Mystery Surrounds Legality Of Dispensaries In Michigan

[t-pain]

http://www.hollandsentinel.com/news/20160327/waiting-to-exhale-cloud-of-mystery-surrounds-legality-of-dispensaries-in-michigan

[beourbud]

Dispensaries are not protected under the law, the law applies to the patient/caregiver relationship and intentionally omits any commercial enterprise.

 

Dispensaries are criminal enterprises conspiring and collaborating to exploit the system thru various scams and dubious schemes

 

They Gotta Go

 

Free the Weed

[zachw]

Dispensaries are not protected under the law.

 

Dispensaries are important resources to many people.

 

The law needs to change to allow them.

[trichcycler]

Corrupt politico types wrote the law

corrupt politico types make oodles of cash because of it

corrupt politico types push agenda's for corporate types

we need to rid ourselves of corrupt politico types

They are easy to recognize, easy to believe. They flip flop over every issue given enough time.

like selling outside of your registry.  I saw the same types slinging buds in the open a short time ago, only to rally against others doing so today.

typical flip flop. One guy renting tables, filling jars, cg's lined up slinging......pretty much the same as a dispensary. Patients and growers gather, pay a fee at a rented space, to one organizer, talk about laws and stuff, then break out the sales in the "room".... thats called a compassion center we're learning.

 

 

 

 

it was always against the law to do so, most knew so. but they tried, yelled, cried, and dressed up at court divided community members and continue to do so today, they are easy to spot, they wear a " just butt hurt" with every breath.why?  for the tax free cash run of course!

commercial cannabis is on the horizon, likely leaving these types to open a Bong and Pipe cleaning service for responsible registrants hopefully.

 

patients deserve safe access. hating on dispensaries is hating on patients. stop hating on patients, and we might all just come together, again.

[zachw]

For all of its flaws, MI still has one of the best medical acts around. Were the omissions re dispensaries, concentrates & medibles, etc, intentional or just neglect that arose from not understanding all of the implications of the wording of such new legislation?

 

Who actually crafted the MMMA? 

[phaquetoo]

For all of its flaws, MI still has one of the best medical acts around. Were the omissions re dispensaries, concentrates & medibles, etc, intentional or just neglect that arose from not understanding all of the implications of the wording of such new legislation?

 

Who actually crafted the MMMA? 

Karen o'keefe!  Her contact numbers are in the "is this legal thread or the gaylord despensarry thread"

 

Peace

 

edit=Karen O'Keefe

Phone: 323-568-1078

Fax: 202-552-0982

Email: kokeefe@mpp.org

Edited April 24, 2016 by phaquetoo

[Wild Bill]

One of the anti's big arguments was that dispensaries would be popping up next to every church and playground in the state. (Which would cause the godly and the children to become immediately addicted.)

 

I think dispensaries were purposely left out to keep them from being used to stop the initiative.

[Alphabob]

I’ve contacted Karen about the bills intent relative to non-connected, registered caregiver to registered patient transfers. Might get a response sometime next week. I am not arguing for all out dispensaries, but instead the caregivers who have opened their own businesses. I’m focusing on the problem of not being connected, because many ‘dispensaries’ are owned and operated by caregivers; and this is the aspect police are targeting in court. One of the points I brought up was section 4(j) among several others.

 

(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.

 

Let’s break this down because it certainly allows out-of-state cardholders to obtain medical marijuana from another, non-connected person.

 

A. “to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana”

 

Medical use includes “the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia”. What does allow mean? To not impede, arrest, jail, raid, ect.

 

B. “shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department”

Self-explanatory.

 

So it seems clear that a connection does not need to exist for out-of-state cardholders, although protections are not specifically listed. What else could “allow” mean? As for in-state cardholders, I’ll refer you to section 4(b) and 4(e).

 

C. The supreme court in Michigan v McQueen ruled that sales and compensation are already included in ‘transfer’ via 4(b). What does this mean? Well statutory interpretation under ‘Rule against surplusage’ requires that,

 

“Where one reading of a statute would make one or more parts of the statute redundant and another reading would avoid the redundancy, the other reading is preferred.“

 

D. Reading 4(e), we see that it is redundant with 4(b) unless one realizes that it provides protection against controlled substance violations for any registered caregiver transferring to any registered patient for compensation. It’s protections are much more limited than 4(b) and allows civil penalty and disciplinary action by a business/occupational/professional licensing board/bureau.

 

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

If the transaction is a one-time event, i.e. cash for medical marijuana between registered individuals, then such transaction should not constitute the sale of a controlled substance. The reason this was not explored in court was because 4(e) refers to criminal aspects, while the MSC case was civil. Maybe one day this argument will be tested.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Alphabob

[medmanmike]

Really like your argument A. [Edit: actually the whole "out of state" argument] Does anyone know of a case that addressed this? Please let us know what you hear back from mpp.

Edited April 24, 2016 by medmanmike