http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/12/michigan_supreme_court_rejects.html
Thought I would share...
Thought I would share...
Michigan Supreme Court rejects cooperative medical marijuana grow operations in Kent
- Thread starter McMedical
- Start date
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
Am I reading this wrong but they ruled 12 plants per room period? meaning multiple rooms for multiple patient caregivers?
"Kent County Circuit Judge George Buth ruled that the medical marijuana law had a strict requirement that each set of 12 plants allowed under the law must be kept in an enclosed, locked facility that can be accessed only by one person.
An appeals panel upheld that ruling, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court."
"Kent County Circuit Judge George Buth ruled that the medical marijuana law had a strict requirement that each set of 12 plants allowed under the law must be kept in an enclosed, locked facility that can be accessed only by one person.
An appeals panel upheld that ruling, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court."
It's not in Sec.4.(a) that's for sure
this is what is described in Sec.4.(b)
(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified
6 that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to
7 cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants
8 kept in an enclosed, locked facility;
ThatGuy113
Well-Known Member
Ok nvm the wording in the article was tricky but that opinion paper cleared it up for me.
Yeah that article was horrible. That's why I posted the other link too.
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
This ruling is no surprise, you can't comingle plants. There is an argument and an AG opinion requiring plants be separated by patients as well, but I strongly doubt that will hold up or even be enforced, it is viewed as a pretty radical interpretation. This ruling doesn't address that.
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
Agreed. I wonder how will this effect Ypsilanti who has recently zoned for co-op style grows. I'm personally happy about this. My wife has been offered a promotion, and we had the option of living in a few MMJ states, but Michigan's was the most attractive to me because of the "industry's" lack of commercial operations. In my opinion, the more medical marijuana stays is in the hands of communities the better.
Cory and trevor
Well-Known Member
thanks media for making that muddy as shit with tricky wording and terrible writing. I was pissed...then I wasn't because I read the link. Mlive can make anything unclear.
buckaroo bonzai
Well-Known Member
so what if he had been a CG and had the other CGs signed as patients that were there?
seems to me he would have been compliant he just didn't have his paperwork in order or the doors locked
seems to me he would have been compliant he just didn't have his paperwork in order or the doors locked
djwimbo
Well-Known Member
Good question buckaroo.
I'm not sure how this all plays out. The way I read it, if you're designated a CG, the CG and the patient are the only two people allowed to access the plants. If you have not designated a CG, then the patient(their own CG) is the only person allowed to access the plants. What I'm curious about, is what happens when two patients live under one roof, and both have their 12 plants(each) in the same room. On top of that, the recent changes (again, if I read it correctly) also "protect" other people under the same roof help you prepare medicine/oils/butter/etc when the patient is incapable. So ... WTF?
I'm not sure how this all plays out. The way I read it, if you're designated a CG, the CG and the patient are the only two people allowed to access the plants. If you have not designated a CG, then the patient(their own CG) is the only person allowed to access the plants. What I'm curious about, is what happens when two patients live under one roof, and both have their 12 plants(each) in the same room. On top of that, the recent changes (again, if I read it correctly) also "protect" other people under the same roof help you prepare medicine/oils/butter/etc when the patient is incapable. So ... WTF?
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
The recommendation I've always made is separate grow rooms for related caregivers and total plant count between the two under 99. You cannot co mingle grows. There are many lessons from this case of what not to do. It is suggested reading. Start with running a damn bright orange power cord to the next building to power your lights. Building inspector found the grow when he was tracing the illegal power source.
Dr. Bob
Dr. Bob
2xcharming
Active Member
Some people just ask for trouble. Shit like this makes things harder for those of us who do stay within the guidelines. Legal or not, keep your grow on the downlow. It is the best way to prevent problems or attention none of us need.
Some people just ask for trouble. Shit like this makes things harder for those of us who do stay within the guidelines. Legal or not, keep your grow on the downlow. It is the best way to prevent problems or attention none of us need.
stay small and stay legal!!
buckaroo bonzai
Well-Known Member
i would say if you and your ..wife partner lover family member are in the same house you are each others CG anyway...?...right
they want you to sign a paper saying that..
and why would you want be be individual if by one of you designates the other to be their CG you would enjoy more protection...? unless it's sketchy to begin w then don't designate a CG if the circumstances are volatile just keep separate but fk that!
and you never have two growers in the same house grow! never! never werks out--
.and wen u fill out the form always have the patient chk the box where it says "keep possession of plants"...
that way it allows the patient the option (my undrstndng) to be able to designate his plants to CG or retain possession ....or? (both?)
cross that bridge if it comes but tht allows more leeway jst mak sure u hav ur t's crossed and i's dotted--
that was what I was advised and the patients I know of chk the box so if they want their plants they are covered...even tho they have designated a caregiver to posess or be in control of their plants they allow them selves the option too
i believe if you don't chk that box then only the CG is allowed to posess. YOUR plants and then you are nt allowd to posess any!
what a crock right
i know people that don't have property but are growing in their patients house as their designated CG so......?
they are both allowed to be around them....
what if you r a cancer patient ....too debilitated to grow ..?...
.designate a CG and that person grows it in your home.......?
wouldn't the person being the patient be allowed to access their plants in their own home w-o some semantically BS....?
if you have a tight circle I would say to always designate everyone CG....to allow more protections jm2c
wat if you each designated each other to be your respective CG? then wat?
FatMarty
Well-Known Member
The way I read that is "for EACH registered qualifying patient...." Looks like this could be trouble for Caregivers if the Court is affirming that view. I don't think they are though - they left that for another day if I understand it proper. The merely ruled he could appeal from what I can gleam.
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, given my experience with The Green Market in Okemos I was struck by their repeated statement, within their sales pitch/legal advice, that we could continue growing even after designating their "associate grower" as our caregiver?
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
sounds good to me.
i just prefer to not to have any perceived posse dbl. plant counts is all i'm saying. like 12 is 12 and not somewhere between that and 24.
i just prefer to not to have any perceived posse dbl. plant counts is all i'm saying. like 12 is 12 and not somewhere between that and 24.
Similar threads
