Jump to content


Photo

Medical Marijuana Outdoor Rules/laws?


  • Please log in to reply
94 replies to this topic

#1 tsmokin

tsmokin

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:13 PM

Alright i just joined this site to ask one simple question. well maybe not so simple. I've have looking everywere online to try and find michigan outdoor medical marijuana laws/guidelines/rules. Now a friend told me that in michigan it is illegal to grow outdoors period. is this true?? any info/ help would be greatly appreciated.

thanks

Terry
  • Bridgriesys, Whexissilla, DelfAffoldLot and 15 others like this

#2 Kingdiamond

Kingdiamond

    Basement lumberjack

  • Forum Leaders
  • 5,519 posts
  • LocationDeadford

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:42 PM

It needs to be a secure locked enclosure that will pass inspection once its reported to law enforcement but theres way too many variables regarding outside grows thieves nosey neighbors and depending on your location strict law enforcement officers its very risky unless your out in the country with plenty of room from your neighbors id pass .

#3 Croppled1

Croppled1

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 24 April 2012 - 04:49 PM

This is what I have seen each County is enforcing it different . To be safe it appears several items should be considered one is must have your grow locked , and enclosed on all sides including a roof to be safe . So if you consider a greenhouse a outdoor grow you ok . They have been also saying in some places you cannot see the plants in it from the road or a neighbors . I know down here in Washtenaw County many people are building enclosed greenhouses with a privacy fence with a lock around it besides a lock on the greenhouse . Many are keeping a dog in there properly housed when away . You cannot just make a garden and plant on your property . It is frustrating local prosecuters are not giving guidelines it is being hashed out in the courts with real people being hurt that have no intent of breaking any law . I can't believe how cruel some enforce the law on patients I wish I knew what could be done to stop it . There is nobody to enforce the civil rights of or patients with all use considered illegal under Federal Law . Over 30% of the Countries population live under some form of medical use law at the State or district level .

I agree also it is better to pass the main problem is winter conditons and the act does not allow you to store enough for seasonal growing . I can see the limits for transportation but not storage they truly nulify many participants abillity to keep a non interupted supply . It is frustrating to be hospitalized or forced out of town , loose a grow and have to purchase until you can get up and running again . When you could easily store a 90 day supply at all times once you learn how to grow properly and have some time to accumulate . I believe this was what the Vanderbutts case involved as a stage 4 cancer patient tried to prepare for expected diminished activity without the financial abillity to purchase later . None of this is covered by insurance for patients .

Edited by Croppled1, 24 April 2012 - 04:56 PM.


#4 pic book

pic book

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,130 posts
  • LocationSW Detroit Fort at Junction, Clark at I-75).

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:46 PM

A MI outdoor grow is legal if done in a specific manner.. Collectively, judges have defined "locked and enclosed facility" through a number of case opinions. Paraphrasing from disparate jurisdictions, the judges collectively require 6 planes (roof, 4 walls and floor). Must be accessable to those without a key only if tools are required to enter (the enclosure must not be susceptable to spontaneous, casual break-in). It must not by itself be "bait", making known that it is a grow.

So what kind of outdoor facility are the these decisions (taken collectively), requiring? One that is not a public nuisance. One that does not have odor leaks, or public views where it is likely that passersby can see mj, smell mj, or access mj.

By following the above, If you would turn out to be the 'test case" in the MI Supreme Court, you would have the odds of a grow that had legal plant numbers being OK.

The opposite of the odds you will face in a dog kennel wrapped in visquine clearly visible from your drive-way. That case was decided by the MI Supreme Court.

Federally, things are a different story. The case of a Michigan grower and his father recently (4/20/2012) concluded with the conviction of the son (the grower) in a greenhouse and his father (the landowner). It began when the son took Operation HEMP into the grow and proudly dispayed the contents of two one-hundred foot greenhouses. Eight months later, in came the DEA. The defts had no problem presenting a full-blown mmj defense. However, 144 plants on 1 piece of land (in 2 greenhouses) convicted the father for 10 years, and 72 plants, the son, for 5 years. Their sentences will began after the judge hears their appeal on one juror's sleeping.

Edited by pic book, 27 April 2012 - 04:51 AM.


#5 pic book

pic book

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,130 posts
  • LocationSW Detroit Fort at Junction, Clark at I-75).

Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:04 PM

The cost of subdividing the farmland into two or more parcels, $4500. The cost of not subdividing the land into two or more parcels? Priceless----one farm, two lives imprisoned, and momma and gramma left bereft, in poverty, with their own sentences to serve in alone-ness.
Might this not this all have been prevented, side-stepped, at the start by the father selling 1/3 of the land to each of his two sons, each of whom was a patient and a 5-patient Caregiver, and under MMMMA each could legally posess his own 72-plant greenhouse on his self-owned parcel? There would have been no combined plant count of 144, with the father occupying a house on the farm with 144 plants.. Who was their lame legal counsel?
I'd guess 'nobody'.
They probably wanted to save lawyer's fees and never ran the plan past an atty.
It cost alot to save an atty fee and then on the backend, sell the farm to pay a federal court criminal defense atty 's fees in a worthless battle (the federal conviction rate on mj cases is 96%).

Edited by pic book, 04 May 2012 - 12:16 PM.


#6 Kingpinn

Kingpinn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 01:17 AM

A MI outdoor grow is legal if done in a specific manner.. Collectively, judges have defined "locked and enclosed facility" through a number of case opinions. Paraphrasing from disparate jurisdictions, the judges collectively require 6 planes (roof, 4 walls and floor). Must be accessable to those without a key only if tools are required to enter (the enclosure must not be susceptable to spontaneous, casual break-in). It must not by itself be "bait", making known that it is a grow.

So what kind of outdoor facility are the these decisions (taken collectively), requiring? One that is not a public nuisance. One that does not have odor leaks, or public views where it is likely that passersby can see mj, smell mj, or access mj.

By following the above, If you would turn out to be the 'test case" in the MI Supreme Court, you would have the odds of a grow that had legal plant numbers being OK.

The opposite of the odds you will face in a dog kennel wrapped in visquine clearly visible from your drive-way. That case was decided by the MI Supreme Court.

Federally, things are a different story. The case of a Michigan grower and his father recently (4/20/2012) concluded with the conviction of the son (the grower) in a greenhouse and his father (the landowner). It began when the son took Operation HEMP into the grow and proudly dispayed the contents of two one-hundred foot greenhouses. Eight months later, in came the DEA. The defts had no problem presenting a full-blown mmj defense. However, 144 plants on 1 piece of land (in 2 greenhouses) convicted the father for 10 years, and 72 plants, the son, for 5 years. Their sentences will began after the judge hears their appeal on one juror's sleeping.

Was wondering what the supreme court came up with. maybe this guy can give references to what he is talking about

#7 peanutbutter

peanutbutter

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,093 posts
  • LocationDexter

Posted 01 May 2012 - 01:52 AM

Yeah .. I'm wondering if I can read that Supreme Court decision about King ..

#8 Kingpinn

Kingpinn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 07:44 AM

You see any supreme court decisions come down P B ???. I think pic books been medicating a bit to much and needs to do his research.Six sides my Butt

Edited by Kingpinn, 01 May 2012 - 07:45 AM.


#9 Restorium2

Restorium2

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,591 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 07:47 AM

There was some talk about outdoor grow language in those recently taped legislative sessions. They are working on it in the crap sandwich bills. They will probably cut that part out though because it just might help a patient or two.

#10 Kingpinn

Kingpinn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 04:45 AM

Only thing i can think of . They will be telling us how to pee next.They dont care if you dont like to squat

#11 pic book

pic book

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,130 posts
  • LocationSW Detroit Fort at Junction, Clark at I-75).

Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:23 PM

Was wondering what the supreme court came up with. maybe this guy can give references to what he is talking about

The case I cite (4. 20. 2012) is Federal. Was decided in Federal Court, not breaking new ground, not a Supreme Court case. It resulted in convictions of a CG/greenhouse grower (son) and a father (neither Pat nor CG but the land owner). The problems? 144 plants on a farm (1 parcel) owned by a father charged with possession of mj and firearms.
The convicted son? Had the second 72 plant greenhouse on the farm. The other son with a 72 plant greenhouse on the farm? NOT ARRESTED OR CHARGED. The DEA has set--good news, a precedent! The federal prosecutor let the 2nd son with his MI legal GC 72 plant greeenhouse go, therefore--the Federal pros by failing to pros set out the practical lesson re state compliance in MI. What is it???
1 CG with a legal number of plants and 15 oz dry meds and plants drying in the barn on a parcel of land? Is legal, is OK under state guildelines and is not something the DEA will shoot at.
So under 1 roof or on one address, or parcel, you pass. That's good news. By default in this set of facts by failing to arrest or pros, the DEA shows what they wil prosecute and what they will not. This is instructive, and constitutes good news.

