Jump to content

Bay City Medical Marijuana Compassion Club Operators Accept Plea Deals


MiMedical
 Share

Recommended Posts

BAY CITY, MI  Two local people alleged to have illegally sold medical marijuana from a Bay City compassion club have accepted plea offers.

Ernest R. Rahn, 57, on Thursday, Dec. 19, appeared in Bay County Circuit Court and pleaded guilty to single counts of manufacturing or delivering marijuana and maintaining a drug house. In exchange for his pleas, the prosecution agreed to dismiss four counts each of manufacturing or delivering 5 to 45 kilograms of marijuana and delivering or manufacturing marijuana.

One of Rahn’s two codefendants, Terry L. Horner, 59, in November accepted a similar plea deal. He pleaded guilty to single counts of manufacturing or delivering marijuana and maintaining a drug house and the prosecution agreed to dismiss two counts of manufacturing or delivering marijuana and five counts of manufacturing or delivering 5 to 45 grams of marijuana. Horner’s wife, Peggy M. Horner, 55, did not plead to anything, but prosecutors agreed to dismiss the three charges she faced — two counts of manufacturing or delivering 5 to 45 grams of marijuana and one count of manufacturing or delivering marijuana.

The trio began operating E.T. Education & Compassion Club, 316 S. Henry St., in 2010. On Aug. 31, 2011, the Bay Area Narcotics Enforcement Team, or BAYANET, raided the club, the Horners’ Essexville home and Rahn’s Frankenlust Township home. Officers reportedly found 965.5 grams of marijuana and 92 plans at the Horners’ house, 22 plants at Rahn’s house and 40 plants and assorted “medibles” — edible marijuana products — at the compassion club, court records show.

The Horners and Rahn were arraigned in December 2011.

The raid came on the heels of an August 2011 Court of Appeals ruling that “patient-to-patient sales” of medical marijuana is prohibited. However, licensed growers remain able to cultivate up to 12 plants for their own use, and up to 60 plants for five registered patients. The law does not prevent patients from compensating caregivers for time and resources spent cultivating their crop. It does not define the amount of compensation.

The Michigan Supreme Court in early 2013 upheld the appellate court’s ruling.

A separate trio of Bay City compassion club workers — brothers Johnnie V. and Corey R. Randall and Joshua J. Perry — remain charged with various related offenses in Bay County Circuit Court. Their next court dates are pending. The Randalls owned Beacon of Light Compassion Center, 100 N. Catherine St., and were likewise raided by BAYANET following the appellate court's ruling.

Bay County Circuit Judge Harry P. Gill is to sentence Terry Horner at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 27. Gill is to sentence Rahn at 8:30 a.m. on Monday, Feb. 3

 

 

 

Link:

http://www.mlive.com/news/bay-city/index.ssf/2013/12/bay_city_medical_marijuana_com.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grassmatch, i dare you to say that the act is clear where it says patients cannot transfer to other patients.

 

sec 3f and sec8a3 are the only two mentions of the word 'transfer'.

 

(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.

 

seems clear to me. transferring marijuana to treat a patient's condition is a-ok.

i need to go read mcqueen again. i'm lost again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dare taken. when I send in the application I am signing an agreement that specifically states I will only provide to the five patients named on my cards. that's a contract, legally binding. maybe I don't agree with it, but it is very clear to me that the ones who don't find the law clearly written, are caught up in the court system for their Act ignorance. wishing to sell to more than five is about the money, not the compassion my friend, you know this inside I think. when I can legally do so, it will be for the money also, and I wont be embarrassed to admit it !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grassmatch, i dare you to say that the act is clear where it says patients cannot transfer to other patients.

 

sec 3f and sec8a3 are the only two mentions of the word 'transfer'.

 

(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.

 

seems clear to me. transferring marijuana to treat a patient's condition is a-ok.

i need to go read mcqueen again. i'm lost again.

p2p is not legal, c.g to any pt is not legal, so it would only make sense that a despense is not legal if the owners sell mm to people who are not connected to them thru the registry!

 

That is how all of this b.s started and my c.g got himself in the financial situation he is in, because people cant see something in the law, the make up thier own law and open despenses and c.g's sell to any pt or c.g, that is how all of this schtuff happened, if we didnt have an s.c ruling sayin no p2p and if all of the despenses wouldnt have opened on every corner we wouldnt be in this situation, go read all you want about the law p2p is not legal!

