Save Our Access 3-13-2016 Gaylord

[t-pain]

daisy chain was ruled against (not specifically, but due to how they read the language of the law) in one of the msc rulings.

 

its one of the complaints i made when the opinion came out that the ruling pretty much hurts parent caregivers as they would not be able to legally get medicine transferred to them for their child.

 

i'll see if i can dig it up.

 

a little about it here

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/48457-caregiver-to-a-caregiver-of-a-child/

 

more here

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/46141-can-caregivers-exchange-medicine-with-eachother/

[Restorium2]

daisy chain was ruled against in one of the msc rulings.

 

its one of the complaints i made when the opinion came out that the ruling pretty much hurts parent caregivers as they would not be able to legally get medicine transferred to them for their child.

 

i'll see if i can dig it up.

The magic hats take care of that part. And the 9 tenths of the law. Breaks the chain of possession into one transfer at a time and no double jumps for medical usage.

[Restorium2]

 hurts parent caregivers as they would not be able to legally get medicine transferred to them for their child.

 

The parents would need to be patients also.

[beourbud]

Pyramid schemes, daisy chains and magic hats, What could go wrong?

[Restorium2]

Pyramid schemes, daisy chains and magic hats, What could go wrong?

Right. But it does make a lot more sense then what they have been saying at most dispensaries. 

[bobandtorey]

how does a dispensary selling to every one with a card who walks in the door, do it legitimately ? 

 

anyone?

 

what about the five patient rule?  what about the profit/sales issues?  

bob?

 

 

Thanks

 

Sure i can answer that i've been to a few cannabis business classes that charge you $150 - $ 500 / class here our a few steps one should take before opening a cannabis business 

 

1. have cash on hand and lots of it 

 

2. find a great Lawyer

 

3. make sure you grow only the best cannabis / be a master grower like me when i grow i grow only top shelf cannabis 

 

4 i'm no Lawyer but i did stay inn a Holiday Inn

 

5. send me a PM and i can tell you more because i don't want anyone getting mad at me for putting it on a web site and take money out of their hand 

 

Thanks again for asking 

[bobandtorey]

If you were looking for an example of how the Michigan government has politicized every aspect of state authority, you just found it.

Homeland Security, Michigan State Police and other agencies raided nine medical marijuana distribution centersin the town of Gaylord, Michigan Thursday night, just weeks after the City Council passed an ordinance in support of dispensaries.

Not only did they hit those nine, they have swept out a total of at least a dozen mid-Michigan dispensaries within 48 hours. The raids began less than 24 hours after liberal candidate Bernie Sanders won Tuesday’s Democratic presidential primary election.

The primary election was called by news media in favor of Bernie Sanders at 11:00 pm on March 8. By 6:00 pm on March 9, the raiding of medical marijuana patient homes and businesses had begun.

Governor Rick Snyder strikes again, this time with a blue fist.

DETAILS

A press release issued on Friday, March 11 by law enforcement give credit to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 3 different Sheriff’s offices, 4 different narcotics task forces and the State Police for taking down the medical marijuana patients and their businesses.

No precipitating incident drove this new rampage- there was no change in law, no fatal traffic accident, no public outcry. The only event which could have generated this kind of response was the adoption of the pro-dispensary ordinance in Gaylord.

And the passing of that ordinance must have really pissed off state-based law enforcement agencies. On May 27, 2015 the State Police and their local narcotics teams hit 8 Gaylord dispensaries. On September 3rd, citizens filed a petition to make dispensaries, or provisioning centers, legal to operate with city approval. On January 11 the City Council passed the ordinance, which added medical marijuana provisioning centers as an approved and protected use in certain commercial areas. The ordinance was to go into effect 30 days after, or approx. February 10.

It’s like the Gaylord City Council flipped the Michigan State Police post the bird and said, stay out of my yard. This is what our citizens want, and we agree.

The raids happened on March 9, before any Center could get through the licensing process. Apparently the State Police wanted to squash businesses before they could gain the protection of local zoning laws.

Police agencies like to claim they can raid locally-empowered but not state-sanctioned dispensaries at any time in Michigan. This recent action is a series of inter-agency coordinated raids involving dozens of police vehicles and an unknown amount of manpower over several days which was clearly planned for some time, leading to questions about the political timing of the raids.

TIMING IS EVERYTHING

Was this really a totally random act of enforcement by police of a law that has existed for years?

