Jump to content

Nearly 200 Marijuana Plants Seized In Battle Creek Raid


Recommended Posts

BATTLE CREEK, MI -- Police seized nearly 200 marijuana plants during a raid in Battle Creek Friday.

 

The Calhoun County Sheriff's Office obtained a search warrant for a home in the 3400 block of Watkins Road after a lengthy investigation into drug activity, according to a

 

news release. On Friday, the Calhoun County Special Response Team executed the search warrant, finding a large indoor marijuana growing operation.

 

Officers seized 199 plants and arrested a 33-year-old man on charges of manufacturing marijuana and possession with intent to deliver marijuana.

 

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/06/nearly_200_marijuana_plants_se.html#incart_river_default

 

lets see if he comes here to tell us his side or the story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ia just a hypothetical, but if one had a full bill at 72 it would be ideal to take double for new strikes, taking the first 72 that take root- the most vigorous & potentially robust. The other 72 laggards get round filed, never intended to be used. That's 144 if at the wrong moment, but with the full intention of staying at 72.

 

If one keeps moms, or is trying to sift through seeds for something unique, or has any overlap w the previous crop?

 

Just trying to suggest that from the perspective of grower trying to do a good thing yet working around a law that doesn't give proper consideration to the logistics of maintaining a continuous crop cycle, well, they can hypothetically carry a seemingly high count if taking a polaroid at the wrong moment. And not be a cartel thug trying to rake others over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ia just a hypothetical, but if one had a full bill at 72 it would be ideal to take double for new strikes, taking the first 72 that take root- the most vigorous & potentially robust. The other 72 laggards get round filed, never intended to be used. That's 144 if at the wrong moment, but with the full intention of staying at 72.

If one keeps moms, or is trying to sift through seeds for something unique, or has any overlap w the previous crop?

Just trying to suggest that from the perspective of grower trying to do a good thing yet working around a law that doesn't give proper consideration to the logistics of maintaining a continuous crop cycle, well, they can hypothetically carry a seemingly high count if taking a polaroid at the wrong moment. And not be a cartel thug trying to rake others over.

How many caregivers need 72 plants to take care of their own needs plus five patients?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive yet to grow more than 30 at any given time including clones mothers etc. and I'm doing just dandy with 5 cards + mine.

When I first read the ballot initiative I though "wow 72 plants. That leaves lots of room for mistakes, moms, trying new seeds, breeding etc. etc.".

 

Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people think that 12/plants per patient means that this means 12 super-healthy, tried and true, plants and that there should be some added allowance for experiments and failures. I'm not sure why some folks are not happy with 12 plants per patient. But there will always be people who believe that if the law allows 72 plants then they deserve 144 plants in order to make sure they can get 72 good ones. And if the law allowed 144 plants, there would be people saying they should be able to have 288 and choose the best half.

 

I'm with ya on your numbers. I'm glad I have the option to grow 72 plants if needed so that I can maintain 20-30 to keep a reasonable supply running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the number of plants it takes to maintain 6 patients' supply is debatable. There are too many variables to consider for one to say "who needs that many" or one to say "that's not enough".

An obvious factor is plant size, determined by available space, available resources, and available labor. Another is the amount a patient needs to alleviate their symptoms. I myself stay under a few plant all the time, but only because I know three counts can turn up two different numbers sometimes, or a hidden clone in the mix, so I create a buffer for my plant count. 72 plants is what the state says we can grow to supply our patients and one more. That's enough information for me and other program compliant growers to know.   I know what  plant is, and how to make it work for my patients. 72 is incidentally just enough for me accomplish my ends. If I could harvest the whole lot at the same time, things may be different, but the only way to keep fresh rotating stock in supply is with a perpetual harvest/plant cycle, which eats up plant counts quickly. its not like theres a whole room of budding plants waiting to be harvested. tall, short, trying to root, in a cup, some in flower, some not.

 

I've known people to grow 72 while killing 25, and yet another who grows one large plant a year and supplies himself and one other patient for the whole year. He has a perfect scrog room to do so. If the plant failed in the middle, he would start over with no cares is all. If I did the same, and the plant failed, 5 patients and myself would be out of meds for months or longer, if I decided to restart at all.

 

don't go over 72 plants. that's the only point to be made. My ego tells me I could do it with half of that, but I'd rather have another 20 different strains available, even if just small amounts of each. there seems to be no limit of how many strains I can grow at one time, except 72, the only guideline we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many caregivers need 72 plants to take care of their own needs plus five patients?

I know qualifying, registered patients (in other legal medical states) that have legal doctors recommendations to grow & use 99 plants.

 

Who is to say only 12 is medically necessary? You, me, a politician, a cop? Maybe that's best left between a patient & licensed doctor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know qualifying, registered patients (in other legal medical states) that have legal doctors recommendations to grow & use 99 plants.

