gladstoned
Well-Known Member
dealers deal. Used car dealer, encyclopedia dealer, coke dealer, medical cannabis dealer, seed dealer, black jack dealer. I take it you think 'dealer' = bad
Good News.. I swear!!
- Thread starter tomcatjones
- Start date
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
We are all sick brother. lol.Intent.
And I agree the intent when using is always medicinal.
But if you ever intend to give or sell anything that is not for a sick person - then you Sir are worse than Hitler.
At that point you are a 'connect'.
I believe just like you said, the intent when using is ALWAYS MEDICINAL. There is no such thing as recreational use. It doesn't exist. It's a term sick fucking snobs coined. It's all medicinal. Dude in Engadine with 400+ plants medicinal. How isn't it medicinal? Do you need to be pissed off when you medicate and if you get happy then it's recreational and then you better quit smiling or you will get busted?
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
A lot of answers with no answers.
How does someone use recreational? As a caregiver, I keep striving for quality and yield, quality and yield. I grow 100% medicinally. How good of a grower do I have to become until I cross over into being a piece of shit? If I have meds for crohns patients and I know 12 people with crohn's and help them, and I do the math and have an extra $150. Does that make me a piece of shit then? If I purchase some new equipment with that $150 to up my quality or yield, is that then confirmation that I am profiting? If hortilux comes out with a new bulb that is $500 and it guarantees to double yield, would I be a drug dealer to buy that bulb ONLY to double my yield?
How does someone use recreational? As a caregiver, I keep striving for quality and yield, quality and yield. I grow 100% medicinally. How good of a grower do I have to become until I cross over into being a piece of shit? If I have meds for crohns patients and I know 12 people with crohn's and help them, and I do the math and have an extra $150. Does that make me a piece of shit then? If I purchase some new equipment with that $150 to up my quality or yield, is that then confirmation that I am profiting? If hortilux comes out with a new bulb that is $500 and it guarantees to double yield, would I be a drug dealer to buy that bulb ONLY to double my yield?
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
when the reference to drugs are involved, imo, the term dealer refers to those that move Non Prescription medication, that is currently deemed illegal (not counting cannabis, its not a drug, it is an herb).
I agree with you on the recreational theology. At least where cannabis is concerned. If your using cannabis on most any level, I also do not see how it can not be a medical situation, solely due to the fact, once utilized, the person has a better outlook, is happier, and is more thoughtful, thus more pleasant to deal with....
I agree with you on the recreational theology. At least where cannabis is concerned. If your using cannabis on most any level, I also do not see how it can not be a medical situation, solely due to the fact, once utilized, the person has a better outlook, is happier, and is more thoughtful, thus more pleasant to deal with....
bob harris
Well-Known Member
So..mushrooms are fine, peyote is good, lick all the frogs you want? Those are all natural..is natural the deciding factor? Is Drinking medicinal?..lots of people drink in moderation to relieve stress.
To get what you'd like, the law as written, would need to be changed. But you are against changing anything in the law as written...is that your position? That's really confusing.
I'm not trying to be an ass here Timmahh...but help me understand.
The law as written can not be changed...right? You have said that many times.
The law as written clearly qualifies what conditions allow use? ...right?
Uses not in the qualifying list are ok to use medical cannabis for, because all use is medicinal...right?
Ergo, since all use is medical use, Michigan has legalized cannabis?
Help me understand that.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
I'd say that recreational use would be a relatively healthy individual, able to work, probably employed, who smoke just to relive stress and relax.
Medical use would be a person that has a medical condition that directly interferes with the ability to work/ hold a job for which cannabis use alleviates those conditions, so that the person can work. Or for a person with a major injury/ illness where the cannabis replaces or reduces the need for traditional prescription meds.
Philosophically, it's a tough call.
Medical use would be a person that has a medical condition that directly interferes with the ability to work/ hold a job for which cannabis use alleviates those conditions, so that the person can work. Or for a person with a major injury/ illness where the cannabis replaces or reduces the need for traditional prescription meds.
Philosophically, it's a tough call.
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
Honestly the whole "don't touch the law" is why I stayed on rollitup. I could never understand that shit at all.
Bob you grow dope and bang hookers. Mushrooms are a good time. Been a good dozen years though. Not sure about the whole licking frogs trip. I don't think that could happen without the shrooms. Drinking is medicinal also. Now I have to go find the video with Joe Rogan saying fuck ups that smoke weed are just fuck ups. That seems highly appropriate.
