Jump to content


Photo

Another Dispensary Raid In Livingston Co.


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 solabeirtan

solabeirtan

    Real Person

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 08 April 2011 - 04:20 PM

April 8, 2011

Attorney: Pot raid was illegal
The March 2 raid of a Handy Township medical marijuana dispensary was illegal unless it can be proven marijuana was being dispersed to nonregistered users, according to the attorney for the business.That issue won't be settled until if and when the office of Livingston County Prosecutor David Morse decides to file charges against dispensary proprietor Christi Marshall.

Howell attorney Denise Pollicella, who is representing the Marshall Alternatives dispensary at 165 Fowlerville Road, said the medical marijuana act approved by voters in 2008 is clear: Licensed caregivers and licensed users are not subject to state arrest or prosecution if they follow the law's guidelines.

"Except that they are," Pollicella said, citing recent arrests and courts rulings against licensed users and caregivers. "The courts have absolutely ignored the plain language of the law. It was a referendum. It was not a legislative act," she added.

Rest of story ...

..........A warrant signed March 2 by District Court Judge L. Suzanne Geddis only listed "probable cause" as the purpose of the raid...............



#2 amish4ganja

amish4ganja

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 885 posts

Posted 08 April 2011 - 09:45 PM

Wow. They (the "Man") are lashing out in desperation. They are so blind with anger at this law that they are not even taking the time to investigate and make reasoned decisions. They are just lashing out at who ever may happen to be in their vicinity. Like mad dogs and Middle Eastern despotic tyrants.

#3 chpwaldy

chpwaldy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 08 April 2011 - 11:23 PM

It will be interesting to see how this goes. I believe that if no charges are pressed that you will see more grow shops and dispensarys go into the fowlerville area.. If the town was smart they would jump on and be the first town to welcome such with open arms. With so many small towns dieing out because of no jobs this is the way to go.. BUT will anyone have the balls to do it??

#4 JuztBudz

JuztBudz

    Advanced Member

  • +CC-Organizer
  • PipPipPip
  • 573 posts

Posted 08 April 2011 - 11:42 PM

Ah, good ol Judge Geddis...I've seen her at work, downright scary!...j.b.

#5 robnuvie

robnuvie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 88 posts
  • LocationCentral Michigan

Posted 09 April 2011 - 04:15 AM

How about creating our own town. Cannibisville!!!

#6 nthlghts

nthlghts

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • LocationHowell Area

Posted 09 April 2011 - 08:04 AM

Well this is nice I was there Sat at noon with someone getting their recommendation. This does not make me happy!

#7 JimD

JimD

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 238 posts
  • LocationSaginaw Bay Area

Posted 09 April 2011 - 08:16 AM

When is Geddis up for re-election? When will the courts throw out the farce of "paid, confidential informants?

#8 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,185 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 08:59 AM

:yahoo-wave:

#9 Restorium2

Restorium2

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,628 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 09:15 AM

Well this is nice I was there Sat at noon with someone getting their recommendation. This does not make me happy!

Ah, don't get your rec from a dispensary. Kind of ironic how the dispensary folks themselves added this to their choice of wording in their proposed law. No doctors at dispensaries. Maybe it's part of their confusion defense?

#10 Croppled1

Croppled1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • LocationWashtenaw County

Posted 18 May 2012 - 09:16 AM

There was a accident that is receiving huge press right now in LIvingston County where a 16 year old is supsected of using cannabis and driving . They hit a person at over 45 mph . Because of all this fighting nobody explains to the kids the difference between medical and recreational use . How medications benefit those compromised in health with dehabilitating conditions but have different effects that are more magnified in those healthy . .
Dozens of individuals drive in Livingson County on diabetic , seizure or blood pressure meds daily . Every case could effect the public saftey but the public welfare requires we give responsable sick individuals the benefit of a doubt on driving privilages . No system will ever be able to prevent all accidents .The treatment of cannabis is clearly discriminatory and we surely do not want to go down a path were everyone on medication is subjectively evaluated for impairment . 90% of seniors would be at risk of felony DUID .

This dispensary issue was sad especially how a patient / employee faces distribution charges for merely trying to work in a position where they thought they were helping people . It isn't like the operation was a speakeasy hiding their activities . Livingston County is home to the very first substance abuse facility in the State which is closely tied to their Courts by referals with very high support in the community . That many there are having problems digesting the change medical cannabis brings to our State is sadly to be expected . Lets hope the legislature removes cannabis from zero tolerance legislation for medical patients as well as recognizes cannabis has medical value . The voters have .

Edited by Croppled1, 18 May 2012 - 09:30 AM.


#11 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,185 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 09:25 AM


A school security officer who was struck by a car in a Hartland Township school parking lot is improving, hospital officials said.

Susan Nanette Hazzard, 52, was upgraded to fair condition as of Wednesday afternoon, a University of Michigan Medical Center spokeswoman in Ann Arbor said.

