Jump to content

Medical Marijuana Absurdities In Michigan: Patients Can't Share

bobandtorey
 Share

Recommended Posts

Natesilver Advanced Member

Natesilver

Posted
Posted

Well looking at this, I see a guy with around 30 posts, all pretty much in this thread, all repeating the same arguments you used a couple of months ago in your 'section 8 will let us do anything' thread you started here, then carried to several other sites when it was soundly refuted by several very experienced members here.  

 

What I see is someone that created a fan club for themselves to take another round of the same old, and wrong, idea the somehow section 8 gives us rights to do things the law doesn't allow in section 4.  That it can 'allow' actions like p2p, 'unregistered caregivers', etc.  We've heard this before and I bet if Zap checks IP addresses, it might just show they are all coming from the same source.

 

I can see why you like him.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Dr Bob, please don't misquote me with your outlandish accusations. I never said "section 8 will let us do anything"

 

What I did say was:

 

******Assuming the 3 prongs of section 8 are met, we can say two things definitively:

 

P2P TRANSACTIONS ARE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 8.

 

UNREGISTERED CAREGIVERS MAY ASSIST AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF PATIENTS UNDER SECTION 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Celliach Advanced Member

Celliach

Posted
Posted

Dr Bob, please don't misquote me with your outlandish accusations. I never said "section 8 will let us do anything"

 

What I did say was:

 

******Assuming the 3 prongs of section 8 are met, we can say two things definitively:

 

P2P TRANSACTIONS ARE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 8.

 

UNREGISTERED CAREGIVERS MAY ASSIST AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF PATIENTS UNDER SECTION 8.

 

Try using a Section 8 defense by claiming you are an unregistered caregiver.  Make sure your "patient" comes to court.  Without him/her you have no case.  if they aren't registered as a patient with the state, then they will have to prove they were using it for medical reasons.  Sort of like putting your patient on trial for you instead.  If they were unregistered, and the court decides they aren't a valid patient, then they could get arrested too.  

 

In theory your statement is correct.  In practice it's a totally different story.  It would be almost impossible to win in court.  The narrow scope of the way the law is currently being interpreted by the courts may even endanger your witnesses.  If you really think it's safe, then by all means, go for it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Natesilver Advanced Member

Natesilver

Posted
Posted

Try using a Section 8 defense by claiming you are an unregistered caregiver.  Make sure your "patient" comes to court.  Without him/her you have no case.  if they aren't registered as a patient with the state, then they will have to prove they were using it for medical reasons.  Sort of like putting your patient on trial for you instead.  If they were unregistered, and the court decides they aren't a valid patient, then they could get arrested too.  

 

In theory your statement is correct.  In practice it's a totally different story.  It would be almost impossible to win in court.  The narrow scope of the way the law is currently being interpreted by the courts may even endanger your witnesses.  If you really think it's safe, then by all means, go for it.  

 

Celliach, I appreciate your hypothetical scenario. We can play "what if" games all day long, but it really doesn't accomplish much.

 

What if the judge...?

What if the patient...?

What if the prosecutor...?

What if the unregistered caregiver...?

What if.....?

What if....?

What if.....?

 

Or we can examine the written law. An examination of the written law yields:

 

******Assuming the 3 prongs of section 8 are met, we can say two things definitively:

 

P2P TRANSACTIONS ARE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 8.

 

UNREGISTERED CAREGIVERS MAY ASSIST AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF PATIENTS UNDER SECTION 8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dr. Bob Advanced Member

Dr. Bob

Posted
Posted (edited)

Dr Bob, please don't misquote me with your outlandish accusations. I never said "section 8 will let us do anything"

 

What I did say was:

 

******Assuming the 3 prongs of section 8 are met, we can say two things definitively:

 

P2P TRANSACTIONS ARE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 8.

 

UNREGISTERED CAREGIVERS MAY ASSIST AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF PATIENTS UNDER SECTION 8.

Wow there it is in all caps again!   It must be true!  Log off so Greg can tell you how right you are.

