time, the opponents are wrong, Lavigne said.

"They are wrong again this time," Lavigne said about the McQueen ruling. "The ruling was restricted to the facts of that case and that particular business model, and that was a very particular business model."

Saying that McQueen didn't outlaw dispensaries is semantics.  True, they didn't utter those words.  However, their reasoning in the case makes it clear that a dispensary is not covered by section 4.  The McQueen case was initiated as a civil matter by the prosecutor and the dispensary was shut down because the MSC found that p2p isn't covered.  The MSC further found that unconnected sales between a cg and pt are not covered.  What made the operation a public nuisance was the fact that the underlying activity was illegal and NOT made immune by section 4.

 

What does that mean?  That means that you don't have section 4 protections if you engage in those activities.  It doesn't matter that the context was in relation to a civil matter because the decision was based on an interpretation of the MMA and that interpretation is not different if the underlying case is criminal.  It surprises the heck out of me that an attorney is putting forth this theory.

 

With that said, obviously one could define "dispensary" in such a way that it means a place where a connected pt goes to get his meds from his connected cg.  Defining it in that fashion would mean that a dispensary is legal.  But playing that semantics game of equivocation will get you no where.  Here we are talking about the term dispensary with the meaning that we, here, commonly attach to th term.

[bobandtorey]

That means that you don't have section 4 protections if you engage in those activities

i agree with this statement of course

But to say anyone of us has a Section 4 defense  in a court room i won't go that far as of yet just ask Larry how it's working out for him 

i think some people don't even know how things work in a court room when your in front of a judge because if someone just thinks they can stand up and tell their story and the truth they know nothing about Law We have lived it for over 4 years no one knows until they have taken just one step in our shoes 

and theirs  many more Patients that are in the Court system that need our help and support  we have another court date June 27 at 10 am at the Oakland County Court house we hope that on that day we can fill the Court room with supporter now is the time for all to come we hope to see you their and many others i will post it for all to see

[CaveatLector]

That means that you don't have section 4 protections if you engage in those activities

i agree with this statement of course

But to say anyone of us has a Section 4 defense  in a court room i won't go that far as of yet just ask Larry how it's working out for him 

i think some people don't even know how things work in a court room when your in front of a judge because if someone just thinks they can stand up and tell their story and the truth they know nothing about Law We have lived it for over 4 years no one knows until they have taken just one step in our shoes 

and theirs  many more Patients that are in the Court system that need our help and support  we have another court date June 27 at 10 am at the Oakland County Court house we hope that on that day we can fill the Court room with supporter now is the time for all to come we hope to see you their and many others i will post it for all to see

So you are saying that since section 4 didn't work for certain people that dispensaries are legal?  I don't understand your reasoning.

 

The discussion regarded whether dispensaries are legal or whether McQueen made it clear that they are not.  You seemed to be arguing that since McQueen dealt with a public nuisance that it doesn't apply to dispensaries in regard to the criminal arena.

 

The MSC found that unconnected cg to pt, as well as pt to pt, transactions do no have immunity under the MMA.  If they don't have immunity then that means they aren't protected from prosecution under the CSA.  Given that fact, that such transactions are prosecutable offenses, the operation of the dispensary by McQueen was found to be a public nuisance.  That in no way means that McQueen isn't prosecutable.  It means they can be shut down under the doctrine of public nuisance.  If the prosecutor had enough evidence of the above-described transactions such that they could prove the transactions beyond a reasonable doubt then they could also get a criminal conviction.

[SFC]

He just doesn't get it or is not capable of comprehending it Cav.

Edited May 29, 2013 by SFC

[semicaregiver]

.... hilarious that Lector thinks he knows more than the attorneys who run the cases through the court system. Get a grip!....

Are the attorneys you are referring to the ones that advised their dispensary clients to close after the McQueen ruling?

[OG Fire Beaster]

Wow they really are deleting posts for nothing.

