Good News.. I swear!!

Uh oh, here we go again.

tomcatjones said:

you could have 150 plants.

all in a field unlocked.

as long as could can show you had the medical necessity..


and with all that Japanese radiation.. we all need some rso!

Click to expand...

That's the exact thinking that will get a bunch of people arrested.

An oz or two a month is all that is needed to treat most conditions. You better have been using RSO and have Cancer if you plan on getting your plants considered a "reasonable amount"

I find and oz or two for a whole month very unreasonable. Many of us go through a zip a week easy. Is a 2 month dry and cure unreasonable? Even if cured meds are better? I think it would take 10 lbs to become unreasonable. I believe a few in very very reasonable. Not only reasonable but as a caregiver that caregiver should absolutely have a few lbs on hand. If a patient is diagnosed with cancer, do they then inform their caregiver to add equipment and wait a few months.

Also, if anyone has any family member that has ever been diagnosed with cancer, then can't that be used as a medicinal reason to have marijuana. or must one wait until they are actually dying? Doctors ask all the time about family history and how to prevent shit from happening. If anyone that has ever gotten stressed out and smoked some weed and then felt better, isn't that medicinal?

I think out of 12 jurors, one would be reasonable. Out of 12 voters 7 1/2 are reasonable. Out of 12 politicians, 0 are reasonable.

gladstoned said:

I find and oz or two for a whole month very unreasonable. Many of us go through a zip a week easy. Is a 2 month dry and cure unreasonable? Even if cured meds are better? I think it would take 10 lbs to become unreasonable. I believe a few in very very reasonable. Not only reasonable but as a caregiver that caregiver should absolutely have a few lbs on hand. If a patient is diagnosed with cancer, do they then inform their caregiver to add equipment and wait a few months.

Also, if anyone has any family member that has ever been diagnosed with cancer, then can't that be used as a medicinal reason to have marijuana. or must one wait until they are actually dying? Doctors ask all the time about family history and how to prevent shit from happening. If anyone that has ever gotten stressed out and smoked some weed and then felt better, isn't that medicinal?

I think out of 12 jurors, one would be reasonable. Out of 12 voters 7 1/2 are reasonable. Out of 12 politicians, 0 are reasonable.

Click to expand...

That's the thing with the word 'reasonable"...it's way open to interpretation. A judges view may be waaaay different than a patients.

You have to remember that even with a card or Dr recommendation, the court is going to look at the "condition" that you are treating. If you don't have a big condition..IE: Cancer, MS..something truly chronic and debilitating, the amount considered "reasonable" by a judge is going to be much less.

The majority of people that will get arrested and need this defense will fall into the 'pain" category. And most of them will have a Dr recommendation based on a minimal condition.

Remember, in court a Prosecuting attorney can present a Doctor of their own to give his opinion of the severity of your condition. Can you even find your recommending DR to testify? So, how much is "reasonable" to treat Arthritis?

Guys,,do what you want..but don't think these rulings give you complete protection.

Unless of course, you want to be the next test case in court....

Murfy said:

i am-

he did NOT have the rec at the time of the violation, therefore, while he will be granted the exploration, he will not pass it.
the decision was to clarify the section 8 interpretation. the MMMA is not retroactive. we all new that.

Click to expand...

I sit corrected - from the start I was of the belief he had a card or app.

Okay Attorney Murfy, Sir, You say he won't pass the examination.
I assume this is because he did not secure his grow?

The reason I ask is it looks like the guy gets nailed either way because he did not follow the rules.
With the quantifier of course that he did not need to exceed the parameters of the program to provide his own meds?

tomcatjones said:

well guys the WAY king will get off is this..

"The trial court found Defendant cultivated marijuana in an “enclosed, locked facility,” satisfied the affirmative defense and granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges."

Because Defendant failed to comply with the provisions of Section 4 regarding the “enclosed, locked facility” he was precluded from asserting the Section 8 affirmative defense.


BUT.. now we know that YOU DO NOT NEED to follow to protection in section 4 to use the section 8 defense


this is why SEVERABILITY is in the law like 6 times.

each section is separate.


if you have a doctor's rec. which i have 2 - 1 from my first doc. another from my renewal.

you have to meet 3 things at your hearing.


