Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gretta47

Save Our Access 3-13-2016 Gaylord

Recommended Posts

you wouldn't believe the hoops needed to jump through just to get losses insured in a marijuana garden in MI. Most would/could not afford the prerequisites mandated by the few companies willing to insure, then the costs, the inspections, the codes, the permits, the , the , the.......imagine it for people driving, selling, operating dispensaries, etc......I like the idea though, MMMA Insurance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hes talking about a lawyer pool. e.g. 100 people pay into a lawyer pool, one patient gets in court, he gets the legal representation up to $3k or something.

 

nothing to do with standard 'insurances' :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that would be futile I think. With so many misunderstandings someone is bound to do something stupid and waste the cash. How can one prevent another form doing something stupid with their cannabis registry and using up the fund? I still like the idea, and there are already these types of legal cash pool, monthly retainer fees, etc right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

resto

 

oh, plants not separated, that sounds like a gray area to bob? or blatant breaking of the stated rules I asked?

 

bob said "NO Gray areas", I suggested one of his own perhaps, he knows that too.

 

Hey Grass, let me get you up-to-speed on this issue, specifically Bob Redden's situation.  Some of us saw this issue unfold in real time.  Bob and Torrey had MMJ certs before the MDCH started accepting applications for MMJ.  MDCH waited until the last minute under the law to accept patient applications.

 

Bob was raided on March 30, 2009.  I'm not sure, but I believe that Bob's raid stemmed from his posts here on the MMMA.  At that time, he used his real name "Bob Redden" and also included his place of residence (Madison Heights) in his profile, so he was an easy target.

 

The Madison Heights police showed-up in the evening and broke-down his front door.  One of the cops stated that the plants they found were too big to have only started after the full effective date of the MMMA.  (yet the photos we saw were of really small plants.)  This raid happened after Bob and Torrey had certs from  Dr. Eisenbud but before the MDCH started issuing cards. 

 

Here's what the district court judge said:

 

I believe that section 8 entitles the defendants to a dismissal, even though they did not possess the valid medical card, because section 8 says if they can show the fact that a doctor believed they were likely to receive the therapeutic benefit, and this doctor testified to that. And Doctor Eisenbud is a physician, licensed by the State of Michigan.  And that’s the only requirement that the statute has. You don’t have to be any type of physician, you just have to be a licensed physician by the State of Michigan. So, based on that, I find section 8 does apply. And I believe I’m obligated to dismiss this matter based on section 8 of the statute.

 

In spite of the above, and due to spite, the Oakland County PA appealed and pushed the issue to the MSC, dragging Bob and Torrey through legal mud for years.  Torrey died in the meantime.

 

It is sickening, really.  21 plants kept in a home only accessed by two bona fide patients - an old man with severe pain caused by hip issues and a women who had cancer and is now dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is sickening, and I appreciate that version. I've heard several here but not that one surprisingly. I don't understand why an attorney could not take care of this at the time. I've seen some real doozy's in my time and that one seems simple. I don't blame bob for posting pics , and I am sorry they both had to go through this.

I was breaking marijuana laws the day before, the day of, and likely the day after I was carded. No judgments here. They forced all of us underground. I didn't grow even but I was always stocked for my personal use. they made us criminals for using a plant instead of sanctioned often experimental Rx. 

 

my op on it was specifically to bob about the gray areas. I suspect now he was being facetious, but I really don't know, and didn't think so at the time either.

bob often tells us its dangerous to grow, and speaks of the gray areas making it so,   his comment was off a little, mostly in humor honestly, I was ribbing him, and wondering if he meant what he said. I love bob, he knows I love him, we've met before, but he doesn't know it. I didn't know it till I saw a vid here with him in it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the law wasn’t “ambiguous”, congress, LEO and the courts would have found a way to mess it up (improper transport, synthetic THC, ect). Unfortunately, there is no punishment when these entities violate our rights. Our laws protect and entice them to do so. When you have a system that forces the police departments to run on forfeitures and such, of course they are going to harass the citizens. Imagine if officers of the law or prosecutors were actually punished for misapplying or not knowing the law; I’m sure they would be on the side of caution rather than acting like thugs.