Let’s evaluate the circumstance. The centers in question have been known to exist for a long time- some centers, for years in the same location. The eyes of the nation were upon Michigan, and now they are not. No more coverage of the Flint Water Crisis on a daily basis, no more candidate offices and the CNN cameras. That ended on March 8.

On March 9, the raids began.

It would have been very unwise to raid these medical marijuana distribution centers before a pro-marijuana law reform candidate like Bernie Sanders came to Michigan. Any stories of widespread police raids and suffering marijuana patients would have elevated the issue of cannabis’ Schedule 1 status into the Michigan presidential debates. Sanders does very well when the subject of marijuana enters the debate.

Similarly, the Flint Water Crisis occupied the media’s attention for months before the candidates and debates arrived. This was a time when media investigators were poking and prodding for any angle on government’s overreach of authority, and raiding the homes of sick people is an act of government that is not widely supported by the populace.

Add to that the January 29th dismissal of one charge and a not guilty finding on another charge against Al Witt, one of the men charged in the May raids on Gaylord dispensaries. Witt was convicted of only one charge, a conviction that will likely be appealed. This must have frustrated some Sheriffs.

It doesn’t take a big leap to imagine that the State Police may have wanted to drop on the Centers after the ordinance was adopted in early January but were told to wait, to avoid any unwanted attention to Governor Snyder during his administration’s time of crisis.

Then, they were most likely told to wait again until after the Presidential candidates and their attendant news media left the state and all eyes were elsewhere. The candidates left; the raids began.

Boy, they sure didn’t wait for long.

 

http://www.theweedblog.com/sanders-leavesmichigan-cops-begin-raiding-medical-marijuana-shops-next-day/

[bobandtorey]

GAYLORD — The Gaylord City Council agreed to move forward with revised language of a proposed medical marijuana ordinance amendment, which is now expected to come to a vote in January.

 

At its meeting Monday, the council unanimously approved the language of a proposed ordinance amendment, revised by City Attorney Paul Slough, permitting medical marijuana provisioning centers in locations deemed C-1 Commercial District by the city zoning ordinance. Joe Duff, city manager, said the city could vote to approve or deny the amendment during the Jan. 11 council meeting.

“It's a win, win, win situation,” said Alan Witt, one of the leaders of the medical marijuana amendment initiative. “They're happy they have the ordinance, store owners are happy they have this, and the community is happy they have access to their medicine.”

Slough said only slight revisions and additions were made to the proposed amendment.

He said there were concerns the definition for a medical marijuana provisioning center in the original proposed amendment, “Any building, lot, or structure where more than 25 percent is used to cultivate medical marihuana or any building, lot, or structure where three or more caregivers are cultivating, storing, delivering, transferring, or providing qualified patients with medical marihuana,” was too broad.

To address those concerns, Slough said he broke the definition into three definitions: medical marijuana growing operation, medical marijuana processing center and medical marijuana provisioning center.

In the revised ordinance amendment, the following definitions are applied:

• A medical marijuana growing operation is defined as “any lot or premises used to cultivate, dry, trim, or cure marihuana for sale.”

• A medical marijuana processing center is defined as “any lot or premises used in the extraction of resin from marihuana or the creation of a marihuana infused product for sale and transfer in packaged form.”

• A medical marijuana provisioning center is defined as “any lot or premises used to sell, supply, or provide marihuana at retail to qualifying patients under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26423, directly or through the patients' registered primary caregivers.”

Witt and Chad Morrow, leaders of a petitioning drive that led to these actions and co-owners of the Cloud 45 dispensary, said though the revised ordinance amendment is different than the one originally proposed and approved by the Gaylord Planning Commission, they had no issue with the changes.

“I'm fine with it, as long as they continue moving forward with it, keep taking the positive actions and being proactive about it, and getting it resolved,” Witt said.

Duff previously said if the amendment were to be approved, it would set ground rules for the medical marijuana industry in Gaylord.

In the event a medical marijuana provisioning center wants to open in Gaylord, the amendment would call for the city to meet with the future owner and go over a zoning map to show where the owner may or may not open a dispensary. Once they find a location where the zoning would allow for a dispensary, the owner could open and operate according to the Michigan medical marijuana law.

The city also would regulate any signage and additions to the building being used.

 

“This is a good first step,” said John Jenkins, mayor.

 

http://m.petoskeynews.com/gaylord/news/revised-medical-marijuana-ordinance-amendment-language-approved/article_e89b5e94-7522-567d-a8c4-c1cc1088c68b.html?mode=jqm

[garyfisher]

Where in the law does it state a qualifying caregiver may only provide to the five patients he is registered with only?

