Court: Get state ID card before growing marijuana

[jesus of Cannabis]

http://www.petoskeynews.com/news/pnr-court-get-state-id-card-before-growing-marijuana-20110831,0,3435241.story

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan appeals court says people who want to grow marijuana for medical use should wait until they have a state-issued card.

The ruling published Wednesday from a three-judge panel means a man will face charges for manufacturing marijuana in Montmorency County.

Investigators conducting surveillance by air spotted six marijuana plants growing at Brian Reed's residence in August 2009. He wasn't arrested until October.

At that time, Reed had a state card to use medical marijuana. But the appeals court says it doesn't prevent authorities from prosecuting him for what they found a few months earlier.

 

[Murfy]

i just don't see-

how these judges can piss on a law, like they do.

 

[jesus of Cannabis]

they are trying to weed out the idiots from the real growers that use this medicine as it is supposed to be used. This idiot in the article should lose his card for growing outside but the other charge is going to be dropped. Follow the law, it isnt that hard.

 

[stumpjumper]

The law says 21 days after your check is cashed you can use your paperwors as your card until you recieve the actual card.

It also says that they had 3 months to get the shit straight on their end and have cards issued no later than 20 days but obviously they don't give a shit about that.

Yeah, lets have a bend over and fuck us protest in Lansing. They wont get it until until we push back.

 

[Pravius]

The law is the law. I don't see how they can take that away from us now?

 

[stumpjumper]

They can't.


Everyone ought to check out Bill Schuette's facebook page.. That man is hated by thousands lol..

 

[jonnynobody]

http://www.petoskeynews.com/news/pnr-court-get-state-id-card-before-growing-marijuana-20110831,0,3435241.story

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan appeals court says people who want to grow marijuana for medical use should wait until they have a state-issued card.

The ruling published Wednesday from a three-judge panel means a man will face charges for manufacturing marijuana in Montmorency County.

Investigators conducting surveillance by air spotted six marijuana plants growing at Brian Reed's residence in August 2009. He wasn't arrested until October.

At that time, Reed had a state card to use medical marijuana. But the appeals court says it doesn't prevent authorities from prosecuting him for what they found a few months earlier.

That's completely stupid to be growing without being a registered patient so he probably deserves what he gets. I don't know anybody with common sense that would not spend the $200 to complete the necessary paperwork with the state and instead roll the dice with a felony manufacturing & cultivation charge. On top of that, to be growing outside with no certification paperwork and no locked enclosure? WTF, how stupid can one individual be? Sounds like the kind of person you just need to euthanize for being so incompetent for the benefit of society as a whole.

As far as having to wait until your card arrives to grow; sorry joc, the law says what it says in very plain non-vague language so that's not an issue that's even up for debate. 21 days after they receive your application (i.e. proof of certified mail green card showing postmark date when the state received the application), if the state fails to abide by the law and process said application, the application itself becomes your valid card. (unless your app. has been rejected, obviously). It's funny how the state can make an $8,000,000 surplus from rubber stamping applications and renewals yet they can't figure out yet how to put the patient or caregivers photo on the ID, nor have they hired additional staff to clear up the backlog of applications. My wife is going on month #3 waiting for her card. Shameful. Sounds to me like the state is purposely creating this bottleneck all over nonsense politics. The money is there for things to improve but our elected leaders do not care about patients or caregivers.

It's very important for all of us to remember who these elected scum bags are and vote them out next election cycle.

 

[probo24]

As I understand the story, the guy was growing before he had applied, they then found his plants, he then applied and got legal, and then wanted to use the card as a defense.
I think it's more of a timing issue of when he applied to get legal, so I don't think the ruling was addressing the twenty day rule of
using paperwork as proof of legality.
I could be wrong but that's how I understand it.

 

[jonnynobody]

As I understand the story, the guy was growing before he had applied, they then found his plants, he then applied and got legal, and then wanted to use the card as a defense.
I think it's more of a timing issue of when he applied to get legal, so I don't think the ruling was addressing the twenty day rule of
using paperwork as proof of legality.
I could be wrong but that's how I understand it.

I wouldn't walk around with a loaded firearm before I had proper legal registration to carry that firearm. The same goes for medical marijuana. All that comes down to is good old fashioned stupidity and ignorance.

 

[probo24]

I wouldn't walk around with a loaded firearm before I had proper legal registration to carry that firearm. The same goes for medical marijuana. All that comes down to is good old fashioned stupidity and ignorance.

Well, that goes without saying.
There isn't really a gray area as far as when you are allowed to start legally growing.
To me, all this ruling does is affirm what the law already says.
I was addressing those who seem to think this guy is getting screwed.

 

[stumpjumper]

The law says that MMMA can be used as a defense if you have a qualifying medical condition even if you aren't registered.

 

[sheapdog420]

I saw this story and thought the reporting was a bit incomplete. Did he grow before he got his card and thats why he got busted? Did he have the paperwork and not his card when he started?

