Jame's Story

[cristinew]

 fully enclosed area    VERY SIMPLE EASY TO UNDERSTAND, 

[cristinew]

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.

fully

/ˈfʊlɪ/

adverb 

1.

to the greatest degree or extent; totally; entirely

[Norby]

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.

So I can write or call this democrat who wrote a bad description on a law, bring it to their attention and ask for them to ammend the wrong since peoples freedom is being taken away because of it?

[Norby]

 

fully

/ˈfʊlɪ/

adverb 

1.

to the greatest degree or extent; totally; entirely

 

surrounded

[+Malamute]

Honest assessment, or harsh reality as I see it.

 

There is no way the courts, once brought up the chain of authority, will ever say that the intent of the wording doesn't require a top.  It doesn't matter whether YOU understand it. It is the way it is written. What I do believe is that a few, maybe, will get lucky and get a circuit Judge to either drop the charges or use a short probation period to 'punish' an offender, because of possibly confusing language to them(pt/cg).  A few will get lucky. 

[Norby]

 fully enclosed area    VERY SIMPLE EASY TO UNDERSTAND, 

For some reason you can't understand enclosed means surrounded as per definition.  Guess it's not that easy?  Although SOME law enforcement seems to get it.

Edited August 13, 2014 by Norby

[+Malamute]

Of course you absolutely can Norby. Every American has the right to redress grievances to the government.  I fully encourage it.  Will the fix ever become reality anytime soon? Well,... that is another story.

 

 The republicans and police didn't want to allow ANY outside growing whatsoever.

[Norby]

Of course you absolutely can Norby. Every American has the right to redress grievances to the government.  I fully encourage it.  Will the fix ever become reality anytime soon? Well,... that is another story.

 

 The republicans and police didn't want to allow ANY outside growing whatsoever.

Yet they still congratulate SOME on a nice crop and leave.

Well I wrote Cuomo and haven't heard back but at least maybe it'll make me feel better about it and not take it out in some other way.

[+Malamute]

Let me say, anything is possible,.... but chances are slim.  I never want to discourage people from trying or telling Rep's what they did was flawed.  Changes do happen. :-)

[+Malamute]

Those 'nice crops' and leave AFAIK were from before the new law.  Check the date on that story. :-) (outdoor at least)

[Norby]

http://010.housedems.com/

Phil Cavanaugh?

[Norby]

Since when do we care what the cops think when making laws.  That's not their job beyond their vote as a citizen.  More screwed up everyday!

[+Malamute]

Ding ding!

[+Malamute]

It has always been that way Norby.

 

And yes,... yes.., frustrating.

[Norby]

So i got the phone #.  Should I call and ask if they want to talk to me about it or if I should just write a letter.  The only email? is on the contact page.  I'd rather not write the whole thing out in a 2 inch comment box, don't even know if what I'll write will fit.  Should I copy and paste it from a PDF I prepare?  I'd like to do this right as my letter to Cuomo wasn't bad but it was about me, not someone else. 

[+Malamute]

All the above?

[Highlander]

I think what some are failing to consider is that one of the basic rules of statutory interpretation is that you can't interpret a statute in a way that renders some portion of it absurd. 

 

When the law says "all sides except the bottom" you have to interpret that the bottom is a side.  If the bottom isn't really a side, then it would be absurd to say "all sides except the bottom."  So the only reasonable conclusion is that the bottom is a side.

 

This is a lot like the p2p transfer debate of years gone by.  Some courts and some LEOs were OK with p2p, but at the end of the day, the law was interpreted by the supreme court as written...that the transferor's conduct with MJ must be  for the purpose of alleviating his own condition...and if/when it isn't he loses Section 4 protection. 

 

So what reasonable interpretation exists that would result in the bottom being considered a "side" but the top is not?  That is the real question.  There really isn't a reasonable argument that the bottom is not a side.  So how do we form the basis for an argument that the top is not a side when the bottom is a side?

[+Malamute]

You create an argument which can dampen understanding thus leveraging a defendant into a position that a Judge may feel pity on the defendant and release said patient from the court system.  Then ya hope the prosecutor doesn't appeal....

[cristinew]

surrounded

totally; entirely  INCLUDES TOP

[Dr. Bob]

Two things.  

