bowlfullofbliss
Well-Known Member
hey look.......everyone got suckered into yet another patient/caregiver bash fest! cool. they make us all look very intelligent, lets see who bleeds first.
AnnArbor Dispensarys receiving letters
- Thread starter Firstoffallen
- Start date
bimple
Active Member
the law says usable marijuana - I personally don't wish to smoke uncured meds. This has been tested in the courts, also.
The point that people are missing here is that there are no "overages" when you are growing plants specifically for a patient. period.
bimple
Active Member
This isn't about patients/caregivers, it's about dispensaries and how they fit in to the picture, which they don't under the current law. What one person percieves as bashing may actually just be a discussion of the facts. I have heard all kinds of idiotic things being stated, not just in this thread, about what the law does and doesn't allow, and if you simply read the law for yourself you can see that there is no mention of dispensaries, or the concept of overages, or selling meds to other patients or caregivers that are not under your care legally. Some people argue that because it wasn't disallowed, it is therefore allowed, which is one interpretation of it, but unfortunately not one that the state attorney general is following.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
Do you grow for yourself, or do you have a caregiver?
Cory and trevor
Well-Known Member
Can't this be one of those instances when the law was written vaguely on purpose? Most drug laws do not include instructions on how to distribute legal pharmaceutics its assumed if its not deemed illegal and access is permitted then....you can sell it to patients in need. sure accountability is mandated and has oversight and blah blah but that's not the same thing to me. Do you think the act is interpreted correctly when its illegal for a qualifying patient to pass another qualifying patient medicine in any way shape or form without first filling out forms and being connected through the registry??
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
No he only writes scripts and bullshits about law.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
I haven't kept up with this thread. I read bloody's comment above yours and he sounded right on target. lmao.
bimple
Active Member
haha - wow - you are a real piece of work. I am not bullshitting about the law - I am speaking from knowledge and experience. Writing scripts? you need to open your mind and stop thinking inside the box
bimple
Active Member
say what you want, but the fact is that dispensaries do not fit in with the current law as it stands now and that hopefully will change with house bill 4271. I am not opposed to dispensaries, but they need to be legal simply to protect the people who work there, as well as the patients going there. Some of you seem to act like I am the bad guy, I am simply stating the facts regarding dispensaries as they are being interpreted by the State Attorney General - I did not say that I agreed with that interpretation. I also did not invent the "curing defense" and it has been used many times with success in Michigan courts. Caregivers simply post-date the jars as to when they will be ready to consume - when it will be usable. It is silly to attack me for stating that people have used that as a defense for having more than 2.5 ounces as a caregiver. Tell me another way you can harvest a high-yield plant and not be in violation of the 2.5 ounce limitation - obviously you can't only grow a 2.5 ounce plant - that is not what they intended. They just don't want patients purchasing or possessing more than 2.5 ounces at a time - I can purchase 2.5 ounces and go make brownies with that and be right back at the caregivers place again to pick up another 2.5 ounces - there is no limitation as to how often you can obtain your meds, thankfully, so how could a caregiver ONLY have 2.5 ounces on hand? that can't - so that's where the term USABLE comes in to play.
Huel Perkins
Well-Known Member
LEO do not interpret the law the same way you do...
Cory and trevor
Well-Known Member
Are you dodging my question? I'd like to know if you think its a proper interpretation that it is unlawful for a registered patient to pass/transfer a joint to another registered patient?
Cory and trevor
Well-Known Member
What successful defense(s) are/were these? so-and-so v state of Michigan?
bloodytrichomes
New Member
[video=youtube_share;Iv3e5uGOnB4]http://youtu.be/Iv3e5uGOnB4[/video]
bimple
Active Member
among others, People v. Redden, which determined the patient and the patient’s primary caregiver, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marijuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition.
