Search results

If you''re going to quote me, or for that matter anyone, please get it right. It is not a stretch to think that there are those who understand. There is really no way to know how many. Likewise there are obviously those that don't. We cannot know that number either, beyond about three who have...

That is precisely what I mean to say. Thank you. Under the letter of the law, any prosecution of a patient and/or caregiver requires dismissal when the elements of the AD are proved by a preponderance of evidence after a motion to dismiss at an evidentiary hearing before circuit court trial and...

I thought he looked more like Neandrethal, waay before the bronze age.

You have pretty clearly demonstrated that you do not have the gray matter to get it. This is simply more hyperbole.

That is hyperbole Bob. I recognize it for what it is, and posit that any reasonable person sees it that way too.

It would take someone demented enough to think that such production will not bring attention by the feds, and the state clowns would shit themselves.

Your point is...?

I won't engage in these silly number games. The only three numbers that matter in the AD are the three prongs necessary to prove the defense. The numbers are very much on our side, and those are the numbers I choose, tyvm.

They don't have to, but they can. Your examples and comments are pretty silly, violate every rule of dialectic, which is used to seek truth, and are what we have come to expect. Your statements are more accurately described as rhetoric or polemics. I insist that they are what are used to obscure...

Yes. That. If you were to read and understand Bylsma, you would see that possession limits are particular to that case, and subsequently specifically mentioned. Those parts in italics speak to the ultimate protection of the AD. [T]o establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8, a...

Sec. 8 could not possibly more plainly state that patients AND their caregivers can use the defense. The documents I have laid out are intended to permit patients to assign caregiver status to as many caregivers as they need, and protect those caregivers. Will you please respond to the quote...

Or if you would rather, we can use the text that you are mistakenly trying to use to point out that caregivers are not covered. 1. The Gatekeeper’s Statement [Section 8(a)1]: • A physician (Licensed MD or Osteopath) • has stated that • in the physician's professional...

8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana. Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall...

Lawyers do not give guarantees, and neither do I nor have I. I have been advised that it can be helpful. Given the plain text of sec. 8, I think it would.

One correction to my last post: proof is not necessary beyond a reasonable doubt, but by a preponderance of evidence. I regret the error. For some reason I am unable to edit the post itself.

I can read plenty well, and have the gray matter to understand. If you can refute my comments with facts, staying away from lies, speculation, and hyperbole, by all means do. I will support my position doing just that. Otherwise we all sound like B*B. I had not expected to have to post this...

Tee hee. Funny that. A patient can acquire from any source.

I am seven feet tall and awful good looking. So goes the interwebs.

...and we Michigan residents can legally acquire them. B*B's convoluted mention of jumping through registry hoops would work, as would sec. 8 compliance. Sec 8 goes to work before the ink is dry on the necessary documents.

Only to point out that there is a legal alternative to your point that genetics cannot be legally procured, at least in Michigan.