Mmma - stay away!!!

[RickWhite]

Some of you may be familiar with the MMMA website. If you are thinking about checking it out - don't. If you frequent the site, stop.

I'm fairly sure the founder is one of the people under indictment for involvement with the "Clinical Relief" dispensary in Ferndale and the place is crawling with cops.

I am a 100% legal caregiver and I operate under the strict guidelines of the card system. I made the mistake of posting an ad for caregiver services and was inundated with requests for illegal sales, some involving a bit of weight. I have a bad feeling everyone who posts there, or possibly even visits, is on a watch list and possibly under surveillance.

To make matters worse, the most frequent posters are reckless fools who encourage everyone to take dangerous risks. Anyone calling for due care and caution is accused of being a cop and of using "scare tactics." See, their position is that the card system is BS and the law allows much broader activity including sales of any amount to anyone with a card regardless of whether or not they are your patient. If you are like me and do not want to take that risk, they flame you.

It almost seems like the website run by the people under indictment and they are using the site to set people up as part of a deal with the cops. Now, I don't know this to be true, but it sure seems that way. Either that, or they want to use other people as guinea pigs.

Either way, you would be smart to avoid that website at all costs.

 

[rzza]

what gives you the idea that the founder is in any way related to clinical relief?

 

[RickWhite]

what gives you the idea that the founder is in any way related to clinical relief?

I ran across a post of his in which he was discussing it.

Anyway, the consensus in that forum is that Section 8 of the MMMA, which allows for them to raise an affirmative defense means in their minds that it is legal to do all kinds of things in excess of the card system.

They are basically saying, this is how we interpret the law and the cops can jump in the river. We shall see on Wed.

 

[Kruzty]

I'm fairly sure the founder is one of the people under indictment for involvement with the "Clinical Relief" dispensary in Ferndale and the place is crawling with cops.


I know him rather well and not that I know of........................................

Hell I'm one of the founders and never even been to ferndale so ya seem to need to get yer facts straight and stop trying to slame someone thats done more for our law in 2 years then you've done your whole life.

The patient to patient gray area your talking about has been gone over time and time again on the website and it goes both ways. Some think it's legal some say it's not,,, like myself. If ya got slamed then sorry my friend they do get pushy on there points some times, but thats what happens when people debate issues. This point in our law will be decided in the courts sad to say.....

But as for the founder Greg F, no,,,,, Not that I know of, nor me,,,,, nor Brad,,,,,, so,,,,,,,, not that I know of............................
Greg is home on the farm and not doing anything as far as the mmma anymore,, that I know of anyways...........

 

[RickWhite]

I'm fairly sure the founder is one of the people under indictment for involvement with the "Clinical Relief" dispensary in Ferndale and the place is crawling with cops.


I know him rather well and not that I know of........................................

Hell I'm one of the founders and never even been to ferndale so ya seem to need to get yer facts straight and stop trying to slame someone thats done more for our law in 2 years then you've done your whole life.

The patient to patient gray area your talking about has been gone over time and time again on the website and it goes both ways. Some think it's legal some say it's not,,, like myself. If ya got slamed then sorry my friend they do get pushy on there points some times, but thats what happens when people debate issues. This point in our law will be decided in the courts sad to say.....

But as for the founder Greg F, no,,,,, Not that I know of, nor me,,,,, nor Brad,,,,,, so,,,,,,,, not that I know of............................
Greg is home on the farm and not doing anything as far as the mmma anymore,, that I know of anyways...........

LOL! Exactly what has he done for our laws? I voted for MMMA 2008, did you even vote? If you ask me, most of the people on that site are the type of people that ruin it for the rest of us. The law gives us an inch and they take a mile. All they are doing is giving the anti-MMJ people grounds use them as an example of why MMMA never should have passed and needs to be repealed. The issue is not about people's rights, but about their greed. And it isn't a matter of opinions on both sides. There are moderators there that shut down anyone arguing that the card system is the standard.

Plus, like I said. As fast as I put up an add for meds, I had cops contacting me trying to buy weight. I'm sure as soon as the Ferndale case goes to trial numerous members on that site will be raided. Good luck!

