Exactly who has "stakes" in any proposed mmj bills up for vote?

T

tomcatjones

Active Member
Dr. Bob said:
Quick dose of reality. It doesn't matter what our definitions or interpretation of the law or meaning of the words are. All that matters, ultimately, is what the courts think they mean. Harsh, but most here will agree it is pretty accurate.

Sometimes defining something expands our ability to use it. Knowing the standard to which we are judged allows us to do things in accordance to those standards and feel safe.

A prison yard is secured, a cell is enclosed. A cube has 6 sides, all of which must be covered for the contents of the cube to be enclosed. Simple concept. Define it as such, and we all know how to enclose and secure our grows. Leave it undefined, and there is all sorts of wiggle room for folks to claim their grow is enclosed and secured, and the cops to say it isn't. Without a standard, it is up to a judge to decide. With a standard, the arrest might not even take place.

Just out of curiosity, what is an outdoor room or closet? If we use that definition, can we grow outdoors?

Dr. Bob
Click to expand...

enclosure =/= room

rooms and closets have tops.

enclosures do not by definition have to have a top or roof.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enclosure
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enclose


an enclosure (fences) equipped with security devices -OR... something to keep permitted access.. could be an electric fence, could be locked in a cage, could be a lot of things...

enclosure on ALL SIDES. and secured permitted access.
that's it,


YES YOU CAN GROW OUTDOORS. SHEESH... does it feel like 2009 in here??
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Well-Known Member
No it feels like 2012, and I just help defend a guy that was within plant count and growing in a fenced in (secured) but not enclosed (no top) outdoor grow. In Antrim Co. So your definition does not hold in court. We had to go for Section 8.

Dr. Bob
 
T

tomcatjones

Active Member
Dr. Bob said:
No it feels like 2012, and I just help defend a guy that was within plant count and growing in a fenced in (secured) but not enclosed (no top) outdoor grow. In Antrim Co. So your definition does not hold in court. We had to go for Section 8.

Dr. Bob
Click to expand...

not my fault we have shitty lawyers in this state.

i've been to many court cases and it sux to see "professionals" fall short all the time.

judges included... i once heard the term "non-patient" used frequently and then saw it on the case documents after dismissal and was like WTF is a non-patient??

the problem is they do not read nor understand english.

let alone decide to look up these words in a dictionary...

Edit:... i loved to come and help counsel a lawyer or two... that is the future plan here...

we've been doing it already in our free time.
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Well-Known Member
Be that as it may, you are faulting others for not seeing it as clearly as you do. You have no control over that and you may yourself be wrong. Dictionaries do not define legal matters, laws and courts do. The more help they have to a clear decision, the more patients clearly understand what is meant by terms in a law (not their opinion of what they mean, something both they and the courts can understand the same), the safer everyone is.

But the thread is about the bill, HB 4851. There are very specific provisions in that bill, what are they, do they address a problem we've had, and how do they address them? Is it a good solution or bad... and to give a little nod to the title of the thread, who has stakes in those provisions one way or another?

Dr. Bob
 
T

tomcatjones

Active Member
Dr. Bob said:
Be that as it may, you are faulting others for not seeing it as clearly as you do. You have no control over that and you may yourself be wrong. Dictionaries do not define legal matters, laws and courts do. The more help they have to a clear decision, the more patients clearly understand what is meant by terms in a law (not their opinion of what they mean, something both they and the courts can understand the same), the safer everyone is.

But the thread is about the bill, HB 4851. There are very specific provisions in that bill, what are they, do they address a problem we've had, and how do they address them? Is it a good solution or bad... and to give a little nod to the title of the thread, who has stakes in those provisions one way or another?

Dr. Bob
Click to expand...
sorry bob... but again you are wrong...


  • Dictionaries do not define legal matters, laws and courts do.​




people initiatives are defined using Webster's dictionary.. not black's law. and again this is where the lawyers have faltered.

common language.

Edit: AND!! the people's interpretation matters most.. they voted for it goddammit.

read the intent.. there shouldn't have been a single court case!! civil suit against the state on behalf of all those prosecuted since 2008 IMHO has clear standing....
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. A quick review of MLive will show the courts are still busy, and in some cases ruling contrary to your opinion.

As for the civil suit, feel free. Hope you are well lawyered and well funded. Look at the schedule 1 status of MJ. Clearly it doesn't qualify, yet there it is. But I agree we are still fighting for it, now we just have to get the courts to see it our way. And until they do, that is the law.


Dr. Bob
 
T

tomcatjones

Active Member
Dr. Bob said:
Sorry, but we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. A quick review of MLive will show the courts are still busy, and in some cases ruling contrary to your opinion.

