Legal Status Of Dispensaries In Michigan

[Highlander]

Newspapers are written to a fifth-grade reading level, to inform the populace. At what educational/literacy level must one function in order to understand law?

 

That is a good topic for discussion, since public initiatives are supposed to be evaluated based on the intent of the voter.  So what grade-level should the courts apply to this matter when ruling, considering it is a ballot initiative and should be based on voter intent?  Do we want our voters to be thought of as averaging a 5th-grade level of reading and comprehension?  Or do we give them more credit (which would translate to tighter rulings in this particular discussion it seems?)

 

Case in point - the hinge on the p2p transfer matter:

 

(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.

 

Someone with a solid understanding of grammar will quickly understand that "not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition" means just as SC Justice Roberts put it - that the act of selling/giving marijuana must alleviate the giver's condition. 

 

A situation arises where there is a huge difference between these two sentences:

 

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 presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating A qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

I've read that the average automotive manual is written to a 10th-grade level but  there have been efforts to simplify manuals even more.  Even as someone whose primary income   is derived from writing,I still find myself reading medicine bottles, etc. that say "do not induce vomiting." and I wonder if I know for sure, does that mean that if my kids drinks the stuff I should encourage vomiting?  Or does "do not induce vomiting" mean "try not to let the kid vomit."

 

So I guess my question is, where is the cut-off?    We all suffer from some ignorance threshold - so where should that threshold be with regard to a public initiative?

[GregS]

That is a good topic for discussion, since public initiatives are supposed to be evaluated based on the intent of the voter.  So what grade-level should the courts apply to this matter when ruling, considering it is a ballot initiative and should be based on voter intent?  Do we want our voters to be thought of as averaging a 5th-grade level of reading and comprehension?  Or do we give them more credit (which would translate to tighter rulings in this particular discussion it seems?)

 

Case in point - the hinge on the p2p transfer matter:

 

(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.

 

Someone with a solid understanding of grammar will quickly understand that "not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition" means just as SC Justice Roberts put it - that the act of selling/giving marijuana must alleviate the giver's condition. 

 

A situation arises where there is a huge difference between these two sentences:

 

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 presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating A qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

I've read that the average automotive manual is written to a 10th-grade level but  there have been efforts to simplify manuals even more.  Even as someone whose primary income   is derived from writing,I still find myself reading medicine bottles, etc. that say "do not induce vomiting." and I wonder if I know for sure, does that mean that if my kids drinks the stuff I should encourage vomiting?  Or does "do not induce vomiting" mean "try not to let the kid vomit."

 

So I guess my question is, where is the cut-off?    We all suffer from some ignorance threshold - so where should that threshold be with regard to a public initiative?

So why not private agreements, signed and notarized, that attest to the partys' compliance with all of that? The wiki we are working on will speak to that.

 

Speaking of the wiki, I need some of my work edited and better formatted.

[GregS]

How do you make money writing HL? I would like to try it.

[trichcycler]

the courts definition of possess is crazy. twisting the english language that far is absurd.

 

and just where is the definition of possess  ? is it in blacks law dictionary ? michigan bench book ?

consructive possession? crazyness.

good points.

[Chauncy Gardner]

Actually, it was pretty clear even before we voted on it.  12 plants and 2.5 oz per patient....5 patients per caregiver.  No protection for caregivers selling to the 6th patient.  It really isn't confusing and never was. 

Well, it is a leetle beet confusing in this one aspect:  a patient can buy marijuana from any source, but only his registered care giver can legally sell it to him. This creates a situation in which a patient effectively has one source from which to buy marijuana and he has no control over the quality or price of that marijuana.

 

Alternatively, the patient can grow their own marijuana, but the only place they can legally obtain plants is from their registered caregiver who has exclusive rights to possess the plants. Both the care giver and the patient can not possess live plants simultaneously. (This is assuming the caregiver has only the one patient)  So the patient is unable to obtain plants with which to start his own garden. Doesn't this conundrum effectively nullify the whole concept of a patient growing his own? How is a patient supposed to legally obtain plants? Without a source of plants, how can a patient grow their own? So the law was designed to allow for a patient to grow their own, but they conveniently forgot to include a way for a patient to obtain plants? Doesn't this effectively nullify that part of the law that allows for a patient to posses plants?