 

We should have come up with MMMA insurance back in 2008. About $60 a year for patients and everyone could benefit from free counsel and possibly civil action after dismissal (assuming the MMMA is not violated). Then they would not be able to prey on the sick and poor; equal resources for both sides in court.

 

 

We tried get a fund started is was called the ( what else  ) the 420 Plan 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's been telling it for how many years now? 

 

Husband and wife patients, plants not separated. 

 

Maybe make a song about it so you can remember. Phonics maybe?

 

Thanks 

 

Husband and wife patients, plants not separated. 

 

I'm not sure if that was even in the Law today it sure wasn't back then 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe bob being facetious. hard to tell without an emoticon, he's a ninja poster

 

 

No Gray it may be like having to much cannabis like the word Overages <<< Now their you have  a dark gray  area" 

 

I don't blame bob for posting pics <<<  Thanks  but i never posted any Pic of any plants 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is sickening, and I appreciate that version. I've heard several here but not that one surprisingly. I don't understand why an attorney could not take care of this at the time. I've seen some real doozy's in my time and that one seems simple. I don't blame bob for posting pics , and I am sorry they both had to go through this.

I was breaking marijuana laws the day before, the day of, and likely the day after I was carded. No judgments here. They forced all of us underground. I didn't grow even but I was always stocked for my personal use. they made us criminals for using a plant instead of sanctioned often experimental Rx. 

 

my op on it was specifically to bob about the gray areas. I suspect now he was being facetious, but I really don't know, and didn't think so at the time either.

bob often tells us its dangerous to grow, and speaks of the gray areas making it so,   his comment was off a little, mostly in humor honestly, I was ribbing him, and wondering if he meant what he said. I love bob, he knows I love him, we've met before, but he doesn't know it. I didn't know it till I saw a vid here with him in it!

 

The plant photos I was referring to were in the news - not posted here by Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very strange that the MMMA can be interpreted in such a way that out-of-state patients are forced to create drug conspiracies and other crimes in order to obtain their medicine. In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this is extremely unconstitutional, although I cannot find a simple legal foundation for this at the moment (just complex ones). Logically no legislature would create a law that offers protections for a given activity, while simultaneously requiring someone else to break the law to give effect. In-state patients may have a choice, but not out-of-state; probably why this argument hasn’t been analyzed in the courts because we would win.

 

Although both types of MMMA insurances would be nice, I think LEO and the courts would have given up the fight a long time ago if we had a large enough “lawyer pool”; it is essentially what they are doing against us with tax payer funds. Based on illegal transport alone, some counties are up to >5% of the MMMA population. Overall I would say at least 1 in 10 have been charged with a misdemeanor related to medical marijuana activities and that isn’t including caregivers or dispensaries (be careful, they are going after left-lane drivers in upcoming months). The key to this would be specific limitations to what the insurance covers; illegal transport, synthetic THC, possession under the limit, ect. Yearly dues based upon the amount of people being arrested versus the average cost of legal/court fees.

 

From what my lawyer told me; individuals like Bouchard and Schuette stated a while ago that they will do everything in their power to stop medical marijuana. He knew them quite well apparently back in the day, so it is no shock that Oakland county is a hellhole for MMMA participants (let alone Michigan in general). Here’s an idea, let’s use the left over MMMA registration fees to start paying back individuals who got their cases dismissed rather than buy LEO IPads and trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmma was a peoples initiative, not legislative bill.

 

it was drafted by karen okeef of mpp based on other states (like arizona and montana's mpp bills)

 

montana saw many of the same problems (years before mich law was enacted) michigan is seeing now with interpretations of the law. other states have seen the same problems.

