Medical marijuana case goes to Michigan Supreme Court

[Hucklberry]

Sorry for asking but who is CPU? I am going to watch the video and wanna know who the players are. Jim Cain heads the MMMA Right? are there any others I need to be aware of? And finally who is on the side of the MMP/cg.

Thanks ahead of time for the crash course.

 

[UncleBuck]

some updates just came out:

http://www.dafk.net/what/

 

[Timmahh]

My take is this:

Section 4 will apply only to registered card holders. So long as they are in compliance. Plant count, weight, locked facility. Cops will be told to walk away when that is the case. Bag of cannabis in the trunk discovered during a stop for a different reason? No issue, so long as the card is valid.

Section 4: No protection if you are over on counts, weight, or in violation of code in any way. You will be arrested. Your only defense left, is to prove that the "overage" was necessary due to the use of the patient. :IE: cancer patient and Simpson oil...

Section 8...afforded to those that have no registration card, but do have a signed doctors recommendation for cannabis.
Without the signed recommendation, you have violated the act. You have "self diagnosed" and your rights are gone.

The only overlap of the two at all, will be a certified card holder, that is over on count or weight, will have the opportunity to show that that overage was necessary for the patient.


That's how I see it..and I'd say that is pretty fair.

and i would agree. but the reality is Most of the courts dont agree with either of us.

the Courts and Bull Schuitte says if you are a reg pt, and you are over limits, your a criminal, no 4, no 8, no AD of any MMM Act protections, If you are a reg card holder, and out side of 4, your a criminal, and dont GET to try 8. they are using sec 7) to preclude Registrants from using 8, when they are outside of 4).

whats your take on that bob? and please read sec4, then 8, Then read 7, and tell me if 7 precludes 8, if somone doesnt qualify for sec 4).

 

[Timmahh]

In regards to other rulings that are coming from these cases:

Co-op grows will be allowed, so long as all members have access to the facility, and participate in the cultivation.
Separate areas will not be required in a co-op
Limited out door growing will be allowed. There will be restrictions on number of plants, permissible locations, and security of the location.
p2p will be allowed. But only to the extent that it is transferred to the end user. A patient may not transfer to someone that is then going to transfer again.

At least this is what I hear from the people working to shape the bills. Remember..the ruling is not part of the law. The findings must be articulated into bills, the bills ratified, and the law amended.

mistake, all CG will HAVE to be in a seperate area, watch the blysma case (not on SC) but up to CoA. co ops may be allowed, but they wont be allowed to co mingle the grow, every CG will have to have a separate area ONLY they or their ASSIGNED Pts can access.

 

[Timmahh]

Usually the one looking to make the most money. Often when money is involved both sides lie. Then the people that they are lying to are liars also. Who do we believe? There comes a time when you just need to ask yourself. What Would Timmahh do?

Timmahh would do WHAT IS RIGHT> I have thought about this for a maximun of 20 minutes and have figured out the issue here.

Getting my idea into place wont be easy, as none of them currently are, or we wouldnt be here, but I put together a Method yesterday, that would Solve Transfers. IT would make them extremely legal. it would create administrative oversite by the government. It would create a comprehensive ability to test all meds transfered.

it would keep the current Cg/Pt and uphold Pt/Pt transfers. and the end result, it creates a DROPPING Market cost for the meds, not a rising one.

 

[Timmahh]

not brainwashed. I took my rose colored glasses off when i was 12 yrs old doing CPR on my father when he had a heart attack. i did CPR and breathing for my dad for what seemed like an eternity, but it was barely 3 minutes. but he was dead before he hit the floor. I have never felt so helpless or alone than i did within the 1st minute the VFD guy (family friend) pulled me off doing cpr so he could take over...

those glasses have NEVER went back on.
I follow my own path. When that path is converged with other paths, i ll walk both, when they split, I go back to my own path.

 

[bob harris]

and i would agree. but the reality is Most of the courts dont agree with either of us.

the Courts and Bull Schuitte says if you are a reg pt, and you are over limits, your a criminal, no 4, no 8, no AD of any MMM Act protections, If you are a reg card holder, and out side of 4, your a criminal, and dont GET to try 8. they are using sec 7) to preclude Registrants from using 8, when they are outside of 4).

whats your take on that bob? and please read sec4, then 8, Then read 7, and tell me if 7 precludes 8, if somone doesnt qualify for sec 4).

My take is that the law as written is poorly worded. Whats happening now is that the opposition is fighting to limit defenses, the pro cannabis people are fighting to maximize protection, and the courts are doing a pretty good job of making the protections fit the intent of the law.

