Koon To Serve Up To 15 Years

[t-pain]

thats the point grassmatch. good innocent patients have already been prosecuted for having brownies over their weight.

 

carruthers is the first one to appeal to the supreme court on this topic.

 

do we keep letting patients get streamrolled or do we support carruthers ?

[trichcycler]

would you be so kind to point me in the direction of the innocents with overweight brownies?  I'd never heard of them I think.

 

I didn't say "don't support carruthers" I asked if anyone knew he was a dispensary owner before they gave up cash is all.

the fact that some did not, and regret their support, is where your questions would be more appropriate. They have the

real answers, first hand of both sides of the coin.

I admitted to supporting his appeal, but not feeling good about it necessarily. not sure how to phrase, but baby and bathwater come to mind.

 

I just don't like illegals hiding behind an mmma badge. I didn't say "immorals" I said illegals, for thought.

[t-pain]

you called koon illegal too, but koon was found innocent by the supreme court.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/27490-medical-marijuana-caregiver-accused-of-illegal-pot-candy-operation-in-ferndale/

this was before cooperative growing was outlawed by people v bylsma.

 

i'm sure there are tons more. i bet komorn has defended a few already.

[t-pain]

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/29921-growing-outside-and-busted/

another one. its hard to search for these in google since all of the newspaper articles are dead links- 404 now.

[Wild Bill]

Nobody says you cannot use oil. extraction is and always has been a mixture or preparation thereof.

 

Are you sure you live in Michigan?

 

Nobody says I can't use them, but the Court of Appeals says that I cannot use them legally. According to them in People v. Carruthers extractions are not preparations.

 

I could still use a Sec. 8 defense since that does not specify "usable".

 

http://komornlaw.com...-Carruthers.pdf

 

the definition of “usable marihuana” under the MMMA does not include “all parts” of the cannabis plant. More to the point, it specifically does not include “the resin extracted from” the cannabis plant. Nor does it include “the resin extracted” from mature stalks of the plant. Further, it does not include “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.”

 

Rather, and in stark contrast to the MMMA’s definition of “marihuana,” it includes only “the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof.”

 

The Court of Appeals said extracts are not preparations and as such are not "usable marihuana" protected under Sec.4.

 

It is only protected if it actually contains leaves and flowers. I can make brownies if I leave the plant matter in them. I suppose I could use a tincture if I left the vegetable matter in it.

 

By excluding resin from the definition of “usable marihuana,” as contrasted with the definition of “marihuana,” and defining “usable marihuana” to mean only “the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation therof,"  MCL 333.26423(k), the drafters clearly expressed its intent not to include resin, or a mixture or preparation of resin, within the definition of “usable marihuana.” It therefore expressed its intent not to include a mixture or preparation of an extract of resin.

 

The problem the court had with extracts is their potency. They are saving us from ourselves.

 

Given the heightened potency of the THC extract, as compared with “the dried leaves and flowers,” this definition of “usable marihuana” (for purposes of establishing limited section 4 immunity) strikes us as a sound and reasoned mechanism to promote the “health and welfare of [Michigan] citizens.” It also provides an essential mechanism for implementing the voters’ desire to continue prosecutions for possession and use of marijuana in excess of that which is permitted for “medical use.”

 

Common sense doesn't always keep the police out of your life. Sometimes you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. For instance if your home is burglarized and in the course of the police investigation they happen to see some oil in the bottom of a jar that's all they need.

 

By the way, in another thread you seem to have admitted to breaking the law. Maybe you should use some common sense yourself.

 

my patients use the oil as a substitute for the combustion and inhalation of dried flowers. they use it to alleviate the symptoms, relax their minds, and to sleep well. I use it for the same reasons.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Wild Bill

[t-pain]

see wild bill, i read the coa opinion as talking about resin from stalks.

 

they didnt say resin from dried flowers.

 

the coa is trying to say that carruthers made resin from stalks and thus it wasnt from flowers and leaves.

its a silly ruling.

[Wild Bill]

see wild bill, i read the coa opinion as talking about resin from stalks.

 

they didnt say resin from dried flowers.

 

the coa is trying to say that carruthers made resin from stalks and thus it wasnt from flowers and leaves.

its a silly ruling.

 

They said anything that is not dried leaves and flowers, not just resin from stalks.

 

This is Michael Komorn's assessment. If it is not dried leaves and flowers it is not protected under Sec. 4.

