Jame's Story

[cristinew]

 stationary, and fully enclosed area    ,, that would mean a top  fully enclosed  does not mean an open roof or top

[Norby]

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.  

IT'S NOT A SIDE, IT'S A ROOF!  Anyone who has built a structure would understand it's not a side, it's not flat, it's a roof!  Geometry has nothing to do as plain geometric shapes are not secured to the ground.  They can be flipped so any flat surface is a side.  A fixed structure has a ROOF!

[Norby]

 stationary, and fully enclosed area    ,, that would mean a top  fully enclosed  does not mean an open roof or top

That's inside.  If it's fully enclosed.  Not an outside grow.  Your mistaking a geometric shape with a structure.  Anything that is secured has a top and bottom.  It cannot be flipped so any side can't be a side.  They never mentioned top and lots of LEO don't require one.  It's evident to some LEO?  Again your confusing legality and intent and what's right.

 

Fully enclosed for animals is a pen.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Norby

[Restorium2]

IT'S NOT A SIDE, IT'S A ROOF!  Anyone who has built a structure would understand it's not a side, it's not flat, it's a roof!  Geometry has nothing to do as plain geometric shapes are not secured to the ground.  They can be flipped so any flat surface is a side.  A fixed structure has a ROOF!

What was the legislature's intent Norb? Are you going to stake your future on a possible loophole you found? The bet is high stakes. Are you a gambler like that?

[SirLongSmoke]

Can we focus on the task at hand! People like all of you and me are being taken advantage of. Our rights taken away. Our constitution has nothing to do with what were dealing with now. It doesn't protect us. In my case I'm treated like a teenager with all these rules and regulations for someone who is not even found guilty. Who gives a f about how to interpret it. Can we join forces rather then become enemies over the injustice? Please stand up with me. We can change this. We can make a difference. MY CASE has a chance to do so. So please enough arguing about what a side or roof is. It's clear it's not about that. It's about control and order. It's about taking over the vary rights given to us.

[cristinew]

That's inside.  If it's fully enclosed.  Not an outside grow.  Your mistaking a geometric shape with a structure.  Anything that is secured has a top and bottom.  It cannot be flipped so any side can't be a side.  They never mentioned top and lots of LEO don't require one.  It's evident to some LEO?  Again your confusing legality and intent and what's right.

 

Fully enclosed for animals is a pen.

stationary, and fully enclosed area    is in the law  for both outdoors and indoors.  you can twist it all you want but the law is the law, 

 

(d) “Enclosed, locked facility” means a closet, room, or other comparable, stationary, and fully enclosed area equipped 

with secured locks or other functioning security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or 

registered qualifying patient. Marihuana plants grown outdoors are considered to be in an enclosed, locked facility

 

fully enclosed area  How hard is that to understand??

Edited August 13, 2014 by cristinew

[GregS]

Can we focus on the task at hand! People like all of you and me are being taken advantage of. Our rights taken away. Our constitution has nothing to do with what were dealing with now. It doesn't protect us. In my case I'm treated like a teenager with all these rules and regulations for someone who is not even found guilty. Who gives a f about how to interpret it. Can we join forces rather then become enemies over the injustice? Please stand up with me. We can change this. We can make a difference. MY CASE has a chance to do so. So please enough arguing about what a side or roof is. It's clear it's not about that. It's about control and order. It's about taking over the vary rights given to us.

Maybe not so much a change, but a reinforcement that the Affirmative Defense is effective. What is this change you speak of? Are you suggesting a court decision that states a top is or is not required? I think that is a long shot, if not altogether out of the question.

[cristinew]

Who gives a f about how to interpret it.    I do  and we all should ,,,less people would wind up arrested.

[Norby]

What can I do?  I worry that if I show up to court I'll end up right alongside you.  I can't keep my head when I see things like this.  The idea that someone can go to jail because someone else could jump a fence(without cutting chickenwire) and STEAL from said person the same thing they can buy on any corner for a couple bucks is BEYOND INSANITY!  I don't understand how people can keep their head in this world when crap like this goes on. 

 

How can I help?  Could I write someone?  Your about 2.5 hrs. away but anything you need let me know.

[Norby]

If anything there should be a interpretation and leeway for anyone who was confused since even LEO can't be on the same page.  This is the fault of the writers by labeling a bottom and not stating top.  If you asked anyone who builds such enclosures if a top was a side they would say NO!  I have built and worked with lots of people who do build these things and the wording should be such that the builders would understand what they are talking about.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Norby

[Restorium2]

If anything there should be a interpretation and leeway for anyone who was confused since even LEO can't be on the same page.  This is the fault of the writers by labeling a bottom and not stating top.  If you asked anyone who builds such enclosures if a top was a side they would say NO!  I have built and worked with lots of people who do build these things and the wording should be such that the builders would understand what they are talking about.

I agree to a point.... But this is only going to work for a very short time for a limited few right now. We will have to be better at helping folks know they need a top. We can't play the ignorant card forever, if at all.

 

I build structures and if you asked me I would say that because the bottom was considered a side the top has to be considered a side too. The 'except the bottom' was the clue in.