1- you had spoke to a doctor -don't even need a REC "(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 - you can show you didn't have any more than a "reasonable amount for a consistent unaided supply"

3 -

the defendant’s use was
“to treat or alleviate the patient’s serious or debilitating medical condition or
symptoms . . . .” As long as a defendant can establish these elements, no question of fact
exists regarding these elements, and none of the circumstances in § 7(b)

of course here is what bob needs to read.

4. Section 8 of the MMMA provides a limited protection for the use of medical
marijuana in criminal prosecutions, which requires dismissal of the charges if all the
elements of the defense are established.
5. A defendant need not establish the elements of § 4 to have a valid affirmative
defense under § 8.
6. A defendant who moves for the dismissal of criminal charges under § 8 must
raise the defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss and for an evidentiary hearing.
33
7. A defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges under § 8 if, at the
evidentiary hearing, the defendant establishes all the elements of the § 8 affirmative



KING WILL WIN.

he had a card.​

Click to expand...

Are you delibertly snipping out the rest of #3?
Do you have the full quote?
Thanks.

FatMarty said:

I sit corrected - from the start I was of the belief he had a card or app.

Okay Attorney Murfy, Sir, You say he won't pass the examination.
I assume this is because he did not secure his grow?

The reason I ask is it looks like the guy gets nailed either way because he did not follow the rules.
With the quantifier of course that he did not need to exceed the parameters of the program to provide his own meds?

Click to expand...

I am with FM...the real problem is that King begged to get busted. He led a protest on a Federal building, and the signs were stacked in his yard. He had an outdoor grow going, at a time that it was considered forbidden. The Kennel was not secure to the ground. The back door to his house had no lock, and there were plants inside.

He got busted for taunting the new law, for being an ass. He didn't need to do any of the tings he did to meet his medical needs, he did them to push limits.

Whether he walks or not..he is not a shining example of a medical cannabis patient. My guess is that he doesn't completely walk.

bob harris said:

King had a Recommendation at the time of arrest...Kolanda did not..two seperate cases.

Click to expand...

Jesus Fuck I just gave the Attorney props for correcting me.
Aw fuck it man.

If I read the decision right he gets a hearing and he fails the hearing because of the COA.
Under normal circumstances he had a shot at mercy from the Court out of ignorance for the new law no one else seemed to understand including that Lower Court.
But he went on a media blitz and denigrated, (rightly so I might add for what it's worth), both the Court and the PA.

The PA made his own mistakes and got caught: Larry King made that an issue in his case before the media, online, and in newsprint.
He's fucked.

bob harris said:

That's the thing with the word 'reasonable"...it's way open to interpretation. A judges view may be waaaay different than a patients.

You have to remember that even with a card or Dr recommendation, the court is going to look at the "condition" that you are treating. If you don't have a big condition..IE: Cancer, MS..something truly chronic and debilitating, the amount considered "reasonable" by a judge is going to be much less.

The majority of people that will get arrested and need this defense will fall into the 'pain" category. And most of them will have a Dr recommendation based on a minimal condition.

Remember, in court a Prosecuting attorney can present a Doctor of their own to give his opinion of the severity of your condition. Can you even find your recommending DR to testify? So, how much is "reasonable" to treat Arthritis?

Guys,,do what you want..but don't think these rulings give you complete protection.

Unless of course, you want to be the next test case in court....

Click to expand...

Depends upon type, progression, the patients ability to work with pain.
My Doctor would certainly say I need what I say I need because he trusts me.
I have a twenty plus year file with him.

My shit is so documented, and my Dr. so supportive, that it would be a treat for an attorney to defend me.
I personally don't need to exceed the limits; but I think Sec. 8 applies for those who do.
The problem I see is having a 'pot Doc' testify as to need: they may not come off as credible.

I have Degenerative Rheumatoid Arthritis since I was a child - it is auto-immune disease that never gets better.
Most people only get it when older; but I hit the unlucky lottery of life and came up with that and chronic Bronchitis by the age of 10.

FatMarty said:

Depends upon type, progression, the patients ability to work with pain.
My Doctor would certainly say I need what I say I need because he trusts me.
I have a twenty plus year file with him.

My shit is so documented, and my Dr. so supportive, that it would be a treat for an attorney to defend me.
I personally don't need to exceed the limits; but I think Sec. 8 applies for those who do.
The problem I see is having a 'pot Doc' testify as to need: they may not come off as credible.

