Owner Of Former Marijuana Dispensary Pleads Guilty To Drug Charge

[bobandtorey]

"Medical Use" has 9 things that it is within the law. "Use" is only one of the nine:

 

acquisition

possession

cultivation

manufacture

use

internal possession

delivery

transfer

transportation

 

 

As you stated there Chauncy, If it were defined as "medical use" instead of just "using" in the added protection section pertaining to being within vicinity and such:

 

 

 

 

 then yes,... there would be no need for caregiver status basically.  It would be covered for anyone under that phrase. And that is why writing a law is so difficult and one single minor miniscule word can change the entire law. :-)

so not just a word but also a comma and or a period to ?

[Chauncy Gardner]

"Medical Use" has 9 things that it is within the law. "Use" is only one of the nine:

 

acquisition

possession

cultivation

manufacture

use

internal possession

delivery

transfer

transportation

 

 

As you stated there Chauncy, If it were defined as "medical use" instead of just "using" in the added protection section pertaining to being within vicinity and such:

 

 

 

 

 then yes,... there would be no need for caregiver status basically.  It would be covered for anyone under that phrase. And that is why writing a law is so difficult and one single minor miniscule word can change the entire law. :-)

 

It seems like ALL use by a qualifying patient is defined as medical use. It encompasses recreational as well as medical. Under the law, a qualifying patient can use marijuana any way they see fit. They can just plain USE it, period, with no ifs, ands, or buts - or questions about how or why they are using it.

 

This must be the section of the law that dispensaries are counting on to make them legal. If they claim that they are assisting in the medical use of marijuana then it appears that this section would protect them.

 

One of the COA's opinions, the one in which a dispensary was found guilty of violating a township zoning ordinance, the COA specifically stated that the plaintiffs were not claiming that they were assisting patients in the medical use of marijuana, which leads me to believe that the outcome may have been different if the plaintiffs were claiming that they were assisting.

[Wild Bill]

I don't think any right thinking person has any arguments about what is and isn't covered by the law. It is the judges who are apparently unfamiliar with common usage of the english language that create the problems.

[bobandtorey]

It seems like ALL use by a qualifying patient is defined as medical use. It encompasses recreational as well as medical. Under the law, a qualifying patient can use marijuana any way they see fit. They can just plain USE it, period, with no ifs, ands, or buts - or questions about how or why they are using it.

 

This must be the section of the law that dispensaries are counting on to make them legal. If they claim that they are assisting in the medical use of marijuana then it appears that this section would protect them.

 

One of the COA's opinions, the one in which a dispensary was found guilty of violating a township zoning ordinance, the COA specifically stated that the plaintiffs were not claiming that they were assisting patients in the medical use of marijuana, which leads me to believe that the outcome may have been different if the plaintiffs were claiming that they were assisting.

 if it would have been a crime instead of a zoning issue thing would have not worked out for them as well as it did they got Lucky IMHO   violating a township zoning ordinance is a hole lot better then 10 years in jail 

[+Malamute]

It seems like ALL use by a qualifying patient is defined as medical use. It encompasses recreational as well as medical. Under the law, a qualifying patient can use marijuana any way they see fit. They can just plain USE it, period, with no ifs, ands, or buts - or questions about how or why they are using it.

 

 That would be very incorrect.  The law is very specific about what use is allowed:

 

(f) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Recreational would open you up to penalty under this part of the law for sure:

 

 

 

(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.

[Chauncy Gardner]

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.

 

 

 

 

Can someone provide an example of "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 am curious as to what conduct would be required to trip this section of the law.

 

 That would be very incorrect.  The law is very specific about what use is allowed:

 

 

Recreational would open you up to penalty under this part of the law for sure:

[trichcycler]

whut? I thought it was only illegal to grow the sativa strain, not the indica ? 

eh boy, back to the books ! lol