Bob you grow dope and bang hookers. Mushrooms are a good time. Been a good dozen years though. Not sure about the whole licking frogs trip. I don't think that could happen without the shrooms. Drinking is medicinal also. Now I have to go find the video with Joe Rogan saying fuck ups that smoke weed are just fuck ups. That seems highly appropriate.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
I don't like shrooms, have never licked a frog, peyote sucks, and I don;t drink...hookers and weed are good though..
My point with Timmahh...Is how do we get where he wants us to be, if we can't touch one single word of the law as written?
we HAVE to alter the law as written to allow the things he wants (and many of us want)..but..he says over and over that we can't change it.
Confuses the crap outta me...
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
Bob, you can not be so dense as to not understand my position. I SHALL spell it out for you, yet again.
the REASON i say NO CHANGES, NOT ONE COMMA, NOT ONE PERIOD, is fully due to the fact Bill Schuette, LEO, Most of the Government Republicans as well as significant handful of the Dems, have been making a Mockery of Not only the 08 MMM Act, but the way government is supposed to work. IE. For the People. The MSC has stated such in their unanimous ruling.
This, like it or not, fully supports everything I have been saying with conviction Since I have started on this political venture. You have opposed exactly what I have been saying in relation to this Act, the Law, how it has and Is being handled and until the MSC stepped in, Would of continued to be handled (which is completely your prerogative), Which is 1, completely incorrect, 2, against the will of the people, and 3, as firmly outlined by the MSC, basically Criminal as the lower courts, AG's office, and much of the State Government and Municipalities, have over and over made rulings that were, and are inappropriate, and fully, outwardly against the Act, ie, against the Will of the People put into place by the vote via a people initiative.
They (those listed above and NOT the MSC) did this while being fully aware they SHOULD of been ruling on this as a Peoples initiative all along! Which means, they Knew they were to handle this in a specific manor, and yet, chose NOT to do so, thus were Knowingly Breaking the Law.
When the people that are to uphold or create the the law, blatantly break the very foundations of the law, for the purpose of creating criminals out of citizens that are not criminals, because they do not like the Law these citizens passed, and are following, then how can they expect anyone to follow any the laws set forth, especially the one Law/Act, they are attempting to openly break and openly oppose, knowing full well it is not for them to like, but to Fully and COMPLIANTLY Implement and FOLLOW, just like the Citizens that passed it into law.
Furthermore, If they are breaking the law, should they not be punished?
How you can set there and Openly shine with GLEE when someone is going to jail for no criminal doing is beyond me. And then in the next breath, often in the same one, you so diligently try to protect the very Group of People trying to destroy our law, with a Flimsly excuse of, they are only doing it to protect us? Really, they are only Willingly, and Blatantly breaking the law to protect us? Is that what you are saying Bob? because it is exactly what we are hearing out of you!
With the MSC ruling, I have been proven to be undeniably, 100% correct in my assessment of the situation on the 2008 MMM Act time and time again, and you sir (as to remove any doubt of who I am speaking to, you bob harris), have been proven undoubtedly, unequivocally wrong on over and over.
Until this Act has been FULLY Implemented, as DESIGNED, as Ratified into Law by the People, how can ANY change to it be deemed logical, let alone constitutionally viable?
Being a man of business, You Sure do not seem to have any sense of business in this matter.
you say you were in big business. lets say your new business is the getting the best deal for your customers. so you create a business that does just that. you call it the 08 mmm act, and your customers like it so much, they make it a law. now your business is a well drafted, well liked, well created law, but those business's of competition, lets call them the Michigan Anti Cannabis Incumbent Government, dont like your new business/law, and prefer keeping your customers on the dole. They don't like your business, even though the customers made it a law, so as soon as you and your customers pass it, they start to mess with it, in a blatant attempt to change it before you can get your business/law fully in place, so the full realization of it, can be had by the customers you started your business for, which liked your business model so much, they made it a law.
So you are saying by all that you seem to be implying, that before you even get the business in place, and implement the law as it was designed to work, you would just let the competition change all the rules you designed, and let your customers get the short end of the stick, the exact Opposite of the purpose you created the business model for in the first place, and the reason the customers like it so much, they made it a law of their land?
