Medical marijuana case goes to Michigan Supreme Court

[ozzrokk]

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.

The courts are not allowing the defense at all. You say they are doing a good job of making the protections fit the intent? My God.

 

[ozzrokk]

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

Problem is your on both of them. Or act like it anyway.

 

[bob harris]

The courts are not allowing the defense at all. You say they are doing a good job of making the protections fit the intent? My God.

That's not accurate. Our ag dosen't allow them to be used..our courts are fix trying to fix the problem. and are making progress...just like it's supposed to work.

 

[ozzrokk]

That's not accurate. Our ag dosen't allow them to be used..our courts are fix trying to fix the problem. and are making progress...just like it's supposed to work.

You are so wrong.

 

[bob harris]

Problem is your on both of them. Or act like it anyway.

Nope..I'm in the middle. I see both sides and am working towards workable compromise. If I lean it's certainly towards the patient side...but to just disagree with every attempt to clarify the law, as you and timmahh seem to do..is non productive and pointless.

 

[bob harris]

You are so wrong.

Let me simplify it more for you..Our AG encourages leo to disregard...and in a very few instances, judges have not allowed the defense in court. Decisions that are about to be overturned by the SC.

Which is exactly what is being addressed in the bills being worked on now. And it appears that progress and better clarification IS coming..and the system is working.

 

[ozzrokk]

The court system has allowed one affirmative defense and at least 14 not. That is a very few instances? You said the ag does not allow the defenses. Again you argue your own point.

Again you agree that it will be overturned and should be but still say thats what they get or sorry for the MINOR INCONVENIENCE.

 

[bob harris]

The court system has allowed one affirmative defense and at least 14 not. That is a very few instances? You said the ag does not allow the defenses. Again you argue your own point.

Again you agree that it will be overturned and should be but still say thats what they get or sorry for the MINOR INCONVENIENCE.

The affirmative defense, or section 8, only applies to people that are NOT card holders, but DO HAVE a Dr,. certification saying that they would qualify, if they chose to register.

Pretty rare occurrence

.

 

[ozzrokk]

The affirmative defense, or section 8, only applies to people that are NOT card holders, but DO HAVE a Dr,. certification saying that they would qualify, if they chose to register.

Pretty rare occurrence

.

You are incorrect about that.

a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana

 

[ozzrokk]

I will try to ignore you again now.

 

[MYWhat?]

I apologize for my ignorance of Michigan law. (I'm from Maine)

But what I don't understand here is why you have to register after getting a doctors rec. ? They (the state) tried this here in Maine and it was quickly overturned by our courts do to patient privacy.

 

[bob harris]

I apologize for my ignorance of Michigan law. (I'm from Maine)

But what I don't understand here is why you have to register after getting a doctors rec. ? They (the state) tried this here in Maine and it was quickly overturned by our courts do to patient privacy.

You don't have to register IF you have a signed DR. letter saying that YOU do quailfyand COULd register.

For exatcly the reason you mention..Privacy.

 

[bob harris]

You are incorrect about that.

a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana

nope..I'm totally correct about that..

Even timmahh gets that.

Section 4 is immunity if certified and in compliance with plant counts,weight and locked facility.
Section 8 only applies to a person That has a dr signed letter, stating that he qualifies, and would receive benefit from cannabis, BUT IS NOT A CARD HOLDER

Section 8 does NOT provide that you will not be arrested, only that you are entitled to a pre trial hearing to determine if you Dr. letter is valid. If valid..the case is dismissed.

In any situation, if you are over count and/or weight..you can be arrested....then you must prove that you were over justifiably, IE: you need lager amounts because you use Simpson oil for cancer...

 

[MYWhat?]

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.

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Your earlier comment on Sec 8 Gave me the impresion that one had to be register to have any protection under the law.

Wouldn't that violate patient rights ?

 

[bob harris]

Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Your earlier comment on Sec 8 Gave me the impresion that one had to be register to have any protection under the law.

Wouldn't that violate patient rights ?

Yes..patients are allowed privacy if they wish.

That's why section 8 exists.

The problem is that no one in this state can grasp that when you choose privacy, and don't register, you lose immunity from arrest as provided in section 4.

They all want immunity from arrest under section 8...not how it works.

