bob harris
Well-Known Member
All fluff..no substance...kinda like the buds you grow....
5-31-2012 MSC MMM Act Ruling for your reading pleasure.
- Thread starter Timmahh
- Start date
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
ZING!! A+ on that rip bob!!
tomcatjones
Active Member
yeah, i can't even keep up with them on a weekday, lol
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
corrected your spelling error.
This law is Different for 2 reasons bob.
1st, its a Peoples Initiative, Look it up.
2nd, it has never been properly or fully implemented. BS and those under his term, that have been hell bent on changing this Act, have been doing so under false pretenses. SO everything that has been done under those false pretenses needs to be corrected. The MSC stated the Act must be upheld as it is written, with broad and simple terms, not narrow and stringent terms. The MSC even went to far as to add emphasis to broad and simple if im not mistaken...
SO all the arrest and sentences and jail terms, ect, now must be FULLY re gone through and every case needs to be re examined. Is Bill Schuette going to pay for the cost to re do all the arrest of cannabis since this act was ratified on Dec 4th, 2008? No he wont, We the people will now be not only paying a 2nd time for a trial that in most cases, never should of happened. Guess what that means? More taxpayer Liability in False Arrest, False Imprisonment, False Incarcerations, suits that are coming, and All the Claims for Liable agains the State (note:state here means we the people) for damages and injury, with a fair amount of it including personal damages. All of which we the People are Liable for fiscally due to the purposeful improper implementation of this law, which was passed to be a shield, but instead was used as a hammer against the very people it was voted to protect.
bottom line. a lot of shit has been done illegally by many in LEO's or in the Governing body in the state, that is totally against the will of the people.
So, once the wrongs perpetrated have been sorted out and corrected, and the STATE is finally up to speed on the Act, and How to interpret it properly and correctly, then they can implement it fully.
Once it is fully implemented (the act itself, not the illusionary things some think it is supposed to deal with) Then any changes that need to occur can.
See you want to make it appear i dont want this to be the best law it should be, which is far from the truth of the matter.
but you can not attempt to fix a law, until all part of it are in place and functioning. Its only then that you will find the True issues that need to be dealt with where the Act itself is concerned.
And IF one were to do their homework, they would find the Act does indeed have some quirks imo, but they can not be fixed, until one is sure they are actually a problem that needs attention.
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Timmahh...again you argue for "full implementation" before any changes or clarifications, when "full implementation" is impossible due to lack of clarification.
Your argument makes no sense. In fact, it argues for chaos.
Chaos seems to be your goal.
You are just joe cain reincarnated...I'm gonna start calling you little Joe.....
bob harris
Well-Known Member
Timmahh..i'm to committed too logic to bow down to you and your 4 or so supporters who all have unrealistic, utopian views.
I can't learn from the uninformed and ignorant..i was hoping you could learn from me.
And you do! You have even started considering the feeling of the general populous...although you embrace it as something you have always done. Just like you have now claimed "victory" in helping reword the HB's that you insisted be blocked , and ridiculed my suggestion to direct the fight to re wording.
It's a slow and difficult process getting you to listen, plus I have to accept that when my ideas are adapted by you, that you will spin the truth and make it seem you came to those views on your own.
But it's worth it.
Anyhow, I'm sure you will run and hide like you did when the HB'S were re worded, when the SC makes a ruling you don't like. It takes you some time to figure out how to claim it's what you thought would happen, to re gain face.
Timmahh...little Joe Cain..
GregS
Well-Known Member
The ruling reinforces the new class of protected individuals:
Cannabando (k
n-
-b
n
d
)
n. pl. cannabandos or cannabandoes
1. An elite resident of the State of Michigan who qualifies to use cannabis for medically necessary purposes, but declines the protections afforded in §4 of The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, and instead enjoys the sparser requirements and the extensive protections found in §8 of that same law.
2. (a member of) a unit of geurilla growers specially trained for tasks requiring special courage and skill.
3. (modifier) denoting or relating to a cannabando or force of cannabandoes: a cannabando raid or a cannabando unit.
v. To go cannabando, i.e, with only the barest requirements.
Cannabando (k
n. pl. cannabandos or cannabandoes
1. An elite resident of the State of Michigan who qualifies to use cannabis for medically necessary purposes, but declines the protections afforded in §4 of The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, and instead enjoys the sparser requirements and the extensive protections found in §8 of that same law.