[ozzrokk]

uhhhh boyyy............

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2013 by ozzrokk

[shishka]

Wow they really are deleting posts for nothing.

Always have, always will.

[Hayduke]

Rick Thompson, on 30 May 2013 - 15:05, said:

 

.... hilarious that Lector thinks he knows more than the attorneys who run the cases through the court system. Get a grip!....

 

Well Rick, all knowing seer of truth, justice and the American way, Cav is a criminal attorney who regularly tries cases and has done many pro bono.

 

Maybe you need to tone down the rhetoric yourself.

 

Get a grip....lol... you are so laughable, and without the facts it is quite humorous....

[Highlander]

 

Rick Thompson, on 30 May 2013 - 15:05, said:

 

Well Rick, all knowing seer of truth, justice and the American way, Cav is a criminal attorney who regularly tries cases and has done many pro bono.

 

Maybe you need to tone down the rhetoric yourself.

 

Get a grip....lol... you are so laughable, and without the facts it is quite humorous....

 

....including showing up in court to defend a CG client only to find that one of the CG's patients was on the chopping block the same day in the same court and without representation and charged with crimes not committed.  Not only a pro bono case, but an off-the-cuff, flying by the seat of one's pants effort to help a fellow out and double the day's work of seeking dismissals.  Result was two guys leaving the courtroom as free men and CL leaving with nothing gained but satisfaction.  I can think of three things Rick Thompson can shove in his mouth to shut off this nonsense.  The first two are a slice of humble pie and a joint.  Let's just guess at the third if he wants to go that far.

[SFC]

Thank you Cav.  I know you are the most humble SOB for an attorney I have ever seen. You are the man, bro.

[mibrains]

posts are NOT deleted or made to be invisible without good cause.

 

there was a time when posts were removed by former administrators due to personal beliefs.

 

now we all try to discuss it as a team in the background and make decisions based on the way any particular discussion is headed.

 

if you post argumentative Bull-malarchy that could get someone arrested we will make it disappear.

 

i did not have the pleasure of reading the posts that were deleted yesterday but i would bet they were inflammatory in nature and not relevant to the thread topic... it's really easy to get off track and become disruptive...

 

Rick you come in here defending Gersh without even having read or been a part of the nonsense he was spewing on that day..in that particular moment...

 

it speaks volumes toward your credibility.

 

enough arguing and crying foul already...

 

and everyone please..

 

join and be active in the debates.

 

keep it civil.

keep it on topic.

 

and..it will stay and be heard.

Edited May 31, 2013 by mibrains

[solabeirtan]

Just to set the record straight, since unfortunatley you were unable to read them, Brains. The discussion was about the Rules of Behavior for the Site. In fact why have them? If they are only there for placeholders to populate the various pages available to us on the Website. Especially since it was a fairly civil conversation with relevent issues.  As usual the person you admonished [scapgoated] is unable to defend himself. 

 

Well boys and girls todays word is Whitewashing. Get out  you boxa Tide and get busy! ...                        ....peace...

[mibrains]

i was not trying to scapegoat rick.

 

i was directly refering to a quote he said about PB only to find it was removed.

 

now have to go back and edit myself.

 

i apologize

 

i made an inquiry.. however if it was as you stated that the discussion was about the rules of the site then clearly it was in the wrong place and probably should have been moved...

 

all i can say for sure is we all are trying very hard to keep the peace with these difficult decisions..we are all human we all make mistakes.

 

thank you everyone for your contributions.

Edited May 31, 2013 by mibrains

[+Malamute]

The posts should have been deleted. :-)

 

I had a couple posts deleted, and they should have been.

 

 I mean, who cares?  It's a forum. :-)

 

Wasn't the first time, and won't be the last.

[solabeirtan]

I'm sorry I dont get it either, perhaps its above my echelon of expertise. 

Ta - ta.