Edited by pic book, 02 May 2012 - 08:28 PM.


#12 bobandtorey

bobandtorey

    The First To Be Raided and legal

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,035 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 08:28 PM

1 CG with a legal number of plants and 15 oz dry meds and plants drying in the barn on a parcel of land
and plants drying in the barn is were i do not agree with

#13 pic book

pic book

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,130 posts
  • LocationSW Detroit Fort at Junction, Clark at I-75).

Posted 04 May 2012 - 05:41 AM

1 CG with a legal number of plants and 15 oz dry meds and plants drying in the barn on a parcel of land
and plants drying in the barn is were i do not agree with

Why tell us? Tell the Federal prosecutor who left the 2nd Duvall greenhouse and its CG not arrested and not convicted that you know Federal law better than him and he shud do a stricter job

#14 trix

trix

    I'm not a lawyer, My words are my own opinion.

  • Forum Leaders
  • 2,128 posts
  • LocationDetroit
Contributor

Posted 04 May 2012 - 11:33 AM

Alright i just joined this site to ask one simple question. well maybe not so simple. I've have looking everywere online to try and find michigan outdoor medical marijuana laws/guidelines/rules. Now a friend told me that in michigan it is illegal to grow outdoors period. is this true?? any info/ help would be greatly appreciated.

thanks

Terry


if life was easy , I would prolly enjoy it more often.

Same with a outdoor grow, Way to hot of a endevour to dip your feet into atm if your just starting out and haven't followed the cases pending in court right now. You should IMO read every line of the ruling of recent cases being heard here in MI.

They have some pretty strick rules on the subject, So to answer your question,

in michigan it is illegal to grow outdoors period. is this true??

no, it isn't, but there is ALOT of hoops to jump through to acomplish this w/o fear of arrest and believe me they will be looking again this summer for these grows (<--- my opinion). I do think if you wish to persue this coarse of growing, that you read the law over and over and over again. Cause they (LEO) Think they already know the rules, even if you consider it safe, secure, monitored, and has a roof. even then you can get busted as referenced in another post, if it is sight of ANYONE they can bust you.

To me personally I feel It is far more cost effective and a better way to naturally grow plants I'm sure they sure love the sunlight vrs the tanning beds they are grown in now. AGAIN read the law over and over, call a lawyer and see what they have to say.

What you read on these forums ARE NOT legal advice and could land you in trouble with the law. The safe route would to be contact a lawyer and read read read, The 'test case' member on his outside grow posted in this thread I believe. Possible someone could post the case finding from these type's of cases here in MI. I will research these if nobody else posts them, But its a sketchy sitiuation to grow outdoors.

Also I'm no lawyer, many of the names here are just that names that type words on a screen. We can offer our opinons, if you choose to follow a opinion that's on you. Contact a lawyer that handles MM cases many are out there, the current ceo/president of this forum is a MM lawyer. Michael Komorn, you have Neil Rockland, Bruce A. Block just to name a few off the top of my head. They can answer your question the way LEO and the MI courts would see it, whether they suggest it from a legal point of view, They are the lawyers that see these cases and hear in court how they are handled and if they would consider this a smart move at this time.

Trix
:bong2:

I will look up these case numbers when I have time, The State/people vrs ________x,there are a few out there, that may help you decide your answer.

#15 pic book

pic book

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,130 posts
  • LocationSW Detroit Fort at Junction, Clark at I-75).

Posted 04 May 2012 - 12:28 PM

The Federal government's take on the MI law is most appparent in the 4/20/12 case of the Duvall famiy. No MI court case has been equally on point, but the Fed case of the Duvall family near Toledo makes clear the Feds allow and go put of their way to respect a CGs locked, enclosed 72 plant greenhouse on one parcel with no firearms present. MI cases leave the same aspects unclear. To get an idea of MI's take you have to (as someone on this thread already said) read cases from various jurisdictions and even then, you must fill in some blanks. But for Federal clarity--it's the Duvalls. Hooray for the Feds and what a weird kudo!