Edited July 8, 2014 by Chauncy Gardner

[cheapshades]

Speaking of the wiki, I need some of my work edited and better formatted.

 

noted

Edited July 8, 2014 by cheapshades

[Highlander]

Well, it is a leetle beet confusing in this one aspect:  a patient can buy marijuana from any source but only his registered care giver can legally sell it to him. This creates a situation in which a patient effectively has one source from which to buy marijuana and he has no control over the quality or price of that marijuana.

 

Alternatively, the patient can grow their own marijuana, but the only place they can legally obtain plants is from their registered caregiver who has exclusive rights to possess the plants. Both the care giver and the patient can not possess live plants simultaneously. (This is assuming the caregiver has only the one patient)  So the patient is unable to obtain plants with which to start his own garden. Doesn't this conundrum effectively nullify the whole concept of a patient growing his own?

The conundrum revolves around the idea that "thou shalt grow 12 plants per patient". People seem to wield the yield of 12 plants as a reason why the law should allow transfers of excess. But then they don't look at the other side of the coin. Just about any competent grower should be able to supply his own needs with less than 12 plants. So let's be clear with a simple example. As a CG I can supply myself with 12 plants and do so in a perpetual harvest. I find a patient who wants to grow his own and possess plants. I supply him with 12 cuttings. I have 12 plants and he has 12 cuttings, which maybe could even be called plants but no worriers because there are only 12.

 

Too often, we see people finding a way that the law doesn't work and then conclude that it should work that way and then they take action as if it does.

 

Point is, there is at least one easy way for a CG to assist a patient with growing her own

[grateful411]

example. As a CG I can supply myself with 12 plants and do so in a perpetual harvest. I find a patient who wants to grow his own and possess plants. I supply him with 12 cuttings. I have 12 plants and he has 12 cuttings, which maybe could even be called plants but no worriers because there are only 12.

 

What? All this is assuming that a new patient can find a caregiver that just doesn't want your plants.

[beourbud]

example. As a CG I can supply myself with 12 plants and do so in a perpetual harvest. I find a patient who wants to grow his own and possess plants. I supply him with 12 cuttings. I have 12 plants and he has 12 cuttings, which maybe could even be called plants but no worriers because there are only 12.

 

What? All this is assuming that a new patient can find a caregiver that just doesn't want your plants.

Are you a patient as well?  If not,  you are only a CG thru your PT.  If he wants to Join the Fun and Grow His Own,  he will then want his plant count back...no?

 

Fortunately in this State the Patient is #1,  Not a disp or the CG

 

We Actually encourage patients to Grow Their Own if at all possible.  , It can actually enhance a patients quality of life merely participating in the garden.

Edited July 8, 2014 by beourbud

[bobandtorey]

[phaquetoo]

Correct me if wrong on this point, but wasn't aware it is 'illegal', in that there isn't a specific law saying as much.

 

The sc ruling struck down mma protections for that one particular model of operating, but not all disoensariep of any sort.

 

Granted the wiggle room is less w the changes in the mma, but even it doesn't say 'no dispensaries at all'.

 

Am I wrong in my understanding? (asking sincerely)

what happened is people who found it not in the law decided it was legal, instead of the right way of thinking that it is NOT legal if it is not in the law, we had despense all over the state, the s.c ruled them ilegal, which they never were legal, they just read the true meaning of the law in its plain language, people are always trying to say if it doesnt say it is ilegal than it is legal, if people though the other way there would be a whole lot less changing laws at the bench instead of the legislature!

 

If it isnt in the law it is not legal!

 

Peace

[Chauncy Gardner]

 

 

Is this a picture of people lined up in Washington State to buy marijuana? It looks like a cross section of society to me.

[bobandtorey]

Is this a picture of people lined up in Washington State to buy marijuana? It looks like a cross section of society to me.

 

 

Thanks 

 

And Yes 

[Dr. Bob]

Drug Teams Searching Five Medical Marijuana DispensariesPosted: Jul 09, 2014 2:44 PM EDTUpdated: Jul 09, 2014 2:44 PM EDT

 

Drug teams are currently out searching several medical marijuana dispensaries. 

The Traverse Narcotics Team says they served five search warrants to five medical marijuana dispensaries in Wexford County. 

TNT will hold a press conference at 4:00 p.m. 

