stumpjumper
Well-Known Member
The 99 plant rule applies per person does it not?
Midnight raid in Commerce Township
- Thread starter rzza
- Start date
stumpjumper
Well-Known Member
It very well may be, but Oakland county is not the feds. So maybe as long as nobody is breaking the MMA rules they should mind their own fucking business.
jamiesname
Well-Known Member
I can't see any laws that were broken. The article says there are 2 buildings with 17 rooms in each, but then says 500 plants were removed from THE building. If that means 500 plants were taken from a total of 34 rooms, then that averages close to 15 plants per person. Although this is an assumption, I'm quite sure some of those people were caregivers growing for others so it probably pans out. If 500 plants PER building were taken then that means there was close to 30 plants per person, which would probably still pan out IF most of these growers are caregivers, and they probably were.
From what I can tell, state law doesn't mention anything about a max of 99 plants. I found information pertaining to a federal law and 99 plants. If I'm wrong, please show me where the information is so I can read it.
Either way though, for this to be illegal it would mean that if you live in a large apartment building that is MJ friendly and you had 20 patients living there who were each growing their 12 plants, all of the patients are illegal since there would be 240 plants in the entire building.
The only way to solve that problem is to tell a few tenants that they can grow while the rest are shit out of luck, which is illegal - or tell all the patients that they can only grow 4 plants at a time which is still unlawful because the law clearly states that they can grow 12 plants.
Some may argue that the landlord could say "I only allow MJ patients to grow 4 plants in my apartment, do you still want to live here?" which is fine if it's in the contract before it has been signed by the tenant, but these two buildings were clearly OK with each person growing the amount that they were legally allowed to grow.
.
From what I can tell, state law doesn't mention anything about a max of 99 plants. I found information pertaining to a federal law and 99 plants. If I'm wrong, please show me where the information is so I can read it.
Either way though, for this to be illegal it would mean that if you live in a large apartment building that is MJ friendly and you had 20 patients living there who were each growing their 12 plants, all of the patients are illegal since there would be 240 plants in the entire building.
The only way to solve that problem is to tell a few tenants that they can grow while the rest are shit out of luck, which is illegal - or tell all the patients that they can only grow 4 plants at a time which is still unlawful because the law clearly states that they can grow 12 plants.
Some may argue that the landlord could say "I only allow MJ patients to grow 4 plants in my apartment, do you still want to live here?" which is fine if it's in the contract before it has been signed by the tenant, but these two buildings were clearly OK with each person growing the amount that they were legally allowed to grow.
.
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
If it is a landmark case then LEO might have cherry picked. We need to keep a close eye on this one.
Having a safe place for apartment dwellers to grow is a good idea. But insects and disease will run rampant.
Having a safe place for apartment dwellers to grow is a good idea. But insects and disease will run rampant.
stumpjumper
Well-Known Member
Well this wasn't public housing. It was apartment "style" it was nothing but a room by room grow op. As far as I understand.
rzza
Well-Known Member
yeah, maybe .
rzza
Well-Known Member
her point about the apartment was people who live in an apartment had a place to grow, away from the apartment. you really seem to be lacking in the comprehension department.
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
I know it wasn't public housing. I said, having a place for apartment dwellers to have a safe place to grow is a good idea. I, personally, don't see a problem with it, I think it is a good solution for some people.
That being said, they will use this as an excuse to push for the BIG 10 GROWERS. That is a problem.
That being said, they will use this as an excuse to push for the BIG 10 GROWERS. That is a problem.
researchkitty
Well-Known Member
I've got 240 flowering right now. Fuck em!
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
Wow, playing with fire.
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
Maybe not all of Michigan, but Oakland county is behaving like a spoiled little a child that didn't get what it wanted and is having a big fit over it.
L. Brooks, Cooper and Bouchard need to go and take a nice long time out in the corner. They all lost any chance I'd vote for them. Cooper better watch out, I'm targeting her the very next time she's up for reelection. And I might confront her at a business meeting when she speaks. I'm like that.
L. Brooks, Cooper and Bouchard need to go and take a nice long time out in the corner. They all lost any chance I'd vote for them. Cooper better watch out, I'm targeting her the very next time she's up for reelection. And I might confront her at a business meeting when she speaks. I'm like that.
stumpjumper
Well-Known Member
Exfuckingscuse me! Sorry for misinterpreting your post WW, rzza, wtf?
Winter Woman
Well-Known Member
No problem, I just didn't want things to be misunderstood. Hope you didn't think I was complaining. I wasn't.
Limosnero
Well-Known Member
Easy to say when your grow isn't in MI much less in this country.