Livingston County sheriff's officials said Hazzard was injured when she was struck by a 1999 Mercury Sable in the Hartland High School parking lot at about 2:35 p.m. Tuesday.

Sheriff Bob Bezotte said the teen driver, whom he identified only as a 16-year-old Brighton male, was driving westbound in the parking lot when he became "distracted by electronic equipment" that he dropped in his car and bent over to try to pick up.

As a result of the teen's distraction, he failed to stop at a stop sign, the sheriff said.

Bezotte said another male teen, who was a front-seat passenger in the Sable, grabbed the wheel in an attempt to avoid striking Hazzard.

The car continued through the intersection, over a curb and through a field, where it sideswiped a tree before stopping, Bezotte said.

Witnesses indicated Hazzard "went up into the air and landed on her head," Bezotte said.

Witnesses placed the driver's speed at about 60 mph, but an accident reconstructionist's investigation placed the speed at about 45 mph, Bezotte said.

Police said they also found suspected marijuana inside the 16-year-old driver's car. However, they could not say if he had used the illegal drug prior to operating the car.

Police sought a warrant for the teen's blood to test for illegal substances. Police are waiting for the results of the blood test before submitting their report to the county prosecutor's office for review and possible charges.

The Hartland Consolidated Schools district said

in a statement Wednesday it was saddened by the accident.

"Our thoughts and prayers are with our employee and her family," the statement read.


http://www.livingsto...D=2012205170310


#12 jamieuke

jamieuke

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 438 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 10:44 AM

Ah, don't get your rec from a dispensary. Kind of ironic how the dispensary folks themselves added this to their choice of wording in their proposed law. No doctors at dispensaries. Maybe it's part of their confusion defense?


Who, specifically, "added this to their choice of wording" who are "dispensary folks?"

You, obviously, must know how a lot of things happened and who was involved and what the motives are, but you always seem to fail in including this vital information when throwing out your assertions.

I am starting to believe that you may not actually have enough information to arrive at the determinations that you do. Please, enlighten all of us so that we can be assured that your conclusions are based on verifiable fact.

I'm sure you can support everything you state, or you wouldn't state it. Right?



#13 Restorium2

Restorium2

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,628 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:45 AM

Who, specifically, "added this to their choice of wording" who are "dispensary folks?"

You, obviously, must know how a lot of things happened and who was involved and what the motives are, but you always seem to fail in including this vital information when throwing out your assertions.

I am starting to believe that you may not actually have enough information to arrive at the determinations that you do. Please, enlighten all of us so that we can be assured that your conclusions are based on verifiable fact.

I'm sure you can support everything you state, or you wouldn't state it. Right?

You tell me who added it, or be cute again, doesn't matter. What difference does it make which one of you added it? That is beside the point. It's in there. I read it. Simple as that. That's a fact Jack. And yes, I support facts.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would take this stance, when you could take some credit for having common sense about NOT having a doctor at your store. Instead, you would rather bash me on the info that is there for anyone who read the wording of the proposed dispensary bill. Nit picking my info, when you could be a positive force, in this particular situation, where the store is selling recs too. That's dumb when you already should have seen the handwriting on the wall(so to speak).

#14 Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,153 posts
  • LocationMt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:06 PM

There is an argument for doing the minimum required by the law, and if it isn't addressed there is not firm requirement you not do it. Example being certifications through the mail. At best, it is a shady practice, but is it actually illegal? Guess one of you patients gets to be a test case to see if you decide to respond to a postcard.

A far better argument is being a little proactive in your own protection. Example, the dispensary bill referred to specifically says no doctors at dispensaries. So what is the intent? How will the courts interpret that? Don't know, but really, do you want to be the test case? Look at the senate version of HB 4851. It says two things specifically- IF you don't follow the rules and have a bonafide relationship, your card is void if you are a patient and the doctor can be disciplined (loses the protection of the MMMA). The agreed on rules for both include a face to face visit, records, and a follow up. So why are you still doing recerts by mail as patients? And why are any legitimate clinics offering them? I guess the key phrase is 'legitimate clinic'.

Legitimate clinics already do it right without being told or regulated. Sham clinics will do what best suits their profits until forced to stop by the law or the AG. And then they are very good at wiggling out of it, leaving the patient to hold the bag.

This response was to the posting about the proposed dispensary bill and doctors at dispensaries only. I know nothing about the situation in Marshall or the circumstances.

Dr. Bob

#15 jamieuke

jamieuke

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 438 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:42 PM

You tell me who added it, or be cute again, doesn't matter. What difference does it make which one of you added it? That is beside the point. It's in there. I read it. Simple as that. That's a fact Jack. And yes, I support facts.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you would take this stance, when you could take some credit for having common sense about NOT having a doctor at your store. Instead, you would rather bash me on the info that is there for anyone who read the wording of the proposed dispensary bill. Nit picking my info, when you could be a positive force, in this particular situation, where the store is selling recs too. That's dumb when you already should have seen the handwriting on the wall(so to speak).