Cory and trevor
Well-Known Member
well how does that work when your caregiver has to keep within your limit with your plants? how does he/she facilitate your daily trips while covering their ass legally? So I post date my jars for you to have daily access to 2.5 ounces then you don't come on Tuesday and the cops show up on wed and I just say...what? Your hypothetical scenarios are just as hypothetical as all the other head in the clouds patients. your consumption has to be calculated months in advance by your caregiver, simply labeling a surplus as unusable is great for you-you're in no danger and take no risk. Now here is a hypothetical back to you; you don't show up for a week and I had 2.5 ready for you for every other day labeled as such and now that you're not on schedule to consume and get out of my possession your pot I have to....what? Slang on the corner? throw it out? sell it to a dispensary illegally? hope for the best? you see from a patient perspective to you overages are all this fake profit, its your pot from your plants, correct? But do you take the risk and hold 6 ounces when your plants yield that? I would guess not. its up to the caregiver to keep patients enough to hold enough to serve a patients whims and you stated overages wasn't in the law purposely, right? so what happens in this case? You see, caregiver is a job, it is management of a garden and people and their consumption and the strains they need with the profiles of cannabanoids that help them and it's VERY involved and gets little to no respect. we're juggling all day every day and it gets easier to do so the more patients we are allowed to keep. 5 is an arbitrary and stupid number meant to keep plant counts under 99 and avoid federal bullshit problems. drop the 5 patients, leave the 72 plants and let us do our jobs! but most patients hear this and think well weed=$$$ so you're just trying to get rich. it is sad really. A) so what if I do get rich and B) IMPOSSIBLE! plant count is boo boo-watts of HID determine yield. patient count is stupid, why is it there? the best growers get to pick 5 so the dirt merchants can keep screwing people due to a manufactured shortage of caregivers who know WTF they are doing. Cops don't care for your interpretation if they are there it isn't to "fail" and walk without an arrest; they will look for reasons to bust, not reason to walk and labels with dates are EASILY removed. they weigh dirt to up weight how much easier is label removal? you interpret the law the way you want, you are NOT a judge not a cop and not even logical in your interpretation. I think you must be looking in from the outside or you'd have more insight into how this actually works in the real world. by the way-nobody is getting rich like is the popular opinion. caregivers are limited in their distribution so legally they are not getting rich. disp owners have a 70's law about drug houses to contend with and cannot write off anything on their taxes. so they buy an ounce for 250 and sell it for 300 they pay taxes on the 300 and can't write off the 250 it costs to make the 300 dollars. so legal disp owners are not getting rich. only the criminal ones who hide profits to pay their taxes. guys that go to farm markets are essentially doing P2P and its expressly illegal ask the fucked up SC they ruled on that law-boy remember that one? There it is all laid out for you. now if you please, answer my previous questions you dodged about your great friend and his great drafting of this infallible act he drafted. is the interpretation that 2 registered patients not connected thru the registry cannot pass a joint between them legally a correct interpretation and in the spirit of your buddies intentions when he wrote our wonderful act?????????????
Cory and trevor
Well-Known Member
Now I ask this: what did it cost Redden to establish this? I mean aside from his bullshit plastic shield (I'm referring to the idiotic card with the restrictive rules on it) costing him 100 to the state plus a pot doc fee annually (yes bi-annually now) I bet a couple grand. so the act protected him from a jail sentence he was still treated as a criminal, arrested, charged lawyer fees and probably court costs as well from the awesome acts protection.
OH and his caregiver too plus they likely destroyed the garden, right? so any incidental patients the CG was serving were also fucked over in the process.
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
Nice point C&T. What if a doc were to recommend group therapy sessions to vets suffering from PTSD at which they medicated. At exactly what point do the doc and all patients become criminals in this example
Murfy
Well-Known Member
GregS
Well-Known Member
The law was written so that it would make it past the electorate, and that succeeded in spades. It was pretty plain in its intent to accurately portray the small cottage industry that we enjoy. For that I am glad. That it precluded p2p in the vague provision of sec. (4)(d)(2) was lost on some, to include me, for a long time ((4)(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver...(2)The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.) In that regard the SC ruled properly.
We are, however, protected by sec. 8 when we are patients, or for that matter not patients, involved as another patient's caregiver, and without registry in transferring to another. There is a higher degree of risk and potential cost to defend yourself if found out. Protection can be enhanced with a verifiable agreement between the parties that spells out the caregiver's consent to provide, the patient's designation of that person as a caregiver (and we are not limited to only one per that section), and attesting to and including a copy of a doctor's statement in a bona fide relationship with said patient. Otherwise testimony from a patient is enough to establish that fact, so long as that patient can produce documented medical need in the necessary physician's statement. All that remains beyond that is to stay within reasonable possession limits, and that would have to be justified if called into question. It was sec. 8 that Redden, King, and others turned to for relief.
I find it ridiculous that the law does not permit people who have protection to grow, use, and possess the stuff from sharing it with others that are likewise protected. It is an unfortunate fact, however, that the law says otherwise, but the AD is the workarouond.