How much protection do you think the new rulings give us?

B

bob harris

Well-Known Member
I think they are great...for a patient, a self grower and a small cg operating in a situation that has minimal "overage" possibilities. But I think some people are thinking they provide far more protection than they actually do.

Be careful guys...
 
Minimal overage possibilities? If I flowered all 12 of my plants at one time I would be sitting on 3lbs... Do you consider than a minimal overage for a self grower lol? If I vegged longer I could double that harvest weight.

With no restrictions on how many plants can be in flower at one time it leaves everyone, self growers and caregivers a very good possibility for very large overages.

Can I get a judge to believe that I need 3 lbs to last me the 3-4 months in between harvests? I doubt it.

Do I want restrictions, NO but I'm just saying...
 
stumpjumper said:
Minimal overage possibilities? If I flowered all 12 of my plants at one time I would be sitting on 3lbs... Do you consider than a minimal overage for a self grower lol? If I vegged longer I could double that harvest weight.

With no restrictions on how many plants can be in flower at one time it leaves everyone, self growers and caregivers a very good possibility for very large overages.

Can I get a judge to believe that I need 3 lbs to last me the 3-4 months in between harvests? I doubt it.

Do I want restrictions, NO but I'm just saying...
Click to expand...

Yea, kinda what I'm thinking. Guys looking to get protection from these rulings that are growing for "re sale" are gonna go down hard, if they think this protects them.

I personally, have gone to a "perpetual grow" garden...6 plants in the flower room...but all are in different stages. I have a plant ready every week and a half or so. Never much drying, never much dry weight, never a huge harvest on the horizon.

Only have 3 in veg right now with no clones started. 9 total plants.

Facility is locked..(two locked doors to go through, actually) and secure. I have Parkinson's, and my PD Dr, (at the largest PD clinic in Michigan) would testify to my need, even though he could not sign the recommendation.

I'm not worried about me...I'm pretty close to the guy Jeff Fieger is looking to defend if hassled.

Now..say that plant every week and a half yields..oh..2.5 oz. It's pretty easy for me to be legit at all times. Most people who grow to harvest all the plants in flower at the same time, will be over for awhile after harvest.

I really don't care what others do..but be careful out there. These rulings, although great news, don't give Carte Blanche to anyone...
 
well what about the outdoor growers..

can't they just as easily argue they just do 1 harvest as opposed to perpetual and they need a 2 lbs to keep up their continuous unaided supply of medicine over the year until the next season.

implications are huge.. i'm telling you guys
 
and sadly i've never been up to my maximum in amounts, ever. always 1 plant less. and omg.. i wish i had what i could carry lol

i could if i wanted that chemical crap.. :/
 
tomcatjones said:
well what about the outdoor growers..

can't they just as easily argue they just do 1 harvest as opposed to perpetual and they need a 2 lbs to keep up their continuous unaided supply of medicine over the year until the next season.

implications are huge.. i'm telling you guys
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd personally love to do this. Plant 3-4 plants in the summer, and harvest enough to last until the next year. Huge savings on energy and supplies, for sure. I'm definitely going to keep an eye on the news, and consider this for next year.
 
There's no pending legislation on quantities or uninterrupted supply. That is the courts discretion and if you are over your 2.5oz you are breaking the law as it is written.
 
stumpjumper said:
There's no pending legislation on quantities or uninterrupted supply. That is the courts discretion and if you are over your 2.5oz you are breaking the law as it is written.
Click to expand...

wrong.

it is at the courts discretion to whether you are breaking the law. you can be over your 2.5 as long as you were doing it for a damn good reason.

scenario time!!!

a cg/pt has 6 ounces on him. he just picked up 3 for himself and 3 for his patient.

the pt run out and so did the cg so prior to these 6 ounces they had none.

so here we have a Cg over his card limit.

but engaging legally compliant with the law because he was engaging in lawfully activities for a medicinal purpose.
 
tomcatjones said:
wrong.

it is at the courts discretion to whether you are breaking the law. you can be over your 2.5 as long as you were doing it for a damn good reason.

scenario time!!!

a cg/pt has 6 ounces on him. he just picked up 3 for himself and 3 for his patient.

the pt run out and so did the cg so prior to these 6 ounces they had none.

so here we have a Cg over his card limit.

but engaging legally compliant with the law because he was engaging in lawfully activities for a medicinal purpose.
Click to expand...

So long as the court decides 6oz is reasonable for the purpose
 
stumpjumper said:
There's no pending legislation on quantities or uninterrupted supply. That is the courts discretion and if you are over your 2.5oz you are breaking the law as it is written.
Click to expand...

Exactly...the rulings didn't eliminate that and replace it with 'reasonable"...sounds like most guys think it did, or that 'reasonable amount' is more than that.

Got a feeling that's gonna get some people in trouble...
 
I thought the ruling strengthened the affirmative defense and created no need for a state issued card if you are so inclined as long as you have a doctors note. I think that means a lot for the regular person who wants their medicine but doesn't want to forfeit their privacy like a state issued card requires you to.
 
if your registered with the state, and in FULL Compliance as a registered Pt/CG, then you SHALL NOT BE ARRESTED, and if you are it shall be dismissed, and you could sue for false arrest.

in your scenario Tomcat, i see it like this.

CG. 1 pt. IS CG a pt too? if yes, both are out of meds. he gives pt 1st 2.5 pt is full and at limit, CG now has 3.5oz. He can hold 2.5 for Pt, leaving 1 oz. IF he is also Pt, no issue, if he is only a CG-issue as he is 1 oz over what he can hold for Pt. is that reasonable? judge may say yes,no, but i suspect if CG is in that Bad Timing when a visit occurs he may be arrested, and use a sec 4 if the Judge says reasonable. if he says its not, then a JURY WILL have the opportunity to hear the FACT of the case, and decide if the 1 oz is reasonable.