 

Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dare taken. when I send in the application I am signing an agreement that specifically states I will only provide to the five patients named on my cards.

it doesnt actually say that on the caregiver attestation form.

 

 

I acknowledge at the time I am signing this Attestation I am not a caregiver for more than 5 qualifying patients.

"at the time i am signing"-limit

 

I will not possess more than 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana and 12 marihuana plants for this qualifying patient if the applicant/patient named below designates me to possess his/her marihuana plants on the application or change form submitted with this Attestation (see Section C of the application or change form).

 

i'm talking about p2p, not cg2pt.

i agree that caregivers can only provide to 5 patients. but you've said the form contains an agreement that isnt there. at least not in human words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grassmatch, i dare you to say that the act is clear where it says patients cannot transfer to other patients.

 

sec 3f and sec8a3 are the only two mentions of the word 'transfer'.

 

(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.

 

seems clear to me. transferring marijuana to treat a patient's condition is a-ok.

i need to go read mcqueen again. i'm lost again.

you are not alone every store that is still open has used that part of the Law to stay open 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grassmatch, i dare you to say that the act is clear where it says patients cannot transfer to other patients.

 

Ok, I'll answer that.  The MMMA states:

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(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.

 

Your junior high grammar teacher would tell you that "conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition" means that if you are a patient and you do something/anything with marijuana, that in order to have protection under Section 4, then said conduct with MJ must be for the purpose of alleviating YOUR condition - not someone else's condition.  This is clear.

 

This is why p2p transfers are not protected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does say that but my ? is where do the out of State Patients  get there Cannabis from

 

They bring it with them...or their CG brings it.  Both actions are OK under our law.  But let's be clear...the law isn't written to guarantee that a visiting patient can get meds...only that a visiting patient or CG is OK to possess them here.

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

said conduct with MJ must be for the purpose of alleviating YOUR condition - not someone else's condition.  This is clear.

 

This is why p2p transfers are not protected. 

 

thats my point about it not being clear.

doesnt this ruling make 'transfer' nugatory for patients? who can a patient transfer to? no one.

 

 

terry and barry are both mmma patients.

terry transfers 1oz to barry.

 

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.

 

the marijuana was for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition.

 

which patient is 'the patient" ? 

how is that clear?

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

also a visiting patients card 'shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.'

 

thats not merely posessing, but also "(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."

 

registered visiting patients are allowed to cultivate. without registering with LARA. (this is not legal advice!)

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats my point about it not being clear.

doesnt this ruling make 'transfer' nugatory for patients? who can a patient transfer to? no one.

 

 

terry and barry are both mmma patients.

terry transfers 1oz to barry.

 

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.

 

the marijuana was for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition.

 

which patient is 'the patient" ? 

how is that clear?

 

What do you mean, "which patient is 'the patient.""   "The patient" is the guy standing in front of the judge.  and "the patient" can transfer MMJ to his CG...he can transfer meds for safekeeping, seeds to grow and clones to grow too..so here are three examples of how a patient can TRANSFER for the purpose of alleviating HIS condition in accordance with the act.  But it seems that you have some vision where ANY transfer from a patient is OK....You need to understand that the transfer must be "in accordance with the act"   And. accordingly, the transfer must be for the purpose of alleviating THE patient's condition.

 

It is clear.  "The patient" is the person we are talking about.  So consider that you are "the patient" standing in front of a judge at an arraignment because you gave a bag to some other patient.  "The patient" had some conduct with MMJ  (In this example, he gave it away for free to another patient).  So tell me how "the patient" alleviated his condition by generously giving MMJ away for free to another patient?  It simply doesn't work.

 

It kinda sounds like you want "the patient" to be substituted for "a patient."  HUGE difference...again, it comes back to middle school grammar. 

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the MMMA substitutes 'the patient' and 'a patient' (and 'a registered qualifying patient') many many times in the act.

 

its this interchangability that causes the confusion.

 

It is very clear that there isn't any interchangeability between "a patient" and "the patient."   The two phrases mean two very different things.  And if you read the act with a solid 8th grade command of grammar, then it all makes sense and is specific, concise, and clear. 

 

But if you read the act with the hope that it allows unlimited transfers, then maybe you get a little foggy on it and your only real hope is for new legislation to toss you a safety net.  You do realize that the courts have already set case law to define this, right?  So all of this discussion is just an exercise in you venting that things didn't go the way you hoped, right?  Because the courts already employed middle-school grammar and told us what most of us  already knew...that p2p transfers are not protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the MMMA substitutes 'the patient' and 'a patient' (and 'a registered qualifying patient') many many times in the act.