 

Who is to say only 12 is medically necessary? You, me, a politician, a cop? Maybe that's best left between a patient & licensed doctor.

 

The law I voted for says "12."  Maybe it is better left between a patient and Dr., but we have what we voted for. 

 

So we can either accept the law as it is, or we can work to change it.  But breaking the law and then saying that the law wasn't good enough is just a bad decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law I voted for says "12." Maybe it is better left between a patient and Dr., but we have what we voted for.

 

So we can either accept the law as it is, or we can work to change it. But breaking the law and then saying that the law wasn't good enough is just a bad decision.

There certainly is an argument for civil disobedience to unjust laws.

 

There is also the idea of stretching the boundaries. We have within our law 'medically necessary', however, this has yet to be defined. To the best of my knowledge, especially when giving consideration to alternative methods of ingestion, or relative dosage for a specific person.

 

Just because 'it's the law', isn't a compelling argument to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article doesn't give any information really.  Who wants to bet over half of these were clones or unrooted?

 

Edit:

 

also, the sheriffs are not disclosing the arrestees name..  They are probablly trying to convince him to roll on others.

Edited by garyfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There certainly is an argument for civil disobedience to unjust laws.

 

There is also the idea of stretching the boundaries. We have within our law 'medically necessary', however, this has yet to be defined. To the best of my knowledge, especially when giving consideration to alternative methods of ingestion, or relative dosage for a specific person.

 

Just because 'it's the law', isn't a compelling argument to me.

 

How does civil disobedience help us here?  Do you really think that a guy who grows 100 plants with no defensible medical need to do so and gets popped will encourage the general public opinion to sway in our favor?

 

Before we brand this, or any other incident, as civil disobedience to an unjust law, we have to know the facts.  I think that the COA opinion in the Carruthers case was unjust, and I gave a good chunk of money to the defense fund.  As soon as I hear of a Section 8 case of a patient or CG growing lots of extra plants due to proven medical need, I will also give to that defense. 

 

If a patient needs 99 plans to treat his condition and is denied a Section 8 defense or presents a Section 8 defense and is still convicted, then I would agree that he is the victim of an unjust law - or an unjust interpretation of the law.

 

But when we see people growing well over their allotted plants so they can make a few bucks....are they victims of an unjust law?  Or are they a profiteer who knew the risks and rolled the dice anyway?  I have a hard time sympathizing with this sort of person.

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's assume that half (about 100) were unrooted.  That still leaves about 100 actual plants.  If a grower is competent enough to grow 100 plants, what does he need 100 cuttings for?

 

So we either have a CG growing lots of extra plants for some seriously sick patients, or we have a guy who played high stakes and lost.  I don't think anyone should be penalized for growing any amount of MJ, but anyone sophisticated enough to run such a large-scale grow is a big enough boy to understand the risks.

 

Who wants to bet over half of these were clones or unrooted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a good example of my points above.  If this guy did what he is accused of, do we in the medical community really want to rally around him?  Would that help our cause?  Note that he is apparently a patient and a CG.  Is this civil disobedience or greed?  Innocent until proven guilty, but it begs the question -> Do we blindly support anyone and everyone accused/convicted of a marijuana offense?

 

MUNDY TOWNSHIP, MI -- A Mundy Township business owner is facing roughly two dozen federal charges after officials claim he was involved in a conspiracy to obtain fraudulent loans to buy high-end vehicles for resale and running a large illegal marijuana growing operation.

 

Harry Brink, owner of US Speedo, was arraigned May 12 on 19 counts of bank fraud and four counts of wire fraud after he and six others were indicted in Flint U.S. District Court.

Brink declined to comment on the allegations, forwarding questions to his attorney Michael Manley who could not be reached for comment.

 

Brink was allegedly the president of Millennium Auto Group, which is accused of selling the ill-gotten vehicles out of its facility at 6050 Birch Drive in Mundy Township. US Speedo, which manufactures and distributed speedometer parts, is also located at the Birch Drive facility.

 

Prosecutors allege the other suspects would obtain money by getting banks to finance the purchase of high-end automobiles -- including Corvettes, Range Rovers and BMWs -- by falsifying loan applications from straw buyers.

 

The other suspects would then allegedly sell the vehicles to Millennium Auto Group after filing forged lien releases and failing to pay off the straw buyers' loans, according to court records.

Federal prosecutors allege Brink was aware the vehicles were purchased fraudulently and even directed straw buyers to purchase certain vehicles.

 

Court records show Brink was released May 12 on $50,000 unsecured bond, but he was soon back in court after federal prosecutors claim he violated the terms of his bond by operating an illegal marijuana growing operation out of a commercial building near the US Speedo facility.

