High Court: Sticky Notes Aren't Evidence In Pot Case

[bobandtorey]

Not going to stop what I do. I just use my card as plan B. Plan A will always be alive and well. Even closing the program would only stop me from donating to the State my registration fees. I'm in it for the duration. If they want to stop collecting then I'm good with that. 

 

 

Sorry and i mean nothing  neg about you 

 

But you will stop people tell me lots of things like when Leo comes to my door and breaks it down there going to get a 45 up there A*s  and i say you are going to be on the floor or dead thinking like that 

[teabaggerMMMA]

or make a living off the loopholes...

 

Make your living elsewhere and enjoy cannabis. It's not meant for 'a living'. That's the number 1 mistake made with cannabis. That's where ALL the trouble starts.

I was talking about the rich lawyers, judges, probation officers, legislators, bondsmen, etc.

Marijuana cash is like gambling money unless you are on the legal side. there is no future.. THE HOUSE WINS.

[Restorium2]

I was talking about the rich lawyers, judges, probation officers, legislators, bondsmen, etc.

Marijuana cash is like gambling money unless you are on the legal side. there is no future.. THE HOUSE WINS.

Whoever it may be, no good will ever come from it .... It has always seemed like when someone busts some unfair moves with cannabis they get slapped down. 

[bobandtorey]

Legal side ? thats why we are all here to find out what is and is not Legal and after almost 7 years here we still are i do agree with some of your postings most MMMA people don't know what is going on and could care less as long as it ant them in a court room or a jail sell 

[Restorium2]

Legal side ? thats why we are all here to find out what is and is not Legal and after almost 7 years here we still are i do agree with some of your postings most MMMA people don't know what is going on and could care less as long as it ant them in a court room or a jail sell 

Stupid is as stupid does ....

[teabaggerMMMA]

Whoever it may be, no good will ever come from it .... It has always seemed like when someone busts some unfair moves with cannabis they get slapped down. 

Exceptions; Schutte, Jesica Copper, eric smith, oaknet, comet, judges, cops!!! AND DON'T FORGET ATTORNEYS.

 

I am not a legal expert for; Insurance laws, DUI laws, gun laws, banking laws, violent crime laws..... BUT I DON'T HAVE TO BE. I am not stupid for that, I am protected!!!

[Restorium2]

Exceptions; Schutte, Jesica Copper, eric smith, oaknet, comet, judges, cops!!! AND DON'T FORGET ATTORNEYS.

 

I am not a legal expert for; Insurance laws, DUI laws, gun laws, banking laws, violent crime laws..... BUT I DON'T HAVE TO BE. I am not stupid for that, I am protected!!!

I bet there aren't any exceptions. Maybe it's(karma) not for you to see? I wouldn't want their life.

[teabaggerMMMA]

I bet there aren't any exceptions. Maybe it's(karma) not for you to see? I wouldn't want their life.

THIS JUST MADE MY DAY!!!! I'M DONE POSTING FOR THE DAY!!! RESTO YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL OUTLOOK ON LIFE, VERY UPLIFTING!!!

THANK YOU I NEEDED THIS TODAY!!!!!!!

[Restorium2]

THIS JUST MADE MY DAY!!!! I'M DONE POSTING FOR THE DAY!!! RESTO YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL OUTLOOK ON LIFE, VERY UPLIFTING!!!

THANK YOU I NEEDED THIS TODAY!!!!!!!

and you have made mine better also. Peace to you and yours.

[snarkler]

Geez, I was hoping for some kind of real discussion about the Mazur opinions, which are interesting in that the four newest justices signed an opinion by Richard Bernstein which broadly applies the broad "medical use" definition in a controlling way (very narrowly applied in this case) that gives hope for future cases, with the three strict constructionist justices, including Chief Justice Young, who had authored at least some of the prior decisions, politely dissenting to that broad construction of the act, and wanted to apply a criminal definition for "paraphernalia" to an MMMA claim, which the majority rejected this way:

 

"Here, the MMMA and the Offenses and Penalties provisions of the Controlled Substances article of the Public Health Code have two diametrically opposed purposes. The MMMA’s purpose is to allow medical marijuana use for certain individuals under limited circumstances, whereas the purpose of the Offenses and Penalties provisions is to criminalize marijuana use and related activities. See MCL 333.7401. The Court of Appeals was wrong to state that these two provisions “relate to the same subject, i.e., restrict the use of controlled substances[.]” The aim of each statute is distinct, and indeed they are contrary to one another.."  

[t-pain]

thats something we all agreed upon earlier, snarkler. this ruling is pretty lame, but they protected her in this case. this ruling does not help much for any other case we are aware of. we might get some better case law in the future, but the dissenting opinions were terrible.

 

i wrote my opinion of the court opinion here, (but no one cares for my opinion it looks like):

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/48135-hartwick-and-tuttle-amicus-briefs-filed-on-behalf-of-mmma-and-cpu/page-19#entry529325

 

there was also quite the discussion on pgt this week about it

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2015/06/12/pgt-episode-252-paraphernalia-msc-p-v-mazur

[snarkler]

Thanks for the reference to the Tuttle thread, where Mazur isn't much discussed or anything agreed upon.  Maybe it's just a little case about a lady and a sticky note, although the Supreme Court seldom takes cases of such small consequence to the public and unlikely to reoccur to help a criminal defendant.  I would like to think or at least hope otherwise, and think Tuttle could do no better than these four justices deciding that case, whether or not they cite their own opinion in Mazur as their authority for doing so.  I didn't listen to the pgt link, this is just my humble opinion and a little marker if it turns out I'm right.

Edited June 13, 2015 by snarkler