 

Edited by Dr. Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
greenbuddha Advanced Member

greenbuddha

Posted
Posted

until the docket has case law moving the interpretation of our law towards common sense and fairness, the best way to stay out of trouble is simple. act like the law was never passed, that the cards mark you as a criminal instead of offering protection, and that arrest statistics, forfeiture dollars and positive press are the primary motivating forces behind ALL actions taken by our states LEO & Prosecutors. it's how they're graded in job performance, how they balance their budgets and where the money they waste on.....night vision equipment, FLIR helicopters, automatic weapons, swat swag, fancy dare cars, trips to exotic places for "seminars", or, if you a Romulus cop, you would have even spent some on hookers, weed, boobie-bar-tabs...even a tanning salon for your wife. they're not stupid and don't just pull this crap out of thin air, they fight for their jobs, the wasteful spending on personnel, weapons and gear that has become the norm, and most importantly, they fight for their unlimited unaudited personal piggy banks. public service doesn't pay very well above board. it motivates every politician to reach for dirty PAC dollars, special intrest money and/or tainted campaign contributions, every cop to lie or fabricate in order to advance a case at any cost. and, every prosecutor to have a very narrow, twisted interpretation and application of the MMMP. every change or ruling is seen as a direct attack against their way of life. it IS personal to them. a fight for their reason for existence. ask yourself. why would it cost millions of dollars to run and be elected to a position that pays 50K? the only way and only reason to ever want to be elected in the first place is to accept cash/gifts/bribes/kickbacks any and everywhere you can. the lies have been told and re-told so many times it's actually brain-washed their narrow minds into believing the propaganda they spew. common sense/truth be damned....just think of the children!!!

 

change isn't going to be easy either. elections, lifestyles and retirement aren't free. it would take some DRASTIC , life changing events to get this system back on track. like a civil revolt/war, being invaded, occupied and controlled by a foreign army, loosing a world war, domestic nuclear attack, a plague or epidemic killing 80% of our citizens?? I would have to be big.........something that destroys the entire culture and installs a new mentality and set of rules

e

 

want it simple? pretend it's still illegal, hide it well, enclosed, out of sight and hopefully locked, never show or discuss your card until the cuffs are on, your locked in the back and the police car is being shifted into drive to take you to jail. when in public, anyone you don't personally know should be suspected as a cop or informant. (trust no-one, ever). and the #1 way to avoid trouble? KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT. regular people don't need to know your business and cops WILL twist every word to get a conviction....it's their job, their future depends on it !! RARELY are crimes solved by investigation. crimes are solved by informants and statements made by suspects. someone tells them something, putting them on your trail. then your interviewed and give up some clue or info. that's used to deny your rights, exclude testimony and facts that could sway a jury. effectively eliminating your best defenses as your words get warped into a nice tidy conviction or plea. win at all cost, darn the truth or the plain simple language written into our law.

 

Absolutely!!!

 

Make sure you are a 'legal' patient under CURRENT Michigan law and that the MJ quantities you have on you are within the limits, and 'cover your arse' at ALL times WHENEVER your taking part in a cannabis situation.

 

Get sloppy, and LEO and the court system will own you... that's what they're in business to do. And when I say 'business', that's exactly what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobandtorey Advanced Member

bobandtorey

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Absolutely!!!

 

Make sure you are a 'legal' patient under CURRENT Michigan law and that the MJ quantities you have on you are within the limits, and 'cover your arse' at ALL times WHENEVER your taking part in a cannabis situation.

 

Get sloppy, and LEO and the court system will own you... that's what they're in business to do. And when I say 'business', that's exactly what I mean.

Thanks i could have not said it any better

the Court will chew you up and spit you out if you end up their as you have said it's their Business 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
douga Advanced Member

douga

Posted
Posted

Where p2p transactions are concerned, as long as the transferor can be demonstrated to be the transferee's unregistered caregiver, and as long as the transferee has a physician's recommendation to use, with or without sending that recommendation to the state, that transaction is covered under the AD.

 

Good information. Thank you Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregS Advanced Member

GregS

Posted
Posted

I can and do go along with you regarding the absence of a requirement that caregivers be registered and are nonetheless protected as you describe Nate. P2P ix not as straightforward. It requires that a bona fide agreement between a patient and caregiver be maintained for that to follow.

