Medical marijuana case goes to Michigan Supreme Court

kountdown

kountdown

Well-Known Member
Here's the story from the Lansing State Journal:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20120328/NEWS04/303280048/Medical-marijuana-case-goes-Michigan-Supreme-Court?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

This is the big one that will determine if patients can sell their marijuana to each other and will have huge ramifications on the economic side of medical marijuana. I would like to see the appeals court decision overturned because I feel it creates criminals. However, the Republican to Democrat ratio is 4:3 so my prediction is the case will not be overturned.

What are your predictions or thoughts on the matter? The thread is open for discussion.
 
Timmahh

Timmahh

Well-Known Member
yes. the CA case from Mt P is Moving on up, to the Top. Lets hope this is a good play. the SC does so far seem to be leaning on the side of the Act and what the Act currently states. WE can only hope for the best at this point with the 2 cases they have yet to rule on, and this one now coming up.
 
Timmahh

Timmahh

Well-Known Member
not sure. they (SC) just stated they have accepted to hear the case. Believe they are set to hear it middle of April, but i dont know for sure on that.
 
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Timmahh said:
yes. the CA case from Mt P is Moving on up, to the Top. Lets hope this is a good play. the SC does so far seem to be leaning on the side of the Act and what the Act currently states. WE can only hope for the best at this point with the 2 cases they have yet to rule on, and this one now coming up.
Click to expand...
Timmah, what do you mean by " the SC does so far seem to be leaning on the side of the Act and what the Act currently states."
 
Timmahh

Timmahh

Well-Known Member
Stow, Watch the two cases the State Supreme Court heard in January. The have not yet ruled on them.
I believe it is the King Case, and the Blysthma Case they heard. Pay attention to the body language, and the way the Justices approach the Defense with almost a leading hand, while they all but chastise the Prosecution promotion of Bill Schuettes Opine of what the Act really says. By my reading of their questions, body language, and demeanor, the SC justices are leaning toward the side of the Peoples Vote, and i would say they will Uphold the Act, as WE the People Passed it.

atm, we are looking at a mass protest april 17 (i posted this up in another thread) This is the week prior to the Bills Vote on the House floor.
Please look at every bit of evidence of what is coming for yourself before you make a choice.

choosing not to decide is still a choice.
 
B

bob harris

Well-Known Member
Timmahh said:
Stow, Watch the two cases the State Supreme Court heard in January. The have not yet ruled on them.
I believe it is the King Case, and the Blysthma Case they heard. Pay attention to the body language, and the way the Justices approach the Defense with almost a leading hand, while they all but chastise the Prosecution promotion of Bill Schuettes Opine of what the Act really says. By my reading of their questions, body language, and demeanor, the SC justices are leaning toward the side of the Peoples Vote, and i would say they will Uphold the Act, as WE the People Passed it.

atm, we are looking at a mass protest april 17 (i posted this up in another thread) This is the week prior to the Bills Vote on the House floor.
Please look at every bit of evidence of what is coming for yourself before you make a choice.

choosing not to decide is still a choice.
Click to expand...
You sound optimistic. I am too. What do you hope for as to the decisions?

How are the section 4 and section 8 issues in both cases going to be resolved...if done as our law is written?
Is Kings dog kennel a locked and secure location?
Did Bylsma have a co-op..and a co-op is ok?
Was Bylsma over on plant count? Or do the 86 plants divide up between the card holders?
Do co-ops need separate rooms for all members, or can they grow under one roof?

I think those are the main issues the court is deciding on. But in a best scene scenario, what do you think happens?
 
Timmahh

Timmahh

Well-Known Member
personally, i would like to see the SC uphold the Act as we the people voted it in in 2008. I have read the 08 MMM Act from top to bottom dozens of times. It is a VERY Clear living document, presented to the State, and Ratified to Law by a vote of the Citizens of this state.

That is what I would like to See.
in this case, CA, i presume the SC will uphold PT to PT transfer WITH Remuneration. I suspect they WILL uphold the CG/Pt transfer model, and i feel they will uphold the CoA ruling that 3rd party transfers with remuneration are not legal.. ie If i grow it, i must transfer it to the end user. I can not transfer to you bob, and you then transfer to gladstoned. IF gladstoned is out, and he needs meds, he has to see me the grower, not you the 3rd party patient that transfers..


its what i expect. but its way to early to tell. Need to see the SC Justices, body language, and questions presented to get a feeling on how they seem to be leaning..



you see bob. For me, this is about WHAT is right, not Who man. because everybody is right, while everybody is wrong, BUT WHAT IS RIGHT is what is right, no PERSON can take away the RIGHT thing to do, they can only change it to the best thing to do for THEM... Im about the RIGHT THING to do for Us All. not a few with back room agendas.
 
