can i grow and sell 154 plants in michigan?

bertiswho said:
you want to grow that many plants, move to colorado and open up a dispensary...the dispensaries have to grow most of their own pot. i think its like 60% or something like that
Click to expand...
yeah good luck with that, dispensaries are worse than walmarts or starbucks here. you'd be working for one of those two than trying to make profit off of weed legitimately. lol and you have to grow closer to like 75 percent. People still have to list you as a caregiver to get to that kind of limit though.
 
Max number of plants one person could have is 72 and thats a fully loaded caregiver. So the answer to your question is no.

Having a co-op is not disallowed in the law, there is really nothing making it illegal however the COA made a shitty ruling on it I believe, or maybe it was one of Bill Shittys opinions, but the supreme court will be ruling on co-ops soon. However having a co-op with over 99 plants is fucking stupid and just asking for trouble.
 
Actually if I recall correctly...

72 plants max per caregiver. 5 patients + themselves.
With a co-op, which is not allowed in every city/county is max 100 plants per 1 property.
If you have multiple caregivers with multiple properties, then you could go over the 100, but I dont even really recommend getting near 100.
 
UncleBuck said:
it matters that you are so wrong.

i don't like plant regulations, i'm just trying to verify whether or not this particular grower was state compliant.
Click to expand...


state compliant means nothing.


townships, the state police, counties. ALL different and all interpret it different.

there have only been a few cases of patients/caregivers being federally charged. and in most cases, they are out of their bounds. even in the 3 points that the affirmative defense lays out.

both of you are wrong in different areas.

uncle buck: we have a hard time getting our own state boys to let our legally allowed 12 per patient go by let alone screwing with the feds.


and clarification: 1 cg plus being a patient, with 6 patients is 72 plants.. i saw someone say 60 earlier which is only the case if they themselves are not a patient.

here is another kicker: many task forces in the state are quasi jurisdictional. they come in with the help of the feds, but the state is the one who deals with it.

nice political run around. but i know deprave and uncle buck just like to argue to big black and white issues till it bleeds. but there is truth in the middle and regardless, it isn't pretty.. thanks for stopping in our section to inquire lol
 
I am not going to go digging, I don't care enough..What I was saying is there are felons that have caretakers licenses ..just not drug felonies.... I have no idea if that guy was state compliant or not nor do I care.
 
UncleBuck said:
what if i'm a convicted felon and don't have a co-op? is it still cool if i grow 154 plants and sell them?
Click to expand...

I'm going to tell you what that cowboy outside the tavern next to the truck stop told me when I asked him I could get a carryout from the bar:
Boy! This is Montana - You can do anything you want here.
Montana lost their medical law last year because they did anything they wanted to and bragged about it.

So no you can't do that here because each set of plants needs to be seperate if they want to be dicks, and they do want to be dicks.
Also the locals do the investigation on the high plant numbers and then turn over their investigative material to the DEA.
The DEA then raids the perps with the IRS and a couple other types like ATF.
You get 20 years, pay a million dollar fine, and then serve lifetime probation afterward if you live long enough to require outside supervision.
The local pigs, prosecuters, and the feds, split up your stuff they want to keep and then sell the rest at auction so they can split the proceeds.

That reminds why I love this country so much: they can kill you; but they can't eat you.
 
stumpjumper said:
Max number of plants one person could have is 72 and thats a fully loaded caregiver. So the answer to your question is no.

Having a co-op is not disallowed in the law, there is really nothing making it illegal however the COA made a shitty ruling on it I believe, or maybe it was one of Bill Shittys opinions, but the supreme court will be ruling on co-ops soon. However having a co-op with over 99 plants is fucking stupid and just asking for trouble.
Click to expand...

They don't give out that Moderator status to dummies!
What he said.:lol:
 
firstly- it clearly says here; The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
then-

goddamned if it doesnt say this.

333.26428 Defenses. 8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, 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 be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana 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; and

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition. (b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a). (c) If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana: (1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or (2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.
 
any way-

IV. CONCLUSION
The plain language of the MMMA does not require that a defendant asserting the affirmative defense under § 8 also meet the requirements of § 4. Additionally, to meet the requirements of § 8(a)(1), a defendant must establish that the physician’s statement occurred after the enactment of the MMMA and before the commission of the offense.

If a circuit court denies a defendant’s motion to dismiss under § 8 and there are no material questions of fact, then the defendant may not reassert the defense at trial; rather, the appropriate remedy is to apply for interlocutory leave to appeal. Thus, we reverse the 65 See Bailey, 444 US at 416 (“If . . . an affirmative defense consists of several elements and testimony supporting one element is insufficient to sustain it even if believed, the trial court and jury need not be burdened with testimony supporting other elements of the defense.”). 66 People v D’Angelo, 401 Mich 167, 178; 257 NW2d 655 (1977). 31 Court of Appeals’ judgment in King and remand for an evidentiary hearing so that King may raise the affirmative defense under § 8. We affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment in Kolanek, with the exception of the portion directing the circuit court to allow Kolanek to reassert the § 8 affirmative defense at trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top