I have Degenerative Rheumatoid Arthritis since I was a child - it is auto-immune disease that never gets better.
Most people only get it when older; but I hit the unlucky lottery of life and came up with that and chronic Bronchitis by the age of 10.

Click to expand...

Like you, I have a shitload of documentation. I'm a Parkinson's patient. I also comply with all the rules. Plant counts (always under) weight on hand, locked secure..all of it.

It's the guys that are borderline with the Dr recommendation, the ones that can't document their condition in a more substantial way than saying "i'm qualified" that are going to get themselves in trouble.

In court, your Dr recommendation is going to be questioned as to it's legitimacy. I'm just sayin..if you have a hotel recommendation, with out a stack of documentation that verifies your condition, don't fall to deep in love with these rulings. She will prove to be a cruel mistress....

It's gonna be up to a judge to determine 'reasonable" ...and I bet he's not thinking the same way you are...

I'm not trying to start a fight..I'm just trying to keep ya out of jail...do what you want

I agree completely.
It's so much less stress to be safe than sorry.
Especially now that the MI. SC has ruled that our law is protection for those who do abide.

FatMarty said:

Are you delibertly snipping out the rest of #3?
Do you have the full quote?
Thanks.

Click to expand...

no i wasn't but i will find it..
here it is.. in it entirety...

the 3 points of the Affirmative Defense the must be met

According to the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act MCL§333.26428(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



and remember that "A PATIENT"... includes both registered patients and UNregistered patients

bob harris said:

Timmah and I have never really dis agreed on what we would like to happen...just about how to go about making it happen. He's been more of a stop the laws from beiong amended guy, and I'm a help them amend them favorably guy.

In the long run, we'd all like to see the same thing. It's the most effective way to do it that causes debate.

Click to expand...

correct Bob. I dont hate you are anyone, I am a guy full of love, but im also already full of shit and have room for no more of it, from anyone. lol

but truth be told, I have stood HARD on the conviction, Being a Peoples Initiative, Judicial and Legislation has NO Authority to make Changes. Not until they Find MAJOR Issues. and the only major issue found to date is they have not found a way to put us in Jail This Time, EVERY Time.

I am a Big Believer in We the People and the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruling just upheld what I, and those speaking the same thing, No Changes, Not one Comma, Not one Period, have been Correctly interpreting the Act. That Validation while Great, and makes me want to say "I Told You So", is just the tip of the IceBerg...

Like bob said, and I understand his position, if they are going to try to change it, they should get guidance, But the guidance they got was BADLY Advised.

the SC held very strictly to the fact this law is a Peoples Initiative, and the Courts, LEO that have been Ignoring that issue, are doing so with near criminal intent...

*cough* proposal 1 said MDCH *cough* i'll do it on my own if i have to.

FatMarty said:

Jesus Fuck not everyone can be right here and everyone has a different take.

I'd sure like to know what it all really means.

Let's get back to King: He had a card or app in at the time.
He was growing under Sec. 4.

I don't see how he can argue Sec. eight "exemptions" for security as medically necessary: it does not compute.
Like I said before - he did not even try to comform to the rules.
Maybe I'm just stupid; but I don't see where not securing your grow can be construed as medically necessary, especially in his case.

Click to expand...

Sec 8 defense is available for ANYONE with a Dr Recommendation....

sec 4 defense is available for ANYONE Registered to the States List. If for some reason, a registered patient, over steps the limits in 4) they can then present a sec defense. As an example a card holder has NOTHING in their house but a 2 lb brownie... over weight limit, Guilty per BS and the CoA. But per the MSC, they may not qualify for 4) as a cardholder, but they CAN still use . just because they are a Registered Pt, does not mean the MUST use sec 4) defense.

SO to use sec 4) you must be within all limits outlined in a sec 4). Which are Far more superior protections than in Sec .
but to use sec 8, you only need to NOT be in Violation of the parts in 7). regardless of sec 4).

Hope that helps a bit.

Bob are you kidding me? Where did I say anything of the sort? I think you need to start reading shit before you post about it. I am not gonna sit here and argue with you AGAIN about it.