Timmahh

Timmahh

Well-Known Member
where Sec4 and Sec8 is concerned.
hard one. but the SC is usually pretty solid on the side of the citizens (if only the CoA were so transparent) I expect they will uphold them as Separate and 2 distinct, different defenses allowed to all citizens.

if they follow the law now, as passed and on the books (which i believe the will) then they must simply make it if your within limits, your allowed a sec4), if your outside of limits or not registered, or do not have a dr rec. then these all should be allowed to use sec8. and sec7, is only seen as a preclude to sec 8 outlineing if they dont qualify for sec4 for ANY REASON, then they MUST be allowed to use sec 8 if they wish.
 
FatMarty

FatMarty

Well-Known Member
kountdown said:
Here's the story from the Lansing State Journal:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20120328/NEWS04/303280048/Medical-marijuana-case-goes-Michigan-Supreme-Court?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p

This is the big one that will determine if patients can sell their marijuana to each other and will have huge ramifications on the economic side of medical marijuana. I would like to see the appeals court decision overturned because I feel it creates criminals. However, the Republican to Democrat ratio is 4:3 so my prediction is the case will not be overturned.

What are your predictions or thoughts on the matter? The thread is open for discussion.
Click to expand...
No prediction; but I hope at a minimum they clarify whether P2P is legal without compensation of any kind.

I have never sold my excess; but I have donated it many times to other patients and when one was not known personal friends who just like to get high.
Okay I know giving friends bud is not going to be ruled Kosher.
But why can't we have a registry/dispensary and a legal method to at least give away excess meds?

It seems to me that our law allows non-profit assistance to other patients.
It says medical use includes obtaining and transporting the weed.
P2P without compensation just has to be legal.
I hope the lawyers push this as hard as they push sales.
If they establish that giving weed to other patients is legal first it will be easier for them to show why compensation alone does not make the transfer illeagal.

But if they can't show that giving away to another paitient is legal first then they have no chance of proving that compensated transactions are legal.

Once the transfer is ruled legit - hopefully - it can be argued that it cost money to give stuff away in an orderly fashion, and that some compensation at some point might be necessary in order to fulfill the intent of the law.

Straight Grandmas need meds too - they don't know the likes of me - a legal distribution point only makes sense for her.
How else does the distribution center hire security and keep books without minimum income from the operation?
Without distribution Grandma is harmed because she can not participate in the program without knowing me first.

There is definately a case for dispensaries in the intent of the law; but first you MUST prove that uncompensated P2P is indeed legal within the current Act.
 
B

bob harris

Well-Known Member
FatMarty said:
No prediction; but I hope at a minimum they clarify whether P2P is legal without compensation of any kind.

I have never sold my excess; but I have donated it many times to other patients and when one was not known personal friends who just like to get high.
Okay I know giving friends bud is not going to be ruled Kosher.
But why can't we have a registry/dispensary and a legal method to at least give away excess meds?

It seems to me that our law allows non-profit assistance to other patients.
It says medical use includes obtaining and transporting the weed.
P2P without compensation just has to be legal.
I hope the lawyers push this as hard as they push sales.
If they establish that giving weed to other patients is legal first it will be easier for them to show why compensation alone does not make the transfer illeagal.

But if they can't show that giving away to another paitient is legal first then they have no chance of proving that compensated transactions are legal.

Once the transfer is ruled legit - hopefully - it can be argued that it cost money to give stuff away in an orderly fashion, and that some compensation at some point might be necessary in order to fulfill the intent of the law.

Straight Grandmas need meds too - they don't know the likes of me - a legal distribution point only makes sense for her.
How else does the distribution center hire security and keep books without minimum income from the operation?
Without distribution Grandma is harmed because she can not participate in the program without knowing me first.

There is definately a case for dispensaries in the intent of the law; but first you MUST prove that uncompensated P2P is indeed legal within the current Act.
Click to expand...
I think that WILL happen...it's transfer for donation that is being argued.
 