 

this isnt new and mpp will repeat the same mistakes in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the articles are true,  I

 

guess dispensaries ignore MMMA rules unfortunately. :dodgyrun:

 

 

 

That is just not the case.  You are aware most Disp EMPLOYEES are Patients and Caregivers, which are allowed Pt to Pt Transfers under the definition of USE.

 

 

the only ones going to jail are the owners... not the patients.

 

patients are safe to acquire from any source.

 

the dispensaries are trying to fill a need.

 

if that need did not exist neither would they....

i mean think about it...

it really is simple...

they are here because people are wanting to use them. 

 

and the people are safe.

 

its the establishment that has to worry at this juncture.

Sadly, many patients go to jail.  Patients and Caregivers as I noted above, are the Employees and often owners.

 

 

 

Dispensaries across the country and in Lansing are currently begging to throw patients and caregivers under thebus for their commercial dreams to come true.

 

If you seen and heard what these dispensaries lobbyists offer up, you would feel different about your positions.

 

 It isn't like I even give the holiest of crapss that people sell marijuana,.. heh, I mean seriously; but if you want to protect what you have and expand your rights, commercialization is not the answer unfortunately.  If everyone grows and everyone can trade or gift,... there is no need for licensed commercialization.  The patients haven't spoken, they simply haven't been given proper options.

 

edit add-on: .... and commercialization is pretty far down the list in proper options due to climate, environment, greed, selfishness, and the lack of ability to make it happen.  Dispensaries will not come as an "add -on or improvement"; it will come at a cost,... a cost to the sick, disabled and those who care for them.  Don't forget it.

Hell must have frozen over. I agree with you almost completely. lol Though I dont group all Dispensaries and owners in Mi, with the others around the country. 

Though it is VERY Blatantly obvious there are a few in the State working very hard behind closed door to etch out their "Cut" with out of state dope.

I think many of us know these are the ones attached to the Nationally Backed Organizations, Most specifically the MIBARASS. ones.

 

possession of marijuana and THC products.

 

First time i've seen Leo reporting cannabis as THC Products instead of Meltable's

 

the word THC does have something to do with longer jail times ?

Marihuana is not a "Schedule I Controlled Substance."

 

THC Is. Thus by using THC they can imply CS sched 1, aka Synthetic, aka Felony as reported as Origin Unknown.

 

 

 

Ben Horner, he's the Abrogate guy too;

Ben has paid for the Petitions, and helped to circulate them via his Michigan Medical Marihuana Report Magazine, there by putting out 51,000 petitions since January in his Mag.    Ben did not fully come on board and began to see the writing on the wall until just before I got out of the BoC Approval Dec. 29th, with a single 6 minute meeting and a Unanimous Approval I might add (again. lol).

He has helped ensure there is a Solution as all other efforts have thus far ended in an adjunct failure to day.

At just over 62 days into the 180 day campaign, Abrogate Prohibition Michigan stands on the only currently Circulating Petition that not only has Solid and Viable Legs, but has Momentum growing by the day, and has been the only proposed petition that will not only solve ALL of these issues we currently see around the state to date, but is the Only One that the People of Michigan would vote for in November.

 

 

please explain the legal way to sell indiscriminately to every card holder passerby in a day?  no scarcasm, I believe some important points are often missed. like when cops say things like "operate legit and we leave you alone"  I want to know the legit way to sell pounds a day at a store front if there is one. there are a lot of good business people out there capable of doing that job well I'm sure.

 

You should call into my Podcast one day, and we can go over this situation.  I can offer an indepth and widely contemplated answers with logical points.

 

 

 

daisy chain was ruled against (not specifically, but due to how they read the language of the law) in one of the msc rulings.

 

its one of the complaints i made when the opinion came out that the ruling pretty much hurts parent caregivers as they would not be able to legally get medicine transferred to them for their child.

 

i'll see if i can dig it up.

 

a little about it here

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/48457-caregiver-to-a-caregiver-of-a-child/

 

more here

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/46141-can-caregivers-exchange-medicine-with-eachother/

Sorry, you are again, incorrect.   You are incorrect far to often to be honest.