Now, as a business man, are you Seriously setting here telling us, You would allow your business model/now a law, be improperly interpreted, miss used, abused, and torn down, and you would just let it happen? You honestly would let the government change the rules, before you even got the model working?
Really? And you further don't see the irony of it all, that you, while stating you fully support something, even broke the law before it was passed via medical reasons, and still you openly support and back the competition that is intent on stopping your business model, now a law, from succeeding?
IF that is what you are saying, then I have to be highly suspicious if your claim of any type of big business career, or your huge understanding of what business is about, in which case, sums it up well. If this is truly your thought on the matter, then it is quite clear, you Career as Shift Supervisor at McDonalds has sorely left your business knowledge impaired.
Just calling it as I see it man.
the REASON i say NO CHANGES, NOT ONE COMMA, NOT ONE PERIOD, is fully due to the fact Bill Schuette, LEO, Most of the Government Republicans as well as significant handful of the Dems, have been making a Mockery of Not only the 08 MMM Act, but the way government is supposed to work. IE. For the People. The MSC has stated such in their unanimous ruling.
This, like it or not, fully supports everything I have been saying with conviction Since I have started on this political venture. You have opposed exactly what I have been saying in relation to this Act, the Law, how it has and Is being handled and until the MSC stepped in, Would of continued to be handled (which is completely your prerogative), Which is 1, completely incorrect, 2, against the will of the people, and 3, as firmly outlined by the MSC, basically Criminal as the lower courts, AG's office, and much of the State Government and Municipalities, have over and over made rulings that were, and are inappropriate, and fully, outwardly against the Act, ie, against the Will of the People put into place by the vote via a people initiative.
They (those listed above and NOT the MSC) did this while being fully aware they SHOULD of been ruling on this as a Peoples initiative all along! Which means, they Knew they were to handle this in a specific manor, and yet, chose NOT to do so, thus were Knowingly Breaking the Law.
When the people that are to uphold or create the the law, blatantly break the very foundations of the law, for the purpose of creating criminals out of citizens that are not criminals, because they do not like the Law these citizens passed, and are following, then how can they expect anyone to follow any the laws set forth, especially the one Law/Act, they are attempting to openly break and openly oppose, knowing full well it is not for them to like, but to Fully and COMPLIANTLY Implement and FOLLOW, just like the Citizens that passed it into law.
Furthermore, If they are breaking the law, should they not be punished?
How you can set there and Openly shine with GLEE when someone is going to jail for no criminal doing is beyond me. And then in the next breath, often in the same one, you so diligently try to protect the very Group of People trying to destroy our law, with a Flimsly excuse of, they are only doing it to protect us? Really, they are only Willingly, and Blatantly breaking the law to protect us? Is that what you are saying Bob? because it is exactly what we are hearing out of you!
With the MSC ruling, I have been proven to be undeniably, 100% correct in my assessment of the situation on the 2008 MMM Act time and time again, and you sir (as to remove any doubt of who I am speaking to, you bob harris), have been proven undoubtedly, unequivocally wrong on over and over.
Until this Act has been FULLY Implemented, as DESIGNED, as Ratified into Law by the People, how can ANY change to it be deemed logical, let alone constitutionally viable?
Being a man of business, You Sure do not seem to have any sense of business in this matter.
you say you were in big business. lets say your new business is the getting the best deal for your customers. so you create a business that does just that. you call it the 08 mmm act, and your customers like it so much, they make it a law. now your business is a well drafted, well liked, well created law, but those business's of competition, lets call them the Michigan Anti Cannabis Incumbent Government, dont like your new business/law, and prefer keeping your customers on the dole. They don't like your business, even though the customers made it a law, so as soon as you and your customers pass it, they start to mess with it, in a blatant attempt to change it before you can get your business/law fully in place, so the full realization of it, can be had by the customers you started your business for, which liked your business model so much, they made it a law.
So you are saying by all that you seem to be implying, that before you even get the business in place, and implement the law as it was designed to work, you would just let the competition change all the rules you designed, and let your customers get the short end of the stick, the exact Opposite of the purpose you created the business model for in the first place, and the reason the customers like it so much, they made it a law of their land?
Now, as a business man, are you Seriously setting here telling us, You would allow your business model/now a law, be improperly interpreted, miss used, abused, and torn down, and you would just let it happen? You honestly would let the government change the rules, before you even got the model working?