But even if the judge determins the 1 oz extra is not reasonable, that is a trier of Fact, that he CAN NOT RULE ON per the SC, thus it MUST be allowed to the Jury.

2nd scenario.

Pt only, Registered. no cg, does not grow, only acquires when in need. this pt doesnt smoke but ingests. on this day, Pt has a 3 lb brownie batch that has been filled with 14g of BHO Oil. pt has Zero amount of plants, or other dried/useable meds. all there is is the batch of medicated brownies...


hows it roll out?
 
SwissCheese said:
I thought the ruling strengthened the affirmative defense and created no need for a state issued card if you are so inclined as long as you have a doctors note. Correct, So long as you also have a medical use, and a "Reasonable amount", AND, you are not in violation of ANY part of section 7. If a judge does not think the amount you had is "Reasonable" that is a trier of Fact, and it MUST be allowed to the jury to decide. THAT IS THE KEY PART of a Sec 8, which has been denied over and over, because they illegally tried to tie 8 to 4, using section 7. they knew this was illegal (Gov, BS, Courts, especially O'Connel on the CoA), and did it anyways. They HAVE Commited Crimes against the Citizens of the State, and Should be held accountable for their criminal actions and intents).



I think that means a lot for the regular person who wants their medicine but doesn't want to forfeit their privacy like a state issued card requires you to.
Click to expand...


you are absolutely correct. This ruling and the way it was recorded is HUGE.
 
Print up several articles from the last twenty years of people being busted with 5 pounds or more. With those articles and that proof, 6 ounces sounds like small time bullshit and police and courts do not need to deal with this bullshit.

Go sit in a fucking court room and listen to what criminals are doing on the streets. 6 ounces shouldn't even be in a discussion of being reasonable. 3 pounds is questionable at best. If you don't have 6 ounces on hand as a caregiver, you better be figuring something out!! Give me a fucking break. 6 ounces.
 
gladstoned said:
Print up several articles from the last twenty years of people being busted with 5 pounds or more. With those articles and that proof, 6 ounces sounds like small time bullshit and police and courts do not need to deal with this bullshit.

Go sit in a fucking court room and listen to what criminals are doing on the streets. 6 ounces shouldn't even be in a discussion of being reasonable. 3 pounds is questionable at best. If you don't have 6 ounces on hand as a caregiver, you better be figuring something out!! Give me a fucking break. 6 ounces.
Click to expand...

I agree with your thought..but the question remains, will a jury see 6 oz as 'reasonable"..and that I am leery of..
 
Out of 12 jurors. I would have to bet my ass on it. I think a lawyer can easily defend 3 pounds to a full/active caregiver. Every single grow book on the market explains the benefits of a proper cure. That is when all hell breaks loose on the numbers. 20 pounds would be difficult, unless you have or even know a cancer patient or two. A smart caregiver with heavy weight should have a little RSO laying around also.

6 ounces shouldn't even be questioned. I think we are at the point where marijuana shouldn't even make it to court. We had another meth bust in the UP today. They really need to start inspecting these meth labs. Does a meth lab affect the AG's DOW stock? Meth dealers are looking for profit. A caregiver with 6 jars of meds is not.
 
gladstoned said:
Out of 12 jurors. I would have to bet my ass on it. I think a lawyer can easily defend 3 pounds to a full/active caregiver. Every single grow book on the market explains the benefits of a proper cure. That is when all hell breaks loose on the numbers. 20 pounds would be difficult, unless you have or even know a cancer patient or two. A smart caregiver with heavy weight should have a little RSO laying around also.

6 ounces shouldn't even be questioned. I think we are at the point where marijuana shouldn't even make it to court. We had another meth bust in the UP today. They really need to start inspecting these meth labs. Does a meth lab affect the AG's DOW stock? Meth dealers are looking for profit. A caregiver with 6 jars of meds is not.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, so long as the cg had records and books to justify the amount of weed. I also agree that curing is not adressed properly.

The problem in court is going to be showing where that cannabis goes, how much cash flow is involved, and justifying that the defendant is truly helping patients, not dealing weed.

And that is going to come down to records and accounting. Go to court without them, you will more than likely lose.

An argument to justify the amount of cannabis a care taker has is worthless without documentation to prove the need.

Remember, a judge can give jury instruction. He can basically tell them to dis regard the the argument made by the defense attorney if there is no proof to back it up.

I'm not anti cannabis..I'd like to see it as acceptable as alcohol. Hell, it's less damaging than drinking. But we are not there yet.

And there HAS to be regulations on how cannabis is grown, and distributed.
 
gladstoned said:
You are describing guilty until proven innocent. Isn't that why the new ruling helps the innocent ones?
Click to expand...

I'm not describing guilty till proven innocent. You are presumed innocent, but the prosecutor is going to try and show that you are not. he will bring in a Dr to testify that your amount is unreasonable, he may also bring in a Dr to question that your condition even qualifies, if it's not directly a named condition.

Without records and documentation, his argument will be stronger than yours. Section 8 is an affirmative defense...an affirmative defense shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. The defendant will have to prove that the amounts are 'reasonable" and that his Dr recommendation is valid.

Here is a definition that helps explain my view...

[h=3]Burden of proof[/h] Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[SUP][6][/SUP] The standard of proof is typically lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. It can either be proved by clear and convincing evidence or by a preponderance of the evidence. In some cases or jurisdictions, however, the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]



The key being, the DEFENDANT now has the burden of proof...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top