The stance I'm taking is based on asking for substantiation when expressing something as the truth. People form their images, thoughts, opinions, on information, and that information should be real and not something that you or others may just suppose.

Also, anyone reading posts or information on these issues of importance, should take it upon themselves to verify things that were stated without substantiation.

This may be a nit picky thing to expose the issue with, but it does need to be addressed. Misinformation and false images have led to major problems within the community, including the kind of division that we can ill afford, if we expect to remain viable.

I'm sure there is some leftover "culture" or residual thinking still lingering around from the previous management style of this site, but since things can now be questioned and rationally discussed without banning or cencorship, we should be taking advantage of that.

I would be happy to resume a civil discussion on 5580 or other issues, but I will continue to try and get to what is actually known, and what isn't. Sometimes, even if it is a minor issue.











#16 Restorium2

Restorium2

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,628 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:55 PM

The stance I'm taking is based on asking for substantiation when expressing something as the truth. People form their images, thoughts, opinions, on information, and that information should be real and not something that you or others may just suppose.

Also, anyone reading posts or information on these issues of importance, should take it upon themselves to verify things that were stated without substantiation.

This may be a nit picky thing to expose the issue with, but it does need to be addressed. Misinformation and false images have led to major problems within the community, including the kind of division that we can ill afford, if we expect to remain viable.

I'm sure there is some leftover "culture" or residual thinking still lingering around from the previous management style of this site, but since things can now be questioned and rationally discussed without banning or cencorship, we should be taking advantage of that.

I would be happy to resume a civil discussion on 5580 or other issues, but I will continue to try and get to what is actually known, and what isn't. Sometimes, even if it is a minor issue.

WTF are you talking about? There is NO NEED for substantiation, It's in the bill, you didn't read it? LOL If you are going gibberish, please don't quote me when you do it, just go about it on your own. Then I won't get the urge to ask you, WTF? Sometimes it's like talking with one of the 3 blind mice, that can't read or remember what was written just days ago. There was no big revelation in my posts on this thread. None. MACC submitted the bill, just like I said, and Zap confirmed. MACC are dispensary folks. The wording I spoke of is plain as day for anyone who reads the wording.

All of this stupid back and forth is worthless next to the advice that is getting buried by it; And here it is;

Don't sell medical marijuana recs at dispensaries. If you are a patient, don't buy your rec there. That's what is important.

#17 Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,153 posts
  • LocationMt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 18 May 2012 - 01:21 PM

WTF are you talking about? There is NO NEED for substantiation, It's in the bill, you didn't read it? LOL If you are going gibberish, please don't quote me when you do it, just go about it on your own. Then I won't get the urge to ask you, WTF? Sometimes it's like talking with one of the 3 blind mice, that can't read or remember what was written just days ago. There was no big revelation in my posts on this thread. None. MACC submitted the bill, just like I said, and Zap confirmed. MACC are dispensary folks. The wording I spoke of is plain as day for anyone who reads the wording.

All of this stupid back and forth is worthless next to the advice that is getting buried by it; And here it is;

Don't sell medical marijuana recs at dispensaries. If you are a patient, don't buy your rec there. That's what is important.


Correct, it is clear, so what is the question being asked? Good advice Rest.

#18 AKenewell

AKenewell

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • LocationMI

Posted 18 May 2012 - 01:28 PM

Don't sell medical marijuana recs at dispensaries. If you are a patient, don't buy your rec there. That's what is important.


Great Advice. I hope everyone reading this takes this advice!!

#19 jamieuke

jamieuke

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 438 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:01 PM

WTF are you talking about? There is NO NEED for substantiation, It's in the bill, you didn't read it? LOL If you are going gibberish, please don't quote me when you do it, just go about it on your own. Then I won't get the urge to ask you, WTF? Sometimes it's like talking with one of the 3 blind mice, that can't read or remember what was written just days ago. There was no big revelation in my posts on this thread. None. MACC
submitted the bill, just like I said, and Zap
confirmed. MACC are dispensary folks. The
wording I spoke of is plain as day for anyone who
reads the wording.

All of this stupid back and forth is worthless next to the advice that is getting buried by it; And here it is;

Don't sell medical marijuana recs at dispensaries. If you are a patient, don't buy your rec there. That's what is important.



My previous response has nothing to do with the language concerning drs sharing office space with Provisioning Centers, if it is actually in the bill, or how it got there, or whether or not it is good language.




#20 pic book

pic book

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,257 posts
  • LocationSW Detroit Fort at Junction, Clark at I-75).

Posted 18 May 2012 - 04:24 PM

Ah, good ol Judge Geddis...I've seen her at work, downright scary!...j.b.

niggling over phrases when the 4 as a package gut the people's law????????????????




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users