If he was growing before he applied and they were investigating before he applied, then yes, he's illegal. If he had the paperwork and the 21 days and cashed check, then no, he wasn't illegal.

Basically, shitty reporting.

 

[Murfy]

i would imagine-

he was waiting 6 MONTHS to get his card. some coppers weren't allowing paperwork.
did YOU wait until YOUR card came?

 

[Mr. Big Bud Good]

This isn't about your actual card versus paperwork. The guy was growing before he got certified. The cops knew about his plants but waited to bust him, and when they did he showed them his cert. They knew he was growing before the date of the cert however so they are going to nail that on him. The most likely reason the judges ruled that you can't grow without a card is because they have no idea how long it actually takes to recieve a physical card in the mail. They assume that you get your actual card a few days after the state recieves your paperwork. Your paperwork is your card until you recieve the actual card itself. Hopefully that kind of makes sense, it's the best way I can explain it right now.

 

[Murfy]

sorry to be such a stick in the mud-

but.

Investigators conducting surveillance by air spotted six marijuana plants growing at Brian Reed's residence in August 2009. He wasn't arrested until October.

imagine if he had just received his card. or even had it for two weeks.
taking FIVE months to get your card after initial application, in the real world, means that in august, he was TOTALLY legal. even if the plants were seen in the beginning of august, and the arrest happened on halloween, he was still legal. and that's the quote.

also agreed, shitty reporting. what is this man's condition? could be he's all fooked up and had a doctor's cert long before applying for the registry. our law ALLOWS for that.

if there is evidence commonly known, that i am unaware of, i suggest posting it here.

the real issue is the decision from the court. which is in total contradiction to our law. absolutely the law allows to grow within a certain time frame, regardless of a card.
it's the second decision from the (same?) court, that pokes it right in our eye.

people are concerned over what they should wear to the rally(protest?).LOL

 

[Mr. Big Bud Good]

sorry to be such a stick in the mud-

but.



imagine if he had just received his card. or even had it for two weeks.
taking FIVE months to get your card after initial application, in the real world, means that in august, he was TOTALLY legal. even if the plants were seen in the beginning of august, and the arrest happened on halloween, he was still legal. and that's the quote.

also agreed, shitty reporting. what is this man's condition? could be he's all fooked up and had a doctor's cert long before applying for the registry. our law ALLOWS for that.

if there is evidence commonly known, that i am unaware of, i suggest posting it here.

the real issue is the decision from the court. which is in total contradiction to our law. absolutely the law allows to grow within a certain time frame, regardless of a card.
it's the second decision from the (same?) court, that pokes it right in our eye.

people are concerned over what they should wear to the rally(protest?).LOL

The term card refers to paperwork. This guy just went to the Dr. and his card is still months away. He did however have his paperwork which was dated after the cops found the plants, but before they arrested him. The only way to understand this article is to think like those that have no idea about the law or how it works. If people know you have MMJ they associate that with having your physical card. They know nothing of the waiting period, or that your paperwork is the same as your card until you recieve it.

 

[Mr. Big Bud Good]

I should probably add that I am only speculating, but this must be what happened because the law is very clear regarding this.

 

[stumpjumper]

The appeals court can not change the law.

If the guy has a valid condition the law even allows for him to use the MMMA as a defense, even if he wasn't a registered patient.

 

[jonnynobody]

Well, that goes without saying.
There isn't really a gray area as far as when you are allowed to start legally growing.
To me, all this ruling does is affirm what the law already says.
I was addressing those who seem to think this guy is getting screwed.

Oh no bro I wasn't directing that at you, just kind of an off the cuff comment about the story and the guy being a tard for not registering first. As far as the other fella that was mentioning that registered and unregistered patients are protected, no precedent for that notion has been set by the courts or the legislature so for people assuming they are protected under the mmma without being registered had better have a damn good lawyer on retainer. Then again, I guess they could simply save the lawyer money and register with the state. I know california's law protects unregistered and registered patients and perhaps a couple of other states (not sure so don't quote me on the other states) but as far as I know, the mmma does not have any clause specifically protecting unregistered patients. There is language in the law that would potentially set that precedent but that is to be worked out in the courts due to some of the vague language in the law. Certain parts are very clear but certain parts are a little muddy. Maybe that's what the drafter of the initiative meant to do but in either event, it's a gamble at best to grow without being registered as you'll be explaining your story in front of a judge and jury.

 

[stumpjumper]

333.26428 Defenses.


8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.
Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7, a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

(b) A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).

(c) If a patient or a patient's primary caregiver demonstrates the patient's medical purpose for using marihuana pursuant to this section, the patient and the patient's primary caregiver shall not be subject to the following for the patient's medical use of marihuana:

(1) disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau; or

(2) forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.



It's pretty cut and dry, not vague at all.