Jump to content

House Bill No 4210


Greg Rx

Recommended Posts

For those legal minds out there. 

 

This bill opens the act of 2008, right? So it needs 2/3 majority to amend, right? With the absolute ban of caregiver to caregiver sales, we should do our best to keep this from happening. Or is this going to be a fight between caregivers and dispensaries?

 

Do they have 2/3 ? Do we have any support to amend this bill before it becomes law?

Seems like this will be a problem even if we pass MiLegalize. Have we already been out flanked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4210 would make it so edibles and oils would be specifically allowed.

i think it would also ban butane extractions.

 

it could do anything else they wanted , since they are opening the act again.

it also includes stuff for 4209 to be passed (dispensary bill)

 

and yes, they have 75% vote block. they've had 75% vote block since 2012 too. so dont get so worried about it. but BE VERY CAUTIOUS OF THIS BILL NO DOUBT. call your reps and tell them not to destroy the act....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they're aiming for "restricting access to five patients only", isn't that a tell tale sign there is not restriction to five currently ?

you said it not me 

 

Whats not in the Law 1 of 2008 is legal ? when judges dismiss cases those people are not guilty When a jury says not guilty you are not guilty but when a prosecutor says you are guilty  then

 

you must appeal =  $$$ and if a Judge say's case dismissed the prosecutor can appeal and sometimes does = $$$$

 

All sounds like a chance to me 50/50 less if you have no $$$$

 

 

I'am good now and follow all rules and Law's of Law 1 of 2008 it's the best way to stay out of Court and keep all your money  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont get this. guys

 

tell me why this bill is retroactive if the labelling requirements dont help the previous cases that ran afoul of edible weight?

 

and because they cant make ex-post-facto laws , criminalizing something which was legal before.

 

so whats the point of this being retroactive? anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont get this. guys

 

tell me why this bill is retroactive if the labelling requirements dont help the previous cases that ran afoul of edible weight?

 

and because they cant make ex-post-facto laws , criminalizing something which was legal before.

 

so whats the point of this being retroactive? anyone?

 

The only point is that a charge may turn from a felony into a 93 day misdemeanor.

 

The bill is going to get a whole lot worse in the Senate.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...