Katie Boomgaard is working to get more details. Stay with Northern Michigan's News Leader for updates. 

[medmanmike]

So why not private agreements, signed and notarized, that attest to the partys' compliance with all of that? The wiki we are working on will speak to that.

 

Speaking of the wiki, I need some of my work edited and better formatted.

I'd be happy to help - pm me.

[bobandtorey]

Sixth grade?

 

More seriously I found it requires a clear understanding how things work. The couple of acid trips I took helped me out. I will enjoy some mushrooms in the near future. The most compelling book I have read is "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." I further found that good grades in 100 level English is the least that is necessary. There are the traditional angles, to include managed fields of study, and then there is the opportunity for self learning. I have no degree, but do have more than an hundred credits across a wide range of subjects. Being disabled affords me the opportunity for further reading and study. I like to read history, philosophy, and sociology particularly. As a kid I would take an encyclopedia off the shelf to look something up. Several hours later almost half of the bound books were spread out on the living room floor. The web is all of that on steroids. The whole of human knowledge is no further than your monitor. I have Dicken's "Tale of Two Cities" in another open window now. I am reading William James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" as time permits, and "The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha" as a diversion. The only two things that matter in life are having fun and learning. Having fun is not as accessible to me as it once was, but my time is still well spent. 

 

 

I read HighTimes also almost all the time i love looking at the photo of Cannabis flowers 

[bobandtorey]

 

Drug Teams Searching Five Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Posted: Jul 09, 2014 2:44 PM EDTUpdated: Jul 09, 2014 2:44 PM EDT

 

Drug teams are currently out searching several medical marijuana dispensaries. 

 

The Traverse Narcotics Team says they served five search warrants to five medical marijuana dispensaries in Wexford County. 

 

TNT will hold a press conference at 4:00 p.m. 

 

Katie Boomgaard is working to get more details. Stay with Northern Michigan's News Leader for updates. 

 

Wow ! Why would people still sell cannabis to someone other then their 5 pt ?

 

[GregS]

I read HighTimes also almost all the time i love looking at the photo of Cannabis flowers 

Now THAT is funny. At least you are honest enough for not having made the excuse that you read it for the interesting articles.

[bobandtorey]

Ask Ed 

[Indigro]

what happened is people who found it not in the law decided it was legal, instead of the right way of thinking that it is NOT legal if it is not in the law, we had despense all over the state, the s.c ruled them ilegal, which they never were legal, they just read the true meaning of the law in its plain language, people are always trying to say if it doesnt say it is ilegal than it is legal, if people though the other way there would be a whole lot less changing laws at the bench instead of the legislature!

 

If it isnt in the law it is not legal!

 

Peace

I hear ya.

 

My take on all the early legislation (including MI) is that the relatively small group of drafters looked at it as getting as much passed as they felt there was support for. Cut & restrict as the local circumstances required to get support enough to pass. And where they could manage, loose enough language to allow for some wiggle room depending on how it would/could be interpreted & enforced. The underlying goal was to allow for as much growing & selling as possible.

 

Think of it as the wild, wild West. MI just happens to have taken a somewhat hostile reaction, compared to the 4 States I'v experienced. CO & CA & OR had push back, just not as harsh as here. The interpretation of the law in its original form has gone away from anything progressive and/or liberating. I'v seen courts take a position of protecting & extending rights, just not so much in MI. It's a shame.

[+Malamute]

The difference is, Michigan is run in all 3 branches of government by republicans.

 

 End of story. :-)

[bobandtorey]

“I went and saw a dispensary in Detroit and what they’ve done there is incredible,” Richardville said. “And I met with people who can’t smoke marijuana. There are some real positive things going on.”

 

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20140714/NEWS01/307140005/Michigan-Legislature-may-take-steps-roadwork-marijuana

Edited July 16, 2014 by bobandtorey

[garyfisher]

I just took a trip up north and passed several "provisioning centers" that were clearly selling marijuana.  These setups are within miles of state police posts.  

[+Malamute]

I see people selling crack on corners too!

[bobandtorey]

I just took a trip up north and passed several "provisioning centers" that were clearly selling marijuana.  These setups are within miles of state police posts.  

 

 

i also have heard of a few drop off centers popping  up  things are moving along and some take chases  to be on top of the $$$