Edited May 31, 2013 by solabeirtan

[SFC]

Sola,  I know you mean well and your interpretation has merit if you had only what you see here to go on. But there is a whole lot more that goes on outside of here. It is nobody's set intent to bring outside arguments here but it just happens this is kind of like neutral ground. Or as close to it as we are going to get. 

[TheHarvester]

Are there any thoughts about when this Bill would come up for vote?

[SFC]

I personally feel like never, but it may at some point.

[GregS]

I agree that it is not likely to even come up, not so much because it is a hot, steamy platter of schit, although it is, but that the committee, and by extension the entire government, sees the writing on the wall. The SC has been fair and even handed, turning back the worst of our opposition, to my mind to the point of embarrassing them. The committee is making noises about jumping on board with a degree of actual enthusiasm. It is given that they will work the money angles and play patty-cake with commercial interests. It is my intention to address the key players with arguments that it would be best for all involved to keep it more simple than that.

 

Broad and complete decriminalization of the herb, treating it just as we do any other agricultural commoditiy, makes perfect sense. Commercial interests would succeed or fail on market forces. We would continue to grow and use it. There is no need for a tax other than those property, corporate, income, and sales taxes that provide government revenue. They would be enhanced. To levy some kind of expensive tax for no other reason than to take a cut is corrupt. We don't have to sit still for that.

 

The stuff does not cause harm. Period. There are no additional health costs as exist with alcohol and tobacco, let alone pharmaceuticals, for the state to recoup to pay for the added burden under Medicaid, and the feds under Medicare. There is so much authoritative literature regarding the benefits and safety, and a dearth of authoritatively legitimate indications of the harmfulness of cannabis that it is impossible to refute any longer. We can throw them a bone with tacit agreement that laws to keep it out of the hands of minors are okay. Whether they do or not, I don't expect it to change rates of use substantially.

 

I will especially enjoy watching law enforcement take major budget cuts because their enforcement workload will have been substantially decreased. Civil asset forfeiture will be gone for mj use. nyuk, nyuk, nyuk. Police will no longer take our homes and property. They will have far less money to buy heavy armor and artillery. They will no longer be able to tell their superiors that they collected five hundred bucks from a user when they have instead taken fifteen hundred. Oooo. These guys are really gonna soooo hate that. Expect them to continue working to keep things right where they are.

 

We walked into the City of Saginaw Council Chambers and persuaded them to take the simple road. Later remarks were that they had seen no problems arise from that decision. It is those communities that instead persist with moratoria and ordinances that are problems. We can and should do much the same in Lansing.

Edited June 2, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

Inasmuch that the committee either played stupid or are uninformed, made statements and asked questions regarding authoritative studies regarding the herb, the State has 3.5 million dollars they plan to give to the police. That is a bad joke. I will insist to the committee that they make a grab for that cash to help satisfy their curiosity. Note that the Supreme Court decision in Koon recommends that the legislature look at impairment, and suggests some kind of standard method to establish that. I am confident that a careful study on cannabis and driving, if done with agreeable bona fides, can only work in our favor.

Edited June 1, 2013 by GregS

[TheHarvester]

Interesting thoughts Greg. You make a compelling argument.

Do you think state wide acceptance could happen with the current AG?

[GregS]

If Schithead doesn't like it he will be dragged kicking and screaming. There is little he can do to stop it.

 

Thinking back to Saginaw, the issue was over zoning. My argument was that the City could and should zone commercial operations and perform legitimate code inspections just as they do any other, and stay away from laws to expressly control use specific to the herb. They agreed. The State would do well to do the same.

Edited June 1, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

Sola,  I know you mean well and your interpretation has merit if you had only what you see here to go on. But there is a whole lot more that goes on outside of here. It is nobody's set intent to bring outside arguments here but it just happens this is kind of like neutral ground. Or as close to it as we are going to get. 

It's the effin' interwebs. Ignore the crap and it magically disappears.

Edited June 1, 2013 by GregS