 

its this interchangability that causes the confusion.

 

It is worth emphasizing that there is a difference between "a patient" and "the patient" and if you think that the two descriptions are interchangeable then therein lies your roadblock to understanding what protections are provided under this new law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am well aware of the supreme court ruling on p2p is not protected under sec4, yes.

i am merely articulating the complaints, concerns and confusions people have with the ruling and with the act.

 

i appreciate you trying to help me wrap my head around it.

 

my problem is that the same supreme court has said you cannot add or make negatory any part of the act in reading it.

so if p2p is not covered by section 4, how can a patient transfer marijuana?

this ruling has made patient transfers negatory.

 

the supreme court is at odds with itself, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i am well aware of the supreme court ruling on p2p is not protected under sec4, yes.

i am merely articulating the complaints, concerns and confusions people have with the ruling and with the act.

 

i appreciate you trying to help me wrap my head around it.

 

my problem is that the same supreme court has said you cannot add or make negatory any part of the act in reading it.

so if p2p is not covered by section 4, how can a patient transfer marijuana?

this ruling has made patient transfers negatory.

 

the supreme court is at odds with itself, not me.

 

 

The SC didn't make patient transfers nugatory, and it isn't at odds with itself..simply stated, the SC ruled on the law we handed to them.  The ruling simply isolated transfers into a narrow situation that many of us saw from Day 1.  So yes, a patient has protection to "transfer" as long as such "transfer" is for the purpose of alleviating THAT patient's qualifying condition.  So said patient can transfer 2.5 oz of usable meds to his CG for safe-keeping...or he can transfer seeds..or he can transfer clones to be cultivated for his use.....but the catch is that this transfer must be for the purpose of alleviating HIS condition...So a patient can transfer (dry meds, seeds, clones) if said transfer is intended to deal with HIS condition.  But if he transfers meds/seeds/clones with the the expectation that said transfer will help some other patient...well, then he's outta luck as it relates to Sec 4 protection.

 

It seems that you want to take the term "transfer" out of the medical use definition and extend it universally....as if any transfer by a patient is OK...but the law is clear that a patient's transfer must be for the purposes of THAT patient's medical benefit.  There is no protection for patient A to transfer to patient B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that you want to take the term "transfer" out of the medical use definition and extend it universally....as if any transfer by a patient is OK...but the law is clear that a patient's transfer must be for the purposes of THAT patient's medical benefit.  There is no protection for patient A to transfer to patient B

 

the first 'transfer' is in the medical use definition sec3f and is for 'a patient's condition'.

 

well what the hell is delivery then ?

 

how does transferring marijuana to a caregiver allieviate your medical condition?

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the first 'transfer' is in the medical use definition sec3f and is for 'a patient's condition'.

 

well what the hell is delivery then ?

 

how does transferring marijuana to a caregiver allieviate your medical condition?

 

We are talking about the purpose of a transfer.  If I as a patient give my CG meds to keep for me, then the purpose of that transfer is my eventual use of the meds to alleviate my condition.

 

So while we are on this specific topic, if you are a patient and give meds to another patient, how can you say that the purpose of that transfer was to alleviate YOUR condition? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for the same reason you think you can transfer meds to your caregiver.

 

"the purpose of that transfer is my eventual use of future meds to alleviate my condition."

 

by transferring to another patient, i'm establishing a relationship wherein we can share different strains with each other, and maybe find a strain that works best for me. this cannot happen if i merely purchase meds from a cg , since i do not have unlimited funds. but if patients are allowed to trade meds, we can exchange meds that do not work for meds that work better for our individual qualifying conditions.

 

let me ask a different question, as it seems we are at an impasse.

do you think the original drafters expected p2p to not be allowed?

and

do you think the voters wanted patients to be criminals for transferring medicine between other patients?

or

do you think the voters intended for patients to sign up with 100 different caregivers just to try each of the 5-10 strains they might each have to find the right one?

 

 

i'm not part of any dispensary, i've never done a transfer with anyone. i'm not trying to change the act.

the michigan supreme court says they have to use common definitions of words in the act which are not defined, and then the same court uses the twisted drug-law definition for the word posess? do you think thats confusing?

Edited by t-pain
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...