Section 8 protection

I have a dispute with the management at 3ma over this topic. They disappeared two lengthy threads where I was making my points. Townsend played his bullshit games, and I called him on it, much like I've done here. They have an unspoken agreement to protect him so they don't lose him as a useful doctor, despite that he is a dick. That is not my style. I don't have a problem being involved with things on both sites where I can be useful. All the time people wring their hands and talk about how fractured the different groups are in this movement. I'm not playing that game.

As for LHB, he is flat out fucking up. It will be interesting to see what the management does with him. It is a pretty old post that dates to 2011.

My mistake. Again, we will see what the management does. What I will not do is chase my tail over peripheral issues that distract from the topic at hand. LHB and his involvement with processing is an interesting aside to this conversation, and may provide heat, but little light.

this is the worst cartoon ever

This is, more to the point, a questionable call. I wonder if it will remain as prosecutorial glee.


Based on the District Court’s reading and interpretation of Section 4, the MMMA’s definition of usable material, and the general definition of marijuana contained in the public health code, the court ruled that Section 4 of the MMMA only protects patients and caregivers who possess actual marihuana “plants” and/or patients and caregivers who possess “usable” marijuana. The court ruled that “unusable” marihuana is not protected by Section 4 of the MMMA; thus, patients and caregivers who possess unusable are subject to prosecution under the public health code.

That actually is an interesting question. I'm going to read Michael's write up again. On first reading, it looks like a prosecutor's trick because clearly the plants have to be cut, trimmed, and cured in order to be usable. It certainly would not stand up to Appeal as it defies common sense.

Dr. Bob

Given this stupid and silly take on unusable mj, the AD is the only legal means to keep all of us out of prison.

The Honorable Jude Hayman then concluded he agreed with the parties reading of Kiel, and stated after reading Kiel and Anderson, “I find that prong 1 and 3 have been satisfied.” He then went on to say that I agree the only issue that remains is prong 2, and the way I am reading it seems to be: that if the defendant provides evidence of the quantity being a reasonable amount, I must dismiss the charges absent a showing of evidence to the contrary that creates a question of fact.

As you can see from this quote, the circuit judge clearly blew off the district judge's assertions that from cutting to curing the wet plants were not covered under section 4. In all reality that was completely untenable anyhow, and had no bearing on any other court case other than the one before the bench at the time.

The circuit court judge, with this statement, clearly indicated that the only issue that needed to be resolved in the Section 8 hearing was the amount needed by the patients. He was not being asked to rule on section 4 again. He was being asked to rule on section 8.

There are two things to be kept in mind with amounts. Under the MMMA, anything up to and including 12 plants and 2.5 ounces per patient is PRESUMED medical use. There is NO NEED to justify any amount under this level. Section 8 really comes in to play when those amounts are exceeded. If they are, the fall back position is the fact the federal gov issues 8.3 ounces of marijuana to it's patients at a time, each month. If possession and use of marijuana is between 2.5 and 8.3 ounces, you have a VERY good argument that constituted medical use when you are charged and trying to justify your actions to the court under section 8.

Bottom line Greg, no one gives a damn about what a district court judge says except for the defendant on trial in that case. It does not hold over to any other court, including other courts in the same district. This was just a bad ruling in one case in a bad county, but it was worked out on the next level, circuit court, with a good result. Clearly that judge was putting his own spin on the law.

Dr. Bob

GregS said:

Given this stupid and silly take on unusable mj, the AD is the only legal means to keep all of us out of prison.

Click to expand...

The key phrase in your post is 'stupid and silly'. That is all it was and it was a local issue that may or may not be repeated by that judge again. We also had a district judge in Lansing that ruled the 20 day rule for paperwork being your temp license if the patient didn't get a card and didn't get a denial meant ANY reason the patient didn't get a card or denial, to include the patient never sending it to the state in the first place.

Just a bad ruling by a misinformed judge that didn't stand up to review by the next level.

Dr. Bob

PS, certifications and other activities under the MMMA should always be planned with a potential section 8 in mind. Make sure your certification meets the standards, that you are in your limits, etc.

[video=youtube_share;yq9YC9K-P84]http://youtu.be/yq9YC9K-P84[/video]

After another long and drawn out conversation regarding sec. 8, the anal retentives at the MMMA decided to censor it. B*B has been pathetic in his vehemence against our being aware of what that part of the law has to offer, making constant ad hominem attacks without facts and being the fucktard he is so anxious to demonstrate. Other members argued stridently and without circumspection or critical thinking. We did, before this happened, begin to draft a potential contractual agreement for use in establishing a pt/cg relationship without registry. It allows unregistered and registered patients to enter into agreements with unregistered caregivers. There are other advantages as well.

For your approval. Please read and consider the options. Carbonless copy is an option, as is a third party witness. Notarization is essential. Every bank has at least one notary on hand. Notary Public commissions are simple to get, and fees are cheap and capped by law at ten bucks. Many times the fee is waived. Imagine one in every pharm market, or wherever medical marijuana is sold. It is advised that this document be shown to a competent attorney for a legal opinion before using it.

Good luck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I,______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am a qualifiying patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008. Medical documentation of an allowed debilitating condtion and recommendation for use of marijuana for medical purposes (see attached) was obtained from Dr.________________________________, dated______________________________________. I hereby appoint_______________________________ as my primary caregiver under that law, and agree to conform with the Act in the medical use of marijuana.

I,______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am at least 21 years of age and have agreed to assist with the above named patient's medical use of marijuana. I have not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and have never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.

Sigs and notarized and done. All parties to this agreement should keep copies of this, the required medical documentation, and identification of the principals for their files.

This will not prevent arrest, but will, as long as a court abides by the law, help prevent conviction and require the charges to be dismissed in accordance with Sec. 8 as long as the evidence shows you to be in conformance.

I like flooding LARA with change of CG forms every time we can. Assign whatever CG u want for that day. U know just Tryin to follow 'their' dumassed law

These agreements would not require a change form, unless possibly you are dumping a cg who is registered. In that case, it is the right thing to do.

Well it is unfortunate that Greg feels the objections raised against his idea were personal attacks on him. The result of the discussion was that this was a poor idea that was indefensible and relied on the patient coming in to testify in support of the caregiver. It was felt this would put patients and caregivers at risk with very little backing for a variety of solid reasons.

But this is a free country, so have fun trying to convince folks this will keep them out of jail here.

Dr. Bob

Ah so where does that little gesture fall on your 'levels' of debate? I do find it interesting that your response to critical thinking is to drop your pants. Good think I didn't expect any deeper thought on the subject.

You see Greg, just because someone doesn't agree with you concept doesn't mean they make personal attacks against you. When folks don't agree with you, it isn't a matter of writing in all caps, wooden headedly insisting you are right despite being shown, specifically, the flaws in the argument you are making, or that they are using 'low level' debate forms such as personal attacks with you. As someone that insists that anyone that disagrees with your wisdom is using a personal attack type argument, you are the first to put up a dropped pants icon in response to someone pointing out that a section 8 defense for an 'unregistered caregiver' would by necessity involve having the patient come forward- essential switching the prosecutor's attention from the caregiver to the patient.

I guess that is why you and your other personas had you tail handed to you over at the MMMA. Perhaps you will find those that don't have the background in the Act, the law or the court system (including many successful section 8 defenses- how many do you have under your belt?) here.

Dr. Bob

Cancer Sucks (green does help immensely).