 

That said, those agreements can last seconds, or years; however long the parties agree to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
douga Advanced Member

douga

Posted
Posted

I can and do go along with you regarding the absence of a requirement that caregivers be registered and are nonetheless protected as you describe Nate. P2P ix not as straightforward. It requires that a bona fide agreement between a patient and caregiver be maintained for that to follow.

 

That said, those agreements can last seconds, or years; however long the parties agree to.

 

Nate was banned for suggesting patient to patient and unregistered caregiver transactions are allowed under section 8. But you and him are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celliach Advanced Member

Celliach

Posted
Posted

nate was given a time-out, not banned, for continuing to argue after having been asked to stop.  While Section 8 should and probably does protect an unregistered caregiver, it would be almost impossible to prove that defense in court and a judge doesn't even have to allow it if you can't prove it.  Will your PT come to court?  If they don't, you can forget this defense.  Without them you have no proof. 

 

The forum leaders have been saying all along that while you may be protected, and in theory are, you will have a near impossible time proving it in court.  As such, to rely on this type of defense is reckless and unnecessarily endangers the person relying on this defense.  To tell people that they can use it in court and defend themselves and get charges dropped, just isn't true, and endangers anyone taking this advice.  

 

As Alfred Korzybski once said, "The map is not the territory."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregS Advanced Member

GregS

Posted
Posted (edited)

nate was given a time-out, not banned, for continuing to argue after having been asked to stop.  While Section 8 should and probably does protect an unregistered caregiver, it would be almost impossible to prove that defense in court and a judge doesn't even have to allow it if you can't prove it.  Will your PT come to court?  If they don't, you can forget this defense.  Without them you have no proof. 

 

The forum leaders have been saying all along that while you may be protected, and in theory are, you will have a near impossible time proving it in court.  As such, to rely on this type of defense is reckless and unnecessarily endangers the person relying on this defense.  To tell people that they can use it in court and defend themselves and get charges dropped, just isn't true, and endangers anyone taking this advice.  

 

As Alfred Korzybski once said, "The map is not the territory."

This is why I suggest a signed document, possibly carbonless copy, and possibly signed by a witness, attesting to the pt/cg affiliation that protects both, and meets that evidentiary prong in sec. 8. Part of that document would be the pt's attestation to, and likely copies of, the physician recommendation available in, say, office files. That would eliminate the need for the pt to appear, unless there are questions of material fact that would require an appearance. That is hard to imagine under these circumstances.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
douga Advanced Member

douga

Posted
Posted (edited)

nate was given a time-out, not banned, for continuing to argue after having been asked to stop.  While Section 8 should and probably does protect an unregistered caregiver, it would be almost impossible to prove that defense in court and a judge doesn't even have to allow it if you can't prove it.  Will your PT come to court?  If they don't, you can forget this defense.  Without them you have no proof. 

 

The forum leaders have been saying all along that while you may be protected, and in theory are, you will have a near impossible time proving it in court.  As such, to rely on this type of defense is reckless and unnecessarily endangers the person relying on this defense.  To tell people that they can use it in court and defend themselves and get charges dropped, just isn't true, and endangers anyone taking this advice.  

 

As Alfred Korzybski once said, "The map is not the territory."

 

Unfortunately, those members that don't "tow the company line" of the forum leaders of the mmma are often censored and silenced. Please don't continue the policies of Joe Cain. This forum should be an area of open conversation and discourse, with dissenting viewpoints not only allowed and tolerated, but welcomed. In the absence of that, the forum will decay into nothingness. We are better than that. And patients deserve better than that. Permit dissenting viewpoints and restore the greatness of this democratic forum.

Edited by douga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
douga Advanced Member

douga

Posted
Posted

It seems Mr nate had said everything he wanted to say already and just kept repeating the same thing over and over and over again and when asked to stop repeating himself and YELLING ON THE FORUM; refused to do so and was given a timeout.

 

*shrug*.

 

Kind of like Dr Bob did, with the occasional personal insult tossed in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
douga Advanced Member

douga

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think we have 1 new member here...who is an old member...and expressing himself through three different screenames. 

 

I'm not quite sure what you are accusing me of, but I am starting to take offense that any time an opposing viewpoint is presented, rather than addressing the content of the argument, ad hominem attacks are resorted to. This is a sign of desperation, when logic can no longer support your stance.

Edited by douga
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...