It sounds like the outcome will be just. Of course, you never know till the SC issues their ruling. But what I see is the system working as it should.

 

[bob harris]

mistake, all CG will HAVE to be in a seperate area, watch the blysma case (not on SC) but up to CoA. co ops may be allowed, but they wont be allowed to co mingle the grow, every CG will have to have a separate area ONLY they or their ASSIGNED Pts can access.

I am referencing the Bylsma case. The issue with Bylsma is that because only two members had keys, no co-op existed.
If you watch the tapes of the hearings, the judge even says that it would make sense to utilize environmental control, without barriers, for all of the plants without barrier. The problem comes down to the fact that it wasn't being run as a co-op, therefore co-op argument is moot.

The prosecutor and judge even admit that there was no intentional abuse of the law by mr Bylsma. He'll walk at the end of the day.

Remember, this arrest occurred 2 days after the law was enacted. Cops walked in, found 86 plants and only one guy with a key.
Yes, that's a legitimate arrest. It's simply not the cops job to sort out legal arguments. That's what courts do, and are doing in this case.

 

[bob harris]

Timmahh would do WHAT IS RIGHT> I have thought about this for a maximun of 20 minutes and have figured out the issue here.

Getting my idea into place wont be easy, as none of them currently are, or we wouldnt be here, but I put together a Method yesterday, that would Solve Transfers. IT would make them extremely legal. it would create administrative oversite by the government. It would create a comprehensive ability to test all meds transfered.

it would keep the current Cg/Pt and uphold Pt/Pt transfers. and the end result, it creates a DROPPING Market cost for the meds, not a rising one.

Great! lets see it

 

[Timmahh]

he was referring to walls and ceilings, but not cages ect. the issue in that case was the CG, who had 2 assinged Pts, had only 24 plants he could legally have access too, but in that case, All Cgs were in one area. SO as a CG that could only have Possession of 24 plants, because they were all in ONE open area, he actually had access to ALL 88 plants, not just the 24 he was legally allowed to possess with the act.

a co op like this can work great, BUT i feel the SC will mandate they must be separated, and only accessilbe via the CG or Pt authorized to possess those plants. They can not have access to more plants than they can legally cultivate.

this is very similar to holding overages as a CG. you can hold 2.5 O in reserve for up to your 5 assined pt. but as a CG< you CAN NOT Hold 2.5 in reserve for your self as your own patient. Same principle here... A CG/PT can not get ability to have possession of more than they can legally have.

 

[Timmahh]

You will see my Proposal soon enough. And I will say you will be surprised at the simplicity, ease, and over all ability for Every Pt in the State to get inexpensive access to high quality, inspected meds.

 

[bob harris]

he was referring to walls and ceilings, but not cages ect. the issue in that case was the CG, who had 2 assinged Pts, had only 24 plants he could legally have access too, but in that case, All Cgs were in one area. SO as a CG that could only have Possession of 24 plants, because they were all in ONE open area, he actually had access to ALL 88 plants, not just the 24 he was legally allowed to possess with the act.

a co op like this can work great, BUT i feel the SC will mandate they must be separated, and only accessilbe via the CG or Pt authorized to possess those plants. They can not have access to more plants than they can legally cultivate.

this is very similar to holding overages as a CG. you can hold 2.5 O in reserve for up to your 5 assined pt. but as a CG< you CAN NOT Hold 2.5 in reserve for your self as your own patient. Same principle here... A CG/PT can not get ability to have possession of more than they can legally have.

And whats unfair with any of that?

I also disagree with your assessment of what will happen in a co-op ruling. Again, the problem with Bylsma is that no co-op existed. For a co-op to exist, all members must share in the cultivation efforts.

One more note about cvo-ops...GROWING co-ops are being considered.....NOT co-ops designed to be dispensary supply grows.

 

[Timmahh]

no bob, you are just wrong.

the Problem with Blysma is a CG that only had AUTHORZATION to have possession of 24 plants, was in Possesson of 80 plus plants when the facility was raided, as all plants were in one open area, and Blysma was in side that area with access to all 80 plus plants.....

Currently the ACT has NO wording of a co op, just as it has no wording of a dispensary, which was done purposely. If you will recall in spring 2008, as the Petition was gaining momentum, the Publics biggest worry was having a big green potleaf dispensary on all the corners. Fair enough as I too didnt like the idea. Cheech and Chong is great to relax and laugh your ass off too, but i have no inclination to want to live in that world. Nice to visit, wouldnt want to move there. It is my understanding in light of that, Karen (the lawyer that drew up our Act, and has also wrote/co wrote the Maine and RI Act i believe it was the RI, but Maine is certain), placed the CG/PT transfer model, which is what the state has been working under as the only legally authorized means of transfer.