As for the civil suit, feel free. Hope you are well lawyered and well funded. Look at the schedule 1 status of MJ. Clearly it doesn't qualify, yet there it is. But I agree we are still fighting for it, now we just have to get the courts to see it our way.


Dr. Bob
Click to expand...
that is my point bob... the courts disagree.. because they are fascist and don't understand English as i pointed out... or latin which they went to school for..

we actually had a lower court in Detroit rule that MJ is no longer a schedule 1 in michigan...
no other lawyer cites it though.. hmm probably becuase it would end their careers in michigan in a year.

because she interpreted the act correctly
 
TheMan13

TheMan13

Well-Known Member
Dr. Bob what is your guesstimate of the annual cost per patient under such a bona fide doctor patient requirement?
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Well-Known Member
TheMan13 said:
Dr. Bob what is your guesstimate of the annual cost per patient under such a bona fide doctor patient requirement?
Click to expand...
Honestly, less than the cost of 1 oz of meds. Or the extra you pay at some of these 'no record' clinics for having a cert based on a statement saying you qualify.

Chiropractors are dirt cheap, there are sliding scale clinics at many health departments. It is a matter of priorities.

Plus everyone seems to forget, the medical board already has put out standards that need to be followed. Those standards were put in the bill. So they are already in place.

Dr. Bob
 
Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob

Well-Known Member
Good discussion. I don't agree with everything Tom says, but at least he offers some reasoning and logic. That is how a discussion takes place. Now it is up to the readers to decide what they want to believe.

I just have trouble dealing with those that clearly are making things up, especially when the truth is right there in black and white. I guess they think people don't bother doing any fact checking of their own. I would really have some problems believing someones proclamation on a bill or court opinion if they don't include a link to the primary source so you can go check them yourselves. Notice when I challenged and asked to see where the bills stated 4 visits, that is the last we heard of them? An outside poster came and confirmed that there was no reference to it in the bill. Same with the 10 patient/2 caregiver or 100 plant claim. Kind of makes you wonder about the other three bills doesn't it?

Ask questions, keep an open mind, do your own research rather than repeat the latest story you heard.

Dr. Bob

PS, same result on MMMA and FB. Some folks never learn.
 
N

NEEDMMASAP

Well-Known Member
Dr. Bob said:
Good discussion. I don't agree with everything Tom says, but at least he offers some reasoning and logic. That is how a discussion takes place. Now it is up to the readers to decide what they want to believe.

I just have trouble dealing with those that clearly are making things up, especially when the truth is right there in black and white. I guess they think people don't bother doing any fact checking of their own. I would really have some problems believing someones proclamation on a bill or court opinion if they don't include a link to the primary source so you can go check them yourselves. Notice when I challenged and asked to see where the bills stated 4 visits, that is the last we heard of them? An outside poster came and confirmed that there was no reference to it in the bill. Same with the 10 patient/2 caregiver or 100 plant claim. Kind of makes you wonder about the other three bills doesn't it?

Ask questions, keep an open mind, do your own research rather than repeat the latest story you heard.

Dr. Bob

PS, same result on MMMA and FB. Some folks never learn.
Click to expand...
Maybe I;m just stupid , but after all that talk I still don’t understand if a person CAN or CANNOT grow their meds in a greenhouse , if no one still knows then that part of the bill has to be worthless correct ?
 
abe supercro

abe supercro

Well-Known Member
You can do that Moonflow, but not in Detroit because people will try to sleep in your greenhouse and smoke your premi buds.
There is nothing in our law that says you can't have a greenhouse. We should go in on a property in the boonies. I'd be willing to travel up to 45 minutes south of Chelsea. :blsmoke:
:peace:
 
abe supercro

abe supercro

Well-Known Member
Yes, I've toyed w different designs to achieve maximal fortification, while still getting enough light. Yeah unfortunately coop grows w multiple patients/caregivers would not be covered by our law which is fine, because certain ppl would go huge and abuse that privilege. I live rurally, however I'm really reluctant to start a GH here because I don't want to even remotely jeapordise the privacy that I've currently established in my community. I'm just a recluse w an above average power bill, not a blatant greenhouse herb farmer. I'd like to help w a GH design, but it just has to be down the road a ways.
 
abe supercro

abe supercro

Well-Known Member
the hoop house design is great for it's simplicity and affordability. there's plenty o regular agricultural michigan farmers that will commence w one of those on the back 40 once they get wind and they're legitimately carded. makes me want to -not- be one of the last ones to start building. (lol). Really that looks like more possible medicine than I'd ever know what the heck to do with.

the design is legit because tools would be needed to enter, but that's not my idea of fortified. some solid walls, real rolled chain-link fencing and much translucent paneling would be better imo, unless you are really remote. greenhouse electricity bills are something I can live with. a few fans, dehumidifiers and possibly occasional supplement lighting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top