Jame's Story

[Restorium2]

Just curious, how did you decide you didn't need a top?

[bobandtorey]

We unfortunately have a long way to go still Sirlongsmoke.

 

.... I am a victim of this war on drugs too. 

So sorry to here that and i didn't know that about you and now i feel like we have more in common 

 

Peace From The Front

 

    Bob & 

[bobandtorey]

If it was something a 6th grader would understand then why is there so much confusion? I actually teach 6th grade and can tell you that every answer is exact. This is a way to make more money off a system that gravatates towards itself. Why has the rate of arrests of marijuana doubled or tripled from previous years? All the money then goes back into the carasel, around we go! This allows you to do it legally and pay but also be prosecuted because of the indecisive langange of the law. In the end we all pay. This includes people like me who have a family, work, and do not involve myself in illegal activities.

 

Now I sit and fight this BS everyday. When does this end? When does civil unrest constitute overtake? Can we be guided positive but still stand ground or firm? Whose to tell these things that must be answered? Keep my head up when all else weighs down is what I focus on now.

 

 

I can say i here you loud and clear  Law 1 of 2008 was written to protect the sick and too aloud for caregivers to help it is the Courts that have fixed it to become what it is today when we where raided back in early 2009 it was the first time the Law was to be tested most judge's  here hadn't even saw or heard of this new Law until are case was in front of them 

 

on the first day of are court day the Judge after our Lawyers told him this was a medical marihuana case he said Their will be No medical marihuana in my town but then after a few more court dates are case got  Dismissed 

[bobandtorey]

Just curious, how did you decide you didn't need a top?

 

It's ambiguous, pure and simple. That seems obvious. It doesn't say you need a top, but it may imply it. Another interpretation, just as rational, implies a top is not required.

[Restorium2]

It's ambiguous, pure and simple. That seems obvious. It doesn't say you need a top, but it may imply it. Another interpretation, just as rational, implies a top is not required.

I wanted to hear what James has to say about it.

[Restorium2]

It's ambiguous, pure and simple. That seems obvious. It doesn't say you need a top, but it may imply it. Another interpretation, just as rational, implies a top is not required.

Did you understand what the legislature was doing when they clarified the law on this Bob? Follow it from King to what the legislature was asked to do? The language change, before and after?

[AmishRnot4ganja]

I would love to see a jury's opinion on the top issue. I would guess that it wouldn't be easy to get 12 people to agree that the definition of a "side" would include the word "top".

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Did you understand what the legislature was doing when they clarified the law on this Bob? Follow it from King to what the legislature was asked to do? The language change, before and after?

If the legislature wanted to clarify the law (that is,  to make it perfectly clear), why wouldn't they have clearly stated that an outdoor grow has to have a top? Stating that "all sides except the bottom" must be covered would include the top only if the structure is a cube. Cubes have equal sized faces on all sides. If the structure is rectangular, or other than cube shaped, the definition of "side = top" falls apart.

 

Does a circle have sides? 

Edited August 13, 2014 by amish4ganja

[Restorium2]

I find the debate about if you needed a top obsolete. Been there and done that. The legislature was asked to clear it up so that everyone knew that they needed a top. The legislature did a sub par job, but the task they were assigned was clear. Would the fact that the legislature was tasked with writing language that says you had to have a top come up in court?

[Norby]

A structure is different because of gravity than a die or any box that is solid.  To put a top on a 100x100 "enclosure" is very consuming and libel to collapse.  Draping chicken wire would need supports. I personally don't see how all sides except the bottom includes a top.  A roof is not sides.  A roof is a roof. It has angles and pitches and is not a side.  Just by saying except the bottom does not automatically include a roof or top.  A bottom is flat and so are sides and if you add a roof it's indoors.

 

As for your attitude, you are a freedom fighter.  You are in the right.  This happened to you because you didn't put a top on an enclosure, not because you were doing something "illegal".  This should be a violation and not a felony or misdemeanor, if anything.  The people who look at you in a negative light because of this don't matter.  It's terrible how they upturned your life and extorted money from you for a lawyer but you have to keep pissed instead of loosing hope.  Everytime a helicopter would fly over my place in NY I would cringe and feel bad.  Until I realized in my mind, what I was doing was illegal but right I couldn't regain my strength.  What you did was right no matter how the law looks at it.  And your community should be behind you, not against you.  They voted in this mess and the courts and leo are doing everything they can to take away our protections, they should be standing up for you.

[Restorium2]

If the legislature wanted to clarify the law (that is,  to make it perfectly clear), why wouldn't they have clearly stated that an outdoor grow has to have a top? Stating that "all sides except the bottom" must be covered would include the top only if the structure is a cube. Cubes have equal sized faces on all sides. If the structure is rectangular, or other than cube shaped, the definition of "side = top" falls apart.

 

Does a circle have sides?

If the prosecution called in an expert witness, a science/math/geometry expert, he would say that the wording describes having a top.

[Restorium2]

And how would this person be qualified as an expert? In what relevant subject material? I don't think mathmatics will do it.

Just have a masters degree in math/science. This is like one of those math brain teasers. There's only one answer in the math world for this; what they described has a top. It's quite clear for a math mind. The legislature probably asked a math mind and they came up with this that is clear to a math minded person, not the average Joe. To win in court you wouldn't want to push it that the wording didn't describe a top. You would have to stilt it that this specific person couldn't understand it. Edited August 13, 2014 by Restorium2

[Norby]

SO you have to have a math mind to interpret the law?  What about a carpenter instead?  I guess you'd be screwed by the law if your a carpenter.