2. (a member of) a unit of geurilla growers specially trained for tasks requiring special courage and skill.
3. (modifier) denoting or relating to a cannabando or force of cannabandoes: a cannabando raid or a cannabando unit.
v. To go cannabando, i.e, with only the barest requirements.
Fantastic to see this ruling.
Very satisfying to have all those who argued the law was "vague" or "ambiguous" slammed with a 7-0 ruling.
Given that they interpreted this in layman's terms, we will probably see them overturn the CoA in McQueen and the return of farmer's markets across the state. A great day that will be. Anyone know when a ruling is expected in this case? Has anyone been following the hearings?
Very satisfying to have all those who argued the law was "vague" or "ambiguous" slammed with a 7-0 ruling.
Given that they interpreted this in layman's terms, we will probably see them overturn the CoA in McQueen and the return of farmer's markets across the state. A great day that will be. Anyone know when a ruling is expected in this case? Has anyone been following the hearings?
SketchyGrower
Well-Known Member
It's early and I'm stoned.... what did this ruling do exactly?
ozzrokk
Well-Known Member
Sketch you really should read the ruling it is worth the read. It basically tells the lower courts that they MUST allow the defense and that they cannot deny you a section 8 defense just because you were not in compiance with section 4. I t also states that you must have your doctors rep after the law was inacted and before your arrest. But please do go read it. Everyone should read it.
Purk. I dont even think they have heard the McQueen case yet. But they will.
Purk. I dont even think they have heard the McQueen case yet. But they will.
It means that the idea that you need to stay within 2.5oz/12 plants and have it locked up to be able to claim the affirmative defense is toast. They rightly ruled that Section 4 and Section 8 are not linked.
It means that you can now claim the affirmative defense no matter what unless you violated part of Section 7 (smoking in public, etc.). If the judge doesn't immediately dismiss the case, you get to present the facts to the jury, who then have the opportunity to dismiss the case (determining if the quantities you had were reasonable). Given that 80% of Americans support legal MMJ, this is huge. Nearly every MMJ case will now go before a jury, without the defendant having to risk trial and conviction, or deal with the legal costs and years of court dates.
You do still need to get your doctor's recommendation before your arrest to be able to claim the affirmative defense in court.
It appears there shouldn't be many prosecutions anymore over unlocked grows, small overages, or expired cards - so long as you can argue before a jury that the amounts you had were reasonable, and demonstrate need. If you have a "serious" condition, not something vague like migraines, I imagine it would be very difficult to convict you.
It's expensive to prosecute and have cases tossed, so if they start getting tossed with regularity I think the cops will start recognizing recommendations alone.
It was a 7-0 ruling, so Bill Schuette and the CoA just got slammed. It's the best news we've had from the courts, ever. I have trouble envisioning them not overturning McQueen given their rationale (a layman's interpretation, not the crazy definition hunting of the CoA combined with 30 pages of legal acrobatics). IMO P2P should be legal again sometime soon.
It means that you can now claim the affirmative defense no matter what unless you violated part of Section 7 (smoking in public, etc.). If the judge doesn't immediately dismiss the case, you get to present the facts to the jury, who then have the opportunity to dismiss the case (determining if the quantities you had were reasonable). Given that 80% of Americans support legal MMJ, this is huge. Nearly every MMJ case will now go before a jury, without the defendant having to risk trial and conviction, or deal with the legal costs and years of court dates.
You do still need to get your doctor's recommendation before your arrest to be able to claim the affirmative defense in court.
It appears there shouldn't be many prosecutions anymore over unlocked grows, small overages, or expired cards - so long as you can argue before a jury that the amounts you had were reasonable, and demonstrate need. If you have a "serious" condition, not something vague like migraines, I imagine it would be very difficult to convict you.
It's expensive to prosecute and have cases tossed, so if they start getting tossed with regularity I think the cops will start recognizing recommendations alone.
It was a 7-0 ruling, so Bill Schuette and the CoA just got slammed. It's the best news we've had from the courts, ever. I have trouble envisioning them not overturning McQueen given their rationale (a layman's interpretation, not the crazy definition hunting of the CoA combined with 30 pages of legal acrobatics). IMO P2P should be legal again sometime soon.