Probation

[peanutbutter]

Well .. lets just keep it simple.

 

It's all illegal. We are all criminals.

 

Laws are all figments of our collective imagination.

Edited December 11, 2012 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

Well .. lets just keep it simple.

 

It's all illegal. We are all criminals.

 

Laws are all figments of our collective imagination.

Well at least you provided me with a laugh this morning. Nice all-or-nothing attitude.

 

We could take that approach, or we could just encourage people to engage in activities that the law clearly covers. As for parts of the law that are not clear, or at least are subject to different interpretations, we could give our opinions but also advise that they are our opinions and that a court interpreting the law differently could find otherwise.

 

It's easy really. Don't make conclusive statements as if YOU have a crystal ball. Oftentimes a Sup Ct decision will be a 4 to 3 simple majority where even trained legal minds disagree. Many of the issues, subject to interpretation, cannot be answered by anyone anywhere except for the body with the power to decide for us. With that in mind do you not think it is best to encourage a conservative approach so as to keep people out of jail? See my signature which YOU wrote. Do you still feel that way?

 

If you, or someone else, wants to be a cowboy and test the law then, by all means, have at it. But don't lead people to believe that something is safe to engage in just because you SO want it to be safe.

[CaveatLector]

Yeah and you decided to quote pb from the op in 2010 and warn folks of the bad advice offered here. I was merely pointing out the op did receive good advice right from the start.

And that was a good thing. But did that "good advice from the start" attenuate the subsequent bad advice? The fact is that peanut has upwards of 7000 posts on this forum. If I am a newbie, whose advice am I likely to take? The guy with a few hundred posts whom doesn't appear to even be active here anymore or the guy that has 7000 posts and is active? Secondly, and more importantly, peanut's advice was not nullified by the previous, "talk to a lawyer" advice. Someone here could read, "talk to a lawyer," and STILL think peanut's advice was sound.

 

Nice attempt at trying to make this personal though. Clearly you don't like me but my advice is sound. Pretending otherwise in an effort to take a swipe at me isn't going to work chief.

[bobandtorey]

 

 

You are being a complete jerk by saying that. Just because what you proposed is illegal doesn't mean the whole thing is.

 

I think pb was just trying to say its all illegal by the Feds

 

[bobandtorey]

Well at least you provided me with a laugh this morning. Nice all-or-nothing attitude.

 

We could take that approach, or we could just encourage people to engage in activities that the law clearly covers. As for parts of the law that are not clear, or at least are subject to different interpretations, we could give our opinions but also advise that they are our opinions and that a court interpreting the law differently could find otherwise.

 

It's easy really. Don't make conclusive statements as if YOU have a crystal ball. Oftentimes a Sup Ct decision will be a 4 to 3 simple majority where even trained legal minds disagree. Many of the issues, subject to interpretation, cannot be answered by anyone anywhere except for the body with the power to decide for us. With that in mind do you not think it is best to encourage a conservative approach so as to keep people out of jail? See my signature which YOU wrote. Do you still feel that way?

 

If you, or someone else, wants to be a cowboy and test the law then, by all means, have at it. But don't lead people to believe that something is safe to engage in just because you SO want it to be safe.

 

We could just encourage people to engage in activities that the law clearly covers

 

And now you are saying every one knows what that might Be ( they are) be after almost 4 years

 

I still don't know (oakland County) what we can or can not do not yet but soon at least we will know that you can have 12 plants locked up under 2.5oz with your Doc Rec. after the 21 days

 

After our WIN we will know that part of the Law

 

And also we have the Koon case his case will let us drive our cars [i hope]

 

Then i guess Larrys case we will find out what happens to someone that has 12 plants and has a card

 

First it us with the rec after21 days but then the Law says the rec is the same as a card

So I'm confused now

Edited December 11, 2012 by bobandtorey

[Northern Lab]

Quick fix syntehtic urine FTW!

 

Don't use it if you don't want to take risks you wouldn't otherwise take.