 

An affidavit filed Wednesday, May 28, in Flint U.S. District Court by the Flint Area Narcotics Group said Mundy Township police received tips about a possible marijuana growing operation at 6079 Birch Drive.  State records show the facility is owned by Brink Ventures, which lists Harry Brink as its agent.

 

FANG agents drove through the facility's parking lot May 14 and smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana coming from the south side of the building, according to the affidavit.

The affidavit claims that the agents observed three large commercial air conditioners running on the building's roof, despite the outside air temperature being only 50 degrees. The affidavit claims the air conditioner usage is consistent with a marijuana growing operation due to the amount of heat grow lights put out.

 

FANG executed a federal search warrant at the facility May 20. The affidavit claims agents discovered a large marijuana growing operation that contained more than 330 marijuana plants.

The affidavit claims that Brink and two others had medical marijuana "caretaker" cards. Michigan law allows designated medical marijuana caregivers to grow up to 12 marijuana plants for up to five patients each.

 

Authorities say in the affidavit that the number of plants found in the facility exceeded what is allowed under the state's medical marijuana law and that the facility appeared to be a for-profit marijuana growing operation.

 

FANG claims that it also recovered documents related to the marijuana operation in Brink's office at US Speedo.

 

Court records show federal authorities sought to revoke Brink's bond in the fraud case because the marijuana operation violated the terms of his release.

 

"He was told by his pretrial services officer that marijuana use was not allowed while on bond," federal prosecutors wrote in a May 22 motion to revoke Brink's bond. "(Brink) could very easily assume if smoking a joint of marijuana was prohibited, he probably should not grow 332 marijuana plants."

 

Brink's bail was modified Wednesday, May 28, and he was released. The bail revocation hearing is scheduled to continue June 5.

 

A preliminary exam is scheduled for June 5 in the marijuana case.

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/05/mundy_township_business_owner.html

Edited by Highlander
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does civil disobedience help us here? Do you really think that a guy who grows 100 plants with no defensible medical need to do so and gets popped will encourage the general public opinion to sway in our favor?

 

Before we brand this, or any other incident, as civil disobedience to an unjust law, we have to know the facts. I think that the COA opinion in the Carruthers case was unjust, and I gave a good chunk of money to the defense fund. As soon as I hear of a Section 8 case of a patient or CG growing lots of extra plants due to proven medical need, I will also give to that defense.

 

If a patient needs 99 plans to treat his condition and is denied a Section 8 defense or presents a Section 8 defense and is still convicted, then I would agree that he is the victim of an unjust law - or an unjust interpretation of the law.

 

But when we see people growing well over their allotted plants so they can make a few bucks....are they victims of an unjust law? Or are they a profiteer who knew the risks and rolled the dice anyway? I have a hard time sympathizing with this sort of person.

I don't nec disagree, except to suggest that my personal belief system doesn't support jailing people for mj. I simply do not feel we use our penal system in a manner that is conducive or beneficial to a healthy society. I feel the way we use our system is very destructive, with very little actual benefits. It is a perversion of "justice" in many cases, where the listed harms of any given crime lack credible reasoning when considering cause & effect, which in turn leaves our punishment ill conceived to bring about changes in behaviors or other societal benefits. In my world view, limiting this to mj, the laws are far more destructive than beneficial. They are ill conceived, counter productive, and down right detrimental. I feel it is a grave injustice to jail people for mj. Especially on a technicality, which really ought to be treated as an infraction vs a felony conviction.

 

If everyone of us dug in deep, drew a line, and said 'no more, no further than', then the net effect would be a law that they can not conceivably enforce, which in practice nullifies the law. It may not be ideal, it would get ugly for the first on the line, and it may not even be popular enough to work, but if we all stuck together on the injustice of law & simply went about our behaviors w/o causing any real harm to other people, or their property, then we could overwhelm the system & shut it down. Throw in a sympathetic jury pool that is well enough informed to disregard judges orders to exlcude consideration to a reasonable argument of personal defense, and the law becomes unenforceable & defunct.

 

 

Now, with regards to personal risk assessment with consideration to profit, yes I wholeheartedly agree. An informed person that makes an adult decision should also be responsiblr enough to accept the potential negative outcome. But that still doesn't make that outcome just, as in the case of mj.

 

Just an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 In my world view, limiting this to mj, the laws are far more destructive than beneficial. They are ill conceived, counter productive, and down right detrimental. I feel it is a grave injustice to jail people for mj. Especially on a technicality, which really ought to be treated as an infraction vs a felony conviction.

