Jump to content

Can A Card Holder Sell To Another Cardholder?


someonelse812

Recommended Posts

The mma offers no protections for commiting mail fraud. No they won't come after you, but there is no protections.

 

Me personally I wouldnt order any seeds from attitude, or any other seed bank. I am well established, and have connects In circles to get any seed or cut my heart desires.

 

There is no fraud discussed here.  There is violation of federal law...same as you violate when you get clones from another CG.  You say you're up on the law....Please show where the MMMA restricts one's ability to get seeds in the mail.  We are talking about state law here.  If you want to talk federal law, that is a completely different discussion in which you leave all things cannabis at the door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's if the judge does. My point was that its not set in stone, and there is know case law as of yet. As far the police trashing your house, if you win, id bet you would have a really nice settlment comeing your way.

 

But yea I totally know what your saying. I have had my house trashed before, many times. It's not fun, it really puts a damper on things.

 

Really though, the question he asked, was pertains to selling meds, so he or she needs all info pertaining to said sale. There not selling it becouse it's fun, they obviously need the money. So they need to know how to go about it as safe as possible. AS POSSIBLE being they key word, and if righ now, your right it's all up in the air.

 

But also I was really trying to point out, and remind every one that this is not a set in stone thing. We have to rember that, you don't wan people going around thinking that what THEY say is what it is, becouse it isn't. Ya know.

As far the police trashing your house, if you win, id bet you would have a really nice settlement coming your way ? Sorry but you are kidding right ? because if someone could the ACLU would be all over it and there Not 

i use to tell people that if you have the ACLU as part of your Legal team as we did then theirs a good chance you haven't done anything wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, the best you can hope for is that readers will pick up on the atrocious spelling and grammar and recognize the low-quality information for what it is.

I'm on a iPhone. Is my spelling and grammar really that important, to have a discussion. You can understand what I saying can't you? I don't see why the personal attacks are nessisary in a freindly debate.

 

I didn't attack you, why do you feel the need to belittle me?

 

I'm sorry if my grammar and spelling bother you. But Im not about get on the desk top, and type all of this out on word. Just so it looks pretty. If I was relighting a paper, or essay. I would. But as far as a forum post. I see no need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far the police trashing your house, if you win, id bet you would have a really nice settlement coming your way ? Sorry but you are kidding right ? because if someone could the ACLU would be all over it and there Not

i use to tell people that if you have the ACLU as part of your Legal team as we did then theirs a good chance you haven't done anything wrong

I have read some were, that there are a bunch of law suits out in Cali. I think it's more of a time thing. We haven't made it that far yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on a iPhone. Is my spelling and grammar really that important, to have a discussion. You can understand what I saying can't you? I don't see why the personal attacks are nessisary in a freindly debate.

 

I didn't attack you, why do you feel the need to belittle me?

 

I'm sorry if my grammar and spelling bother you. But Im not about get on the desk top, and type all of this out on word. Just so it looks pretty. If I was relighting a paper, or essay. I would. But as far as a forum post. I see no need.

 

It is if you want people to consider your information as well thought out.  If someone can't spell it kind of reflects back on their intellectual capacity to others.  I'm not saying that type of judgement is always right or warranted.  It just is what it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also doesn't say that the registerd CG and Pataint have to be registerd to one another. So it's open for interpolation. Hence a grey area.

 

But like you have pointed out, there is no mention of a CG to CG sale. But how is a CG suppose to obtain plants, if it's not legal to do so? It must be prosumed that a CG to CG is legal, based on the fact, that a CG must be able to legaly obtain a plant to start the prosess, of gardening for a Pataint. This is the only way the law works.

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/23775-people-v-provost/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on a iPhone. Is my spelling and grammar really that important, to have a discussion. You can understand what I saying can't you? I don't see why the personal attacks are nessisary in a freindly debate.

 

I didn't attack you, why do you feel the need to belittle me?

 

I'm sorry if my grammar and spelling bother you. But Im not about get on the desk top, and type all of this out on word. Just so it looks pretty. If I was relighting a paper, or essay. I would. But as far as a forum post. I see no need.