 

[defcomexperiment]

Plus, like I said. As fast as I put up an add for meds, I had cops contacting me trying to buy weight.

what would you expect to happen? legit people looking to buy pot to call you for weight... you posted an ad trying to distribute meds on a public forum, and you are surprised you got contacted by the police trying to get you to sell weight? you must be stoned, of course they called you, you put up a big red flag that you were someone who they could possibly bust.

you really should step back from the situation, you came over to a different website hurling allegations that you have no factual basis for. if anything all you probably should have done was give a brief warning for people to exercise caution if they frequent the site. instead you look like a forum troll who got butthurt over on another site and wants to smear their name through the mud. i personally do not post there, but thats personal preference. also, you come off like a real ass questioning people if they even voted on MMMA 2008, i did but who gives a shit. as for the gray area of the law, this isnt about greed, this is actually about peoples rights. if these rights are covered in the law, fuck the state for trying to infringe on them. who is really the oppressor, the person arguing for or against p2p transfers? why cant i pass a fellow patient a joint if they are not my patient? why am i not allowed to help a patient friend who may be low income and cant grow for themselves with some of my meds? p2p transfer should be legal, and it is, as i pointed out just last night in another thread

this is my interpretation of the law:

"(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

would constitute patient to patient transfers legal because of the working of delivery and transfer, etc. especially when the patients rights are so expressly outlined here:

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

i believe it clearly shows that when a caregiver is in possession of the plants there is clarity that it is that patients plants, not the caregivers. however, it never says anything about limitations as to what the patient can do with their own plants, the only place anything is outlined in that respect is that there is allowances for delivery, transfer, transport, etc etc etc...



edited to add:
section 4a specifies that it is protections to the "medical use" of marihuana, which if you refer back to the first segment of the law i quoted would in fact be the patients absolute protection in any delivery, transfer, or transportation in helping administer marijuana to a qualifying patient. as long as you are within your limits the law should be on your side. however, there will have to be precedent set, because cops want to be dickheads. "



to argue against p2p transfer, even in the case of supplying a patient who might be running a dispensary is to argue against safe access. not everyone has the same connections, and not everyone would like to deal with a CG. the storefronts offer a viable option for those that wouldnt want to put all their eggs into the baskets of a CG, or could be used for emergency purposed...

not to mention i would like to add with affirmative defense it could be argued that anyone that could prove in the court of law that they had medical necessity for mmj, if they were to procure it from another patient it would also be legal even if patient 1 did not have their card. it is actually crazy that people can look at the definitions in the law and not see the protection.

 

[guy incognito]

p2p transfer should be legal, and it is, as i pointed out just last night in another thread

this is my interpretation of the law:

"(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

would constitute patient to patient transfers legal because of the working of delivery and transfer, etc. especially when the patients rights are so expressly outlined here:

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

i believe it clearly shows that when a caregiver is in possession of the plants there is clarity that it is that patients plants, not the caregivers. however, it never says anything about limitations as to what the patient can do with their own plants, the only place anything is outlined in that respect is that there is allowances for delivery, transfer, transport, etc etc etc...



edited to add:
section 4a specifies that it is protections to the "medical use" of marihuana, which if you refer back to the first segment of the law i quoted would in fact be the patients absolute protection in any delivery, transfer, or transportation in helping administer marijuana to a qualifying patient. as long as you are within your limits the law should be on your side. however, there will have to be precedent set, because cops want to be dickheads. "

I don't agree. When you quote "medical use" don't forget the part about "medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act" That little qualifier is a big deal because the rest of the act specifies what you can and can't do. Just because acquisition and possession are listed under the definition of medical use doesn't mean there aren't restrictions.

Also don't agree that "if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient" shows "clearly shows that when a caregiver is in possession of the plants there is clarity that it is that patients plants, not the caregivers." I don't see where it states ownership of any plants to anybody. It just says a caregiver will "be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient."

I would be very careful of YOUR OWN interpretation of the law because the judge very very rarely asks the defendant to explain the law to them.

 

[defcomexperiment]

I don't agree. When you quote "medical use" don't forget the part about "medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act" That little qualifier is a big deal because the rest of the act specifies what you can and can't do. Just because acquisition and possession are listed under the definition of medical use doesn't mean there aren't restrictions.

Also don't agree that "if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient" shows "clearly shows that when a caregiver is in possession of the plants there is clarity that it is that patients plants, not the caregivers." I don't see where it states ownership of any plants to anybody. It just says a caregiver will "be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient."

I would be very careful of YOUR OWN interpretation of the law because the judge very very rarely asks the defendant to explain the law to them.

the only thing in the act i see that says anything about a patient distributing is right here:

"(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana."

where it just specifies that a patient can not sell pot to someone who is not in the program. no where in the law anywhere do i find anything that says anything in contradiction to this:

"(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

see you mention the "accordance with this act", please show me where donating marijuana to a qualifying patient from another patient is forbidden in this act?

 

[guy incognito]

the only thing in the act i see that says anything about a patient distributing is right here:

"(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana."

where it just specifies that a patient can not sell pot to someone who is not in the program. no where in the law anywhere do i find anything that says anything in contradiction to this:

"(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

see you mention the "accordance with this act", please show me where donating marijuana to a qualifying patient from another patient is forbidden in this act?

