Gregs Wants To Argue Section 8

[mibrains]

i didnt mean to offend you greg.

 

i was irritated to no end this morning when i got up and read your brazen statement to a new patient.

 

i couldn't believe you of all people  having been around these boards for so long would pass out such ignorant advice to a newb.

 

those of us deep in the game can understand the implications of your statements and can decide a path but many many people...in fact most i talk to in the real world have no clue about the actual rules and how to stay safe.

many dont even know theres a new transportation rule.

i try my hardest to explain how to be safe and protect yourself from the moment an interaction occurs.

 

you profess a way to possibly protect yourself if it sticks.

 

sorry  i know its not as simple as a black and white comparison and i dont mean to make it so simplified however our depth of knowledge about this subject means we have a higher responsibility when it comes to the things we say.

 

some people actually listen.

 

just please be more cautious on how you  phrase things and when in doubt error on the side of absolute caution.

[GregS]

Apology accepted.

[bobandtorey]

Sec 8 is to big to be allowed in side a court room why do you think the King case is still going on ?

[GregS]

Sec 8 is to big to be allowed in side a court room why do you think the King case is still going on ?

Obviously because the Shiawassee County court is corrupt.

[+Malamute]

How many section 8 court cases have been won by an unregistered caregiver serving ten+ patients Greg?

[GregS]

How many section 8 court cases have been won by an unregistered caregiver serving ten+ patients Greg?

Dunno. Do you?

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

Dunno. Do you?  zero

[GregS]

 

Dunno. Do you?  zero

You might as well ask how many have been lost. The question is a red herring.

[bobandtorey]

Obviously because the Shiawassee County court is corrupt.

Can you prove it ?

[+Malamute]

The question shows the folly.

[GregS]

Can you prove it ?

Are you arguing that it is not? The SC ruled in May of 2012 that the case be remanded back to that court with instruction to hold a sec. 8 evidentiary hearing. Why would a court drag its feet 18 months and more after having been given marching orders from the highest court in the state? It certainly can't be that the court is diligent in its responsibility.

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

Sec. 8 evidentiary hearing and how did that go ?

if it had gone good we would of heard about it i do know about the judge writing an opinion on the case have you seen it?

[GregS]

Sec. 8 evidentiary hearing and how did that go ?

if it had gone good we would of heard about it i do know about the judge writing an opinion on the case have you seen it?

IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET. KP is still waiting. Get it? If it has, please help me out a little.

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

The question shows the folly.

...of your fallacy.

[Dr. Bob]

lol,  told ya so.  Section 8, unlimited patients/caregivers nonsense again.  Always there.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited November 12, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[GregS]

lol,  told ya so.  Section 8, unlimited patients/caregivers nonsense again.  Always there.

 

Dr. Bob

Are you suggesting there are limits in sec. 8. Where are they please?

[Dr. Bob]

They are whatever you can convince the courts of.  Feel free to test it yourself.  To give the impression that there are no limits is foolish and irresponsible as you have been repeatedly told.  Just more of your fluff putting patients at risk.  I am amazed they are letting you go on.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

They are whatever you can convince the courts of.  Feel free to test it yourself.  To give the impression that there are no limits is foolish and irresponsible as you have been repeatedly told.  Just more of your fluff putting patients at risk.  I am amazed they are letting you go on.

 

Dr. Bob

All I am asking is that you give citations to validate your claims. That is not too much to ask in any conversation.

 

Help me Obi Wan. I can't find them.

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

There will be a bookburning party at mod headquarters tonight.

 

RSVP please.

[GregS]

It's right here, read and absorb:

 

The following is the official ballot wording:

PROPOSAL 08-1

A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO PERMIT THE USE AND CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR SPECIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS

The proposed law would:

• Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.

• Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.

• Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.

• Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

Should this proposal be adopted?

Yes

No

Sorry zap. I see nothing to indicate that there are the limits you allude to in that text or in the text of the law as passed and amended.

Edited November 12, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Apparently there are things denser than depleted uranium....

[imiubu]

I think it's pretty plain to see

 

it does say registered and unregistered patients and caregivers

[imiubu]

bob grow up.

[GregS]

bob grow up.

Fat chance. He is disregarding advice to seek mental health treatment.

[Dr. Bob]

yes, but we have to remember there is a 'reasonableness' test to pass, and even then it isn't a sure thing.  Very case by case and very important to be close to the legal limits of section 4.  Any attempt to play dispensary and service even 6-10 patients, much less dozens, is a major uphill battle.  Patients get a little more leeway I would think.  But despite the language of the ballot, there are limits to that as well- you need to see the doc prior to the incident where you were caught with cannabis for example.  I think making the case it applies to caregivers as well would be very difficult and require special circumstances (giving some to your own grandmother who has stage 4 cancer for example).  

 

Trying to mask a dispensary as an 'unregistered caregiver' is folly. Not only that, it would shed a very poor light on the program in general and hurt folks far removed from the transactions.  That is why I and the vast majority of other thinking people on this board have shunned the concept.

 

Dr. Bob