HomeLessBeans
New Member
Actually not accodin to TNT and Det Lt king. Know him?
Exactly who has "stakes" in any proposed mmj bills up for vote?
- Thread starter abe supercro
- Start date
HomeLessBeans
New Member
Not my local LEO. So until they are all out of my garden. FUCK EM ALL and their wives. And daughters and dogs and cats..... Here kitty kitty..
Fuck the PO LICE!!
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
that is not kool how from county to county ea leo interpretation varies so widely. who wants to mess w the system just to end up demonstrating what the state already approved. u can bet the right township/county (town) is still key in '13. ma greenhaus don need naw stinkin' inspek-shuns, or added fees. a smaller/modest caregiver greenhouse garden can responsibly self-regulate within the limits of current state mmj requirements.
leave kitties out if it beans, luv kitties. shitty owners aren't thier fault.
leave kitties out if it beans, luv kitties. shitty owners aren't thier fault.
FatMarty
Well-Known Member
I don't see a need to mess with the Act: it's protections are becoming less of an issue as time evolves. The entire nation is probably no more than 5 years out from the end of prohibition: the dinosaurs are dying off and being replaced by rodents with a knack for adapting to change... Most chronically ill folks need to see their Dr. at least 3 or 4 times a year. That doesn't mean we need the State ordering US around in our Dr./Patient relationship. Let's take all this energy and put it towards a vote to free the weed: the politicians are way behind the people on this. 63% of the people who elected Bill Schuette and all the other anti's to public office also voted for medical marijuana AND the vast majority of them feel prohibition on weed should end. Quit listening to idiots with an agenda not in harmony with your own: these same folks have been making noise since '08 to no avail and today enjoy less support than ever.
NEEDMMASAP
Well-Known Member
True wisdom , we need to get back to " by the people and for the people " that's what made us grow to start with "
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
As more cases are dismissed, reasonable interpretations of current existing laws have been happening more and more. It really all depends on how far law makers want to go w spelling matters out. And if it will be to their advantage or that of patients, their constituents. Guess zoning will have to become part of this entire plan, even though each patient or caregiver should have all the same rights afforded to anyone within the mi mmj program no matter where they live. only time will tell.
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
free the people. free the medicine. leo needs to get over their losing battle and find other sources of income and quota filling.
define it more, but don't take away anymore rights. only add rights within the system, generate revenue through a modest fee and some taxation, but leo must take cannabis off their hit-list altogether. As Marty said it won't be long until prohibition is completely repealed. dinosaurs can commence with self decomposition.
define it more, but don't take away anymore rights. only add rights within the system, generate revenue through a modest fee and some taxation, but leo must take cannabis off their hit-list altogether. As Marty said it won't be long until prohibition is completely repealed. dinosaurs can commence with self decomposition.
tomcatjones
Active Member
not to nit pick but since when is a bottom and top a "side"...?
again.. simple definitions misconstrued by people who think they understand common words better than the dictionary... this is how to cops and people get away with "grey areas" ..they don't exist.. just shitty definitions.. like ..when i hear a lawyer or judge using the term "non- patient" ....DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST IN MICHIGAN LAW DAMMIT.
...yes a top and bottom COULD be a side, but for an enclosure to have sides and be enclosed, it does not and need not a top.
if the lawyers and people decided the look shit up before they talked in court.. that could help too.
...this is why things aren't statewide... we never had any one who understood English reading the damn thing.
bloodytrichomes
New Member
[video=youtube_share;BsrPOktlY_Y]http://youtu.be/BsrPOktlY_Y[/video]
abe supercro
Well-Known Member
don't go there Bloody....
(as if I could prevent anything)
If I have to I'll embed a famous Rodney King quote. Be nice guys, sheesh..
(as if I could prevent anything)
If I have to I'll embed a famous Rodney King quote. Be nice guys, sheesh..
Timmahh
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Your Physics SUCK. a Dot that is nothing, can not multiply upon itself, to form a line that doesn't exist, that then multiplies itself by a factor of 4 to form a plane that is non existent, which then multiplies itself, which is still Nothing, by a factor of 6, and somehow end up with Something that is 3D space. You can not multiply nothing by nothing and multiply that nothing by something, and end up with something
Basic Math. 0x0=0. 0x0x0 multiplied by anthing is still 0.
Lets see your Proof the dot, line and plane are all non existant, then somehow multiply themselves into existence. This should be good. going to make a bag of Orville to wait for his copy and paste reply.