[Restorium2]

What can I do?  I worry that if I show up to court I'll end up right alongside you.  I can't keep my head when I see things like this.  The idea that someone can go to jail because someone else could jump a fence(without cutting chickenwire) and STEAL from said person the same thing they can buy on any corner for a couple bucks is BEYOND INSANITY!  I don't understand how people can keep their head in this world when crap like this goes on. 

 

How can I help?  Could I write someone?  Your about 2.5 hrs. away but anything you need let me know.

Write the attorney general and ask for clarification, if you dare.

[Norby]

My buddies who build these things interpretted it to mean that a side touches the ground.  It can be 3,4,6,8 sided but the sides touch the ground.  Enclosed is encircled.  A triangle greenhouse is enclosed and has no roof since the sides are triangles and front and back are touching.  4 sides, no roof and enclosed.  Under this definition with no mention of a roof is the only structure that meets the strictest definition.  There is no roof, only sides.  they think since the floor touches the ground they wanted to make sure it wasn't considered a side.  They said it is misleading and confusing to builders since they deal with structures and not plain geometry without a top and bottom, which aren't sides.  A structure is not plain geometry since it is fixed, it has a top and bottom, not sides as something that would be flipped would have.  It's top and bottom and sides are interchangeable.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Norby

[cristinew]

Norby  the law says fully enclosed ..

[Norby]

I agree to a point.... But this is only going to work for a very short time for a limited few right now. We will have to be better at helping folks know they need a top. We can't play the ignorant card forever, if at all.

 

I build structures and if you asked me I would say that because the bottom was considered a side the top has to be considered a side too. The 'except the bottom' was the clue in.

That's because you have a weak mind and can read into the wording what is NOT there.

[Norby]

Norby  the law says fully enclosed ..

en·close

enˈklōz/

verb

past tense: enclosed; past participle: enclosed

1.

surround or close off on all sides.

"the entire estate was enclosed with walls"

 

Take note of the word surround.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Norby

[+Malamute]

If you want to complain to the person responsible for this language, you may call Rep. Cavanaugh's office and complain.

 

We tried to get it fixed, but they were tired of working on it and the Republicans were like flies on shiiit to pass as many defining restrictions as they could.  Cavanaugh being a democrat had only a limited amount of influence over the bill. But in the end, it was his bill and he is responsible for the language as it turned out, and add in the Police and prosecutors and you end up with that type of language.  Same problem with the transportation law.

 

Ridiculous, retarded and these bills were definitely brought to reality due to the way Dispensaries decided to open illegally and act irresponsibly when this law was passed. It created an emergency situation which was dealt with in the manner you see.  Nothing in those bills against dispensaries, and everything against patients, caregivers and physicians. 

 

 Just blame the right people. 

 

 How do we actually get reasonable changes through such an unfriendly 100% republican controlled government?  We don't.  Only solution is to vote out republicans, liberalize the Judiciary, convince money influenced cannapreneurs  to pass legislation to protect their biggest competitors(growing pt's and Cg's).  In otherwords, aint gonna happen that way.   Real sensible change will only happen with a new initiative in which I doubt poor patients can come up with 1-2 million to make it happen.

 

 Welcome to my losing fight to protect patients, caregivers and physicians.  It can be very frustrating.

[cristinew]

(d) “Enclosed, locked facility” means a closet, room, or other comparable, stationary, and fully enclosed area 

 

seems ;the wording is there, some are not reading well

[Restorium2]

That's because you have a weak mind and can read into the wording what is NOT there.

Say what? I've been super polite to you on this.

[+Malamute]

This is a mute point to argue about honestly.  The court will decide. What we say means nothing.

[cristinew]

 

en·close

enˈklōz/

verb

past tense: enclosed; past participle: enclosed

1.

surround or close off on all sides.

"the entire estate was enclosed with walls"

 

Take note of the word surround.

 

YOU KEEP INGONRNG THE WORD FULLY 

 

Full Definition of FULLY

1

:  in a full manner

 

fully

/ˈfʊlɪ/

adverb 

1.

to the greatest degree or extent; totally; entirely

Edited August 13, 2014 by cristinew

[Norby]

Ok, you have a... I can't think of another way to say it.  Your missing the point that you can't understand the way the definition CAN be interpretted.  It's a valid interpretation of a vague writing of a law.  A fence on 4 sides with a foot space between ends is enclosed but not fully enclosed.  It's technically surrounded(enclosed) but not fully.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Norby

[Norby]

Fully surrounded, you keep not understanding that enclosed means surrounded, fully, with no breaks.  You can have 4 sides and not be fully enclosed because of an open space for a window or entry.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Norby

[Restorium2]

This is a mute point to argue about honestly.  The court will decide. What we say means nothing.

Yup. It is what it is when you lose a battle. If we get the courts to say the wording says you don't need a top then the legislature will change the wording. It's their intent. The players are the same now as they were the last time we asked.

[+Malamute]

You would be right about that resto.  I unfortunately see the not necessarily legal transportation bill as the same.  We beat them in court and by the next Monday a new bill is in to amend the MMMAct regarding transportation.

 

Frustrating to say the least.