1. Just because it specifies who you can NOT sell to does NOT imply that selling to anyone else is legal. If you read further along it states that "shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana." which I think is the important part. This means specifically that you can have your card revoked and be convicted of a felony for selling to a non card holder.

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

(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.

A caregiver may sell to their own patients. Thats all it specifies.

I agree there is a lot of gray area, i'm just saying be careful of your own interpretations because it can, and will be, argued many different ways by cherry picking the parts of the law you want to quote.

 

[Kruzty]

Yep as ya see a very debated gray area. Did I vote ???? Duh,,,,,,, dumbass.... and I protest too,, and,, when's the last time ya did anything besides piss and moan on yer computer for this law ?? Ever been to the state house lobbying for our rights ??? Hmmm,,,, how bout talking to your local leo's or prosecutoring attornies ???? Hmmmmmm,,, what have you done my friend but whine??????????????????????

Give me a break, yer just pissing cuz ya got booted and we now see why.................

Go figure.................

 

[RickWhite]

I would be very careful of YOUR OWN interpretation of the law because the judge very very rarely asks the defendant to explain the law to them.

LOL! Classic! It's nice to see that there are other people here with a brain. What you are pointing out would get you banned on the MMMA forum.

One correction though. Section 4 states that a caregiver may "receive compensation for costs" and that this compensation "shall not constitute the sale of a controlled substance." So, technically, there is nothing in any part of the law that allows the sale of MJ. It only states that receiving compensation for CG services is not a sale.

What this would appear to imply, and what prosecutors are arguing is that there are still no legal "sales" of MJ even to your registered patient. The defense is arguing that if it is illegal to sell to a non-card holder, it must be legal to sell to a card holder. This is a logical fallacy.

Anyway, some foolish people are under the impression that section 8 specifies a bunch of things that are legal. But, it doesn't. All it does is say that one can raise these issues as part of an affirmative defense. Granted, the legislation is a monstrosity. But people also need to be aware that if the affirmative defense section fails, the default is that they are illegally trafficking.

Oh, and I'm not sure but it seems that if there are two sections and one is vague and the other much more specific, the more specific of the two would be the standard. I may be mistaken.

Anyway, we shall see in the next few days if the case is bound over for trial. I'm betting it will be.

 

[defcomexperiment]

i had mis-stated something, by sell i meant accept compensation for the labor and costs it took to produce the meds. i recognize it states that meds can not be sold, but one can be compensated for the labor and costs of producing the meds. either way, shit dont matter to me, i do a small grow for me and my g/f currently. eventually i will fill up my patients, but i have no intention of producing meds for anyone that is not my patient. i would like all this to be sorted out, because the hindering of distribution just means that safe access is harder for some patients. it also means that the price of meds goes up.

 

[2stoned2function]

Didn't see this had a second page, at first. anyways, let's just legalize it and create jobs for everyone..... oh wait, we forgot to vote in CA

"Make the most of the hemp, and sow it everywhere"

 

[whit26]

I would be very careful of YOUR OWN interpretation of the law because the judge very very rarely asks the defendant to explain the law to them.

AMEN. That's the most sensible thing I've heard all month.

 

[rzza]

I would be very careful of YOUR OWN interpretation of the law because the judge very very rarely asks the defendant to explain the law to them.

thats not true at all, either you or your counsel ALWAYS has an oppurtunity to explain your views and thoughts, including your interpretation of the law.

 

[guy incognito]

thats not true at all, either you or your counsel ALWAYS has an oppurtunity to explain your views and thoughts, including your interpretation of the law.

That doesn't mean your opinion matters in the slightest though, or that the judge is going to think the same way about the law as you. You can explain your interpretation to the judge, but it's ultimately HIS interpretation that matters. And his interpretation very rarely will incorporate YOUR opinions.

 

[rzza]

the judge very very rarely asks the defendant to explain the law to them

thats not my point. thats not what you said...

i would also hope that anyone in court should have counsel and yes the judges are actually persuaded by them. hence the reason for paying so much to employ good attorney.

 

[guy incognito]

Well if you want to get into semantics having an opportunity to do something and being explicitly asked are separate things.

Persuading the judge IS a great benefit of good counsel, but the main reason you pay good money for an attorney is that you are not trained in law. He is educated on what rights you have at every stage of the game, and what proper protocol is to be followed ensuring you do not have any rights violated.

I still don't think the judge will ask this persons interpretation of the law. He will read it himself and make up his own mind, perhaps with some consideration to others opinions and interpretations. I would still caution anyone on relying on their own interpretation of something ambiguous in the law though.

 

[rzza]

sure, i mean someone whos uneducated can get themself in trouble by trusting their interpretation.

 

[guy incognito]

sure, i mean someone whos uneducated can get themself in trouble by trusting their interpretation.

Yeah that was pretty much my point.