Jump to content

Mmj Advocate Jailed, Charged With Major Drug Felonies In Muskegon


Recommended Posts

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2014/07/medical-marijuana_advocate_jai.html#incart_river

 

By John S. Hausman | jhausman@mlive.com 
on July 25, 2014 at 1:22 PM, updated July 25, 2014 at 3:58 PM

 

MUSKEGON, MI – Medical-marijuana advocate Derek Antol has been arrested, jailed and charged with two major felonies for allegedly growing and selling marijuana from his Deuces Wild Smoke Shop in violation of Michigan's Medical Marijuana Act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here we go again, attack the cg/pts.. man you guys are almost too much... this is a mmj site right, or am i mistaken.. maybe im wrong, ???  personal interpretations of a patient/cg being labeled as violators are rarely even close to reality either... 

 

So the cops are always truthful, trustworthy, and there word is law and they never setup anyone all above board fine legal representatives..... ya right.. 

Edited by Willy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone supports a caregiver taking care of his 5 registry associated patients, within limits on weights and plant counts, in an enclosed secured facility in compliance with the plain language of the act.

 

The arrest is noted, will see what pans out.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I base my comments from direct quotes Derek made himself on Facebook.

 

Derek states:

 

Note: the MMMA allows a caregiver to possess up to 2.5 ounces of useable marijuana for each patient whom he or she is connected to through the departments (LARA) registration process.  It also allows a caregiver to possess up to 12 plants for each patient whom he or she is connected to through the departments registration process.  Furthermore, the act also states that A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.  It does NOT specify that such a patient need to be connected to them through the departments registration process.  Many patients who are new to the program are not convenienced by pharmacies that distribute the medicine...they are forced to obtain it through licensed caregivers who have what is referred to as "overage" until either (a) their own plants are harvested, which takes upwards of 5 months...or (b) someone who they have assigned as their caregiver through the states registration process, harvests their plants..."

 

Willy, please note the red highlights.  The first comment is flat out wrong, and has been ruled on in many courtrooms across the State.  Derek is putting forth the theory that "patient to patient" transfers are legal... they are not, and have been ruled on specifically in McQueen's case at the Supreme Court.

 

The comment regarding "overage" is also incorrect.  There is no provision for overage.  Heck the standing joke for 5 years is there is no such thing as overage.

 

Believe me, I feel for this fellow I have never met.  But to suggest he is putting forth known truth's regarding the Act and accepting those opinions as fact, is a big mistake.

 

I share your view that the police are often over the top and misleading.  But Derek's own words on Facebook are the clearest evidence that he is misinformed regarding the Act...

Edited by Hayduke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is it stated that a caregiver cannot provide for an unconnected patient?  You are calling it a patient to patient transfer but what about a caregiver to patient transfer where the 2 are unconnected?

 

Here we go again ...

Patient is legal, caregiver(unconnected) is not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is it stated that a caregiver cannot provide for an unconnected patient?  You are calling it a patient to patient transfer but what about a caregiver to patient transfer where the 2 are unconnected?

 

you can read People V Mcqueen to see how the supreme court interpreted the law. it came down to the words "a" and "the" in sec4 and sec8 ... i guess they didnt give a hooey about 'intent of the voters to protect people from arrest'...

 

note that when people say legal or illegal, they mean against sec4 or sec8.

sec8 probably will protect these types of transfers, but i am no lawyer this isnt legal advice.

Edited by t-pain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so let me get your position straight Frank.  I as a patient can't sell to another patient as the courts have ruled, but if I am a caregiver I can sell to my 5 patients and a thousand others that have cards but I am not connected to via the registry.  If that is the case, heck I'll become a caregiver and open a dispensary and get rich!  We should all open dispensaries!  Is that your position?  Because Caregivers weren't mentioned in the rule, only patients, it doesn't apply?

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is it stated that a caregiver cannot provide for an unconnected patient?  You are calling it a patient to patient transfer but what about a caregiver to patient transfer where the 2 are unconnected?

 

It is specifically not mentioned in the Act itself.  Many theories have abounded, and been tested in court in this regard.  None have been successful.  

 

The Act tells you exactly who may transfer to who... it allows a transfer from registered caregiver to registered patient connected by the registry officially, and that is it.

 

The McQueen Supreme Court case is one to look at.  They had a dispensary that used a locker system to make their transfers.  They were lucky as it was not a criminal complaint.  But they lost.  And the court case is precedent, like it or not.

 

You should also look at Court of Appeals decision on Hartwick and Tuttle.  Those two are now linked and set to be heard by the Sup Ct.  

 

T Pain is correct about the words, and to a degree about the intent of the voters, but shoulda woulda coulda... bottom line is personally interpreting the Act should be discouraged unless you are on the Sup Ct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think p2p needs to be reheard at the supreme court, but thats just me being a jerk.

 

the court said unregistered p2p transfers would nullify the caregiver part of the law (a lie)

but in the courts' ruling, it nullified a patients right to be protected from arrest in sec4 for transfer...

 

a stupid ruling imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chief Justice Young has been clear that he is sick of medical marijuana cases.  That was the crusher when they refused to hear the Carruthers case (the case involving oil in a tray of brownies being called illegal.... despite specific language in the act allowing mixtures and preparations).  It is highly doubtful they will entertain another p2p case in any near term situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To many people think if it isnt worded in the law it is legal, those people need to think if it is not worded in the law consider it ilegal and we will have a whole lot less court cases, maybe than po po with spend their time on crank, crack, heroin,rapes and murders!

 

this is not a judgement of this case, I also will save my opinion on this case untill all info is out, I do wisht this man and his family the best of luck, it sounds like a warrant less search for now!

 

Peace

Edited by phaquetoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

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...