 

 

Even if the law wasn’t “ambiguous”, congress, LEO and the courts would have found a way to mess it up (improper transport, synthetic THC, ect). Unfortunately, there is no punishment when these entities violate our rights. Our laws protect and entice them to do so. When you have a system that forces the police departments to run on forfeitures and such, of course they are going to harass the citizens. Imagine if officers of the law or prosecutors were actually punished for misapplying or not knowing the law; I’m sure they would be on the side of caution rather than acting like thugs.

 

We should have come up with MMMA insurance back in 2008. About $60 a year for patients and everyone could benefit from free counsel and possibly civil action after dismissal (assuming the MMMA is not violated). Then they would not be able to prey on the sick and poor; equal resources for both sides in court.

Civil Suits against the 'person' who in their role as Agent, went outside of their 'Agent' Authority.

 

Take their homes, cars, and kids College funds and they ll stop.

 

Thanks 

 

Husband and wife patients, plants not separated. 

 

I'm not sure if that was even in the Law today it sure wasn't back then 

It was not ever in the law, and it is STILL NOT.

 

Courts make Opinions, not LAWs/Rules. 

 

And we know what they say about Opinions, Every Arsehole has them.

Edited by Timmahh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mmma was a peoples initiative, not legislative bill.

 

it was drafted by karen okeef of mpp based on other states (like arizona and montana's mpp bills)

 

montana saw many of the same problems (years before mich law was enacted) michigan is seeing now with interpretations of the law. other states have seen the same problems.

 

this isnt new and mpp will repeat the same mistakes in the future.

 

Umm, you really need to stop speaking to what you do not know.

 

The MMMA was a Peoples Initiated Legislative Statute....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t-pain, on 15 Mar 2016 - 9:32 PM, said:

 

mmma was a peoples initiative, not legislative bill.

 

it was drafted by karen okeef of mpp based on other states (like arizona and montana's mpp bills)

 

montana saw many of the same problems (years before mich law was enacted) michigan is seeing now with interpretations of the law. other states have seen the same problems.

 

this isnt new and mpp will repeat the same mistakes in the future.

Umm, you really need to stop speaking to what you do not know.

 

The MMMA was a Peoples Initiated Legislative Statute....

 

 

better work on those reading skills there tim.

 

 

http://www.montananorml.org/history

 

State v. Johnson, 2012 MT 101. Decided May 8, 2012.

 

Bottom Line

 

The protections of the original medical marijuana law only apply when a patient obtains marijuana from his or her listed caregiver.

 

MMGA v. Corrigan, 2012 MT 146. Decided July 6, 2012.

 

Bottom Line

 

Caregivers cannot provide marijuana to other caregivers or work for them and perform duties consistent with “medical use” on their behalf under the former medical marijuana law.

 

State v. Pirello, 2012 MT 155. Decided July 20, 2012.

 

Bottom Line

 

Hashish (and presumably kief) as well as hash oil are not considered useable marijuana under the former act, and are therefore not protected.

 

On appeal, the driver claimed that the former medical marijuana law provided an exception for “usable marijuana” which included hashish (and hash oil) because it falls under the description “any mixture or preparation of marijuana.” In the alternate, he also claimed that the term itself was unconstitutionally vague.

 

The Supreme Court ruled against this interpretation. It relied on the definitions found in the Montana Controlled Substances Act, which defined marijuana and separately defined “hashish” as a separate drug. Hashish “as distinguished from marijuana, means the mechanically processed or extracted plant material that contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and is composed of resin from the cannabis plant.” Section 50-32-101(4).

 

 

 

dont these court rulings sound familiar? they certainly sound familiar to me.

 

similar mpp laws. same karen o keefe drafter of the peoples initiative in montana and michigan (and other states).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you are again, incorrect. You are incorrect far to often to be honest.

wrong on daisy chain? no, you need to re-read page 18 of mcqueen.