 

Don't really care if anyone thinks this is 'proper'. You do what you have to do to preserve your quality of life under the boot of authoritarians

[Spartyon]

The Feds have broken the ice hear in Detroit for the first time my nephew is on federal probation and has his medical card and his P.O.s approval. Times are changing one more domino just fell. How did he manage this? He has a bone diease multiple cartlagious congental extosis runs in the family, I have it and a few other family members. We dont like to use not narcotics for many reasons not saying that we never do or never have, Im personally down to under 30 in a year. He kept telling his po that he didnt want to become an addict because addiction also runs in our family. At first this didnt work finally his po sent him to there shrink, and the shrink recomended medical marihuana was his best option. His po informed my nephew that he was the first but warned him not to screw it up for the rest of us. God help us.

[CaveatLector]

The Feds have broken the ice hear in Detroit for the first time my nephew is on federal probation and has his medical card and his P.O.s approval. Times are changing one more domino just fell. How did he manage this? He has a bone diease multiple cartlagious congental extosis runs in the family, I have it and a few other family members. We dont like to use not narcotics for many reasons not saying that we never do or never have, Im personally down to under 30 in a year. He kept telling his po that he didnt want to become an addict because addiction also runs in our family. At first this didnt work finally his po sent him to there shrink, and the shrink recomended medical marihuana was his best option. His po informed my nephew that he was the first but warned him not to screw it up for the rest of us. God help us.

awesome

[peanutbutter]

You are being a complete jerk by saying that. Just because what you proposed is illegal doesn't mean the whole thing is.

 

The statement is 100% accurate.

 

According to federal law.

 

The only way to completely avoid any potential for an arrest for marijuana is to never use or even be nearby the stuff.

[Highlander]

Yeah and you decided to quote pb from the op in 2010 and warn folks of the bad advice offered here. I was merely pointing out the op did receive good advice right from the start.

 

Good advice indeed. And since half of that advice came from someone with the screen name, "engorged member" there was no need for further input on the matter, huh??

[peanutbutter]

Indeed, Bob. But what does it matter, really? The Feds are not investigating, arresting, and prosecuting regular patients and caregivers. The Ogden memo offers an explicit loophole for those people.

 

There have been a LOT of items that have been declared to be illegal and/or legal here.

 

We debate about what is clear.

 

For instance, many simply state that the absolute limit is 12 plants and 2.5 ounces per patient. Yet that is not what rules in section 8. What prosecutors would like to do is question if even a gram per month is to much for that patient. So to tell a patient they are free and clear, may be miss leading.

 

For instance ..

 

A while back, some here were convinced that King was a felon because he was growing outside. Yelling that any grow outside was clearly illegal.

 

At this moment, any question about "is this legal" has one single absolute clear answer. There is some law, state or federal, that will make the answer "no."

 

We are just beginning to flesh out the state law in the Supreme Court. It will take a long time before all the details work out.

[Highlander]

 

A while back, some here were convinced that King was a felon because he was growing outside. Yelling that any grow outside was clearly illegal.

 

 

I never saw such a post. Did it get deleted?

[peanutbutter]

Here, CL. I just fixed all of those 7,000 posts.

[bobandtorey]

 

 

There have been a LOT of items that have been declared to be illegal and/or legal here.

 

We debate about what is clear.

 

For instance, many simply state that the absolute limit is 12 plants and 2.5 ounces per patient. Yet that is not what rules in section 8. What prosecutors would like to do is question if even a gram per month is to much for that patient. So to tell a patient they are free and clear, may be miss leading.

 

For instance ..

 

A while back, some here were convinced that King was a felon because he was growing outside. Yelling that any grow outside was clearly illegal.

 

At this moment, any question about "is this legal" has one single absolute clear answer. There is some law, state or federal, that will make the answer "no."

 

We are just beginning to flesh out the state law in the Supreme Court. It will take a long time before all the details work out.

 

All that we are going to get out of the Supreme Court is double talk We are not lawyers They speak another language

 

And the judges Well they speak with forked tongues In my opinion

[bobandtorey]

Quick fix syntehtic urine FTW!

 

Don't use it if you don't want to take risks you wouldn't otherwise take.

 

Don't really care if anyone thinks this is 'proper'. You do what you have to do to preserve your quality of life under the boot of authoritarians

I agree But it's better to do at home then in jail