Really? And you further don't see the irony of it all, that you, while stating you fully support something, even broke the law before it was passed via medical reasons, and still you openly support and back the competition that is intent on stopping your business model, now a law, from succeeding?
IF that is what you are saying, then I have to be highly suspicious if your claim of any type of big business career, or your huge understanding of what business is about, in which case, sums it up well. If this is truly your thought on the matter, then it is quite clear, you Career as Shift Supervisor at McDonalds has sorely left your business knowledge impaired.
Just calling it as I see it man.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Wow...that's too long to "quote, so I'll simply reply.
Let' start with this.
Until this Act has been FULLY Implemented, as DESIGNED, and Ratified into law by the People, how can ANY change to it be deemed logical, let alone constitutionally viable?
Catch 22. The act can't be fully implemented, as designed. It's poorly written, By anyone with an educations opinion. It simply does not define anything towards implementation. Hence, can not be implemented.
Does that make your real argument...keep the confusion? Because it cant be changed. But it can't be implemented....catch 22...stalemate...confusion.
It has to be changed to work..that's what you don't get.
Let' start with this.
Until this Act has been FULLY Implemented, as DESIGNED, and Ratified into law by the People, how can ANY change to it be deemed logical, let alone constitutionally viable?
Catch 22. The act can't be fully implemented, as designed. It's poorly written, By anyone with an educations opinion. It simply does not define anything towards implementation. Hence, can not be implemented.
Does that make your real argument...keep the confusion? Because it cant be changed. But it can't be implemented....catch 22...stalemate...confusion.
It has to be changed to work..that's what you don't get.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Now, timmahh, If you like to start a new thread, and explain to me how it could be implemented, as written...in a manor people can understand, Id love to read it.
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
just as i suspected from you, no answers, just misleading questions.
and if you think THAT is too long, then you have yet again just proven you know Nothing.
If you can not read a short 8ish paragraph post on a website, you certainly can not be expected to have read, and then Fully understood, not only the Ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court on the Act, but the Act itself. This only supports the fact you talk fully out your ass, and nothing you say should be taken for truth.
and if you think THAT is too long, then you have yet again just proven you know Nothing.
If you can not read a short 8ish paragraph post on a website, you certainly can not be expected to have read, and then Fully understood, not only the Ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court on the Act, but the Act itself. This only supports the fact you talk fully out your ass, and nothing you say should be taken for truth.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
No misleading questions. And all I asked, is how CAN the law as written, be implemented. I don't know how it can..way to..not there. Really no plan written into the law.
But you assure us it can be implemented...pray tell how?
bob harris
Well-Known Member
I've read the act itself plenty of times...rulings and HB's too.
Thea act is way under written. Even in "common meaning" it's way to vague.
How many dispensaries timmahh? One on every corner? Based on population of area? As many as people can build? Where can they be located? Can I put one across from the rehab center? The church?
None of it is in the act "as written".
Ergo..you have to support changing the act..or you support anything goes.
You seem to support anything goes. 63% didn't vote for that I don't think.
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
lmao. I will apologize right now to you guys. I haven't been much of a drinker lately and I have had a few tonight. Hope everything is civil. lol. I realized it was hitting me when I went on this thread on tried liking a few posts, then realized they were mine.
What could we possibly do to get you guys to exchange phone numbers and youtube that shit. Like 15 minutes every other day.
What could we possibly do to get you guys to exchange phone numbers and youtube that shit. Like 15 minutes every other day.
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
Tell that to the SC they seem to be able to read it just fine. Like the rest of us.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
It's NOT all there...nor is it ALL in the SC ruling.
I know you want it to be there...but I don't know how anyone could agree that it's "all there"....sorry Timmahh...that's the most bizarre thing I've heard from you yet.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
The SC is just getting warmed up...Do you think they are done making decisions on this? I'm glad you like the way they read it...you will certainly have no problems with future rulings...
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
If anyone will make it right it will be the SC cause no one else will.
The law is all there..... It provides many protections and that is the problem that SOME have with it, so they just call it confusing.
Just cause there is a system set in place to ammend laws if need be does not mean it always needs be. When you say that is how it is supposed to work you sound just like the legislators that now think they are SUPPOSED to call and vote on EVERYTHING for immediate affect. That was put in place if need be not to always do.