 

 

 

 

I don't know what you mean about a technicality.  Is getting busted for growing 200-300 plants and selling outside one's five-patient list a technicality?  I think not.  Is busting a patient who has 12 flowering plants and a few unrooted ones in the cloner, a technicality?  I'd go along with that.  Over the past few years, we have seen a lot of people claim that they got busted on a "technicality" so it is important to understand exactly what one means by that. 

 

And while I agree that our drug laws are sorely in need of reform, I'm not about to throw support to just anyone accused of a MJ crime.  What about a guy driving a ton of MJ from Mexico to Detroit with the profits headed back to Mexico to fuel the cartels and rampant/senseless murder that has paralyzed that country in many respects? 

 

In Michigan we have drawn a pretty clear line - if you use/grow MJ for medical purposes and can document your quantities with medical need to yourself and five patients, then according to the law, you have a defense.  But as soon as we open the door and suggest that any involvement with MJ should be OK, we're back to the Mexico problem.  We need to be responsible neighbors as we progress with drugs laws and realize that what we do in this country has a direct impact on the lives (or loss of life) for thousands just across the border.

 

As we see recreational legalization spread in the US, do we have any moral obligation to understand and respond to the effects to our neighbors?  If MJ became completely legal in the USA and as soon as a truckload from Mexico makes it across the border and they are in the clear, then what?  Do we have any social/moral responsibility to address the problem that funneling the money back to Mexico causes?  You can sit back and say "well, if Mexico legalizes it too, then there wouldn't be a problem."  But what if Mexico doesn't?  Will we feel good that the weed we are buying from Mexico strengthens the hard-core criminals in Mexico and we all just decide that it is Mexico's fault as the cartels continue to kill 10,000+ Mexicans every year?  Or do we wash our hands at the responsibility and decide that even though a Detroit dispensary just paid a Mexican cartel enough that they can buy a few more AK-47s and recruit a few more thugs, we in the USA have clean hands?

 

The MJ issue goes way beyond a "technicality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt. Perhaps I need to clarify my position.

 

I draw the line at causing tangible harms to another person and/or their property. The cartel issue is easy; they kill people while pusuing a profit motive. Clear cut, should be illegal w penalties that are comensurate. (On a personal note: I support the death penalty, but w restriction & protections.) Cartels aren't good, and should't be included in my line of thought, never intended that.

 

To further define- any MI citizen that is a registered cg & uses commercial grade pesticides & fungicides in an unsafe manner that leaves active chemical residue that may cause cellular mutations (cancer), either knowingly or otherwise, should be considered illegal in that harm is caused to another person.

 

However, growing mj responsibly, and using mj equally so, just in those actions alone, should never result in incarceration. I don't care if they have a thousand plants in the shed. This is tempered w responsible use of resources & not polluting the environment, such as our ground water supplies.

 

Technicality in that the do have a properly diagnosed qualifying condition, proper registry, & isn't causing any real harm to another person and/or property. If that is true, then issue a fix-it ticket, perhaps w escalating fines for further violations to the point it becomes cost ineffective to continue on.

 

However, even if one doesn't havr a card, or isn't porperly diagnosed, or is still using and/or growing, and is even selling it for profit- but isn't causing any real harm & is doing it responsibly- I still don't feel they should ever have the threat of jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

However, even if one doesn't havr a card, or isn't porperly diagnosed, or is still using and/or growing, and is even selling it for profit- but isn't causing any real harm & is doing it responsibly- I still don't feel they should ever have the threat of jail.

 

 

This folks!!!  It's called FREEDOM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt. Perhaps I need to clarify my position.

 

I draw the line at causing tangible harms to another person and/or their property. The cartel issue is easy; they kill people while pusuing a profit motive. Clear cut, should be illegal w penalties that are comensurate. (On a personal note: I support the death penalty, but w restriction & protections.) Cartels aren't good, and should't be included in my line of thought, never intended that.

 

To further define- any MI citizen that is a registered cg & uses commercial grade pesticides & fungicides in an unsafe manner that leaves active chemical residue that may cause cellular mutations (cancer), either knowingly or otherwise, should be considered illegal in that harm is caused to another person.

 

However, growing mj responsibly, and using mj equally so, just in those actions alone, should never result in incarceration. I don't care if they have a thousand plants in the shed. This is tempered w responsible use of resources & not polluting the environment, such as our ground water supplies.

 

Technicality in that the do have a properly diagnosed qualifying condition, proper registry, & isn't causing any real harm to another person and/or property. If that is true, then issue a fix-it ticket, perhaps w escalating fines for further violations to the point it becomes cost ineffective to continue on.

 

However, even if one doesn't havr a card, or isn't porperly diagnosed, or is still using and/or growing, and is even selling it for profit- but isn't causing any real harm & is doing it responsibly- I still don't feel they should ever have the threat of jail.

Well stated. The "do no harm" standard should be our baseline for our own domestic drug laws.

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...