 

This isn't a personal attack.  This is a debate.  You are posting bad information.  I'm addressing the information - not the individual.  I don't know who you are.  There is nothing personal here.  

 

As to whether I can understand you...I dunno....when you talk statutory interpretation, every little thing matters, so clean presentation is paramount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no fraud discussed here. There is violation of federal law...same as you violate when you get clones from another CG. You say you're up on the law....Please show where the MMMA restricts one's ability to get seeds in the mail. We are talking about state law here. If you want to talk federal law, that is a completely different discussion in which you leave all things cannabis at the door.

Lol. Ok but how about clone only's. if you want charlottes web how are you going to obtain that from attitude seed bank? Your not.

 

So what are saying clones are illagle and the only way to get plants is buy purchasing seeds? That sounds pretty .....weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get a legally registered caregiver and keep possession of your plants.  That way, a CG can legally transfer genetics to the new grower.

 

If people spent as much time trying to figure out how to solve the problems instead of how to creatively skirt the problem then most would have figured this out already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol. Ok but how about clone only's. if you want charlottes web how are you going to obtain that from attitude seed bank? Your not.

 

So what are saying clones are illagle and the only way to get plants is buy purchasing seeds? That sounds pretty .....weak.

 

The law doesn't provide for every need or convenience.  You could write the law any way you wish,  and I could still find a want that isn't addressed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can get a legally registered caregiver and keep possession of your plants. That way, a CG can legally transfer genetics to the new grower.

 

If people spent as much time trying to figure out how to solve the problems instead of how to creatively skirt the problem then most would have figured this out already.

I'm not trying to skirt problems. I'm mearly just pointing out things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a personal attack. This is a debate. You are posting bad information. I'm addressing the information - not the individual. I don't know who you are. There is nothing personal here.

 

As to whether I can understand you...I dunno....when you talk statutory interpretation, every little thing matters, so clean presentation is paramount.

Dude you totally just attacked my grammar and spelling, and tried to tie that into my knowledge of the mmma and how the system works. You basically said I not retarted in not so many words, and that people shouldn't listen to me becouse my grammar and spelling are not so good on a iPhone. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's look at facts.

 

Fact 1:  The Supreme court gave an advisory opinion on transfers:

 

(3) To be eligible for § 4 immunity, a registered primary caregiver must be
engaging in marijuana-related conduct for the purpose of alleviating the debilitating
medical condition, or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, of a
registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the registration
process of the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH).
(4) As a result, § 4 does not offer immunity to a registered qualifying patient who
transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient, nor does it offer immunity to
a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana to anyone other than a registered
qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration
process.

 

Such an opinion affects LEO activities and how lower courts are likely to rule.

 

Fact 2:  The SC could be wrong.  But it doesn't matter if they are wrong.  They have the final say.  You could get arrested for saying that the sky is blue and the SC rules that the sky is red.  As far as the legal system is concerned at that point, the sky is red.

 

And now an opinion.

 

If you get arrested for CG 2 CG transfer and take your case to the SC (assuming you have $50,000+ to burn), how do you think they will rule?

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we're trying to keep people safe and out of jail cells. Big difference, especially when the law hasn't been defined.

Agreed, I never said that this is how it is, I have stated numerous times. To be safe and not have any problems what so ever you should only supply your 5.

 

But with that said, if no one pushes the boundaries, that's the way it will stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude you totally just attacked my grammar and spelling, and tried to tie that into my knowledge of the mmma and how the system works. You basically said I not retarted in not so many words, and that people shouldn't listen to me becouse my grammar and spelling are not so good on a iPhone. Lol

 

Yes, a well-presented post will have more credibility than one riddled with errors, technology limitations notwithstanding.  Sorry you feel attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, I never said that this is how it is, I have stated numerous times. To be safe and not have any problems what so ever you should only supply your 5.

 

But with that said, if no one pushes the boundaries, that's the way it will stay.

 

You don't think it could be changed through legislation?  Do you only think we can change it by getting someone arrested and dragged through the courts and have their life ruined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...