B

bob harris

Well-Known Member
Timmahh said:
where Sec4 and Sec8 is concerned.
hard one. but the SC is usually pretty solid on the side of the citizens (if only the CoA were so transparent) I expect they will uphold them as Separate and 2 distinct, different defenses allowed to all citizens.

if they follow the law now, as passed and on the books (which i believe the will) then they must simply make it if your within limits, your allowed a sec4), if your outside of limits or not registered, or do not have a dr rec. then these all should be allowed to use sec8. and sec7, is only seen as a preclude to sec 8 outlineing if they dont qualify for sec4 for ANY REASON, then they MUST be allowed to use sec 8 if they wish.
Click to expand...
My take is this:

Section 4 will apply only to registered card holders. So long as they are in compliance. Plant count, weight, locked facility. Cops will be told to walk away when that is the case. Bag of cannabis in the trunk discovered during a stop for a different reason? No issue, so long as the card is valid.

Section 4: No protection if you are over on counts, weight, or in violation of code in any way. You will be arrested. Your only defense left, is to prove that the "overage" was necessary due to the use of the patient. :IE: cancer patient and Simpson oil...

Section 8...afforded to those that have no registration card, but do have a signed doctors recommendation for cannabis.
Without the signed recommendation, you have violated the act. You have "self diagnosed" and your rights are gone.

The only overlap of the two at all, will be a certified card holder, that is over on count or weight, will have the opportunity to show that that overage was necessary for the patient.


That's how I see it..and I'd say that is pretty fair.
 
B

bob harris

Well-Known Member
In regards to other rulings that are coming from these cases:

Co-op grows will be allowed, so long as all members have access to the facility, and participate in the cultivation.
Separate areas will not be required in a co-op
Limited out door growing will be allowed. There will be restrictions on number of plants, permissible locations, and security of the location.
p2p will be allowed. But only to the extent that it is transferred to the end user. A patient may not transfer to someone that is then going to transfer again.

At least this is what I hear from the people working to shape the bills. Remember..the ruling is not part of the law. The findings must be articulated into bills, the bills ratified, and the law amended.
 
B

bob harris

Well-Known Member
blissfest said:
Could you tell us your source?
Click to expand...
A number of people I know are active in this fight. I've been Involved with Adam Brook and hash bash for many years. also friends with rev Steve from Normal. I'm not going to give you the names of the people that have "sit down" relationships with the reps...but the sources are good.

Let me remind you..these are not guarantees..but they are where the discussions are headed at this time.
 
T

treetopmmmp

Active Member
What kind of outdoor options are being discussed? Anyone hear the wording of
how they are proposing it? I'd assume in a locked greenhouse that can't been
seen in from the ground or sky (wrapped that white plastic crap or some type
of blurry sides/roof). I wouldnt touch outdoors do to the higher potential of rippers,
animals, pests, etc., but it could be a great option for those that don't have
the ability (money, space, etc.) to grow inside. Also it would be hard as hell
to stay withing the legal weights with outdoor harvests.

treetopmmmp
 
B

bob harris

Well-Known Member
treetopmmmp said:
What kind of outdoor options are being discussed? Anyone hear the wording of
how they are proposing it? I'd assume in a locked greenhouse that can't been
seen in from the ground or sky (wrapped that white plastic crap or some type
of blurry sides/roof). I wouldnt touch outdoors do to the higher potential of rippers,
animals, pests, etc., but it could be a great option for those that don't have
the ability (money, space, etc.) to grow inside. Also it would be hard as hell
to stay withing the legal weights with outdoor harvests.

treetopmmmp
Click to expand...
The wording isn't there yet. But what's being discussed is that outdoor growing is less expensive for many patients than buying lights etc. Sounds like it is working towards patient, not cg grows, with a distance from neighbors provision (they want it kept to rural areas) with the growing area having a "reasonable expectation of privacy, unviewable from any public roadway"

There is some talk about a different weight limit for outdoors. 30oz..but it's based on the presumption that anyone that choose outdor growing, will only have 1 grow per year, and that 30 oz is a year supply for that person. (2.5 x 12 = 30) It could actually be the downfall of the whole thing.. opposition feels that 30 oz limit, even if the person has only one grow per year, allows for possession of too large a quantity at one time, and will be abused.
 
gladstoned

gladstoned

Well-Known Member
treetopmmmp said:
What kind of outdoor options are being discussed?can't been
seen in from the ground or skytreetopmmmp
Click to expand...
I thought if they couldn't see it or find it, then it was always legal. If they start charging us for greenhouses they can't find, then we ARE fucked. Timmahh is gonna have a heart attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top