Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ya know i just thought of something and ya I'm  perhaps a bit slow.. but every time i hear of someone getting busted.. they use the "they had scales" which is no doubt a way to make the correlation of CG  to  dealer  an illegal sales.. but duhhh! how would they expect us to know when we exceed/deliver to patients how much there is if were not supposed to weight itl (its implied mere possession of the scale means your breaking the law...???) WTF I mean talk bout BS..

Edited by Willy
Link to post
Share on other sites

well you said we need to stay in sec4 protections. 2.5 oz is one of sec4's limits on protections.

 

we need to know if the opinion in randall is binding or if it will have to be fought again...

 

we need to know if we can rely on the findings in randall

 

which are:

drying marijuana is not considered in the count/weight of "usable marihuana"

stalks are not to be counted in both marijuana or "usable marihuana"

stalks are incidental to marihuana growing

wet and non-usable (seeds ,stalks , roots) marihuana can have any amount as long as its connected with the medical use of marihuana.

 

The act expressly allows under § 4 that “any marihuana . . . used in

connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, . . . shall not be seized

or forfeited.” MCL 333.26424(h) (emphasis added). This section broadly allows the possession

of marijuana that is connected to medical use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've talked to several patients and CGs who have shown meds to LEO during a traffic stop but have never heard of an officer questioning weight.  None of these folks were carrying an amount that appeared excessive. 

 

I'm a bit torn on whether to travel with a scale or not. 

 

Now that I think about it, I've been carrying zip-lock snack bags every where I drive for the past 10+ years, whether I have meds or not.  I use the bags for collecting asbestos samples and keep a supply in my tool bag.  Heh, this is a bit unsettling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sec. 8 can be used to take down just about any prosecutorial argument when done properly. Why would anyone want to buy from, or more to the point sell to, anyone else without this?:  http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/blog/584/entry-1163-added-evidentiary-protection-with-or-without-registration/ 

 

Sec. 8 is big and bad.

Has anyone seen any of those types of documents used to prove the elements of an Affirmative Defense?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not yet. Not sure if they are required or what scenario they might be valuable in. Entrapment arguments are evolving, but Overholt puts stress on the concept at this time.

They would almost certainly prevent entrapment. I guess I have to bring myself up to speed with Overholt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reviewing Overholt, I think the COA screwed up again. The judges are playing word games. Terminology in the law strictly defines what a caregiver is. Subsequently, it is improper judiciary construction to look elsewhere for any definition, let alone pulling one out of their bungs.

3(h) "Primary caregiver" or "caregiver" (emphasis mine) means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.

 

There are no stated limits to the number of caregivers a patient can work with in sec.8. Likewise no limits on the number of patients a caregiver can work with. The Court is up to speed with the fact that sec.4 and sec.8 are two entirely different animals, having been spanked in King with the Supreme Court rubbing their noses in it, and is attempting to perform an end run around it.

If the Court wants to play semantic games, it has to be noted that in referring to a primary caregiver, that necessarily denotes that there are secondary, tertiary, quaternary, &c...caregivers somewhere. Sec.8 does not require that a caregiver attest to being, or is legally required to be, the one and only, and patients are therefore entitled by law to designate any person who meets the specific definition at any time. The agreement I have posted in the blog section includes a caregiver attestation clause, and does not use the term primary. That is no accident. It can be rightly said that a designated caregiver who a patient works with is primary for the duration of any transaction(s). Without the necessity of registration, patients can call up any caregiver as their primary at any time, and that designation can last for any length of time, be it minutes or years. In the event that a patient has agreed to designate any number of qualified individuals who meet the definition, said patient can switch them out as (s)he sees fit. Keeping copies of any and all agreements between patients and their caregivers permits a patient to make that call and ensure an amount necessary.

 

Just sayin'.

Edited by GregS
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Court refers to sec.6 insisting that the same limits apply in both sec.4 and sec.8. Nothing could be more wrong. It is another example of the Court's dumbassness. Sec.6 speaks only to Administration and enforcement of rules by department. Nothing in sec.8 is administered or ruled by the department in cases where a patient and a caregiver are not connected through the registry. The parties in those cases are not registered and have been ruled eligible to raise the Affirmative Defense and have the charges dismissed when the three and only three elements of sec.8 are proved. Those cases have nothing to do with the department. It necessarily follows that sec.6 only involves sec.4 registration. Sec.8 cases are exempt from those limits.

Edited by GregS
Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. There is more here to counter the COA position also, in Hartwick.

Right. Evidentiary matters were clearly delineated there, and are at work in Overholt. The Court is arbitrarily and illicitly ignoring that, trying to twist construction to their arbitrary and illicit ends.

Edited by GregS
Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times do lower courts need a smack down on Section 4 vs 8?

 

In the meantime, COA anti MMJ judge Oconnell wanted to run for reelection. He already had a seat for a couple more years but is coming up on age limits so if he ran for and won a seat held by another judge he would get a few extra years on the bench. But he's a clever and selfish dude and wants to run against another judge but also be recognized as an incumbent. What a slimy prick. He filed a suit to be able to run as the incumbent even though he isn't an incumbent for that seat. I don't know if this case had made it through the system yet. I hope the courts rule against him and put him in charge of wiping Trump's donkey, and make him buy his own TP at $500 per square.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  And again they report scales as a support to illegal activity....

 

"The search of the home also yielded a number of items related to the sale of marijuana: a digital scale with marijuana residue on it, an open box of sandwich bags, and a marijuana grinder".

Edited by Willy
Link to post
Share on other sites

  And again they report scales as a support to illegal activity....

 

"The search of the home also yielded a number of items related to the sale of marijuana: a digital scale with marijuana residue on it, an open box of sandwich bags, and a marijuana grinder".

How are we supposed to know if we have our allowed weight if we dont have a scale, ummmm dont people still brown bag it for work, sandwich bags are for sandwiches, jars are for weed!  I guess we will soon be getting popped for canning jars eh?

 

we are allowed to have all of that stuff!  we cant be arrested for paraphanilia bawahahahahahahahaha!

 

Peace

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya know i just thought of something and ya I'm  perhaps a bit slow.. but every time i hear of someone getting busted.. they use the "they had scales" which is no doubt a way to make the correlation of CG  to  dealer  an illegal sales.. but duhhh! how would they expect us to know when we exceed/deliver to patients how much there is if were not supposed to weight itl (its implied mere possession of the scale means your breaking the law...???) WTF I mean talk bout BS..

https://herbscales.com/stealth-scales

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...
×
×
  • Create New...