Free Meds - is it legal?

skirulz said:

LMFAO! Look at you being all condescending. I never said Sec 8 protects from arrest, that is section 4. Don't talk to me about reading comprehension. You admitted to not fully understanding fairly straightforward ballot language, misread/misinterpreted what was said earlier, and YOU'RE trying to lecture ME on reading comprehension?

PUHLEEZE.

C'mon, the ballot language was pretty frickin plain english:



Anyway, Section 8 protects you from conviction/prosecution IF you can meet the three criteria in the section.

Let's look at section 8, shall we?



If you can prove these three things in court, it certainly protects you from conviction, and also halts the prosecution (duh). So, I'm right, you're wrong. Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on....

You state sections 4 and 8 contradict each other. That's patently false. Section 4 addresses the guidelines one must meet in order to be protected from arrest. Section 8 describes the requirements one must meet to achieve a dismissal if not in compliance with section 4 and arrest takes place. There is no language in section 4 specifying that caregivers may only provide medicine to their five patients. I challenge you to find such language. If that was the intent of the law, why didn't they just put that one sentence in? I would also like to know which parts of 4 and 8 you think contradict each other. It should be easy to name them since I have posted both.

Just for reference, let's look at section 4:



Well, that was informative. Seems to me the general idea behind this section is that any activity involving marijuana between cardholders and under the weight limit is protected as "medical use" as defined in section 3.



Then there's the kicker in Setion 4:



There's also the question of out-of-state visitors.

Section 4(j) says a card from Colorado (i.e.) has the same force of law as a Michigan card. How is a Coloradan supposed to acquire meds here? Assuming, of course, that you aren't encouraging them to break all sorts of other laws by bringing it with them. They cannot register with the state and name a CG, they can possess, but where are they supposed to acquire? Should they just find it on the street? or would it be better for them to contact a caregiver, patient, collective, or dispensary here and arrange to have their medicine waiting when they arrive so they can get on with their visit? These are serious questions and i would appreciate an answer from you or anyone else who is against patients being in control of when and where they get their meds.

Section 4 gives us all sorts of conditions and descritions of protection from arrest, then it tells us the ONLY thing we cannot do as cardholders in section k.

Note it says "Any registered patient/caregiver that sells to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act" and not "Any primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not registered to them as a patient". That CLEARLY implies that all other activity is protected, as long as it is between cardholders.

Hell even AG-Elect Bill Scheutte agrees (and I bet you voted for him-lol):


http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081025/NEWS15/810250341/Is-marijuana-good-medicine&template=fullarticle


http://www.billschuette.com/Schuette/2010/07/15/sheriff-prosecutor-attorney-general-candidate-legalizing-marijuana-is-a-bad-idea

There are lots of quotes like this from Scheutte.

Now, who am I or you to disagree with the frickin' AG???

Click to expand...

RickWhite said:

Can you get it through that thick head of yours that you are not qualified to interpret this law. You simply do not know enough about how the law works to even begin to comprehend it.

For instance. You asked for specific language in Section 4 prohibiting a CG from transferring MJ to someone who is not their patient. This proves that you don't understand how the law works.

The MMMA affords some specific EXCEPTIONS to the laws that make MJ illegal. It isn't a matter of the act not specifically prohibiting something. If the act does not SPECIFICALLY ALLOW IT, it is illegal.

But see, you don't understand this because you don't understand our legal system. More proof of this is that you said numerous times that Section 8 protects against arrest and prosecution which it does not. It gives you an opportunity to raise certain points as a defense during a trial in order to be acquitted.

Click to expand...

Most lawyers and Judges that have looked at the law have criticized it for being poorly constructed. Do you really think you know more than all the Judges in the Redden case?

Click to expand...

The problems arise from the generalizations in Section 8 vs the more specific language of Section 4. A lot of the language in Section 8 is meaningless without the additional specificity of section 4.

In any case, sales of MJ for any reason is illegal. The clear intent of the law is to allow CGs to receive compensation for the costs associated with producing the MMJ. "Donations" do constitute sales according to established law. You can't call something a "donation" and pretend it isn't a payment. The law is clear on that issue. But because you don't know anything about the law, you don't know that.

Right now, lawyers in the Clinical Relief case are preparing their final statements for the preliminary exam. Soon, we will see if the Judge binds the case over for trial and we will have some input on his interpretation. Until then, there are a lot of unanswered questions.

My guess is that the case will be bound over and it will come down to whether or not the conduct of the defendants was essentially the same as that specified in Section 4.

When this happens, we will know a bit more. until then, stop pretending to know things you don't.

Click to expand...