 

And sides are flat, they clarified, since a floor is flat, no enclosing material had to be used.  If they wanted a roof it would be a structure with an inside, no longer outside.  A roof is not flat and we are not talking about a square structure.  An enclosure has sides but no TOP.  It's a wording that the courts are misinterpretting, like they have "plant material" amongst other things.

 

And just like chem nutes, your dividing us resto, weren't u against that.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Norby

[Highlander]

Help me clarify. Those saying the law doesn't require a top believe that a bottom is a side but a top is not a side. Those who believe that a top is needed agree that the top and bottom are sides? Is this about right?

[Restorium2]

SO you have to have a math mind to interpret the law?  What about a carpenter instead?  I guess you'd be screwed by the law if your a carpenter.

 

And sides are flat, they clarified, since a floor is flat, no enclosing material had to be used.  If they wanted a roof it would be a structure with an inside, no longer outside.  A roof is not flat and we are not talking about a square structure.  An enclosure has sides but no TOP.  It's a wording that the courts are misinterpretting, like they have "plant material" amongst other things.

 

And just like chem nutes, your dividing us resto, weren't u against that.

I'm trying to unite us now in a place we will eventually be.

[Norby]

The bottom part of an enclosure is flat so they wanted to clarify it wasn't a side is the way I take it.  No one would consider a roof or a top a side.  The wording is so screwed up you can't make a true and easy interpretation of it.  If they wanted a top they would've mentioned top along with bottom, not include it as a side.  Unless of course they did it purposefully.  That is how I see it and with all the other misinterpretations it seems about right.  Veil it in confusion so you can still ruin people's lives over some fuxing chickenwire.  What is the real intent?  chicken wire won't stop anyone.  Why the hell would you be responsible for a situation that could only happen if someone breaks the law by tresspassing and stealing.  This law is definitely punishing the possible victim.

[Restorium2]

Help me clarify. Those saying the law doesn't require a top believe that a bottom is a side but a top is not a side. Those who believe that a top is needed agree that the top and bottom are sides? Is this about right?

That's not where I'm at. I understand that the legislature was tasked with writing wording that said we needed a top. I always start there because it is a 'given'.

If you start there then this is a little easier to navigate. Not everyone starts there.

[Norby]

I'm trying to unite us now in a place we will eventually be.

Not if we can unite and fight against it and win.  your just giving up and taking the easy way out.

[Norby]

That's not where I'm at. I understand that the legislature was tasked with writing wording that said we needed a top. I always start there because it is a 'given'.

If you start there then this is a little easier to navigate. Not everyone starts there.

Well they failed and they should be facing felony charges, not sir longsmoke!  If this doesn't enrage you then your dead inside and buying into legal instead of right and wrong and intent of the wording.  Chickenwire top won't stop anything so not having one is not deserving of a felony!

 

And a die or box has sides and no top because it's not fixed.  a structure that has to be secured to the ground has a top and bottom.  they made it vague by not including top in the definition.  A person got caught on the NY safe law which states you can have no more than 7 rounds in a clip.  the judge ruled since he had 7 rounds in the clip and one in the chamber and the chamber was not mentioned in the law having a round there didn't apply.  That's the same way this SHOULD go.  Since a top was not stated it is NOT a side.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Norby

[Restorium2]

No one would consider a roof or a top a side.

That's not true Norb. People who understand geometry, and take the wording in that context, understand that it needed a side opposite the bottom.  

[SirLongSmoke]

Just curious, how did you decide you didn't need a top?

From the interpretation is how I can clarify the reason I did it. My wife and I sat down and went over the law before we did this. It made sense at the time. Now I just feel like an idiot. All we had was the law in front of us. I never knew about this website until this stuff was slammed on me. I wish I would have asked around more, but the people I talked to agreed. Now I get raped by the law. I was playing the game by the rules but still got disqualified in a sense.

 

-" Trouble melts you like lemon drops above the chimney top, that's where you'll find me."

[Restorium2]

Not if we can unite and fight against it and win.  your just giving up and taking the easy way out.

The attorney general and the legislature wanted to say we needed a top. How are we going to win this now after we have already lost?

 

They only way to win is to follow what the attorney general and legislature wanted. Help people to understand that is the only 'win'.

[SirLongSmoke]

The bottom part of an enclosure is flat so they wanted to clarify it wasn't a side is the way I take it. No one would consider a roof or a top a side. The wording is so screwed up you can't make a true and easy interpretation of it. If they wanted a top they would've mentioned top along with bottom, not include it as a side. Unless of course they did it purposefully. That is how I see it and with all the other misinterpretations it seems about right. Veil it in confusion so you can still ruin people's lives over some fuxing chickenwire. What is the real intent? chicken wire won't stop anyone. Why the hell would you be responsible for a situation that could only happen if someone breaks the law by tresspassing and stealing. This law is definitely punishing the possible victim.

Agreed!

[Restorium2]

From the interpretation is how I can clarify the reason I did it. My wife and I sat down and went over the law before we did this. It made sense at the time. Now I just feel like an idiot. All we had was the law in front of us. I never knew about this website until this stuff was slammed on me. I wish I would have asked around more, but the people I talked to agreed. Now I get raped by the law. I was playing the game by the rules but still got disqualified in a sense.

 

-" Trouble melts you like lemon drops above the chimney top, that's where you'll find me."

I totally undersatnd this. Many folks I talk with, really smart folks, were mistaken. Just like a math brain teaser is a challenge. If you would have known about what the legislature was doing when they wrote the language you would have had a lot better chance of understanding the wording. I'm not sure where this leaves you legally.

[SirLongSmoke]

Cutting the head off the beast (justice system) would do no good. It would multiply Into 2. Cut those off and it multiplies into 4. There's no way to win. Fighting a loosing battle unless the government is overturned- civil war. Take the foundation away and the rest crumbles.