How does an out of state patient obtain medicine when the MMMA supports this option?

 

(j) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.

[t-pain]

It's case law, Gary. from people v mcqueen

 

and I agree, they don't give a bunny muffin about visiting patients or parental caregivers

[Alphabob]

please explain the legal way to sell indiscriminately to every card holder passerby in a day?  no scarcasm, I believe some important points are often missed. like when cops say things like "operate legit and we leave you alone"  I want to know the legit way to sell pounds a day at a store front if there is one. there are a lot of good business people out there capable of doing that job well I'm sure.

 

I think an argument can be made for the legitimacy of dispensaries in the MMMA, but it would be difficult to accomplish. Section 4b provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, ect for caregiver actions related to registered patients who are connected to them through the state’s registration system. It does not state anything about patients who are not connected. However, section 4k lists a penalty for patients and caregivers selling to anyone not allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes. This is in addition to the beneficial language found in section 4j as mentioned above.

 

Similar to arguments made for illegal transport cases, the MMMA provides specific activities that are not allowed; for example, public use, driving under the influence, selling to those not allowed to use medical marijuana, ect. All other activities, although not specifically listed, are allowed under patient protections and section 7e. Since the law only states that transfers to individuals not allowed to use medical marijuana are illegal, it seems clear that the legislature’s intent was to allow transfers to qualifying individuals even if they are not connected to a caregiver through the state’s system. The only limits are 2.5 ounces and 12 plants per registered patient. Thus it seems that dispensaries could legally operate under the language of the law as long as their stock is covered by on-site caregivers, and that no transfers occur to anyone who is not allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes. That isn't without saying that they may be arrested, prosecuted and punished for going around the protections offered in section 4b. But hey, were getting screwed anyways so whats the difference?

Edited March 13, 2016 by Alphabob

[phaquetoo]

Where in the law does it state a qualifying caregiver may only provide to the five patients he is registered with only?

 

How does an out of state patient obtain medicine when the MMMA supports this option?

 

(j) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.

I guess they want out of stater's to see our detroit projects!  they are allowed to possess mm if they have a card or rx from a diff state,,,,,,,so I guess that means they can get it from the black market, or it would say a pt or a c.g is allowed to temporarely supply an out of state pt, but no more than, so and so a visit or week, month etc,,,

 

But it just says they can possess, so they have the same right as a pt who does not grow or have a c.g!  Get it from a drug dealer on the corner or craigs list!  Heck on cl they can order an oz and a pizza and a date for the nite!

 

The law was written by a kindagardner, or there would be no grey areas!

 

Peace

[Highlander]

I guess they want out of stater's to see our detroit projects!  they are allowed to possess mm if they have a card or rx from a diff state,,,,,,,so I guess that means they can get it from the black market, or it would say a pt or a c.g is allowed to temporarely supply an out of state pt, but no more than, so and so a visit or week, month etc,,,

 

But it just says they can possess, so they have the same right as a pt who does not grow or have a c.g!  Get it from a drug dealer on the corner or craigs list!  Heck on cl they can order an oz and a pizza and a date for the nite!

 

The law was written by a kindagardner, or there would be no grey areas!

 

Peace

I was about to reply to Gary's post but saw yours first. I was going to say about the same thing.

 

The law gives protection to card-holders from out-of-state, but it doesn't say anything about anyone supplying to them and being protected from arrest. Same with a Michigan resident patient with no caregiver. He is allowed to have meds and seeds and plants, but the law doesn't protect the provider of the meds, seeds, and plants unless unless that provider is his CG. But the CG got it somewhere!

 

The legality of possessing meds and plants necessitates that, somewhere along the line, someone broke the law before the legal process started.

 

It's a chicken with no egg thing. The chicken is legal, but the egg isn't. But the chicken had to have come from somewhere.

[trichcycler]

I guess they want out of stater's to see our detroit projects!  they are allowed to possess mm if they have a card or rx from a diff state,,,,,,,so I guess that means they can get it from the black market, or it would say a pt or a c.g is allowed to temporarely supply an out of state pt, but no more than, so and so a visit or week, month etc,,,

 

But it just says they can possess, so they have the same right as a pt who does not grow or have a c.g!  Get it from a drug dealer on the corner or craigs list!  Heck on cl they can order an oz and a pizza and a date for the nite!

 

The law was written by a kindagardner, or there would be no grey areas!

 

Peace

 

who exactly wrote our Act? Who specifically benefits from the purposeful ambiguity? = many answers to many questions?