Now

you can have one room for one CG with up to his 5 pt, but if you have 10 cgs all with 5 pt, and pts themselves, and all plants are accessible to all CG AND all their Patients, the their is one open area with 720 plants avialable to any one person in that area. This would not only make EVERY CG or Pt in that area, Over Limit (per how Possession of any goods has been ruled on over and over and over here in the state), but it would be WAY over limit of the Fed stated number of 99 plants.
the entire reason our Act was setup to only allow a CG to have 5 Pt and 12 plants was to ensure NO one person could be in a situation that they could be over the 99 plant federal Eyeballing limits.

You set there and smack of understanding of the laws bob, but when you apply your logic to real life situations, you make more criminals with your points. I see a continued back ground agenda from you. Everyone is a criminal but dear old bob, and who his Holiness judges ok.


On the other side of this coin, Our Act was based of the Maine Act, but the largest difference being that Maine choose to do the dispensary model, over the cg/pt model. Maine as of last month, the Legislation is introducing an amendment to their Act, that introduces the CG/PT language we have been utilizing here in Michigan. They (Maine's Legislature) feels with all the issue of the State run Dispensary, the Mi based CG/PT model is a far better solution to get low cost, high quality meds quickly, efficiently, and SAFELY to their registered Pts.

yes, CO OPS ARE JUST NOW being considered. but unfortunately for Blysma, he was arrested in a single room with over 80 plants, and was only legally able to possess 24 of them, and Co op grows are NOT allowed atm. I dont agree with it, but it is the law atm.

Is it wrong he is being charged for all the plants yes. but our Act, thus our Law, does not allow for ANYONE to have access to more than the alloted amount of plants they can have, as given to them by the permission of up to 5 assigned Patients.


Remember one thing, if the STATE Registers no Patients, then NO Caregiver can have a plant to grow for that patient.

 

[bob harris]

You will see my Proposal soon enough. And I will say you will be surprised at the simplicity, ease, and over all ability for Every Pt in the State to get inexpensive access to high quality, inspected meds.

Can't wait

 

[bob harris]

no the Problem with Blysma is a CG that only had AUTHORZATION to have possession of 24 plants, was in Possesson of 80 plus plants, as all plants were in one open area.....

you can have one room for one CG with up to his 5 pt, but if you have 10 cgs all with 5 pt, and pts themselves, and all plants are accessible to all CG AND all their Patients, the their is one open area with 720 plants avialable to any one person in that area. This would not only make EVERY CG or Pt in that area, Over Limit (per how Possession of any goods has been ruled on over and over and over here in the state), but it would be WAY over limit of the Fed stated number of 99 plants.
the entire reason our Act was setup to only allow a CG to have 5 Pt and 12 plants was to ensure NO one person could be in a situation that they could be over the 99 plant federal Eyeballing limits.

You set there and smack of understanding of the laws bob, but when you apply your logic to real life situations, you make more criminals with your points. I see a continued back ground agenda from you. Everyone is a criminal but dear old bob.

You are the one that doesn't use real life situations. Every one knows that 99 plants is the magic federal no tolerance limit. Anyone that followed your scenario would be pretty dumb. You search and search for one of a kind scenarios....no law," no right" is without exeption. You wish to focus on the exceptions..the good of the many outweighs the good of the one..yet all you want to do is talk about the one.

The one dad..who charged cops with a knife and was unjustly shot after repeated warnings.
The one man..unjustly arrested for growing outdoors in a non secured dog kennel.
The one man..with sole access to 86 plants. days after the law was enacted

Stop trying to make everyone a martyr...work for the med law...not you total civil rights agenda..

 

[Timmahh]

wow, you argued both sides to one point within 2 posts. lol, way to go Bill Schuette

 

[Timmahh]

oh





























































&#8203;FISH ON someone get the net.

 

[bob harris]

wow, you argued both sides to one point within 2 posts. lol, way to go Bill Schuette

Well, unlike you, I do agree that there ARE two sides to every situation

 

[Timmahh]

ok bob. have fun arguing with your self. Kind of funny way to debate, to help your opponent win his position over you.

 

[bob harris]

ok bob. have fun arguing with your self. Kind of funny way to debate, to help your opponent win his position over you.

I know..why do you do it so often?