 

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/state-of-michigan-vs-mcqueen.pdf

 

Thus, § 4 immunity does not extend to a registered qualifying patient who

transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee’s use 59

because the transferor is not engaging in conduct related to marijuana for the purpose of

relieving the transferor’s own condition or symptoms. 60 Similarly, § 4 immunity does

not extend to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana for any purpose

other than to alleviate the condition or symptoms of a specific patient with whom the

caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration process.

 

 

60 Of course, a registered qualifying patient who acquires marijuana—whether from

another registered qualifying patient or even from someone who is not entitled to possess

marijuana—to alleviate his own condition can still receive immunity from arrest,

prosecution, or penalty because the § 4(d) presumption cannot be rebutted on that basis.

 

In this sense, § 4 immunity is asymmetric: it allows a registered qualifying patient to

obtain marijuana for his own medical use but does not allow him to transfer marijuana for

another registered qualifying patient’s use.

section 4 would not protect a registered cg1 to registered connected patient1 to another connected registered patient2 because transfer #1 was not to allieviate patient #1's condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Karen didn't actually 'draft' the language.  She peddled the MPP draft language at the time to ,. ahh crud,... a Michigan law firm(Dykema Gossett) and the attorney( Richard Mclellan) revised the MPP draft language to fit Michigan law.

 

Ugh, I cant believe my brain wont think of the names.  I have probably written on this forum a dozen times.

 

edited names in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in '08 I went to a MiNorml meeting in Houghton lake. When I got there I asked about MM Act. The guy at the desk said I was in luck because the writer was right there sitting in the waiting area. Karen said that she had a lot help from young legal college students that helped her write the Act. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPP had draft language prior to Karen working for MPP. They did a revisal for Montana in 2003 that Karen was in charge of(afaik) when she joined MPP(and as Resto says, college students did the yeomans work probably). And they used that base language and revised again for Rhode Island and then they cut up Rhode Island and Montana a bit and gave it to Dykema Gossett to do Michigan..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a funny meeting because I asked about the Act and Karen was sitting there in hearing distance. The guy at the desk talked it all up and Karen had a red embarrassed face. She made sure that we knew that the students did the hard work. There were a few of the students milling around too. Very young people. Happy, grinning young people. It was a great time. All positive then.

Edited by Restorium2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

photojournalist Erin Malone spoke to the prosecutor about the charges and what local dispensaries have to say in our continuing coverage.

 

"Just because someone has a medical marijuana card and they have photo identification that does not allow someone to sell to them or provide to them as a caregiver," Otsego County prosecutor Michael Rola said.

 

After police served search warrants on 10 Otsego County medical marijuana dispensaries, dispensary owners Robert Garrow Jr. and Steven Scully received charges Tuesday.

 

"It's not what they want it to be. It's not what they would like it to be. It's not what may occur if some statute would pass in the future," Rola said. "It's what the law is."

 

http://www.9and10news.com/story/31478360/two-otsego-dispensary-owners-charged-after-police-raids

Edited by beourbud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it seems clear that the decision in People v McQueen was bogus by once again twisting the language of the act. More specifically, they refer to section 4(d) in order to rebut the medical use of marijuana. However, they ignore the plain language of this section as a whole. For example, it states “in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:”. Thus assuming that section 4(d)(2) refers to the patient who provides medical marijuana to another patient is inconsistent. It is in fact referring to the patient receiving the medical marijuana and in essence makes their argument moot. This is in addition to the MMMA specifically not allowing transfers to individuals who cannot use medical marijuana; and the legality of out-of-state patients.

 

The problems are with the courts, Schuette and LEO not the law. They refuse to apply basic standards and instead abuse their positions to enforce their own beliefs. It is a basic standard that a law must be read and interpreted in whole, it can’t be nitpicked to fit a outside motive. Let’s just face it, Michigan is one of the most corrupt states out there and is quickly going downhill.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...