 

Enclosed means enclosed, top and bottom.  A cube has six sides.  They specifically excluded one of those sides, the bottom, and you are reading into it that the top doesn't count.  The ONLY time you can really make an argument the top doesn't need to be covered is if it is otherwise made inaccessible.  For example if the side walls were 15 feet high and topped off with barbed wire, you might pull off the contention that the top was so inaccessible as to be considered enclosed, but it is a crap shoot.

 

Second, those with the handcuffs and guns want it covered, because that is the way THEY read it (not to mention the courts).  It is a small thing.  Pick your battles and cover it.

 

By not listening to these two points (and everyone is entitled to judge the amount of risk they are willing to take, and everyone is entitled to make bad decisions) you will expose yourself to risk of arrest.  And risk of having your plants, equipment, home, car, guns, cash etc seized and probably gone forever unless you can pay a high bond while it all gets sorted out.  You also get to hire an attorney and spend quite a bit of time in court.  Again, your choice and if you want to go through all that to prove your point, God Bless You.

 

If it was my grow, it would be covered.  If it was one of my patients' grows, I would suggest covering it.  If I was driving down the road and saw it, I would stop, knock on the door and suggest they screen and cover it.  

 

But do what you want.

 

Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

You create an argument which can dampen understanding thus leveraging a defendant into a position that a Judge may feel pity on the defendant and release said patient from the court system.  Then ya hope the prosecutor doesn't appeal....

 

This brings up an interesting dilemma.  A while back, this website took a stance for discussions along the lines of "unambiguous compliance."  So how do we discuss possible defense ideas for someone caught in the system (this is discussing very loose interpretations...certainly not unambiguous) while still preserving the more conservative and most reasonable/likely interpretation so that others don't find themselves in the same predicament due to failure to put a top on their grow?

[+Malamute]

...and when the head 'prosecutor' in the State in Bill Schuette, you can imagine why the courts have been so difficult for patients.  But, local prosecutors have all sorts of discretion power on cases to pursue. Thus, targeting county prosecutor elections can be soooo important to our court causes.

[+Malamute]

I have no issues with attorneys fighting for their clients by doing what they have to do.  Fighting for theories is what attorneys do.

 

 At this point, the MMMAct is becoming filled with pinholes as the courts work their way through interpretation. 

 

 Sadly, I believe the best way to resolve these issues is to give me 2 million dollars to rewrite the law and run it in an initiative!!!

 

 Hahahahahaha....

 

Sad, depressing, frustrating,..... etc etc etc etc.

 

But I do feel if you want what is actually best for the patients, physicians, caregivers, police(unstipulated clarity), courts and the families and loved ones of those people(excluding police), .... that is what would need to happen.

 

Sensible laws, sensible rules, slaps on hands for minor infractions, increased usable amounts, proper wording for extracts, proper guidelines for some sort of basic distribution system, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

 

 But, I am poor assss as hell, no one would ever give me that much money and unfortunately, we have to deal with a complete different reality in which the state(police, courts legislature, administration) do everything they can to do the stupidest thing possible and members from our own community cut off their noses to spite their faces and seek overly restrictive guidelines so they can make money in their particular money'd interest.

[+Malamute]

Hmm, I guess I am feeling spicy! today. ;-)

[Wild Bill]

I think the problem arises because the ignorant f*cktards used mathematical terms instead of building terms when describing a building. (Probably because they've never had an honest job and never had to use those terms.)

 

The International Building Code always uses the term "wall" when referring to vertical sides and "roof" when referring to the top. To be proper and clearly understood they should have said "walls and roof".

But they didn't.

 

I was hoping to find a definition that might help your case but the only thing I could find that was close to applicable doesn't help. It only defines the structure you built.

 

Four sides and an open top is defined as a "court".

 

International Building Code

CHAPTER 2

SECTION 202

 

COURT. An open, uncovered space, unobstructed to the sky, bounded on three or more sides by exterior building walls or other enclosing devices.

 

You might ask your local building inspector what enclosed on all sides means to him. Email him so you get a written reply.  If he says it only refers to walls you might have an expert witness.

 

"Your Honor I was following common usage and accepted building practices when erecting my structure."