The court said THIS

You can use your card to get a dismissal ( even though it should have protected you from arrest) BUT

If you do not fall under that protection ( in other words if they say you violated parts of 4) then at pretrial you use section 8 to get a hearing

At that hearing if you meet the 3 elements your case must be dismissed ( NO PART OF SECTION IS INCLUDED IN MEETING THOSE 3 ELEMENTS FOR SECTION 8 AND YES YOU CAN USE SECTION 8 EVEN THOUGH YOU ALREADY HAVE A CARD)

If you do not meet those elements because there is a question of fact on those 3 elements then you will present the section 8 defense to a JURY to determine if THE JURY believes those facts.

If you do not meet those 3 elements and there is NOT a question of fact on those elements then you CANNOT present the section 8 defense before a JURY.

It is all pretty simple if you just READ THE RULING.

I am not do not and have not told anyone to go this route but if they try to bull some bullshit and say you didnt lock your grow room door then you NOW HAVE the section 8 defense whether you have a card or not........

Murfy said:

i am-

he did NOT have the rec at the time of the violation, therefore, while he will be granted the exploration, he will not pass it.
the decision was to clarify the section 8 interpretation. the MMMA is not retroactive. we all new that.

Click to expand...

KING Was a authorized card holder. Kolanek Was not, and got a dr Rec after his arrest. King was a registered Pt at the time of his arrest.

King, I believe, also have a fully fenced in back yard, which means to get to the dog kennel, or the back door would be commiting criminal tresspass. As I understand it.

And regardless to what you say bob it is NOT ok for the government or law enforcement to USE THEIR power to get back at you because they did not like you protesting them. We do not live in egypt. You talk alot about what king and others did then we come to find out that you dont know shit about any of the cases you spew about. Sorry rant is over. Continue your undercover.

bob harris said:

Good to see you are still ignorant.

Section 8 IS a trial defense...section 4 allows a dismissal. You agreed with Murph, then corrected him, just to argue with me.

My opinions are to try and keep people from getting in trouble..yours is to tell them to do whatever they want, with an overly broad interpretation of the law.

Click to expand...

Wrong bob. you will be arrested, but at the Evidentiary Hearing, someone with atleast a drs rec, can ask a sec 8 dismissal. so long as they did not violate part of section 7, ie on a bus, in a school area, prison ect..... the charges SHALL Be dismissed.. If their is a Matter of Fact in question, amounts or plant count ect... ) then the Defendant can Present that evidence to the jury of their peers At Trial. but they have the ability at the Evidentiary Hearing, to get the case dismissed. Furthermore the MSC, stated in very clear and concise terms that the Act, Must be read as a Peoples Initiative, Not as a Legislative, or Judicial Understanding, but the simplest and Broadest Interpretation given to the Law by the body the ratified it to law, ie... We the People.

This is a GREAT THING bob. just except it and rejoice sir.

bob harris said:

Ok guys...ozz says we can grow 300 plants, outdoors, with no fence...so long as we have a recommendation.....ozz, you are an idiot if you think that section 8 will provide that kind of broad defense coverage.

Section 8 does remove plant and weight counts outlined in section 4. However, if you think that is a good thing, you will prove to be mistaken.

(2) the defendant did not possess an amount of marijuana that
was more than “reasonably necessary for this purpose,”

The second condition is way open to a judges opinion..or a juries. You guys all want growing as much weed as possible to be legal..it isn't.

by removing the plant count and weight protections under section 4, I bet most judges will allow LESS cannabis, plants or weight, to be viewed as "reasonable". King had maturing outdoor plants..what do you think the weight was going to be?

Do you think that it doesn't matter? Think again...

Click to expand...

no bob. 8 clearly states REASONABLY NECCESSARY. it has nothing to do with 4, the MSC distinctly stated you DO NOT NEED TO qualify for ANY part of Sec 4, to use a Sec 8.

secondly. ANYONE that is foolish enough to go over 99 plants, should be FULLY AWare, they are in Federal Territory, with Zero Doubt of it.


you only need to have a dr rec, and qualify for the 3 parts with in 8, and not violate any of 7, and a section 8 defense will 1, get the charges dropped, or 2, allow a Jury to hear the Facts of the Medical USE. Remember section 8 is a "SAFETY NET"..... the burden of proof is on the Defendant to prove compliance to a Judge, OR a Jury of their Peers.