You ARE allowed to choose which way you want to go...but you can't claim both.

 

[Timmahh]

I apologize for my ignorance of Michigan law. (I'm from Maine)

But what I don't understand here is why you have to register after getting a doctors rec. ? They (the state) tried this here in Maine and it was quickly overturned by our courts do to patient privacy.

it sounds much like your Courts are way less corrupt than ours. Plus our AG is interviewing for Eric Holders Federal AG position.


Hey Big Question perhaps you could answer. Basically our Law was modeled after yours. We understand you got dispensaries, while we went the CG/PT transfer route. I understand your Legislation is looking to amend your MMJ law to remove dispensaries in lieu of a CG/PT model or add the CG/Pt model to it. Is that correct, and how are things working there? Our legislation is looking to do the opposite, dump CG/PT transfers for state ran Dispensaries.

Its my opinion, our State wants to kill the CG/PT transfer to be replaced by a state run facility, that can not be implemented like your states issue, thus effectively killing the MMM Act of 08. Trying to determine what other state issues, we can use here, and visa versa.

With your and our Acts being so Similar, it seems some good Advocacy information could be spread between both our states, to help us each fight the issues as they arise.

 

[Timmahh]

nope..I'm totally correct about that..

Even Timmahh gets that. Be respectful bob, you may get some in return eventually, my name has a Capital T on it.

Section 4 is immunity if certified and in compliance with plant counts,weight and locked facility. (locked, Enclosed, Facility, No where does it say ROOF or FULLY ENCLOSED)
Section 8 [omit this word-only] applies to a person That has a dr signed letter, stating that he qualifies, and would receive benefit from cannabis, BUT IS NOT A REGISTRANT PERIOD

Section 8 does NOT provide that you will not be arrested, only that you are entitled to [STRIKE THIS LINE - a pre trial hearing] the right to introduce a Sec defense, at ANY TIME, DURING ANY PART, OF ANY TRIAL PART INVOLVING CANNABIS, and INFRONT OF A JURY IF THE DEFENDANT SO WISHES, to determine if you Dr. letter is valid. If valid..the case is dismissed. Or cannabis charges dismissed if their are multiple charges that do not stem from the cannabis arrest.

In any situation, if you are over count and/or weight..you can be arrested....then you must prove that you were over justifiably, IE: you need lager amounts because you use Simpson oil for cancer...Correct

your getting closer bob. keep up the education and well have you un sheepled in short order.

and that should be if you need LARGER AMOUNTS, not lager amounts. seems like im not the only Mensa Qualified human that fat fingers words.

 

[MYWhat?]

Tried to add this earlier but Rollitup's server was down or busy.

This kind of direct violation of ones medical privacy is why we MMJ patients need to be more vigilant. By not only looking at our own state law but looking also at the laws happening in all MMJ states. "Medical privacy if they wish" should be seen for what it is, an infringement of ones medical privacy.

So where do we draw the line ? When they start making granny file papers with the state for oxycodone for her end of life treatment ? It's precedents like this that allow for further infringement on our personal freedoms !!! And all for what $$$$*

 

[bob harris]

your getting closer bob. keep up the education and well have you un sheepled in short order.

and that should be if you need LARGER AMOUNTS, not lager amounts. seems like im not the only Mensa Qualified human that fat fingers words.

Parkinson's...motor control disease, it happens.

But why did you post a quote from me...and then alter it to be incorrect?

You CAN"T bring up a section 8 defense mid trial. Section 8 hearing is first. If section 8 defense is validated...there is no trial...if your section 8 is invalid..you can't use it IN the trial.

 

[Timmahh]

you can bring a section at any time in trial, and at pre trial, at the disclosure phase, or at the end infront of the jury during hearings.

What makes you think it can only be done at Pre Trial, only in front of a Judge? Ok so maybe your not a fucking puke ass pig praying on sick or ill, but your part of the LEO system or Billy Bongs Prosecution Crew. that much i can almost guaranty.

I only Altered the t to be a Capital T in my name in your quote. the rest is not changed, only asnwered. your own text is your quote i made.

im not a mod here bob, thats the 3MA.
i dont have access to change your post here dumbass. and even if i did, i wouldnt, mostly because i wouldnt have to. you prove yourself wrong more than i do.