#16 Kingpinn

Kingpinn

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 993 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:39 PM

Thats why this law will never work you have all these naysayers out there to just shoot you down. And for what what do these clowns really have to gain by telling me an adult way over 18 to tell me that weed is more dangerous for me and my lifestyle is just the most crazy thing and to put people in jail for these offences to power their slave labor work force we need not go into that.Arresting patients and making instant criminals out of them what a disgrace. The eyes of michigan are looking upon you politicians in lansing make no mistake they will be looking at your vote. So vote like this is for your political life because sir i think that's just what this is a gut check the eyes are upon you

Edited by Kingpinn, 04 May 2012 - 10:40 PM.


#17 Ms Chocolate

Ms Chocolate

    Advanced Member

  • Supporters
  • PipPipPip
  • 849 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:13 AM

The law does not say anything about outdoor grows. It does say grow must me in a locked, enclosed facility. Examples given are rooms and closets. What I can think of close to an outdoor room or closet are called greenhouses, garages, and sheds.

A Court ruling says that grows must have six sides.

A bill just passed by the Mi House will allow [MARIHUANA PLANTS GROWN OUTDOORS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED FACILITY IF THEY ARE GROWN WITHIN A STATIONARY STRUCTURE THAT IS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) ANCHORED, ATTACHED, OR AFFIXED TO THE GROUND.
(2) LOCATED ON LAND THAT IS OWNED, LEASED, OR RENTED BY EITHER:
(A) THE REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT TO WHOM THE MARIHUANA PLANTS BELONG.
(B) THE PERSON DESIGNATED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENTAL REGISTRATION PROCESS AS THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR THE REGISTERED PATIENT OR PATIENTS.
(3) EQUIPPED WITH FUNCTIONING LOCKS OR OTHER SECURITY DEVICES THAT
PERMIT ACCESS ONLY BY THE REGISTERED PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT WHOSE PROPERTY THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED UPON.
(4) ENCLOSED ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT FOR THE BASE, BY CHAIN-LINK FENCING, WIRE MESH, WOODEN SLATS, OR A SIMILAR MATERIAL THAT PREVENTS ACCESS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.]

I would suggest you wait until this bill passes the Senate.

#18 free country 420

free country 420

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 380 posts
  • Locationtip of the mit

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:30 AM

The law does not say anything about outdoor grows. It does say grow must me in a locked, enclosed facility. Examples given are rooms and closets. What I can think of close to an outdoor room or closet are called greenhouses, garages, and sheds.

A Court ruling says that grows must have six sides.

A bill just passed by the Mi House will allow [MARIHUANA PLANTS GROWN OUTDOORS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED FACILITY IF THEY ARE GROWN WITHIN A STATIONARY STRUCTURE THAT IS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) ANCHORED, ATTACHED, OR AFFIXED TO THE GROUND.
(2) LOCATED ON LAND THAT IS OWNED, LEASED, OR RENTED BY EITHER:
(A) THE REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT TO WHOM THE MARIHUANA PLANTS BELONG.
(B) THE PERSON DESIGNATED THROUGH THE DEPARTMENTAL REGISTRATION PROCESS AS THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER FOR THE REGISTERED PATIENT OR PATIENTS.
(3) EQUIPPED WITH FUNCTIONING LOCKS OR OTHER SECURITY DEVICES THAT
PERMIT ACCESS ONLY BY THE REGISTERED PRIMARY CAREGIVER OR REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT WHOSE PROPERTY THE STRUCTURE IS LOCATED UPON.
(4) ENCLOSED ON ALL SIDES, EXCEPT FOR THE BASE, BY CHAIN-LINK FENCING, WIRE MESH, WOODEN SLATS, OR A SIMILAR MATERIAL THAT PREVENTS ACCESS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC.]

I would suggest you wait until this bill passes the Senate.



whats the number for this bill?

#19 zapatosunidos

zapatosunidos

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 5,143 posts
Contributor

Posted 05 May 2012 - 10:33 AM

HB 4851

http://www.legislatu...me=2011-HB-4851

Click on the "As Passed By House" links, as of a few days ago.

#20 Estimated Prophet

Estimated Prophet

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 756 posts
  • LocationThe Lions Den

Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:49 PM

Wow look at it all spelled out there.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users