 

People V Carruthers  the Michigan Court of Appeals found that “any substance or material that is possessed by a caregiver or a patient that is not the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation are not considered “usable marijuana” and are therefore not protected by section 4 of the MMMA.

[Highlander]

see wild bill, i read the coa opinion as talking about resin from stalks.

 

they didnt say resin from dried flowers.

 

the coa is trying to say that carruthers made resin from stalks and thus it wasnt from flowers and leaves.

its a silly ruling.

 

Yes the COA discusses resin from stalks but also resin in general and concludes that resin isn't included in the defiition of "usable MJ" per the MMMA.  There was no distinction drawn between resin and resin extracted from stalks and it was never indicated that the brownies were made from stalk resin.

 

As noted, the MMMA separately defines “marihuana” and “usable marihuana.”

Notably, the definition of “marihuana” includes “all parts” of the cannabis plant, as well as “the resin

extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture,

or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.” MCL 333.7106(3).

 

The definition specifically excludes the “mature stalks” of the plant “except the resin extracted therefrom.” By virtue of that exception, therefore, resin extracted from mature stalks is also expressly included within the definition of “marihuana.” There is no dispute that both the raw Marijuana and the brownies found in defendant’s possession constitute marijuana under the MMMA. By contrast, however, the definition of “usable marihuana” under the MMMA does not include “all parts” of the cannabis plant. More to the point, it specifically does not include “the resin extracted from ” the cannabis plant.  Nor does it include “the resin extracted” from mature stalks of the plant. Further, it does not include “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin.”

Edited December 19, 2013 by Highlander

[trichcycler]

"By the way, in another thread you seem to have admitted to breaking the law. Maybe you should use some common sense yourself."

 

I mean to say common sense like paying your tickets, not operating an illegal dispensary, not sucking on a joint before driving, don't speed, or beat your wife

or invite handymen to live with you either. after admitting to multiple felonies her for the feds to read, and with the rampant marijuana sales on budtrader, a very famous website to score from, I fear no recourse for squeezing out doses of oil for me and mine. besides, you guys would bail me out if the forum was raided and they got my nug jug,  right? lol

 

those links above are some sick bunny muffin, coming down from zealous cops. Crap like that happens to good folks undeniably. The good folks of recent reference have not shown common sense, and are not so "innocent".  Google reveals that.

 I have a neighbor about 5 miles away who grows huge friggin trees in his kennel in the back yard. he just put a top on it this past summer. I seen the sherriff there 3 times since 2008, once he was shaking the guys hand.   there's always bad cops, bad laws, bad lawyers, bad judges, but theres also bad judgment, and bad people, doing bad things. Most of those are recognized as lacking common sense, the kind I refer to.

 

99% of us have no legal issues to report, grow to our hearts content, enjoy the freedoms of the Act, and blame our common sense for this. The strong must carry the weak I agree, and the abused must be defended.

Some fully support the exploitation of our Act, some don't. Some grow for profit, some don't, some sell to more than 5 patients, and some don't. Some of us are under plant count, and some over. Is it any wonder there are multiple opinions and even friction amongst that type of diversity ? I've seen it forever in marijuana forums, much of the same fodder even. good vs bad, legal vs illegal, right vs wrong, very common for issues to arise when two or more humans are in discussion. thankfully we have forums like this that allow everyone to read and ponder all kinds of opinions from all types of program participants, growing and using for many different reasons.

I'm enlightened weekly here, to new ideas and thoughts, and I thank everyone who posts.

[bobandtorey]

As t-pain says

its a silly ruling

[bobandtorey]

Grassmatch

 

you make some good points i tell people all the time no one knows who someone is on  a  forms or like Facebook that is why i left there i don't worry ether about plant counts if i was growing i would have what am legal to grow as i did from the Start of 09

 

I can say i did not give to the case because not that i don't support brownies i just had given my $$ to other cases at the time 

[Wild Bill]

I cant yet see myself supporting criminals here. . .

 

Most of us do not commit crimes . . .

I fear no recourse for squeezing out doses of oil for me and mine.

Cognitive dissonance?

[trichcycler]

Yes ! 

Every single day the world seems like it is on the brink of falling apart. But then I look outside my window, and things look about the same as they did a week ago. It's almost a form of more evidence of cognitive dissonance . It's crazy !  but here's my excuse man. its ok, its not contagious.

 

 

"The role of social media is critical because it helps to spread cognitive dissonance by connecting thought leaders and activists to ordinary citizens rapidly expanding the network of people who become willing to take action. Simon Mainwaring

Edited December 20, 2013 by grassmatch