[bobandtorey]

MMMA was enacted, which “explicitly informed voters that the law would permit registered and unregistered patients to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.” [Emphasis supplied by the court.]

 

No Gray  in that  

[bobandtorey]

who exactly wrote our Act? Who specifically benefits from the purposeful ambiguity? = many answers to many questions?

 

Karen O'Keefe, Director of State Policies

Marijuana Policy Project

236 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Suite 400

Washington, DC 20002

P: 202-462-5747, ext. *2023

F: 202-552-0982

kokeefe@mpp.org

http://www.mpp.org

[bobandtorey]

I guess they want out of stater's to see our detroit projects!  they are allowed to possess mm if they have a card or rx from a diff state,,,,,,,so I guess that means they can get it from the black market, or it would say a pt or a c.g is allowed to temporarely supply an out of state pt, but no more than, so and so a visit or week, month etc,,,

 

But it just says they can possess, so they have the same right as a pt who does not grow or have a c.g!  Get it from a drug dealer on the corner or craigs list!  Heck on cl they can order an oz and a pizza and a date for the nite!

 

The law was written by a kindagardner, or there would be no grey areas!

 

Peace

Sorry Jim i must disagree but i do agree the Courts have made it that way today it was their plan all along 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/23494-coa-rules-in-redden-clark-case/

[bobandtorey]

OTSEGO CO.-- Nearly 100 people spent hours protesting against the recent raids of several marijuana dispensaries Sunday afternoon.

The protest took place in front of the Michigan State Police Gaylord Post. 

Organizers of the protest stated in a release that "the businesses were operating within the spirit of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, and that the medical marijuana patients of Otsego county are being harassed."

Ten marijuana dispensaries in Otsego County were raided by the Straits Area Narcotics Enforcement (S.A.N.E.) on Thursday night which led to two arrests.

According to S.A.N.E., nine of the 10 dispensaries are located in the City of Gaylord and one in Vanderbilt.

Two dispensary owners, Chad Morrow and Ben Horner from the Cannabis Stakeholders Group, helped organize the protest against the raids.

It's the second time in the past year several of the dispensaries have been raided which has left some Gaylord residents feeling targeted.

 

http://upnorthlive.com/news/local/protesters-rally-against-raids-of-several-marijuana-dispensaries

[trichcycler]

MMMA was enacted, which “explicitly informed voters that the law would permit registered and unregistered patients to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.” [Emphasis supplied by the court.]

 

No Gray  in that  

 

were you caught up in a "gray area" or just blatantly breaking known rules?

[bobandtorey]

were you caught up in a "gray area" or just blatantly breaking known rules?

MADISON HEIGHTS, Mich. (AP) - Police in Madison Heights have seized 21 marijuana plants from the home of a man who says he grows the drug for medicinal use.

 

Police in the Detroit suburb seized the plants Monday.

 

But Chief Kevin Sagan tells the Detroit Free Press that the department doesn't know if the man has violated any laws.

[Restorium2]

were you caught up in a "gray area" or just blatantly breaking known rules?

He's been telling it for how many years now? 

 

Husband and wife patients, plants not separated. 

 

Maybe make a song about it so you can remember. Phonics maybe?

[Restorium2]

Gotta keep em separated ...... just a suggestion. LOL

[trichcycler]

resto

 

oh, plants not separated, that sounds like a gray area to bob? or blatant breaking of the stated rules I asked?

 

bob said "NO Gray areas", I suggested one of his own perhaps, he knows that too.

[trichcycler]

MMMA was enacted, which “explicitly informed voters that the law would permit registered and unregistered patients to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

 

 

 

 

No Gray in that

maybe bob being facetious. hard to tell without an emoticon, he's a ninja poster

[Alphabob]

Even if the law wasn’t “ambiguous”, congress, LEO and the courts would have found a way to mess it up (improper transport, synthetic THC, ect). Unfortunately, there is no punishment when these entities violate our rights. Our laws protect and entice them to do so. When you have a system that forces the police departments to run on forfeitures and such, of course they are going to harass the citizens. Imagine if officers of the law or prosecutors were actually punished for misapplying or not knowing the law; I’m sure they would be on the side of caution rather than acting like thugs.

 

We should have come up with MMMA insurance back in 2008. About $60 a year for patients and everyone could benefit from free counsel and possibly civil action after dismissal (assuming the MMMA is not violated). Then they would not be able to prey on the sick and poor; equal resources for both sides in court.