You can use Theoretical Physics all you want, but in the real world we must use REAL Physics.
And while Theoretical Physics are damn cool, WTF does that have to do with a Locked and Enclosed Facility as phrased in the MMM Act of 2008?
bloodytrichomes
New Member
ok abe ill leve bob alone enjoy
tomcatjones
Active Member
- A cube has 6 sides. To be enclosed all six have to be present
i really didnt read much yet past that.. considering i already blasted this argument with logic and definitions.. not your own.. where in the law does it state you must keep your plants in a cube>???
where do you keep your sheep?... in an enclosed fenced in area.
therefore.. it is an ENCLOSURE..
tomcatjones
Active Member
i have some intro level student in physics that you might need to have a talking to...
we live perceiving the moment we call "now" in 3 dimensions.. and fences are included in that world..
your ramblings.. are idiotic.
FatMarty
Well-Known Member
Someone needs to explain to him that a photon, (light particle), can be in two places at the same time: in fact it can be at 8 places, (the corners of your dastardly cubes), at once. Why does this matter? Because it is matter... The antis are losing every battle at the upper Court level because the Act is sound and clear once the rhetoric is discarded. Guys like Dr. Bob trumpet this line about protecting patients to change the Act: I have not seen one conviction of a patient who was minding their own business trying to follow the Act verbatim. There have been a FEW arrests; but no one has been jailed for following the Act. We voted for the Act as a society: our society is fine with the Act as it stands and frankly most don't ever let it rent any space in their heads. Our very presence under this law has proven that legal weed will not toss society into chaos: THAT is the lesson the People have learned. All this other stuff is just academic and does not fix nor enhance the Act. THE AG can be forced to issue a finding on the Act if you REALLY want it implemented according to code. I have yet to see one so-called activist willing to use the law to define itself: the reason being they want MORE than the law protects and are therefore willing to let it hang out there in hopes of convincing the general public that we are all getting screwed and the Act is unworkable. They are wrong: the Act is working very well even in the midst of unrelenting attacks from the antis with unintended? support from the so-called activists. If folks want to legislate their job classifications or sell weed to the general public then SEPERATE legislation addressing those areas that do not alter the Act are in order for them: that does not mean the Act is null and void. In fact they want to create 2 distinct classes of patients; one for the Act and one for their gold dreams as witnessed by the inclusion of 'super caregivers' and enhanced patient cards or whatever nonsense that dispensary bill included. They cannot touch the Act without our support: guys like Dr. Bob are trying to convince US it's broken so we will be willing to 'fix' it. Don't fall for that bullshit. None of the changes he trumpets will make you safer or provide you with anything you don't now possess; we simply don't need any changes to the Act!
gladstoned
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;m06n-WB8O8w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m06n-WB8O8w[/video]
I don't have any history with the various characters here, though I live in MI. Seems clear there is some old politics going on that I'd like to stay unaware of.
Having said that, I can't see where the argument is. Unless someone here is saying Dr Bob's court case (precedent) never happened, a Michigan ruling has been issued that states you need a roof or lid on the grow area to be secure.
This all seems to be a giant Bob-baiting fest rather than accepting the facts.
Having said that, I can't see where the argument is. Unless someone here is saying Dr Bob's court case (precedent) never happened, a Michigan ruling has been issued that states you need a roof or lid on the grow area to be secure.
This all seems to be a giant Bob-baiting fest rather than accepting the facts.
HomeLessBeans
New Member
With the rippers out and about around me you had damn well better secure it top bottom middle and in between.
If I pop up any greenhouse,I would need to look like a supermax prison. Concertine wire,lights,dogs,guards.
Any rulings on the soft vs hard sided greenhouses?
If I pop up any greenhouse,I would need to look like a supermax prison. Concertine wire,lights,dogs,guards.
Any rulings on the soft vs hard sided greenhouses?
tomcatjones
Active Member
tops are not necessary in ALL cases.. this is what you don't get.
"enclosed and secured." is what you say..
the act says differently..
it says OR. disjunctive again...
in king. he did not have a SECURE facility. it was enclosed.
highwire electrical fence in a yard 100 ft by 100 ft with razor wire at the top, and a 3 foot moat on the inside.
excessive?? perhaps.
legal?
VERY.
Secure with devices similar to locks OR other security measures to permit access on to the patient(s)
again.. 6 sides.. not necessary.. locks... not necessary . take that whole sentence Dr bob to a high school english teacher.. hell do me a favor and do a composition professor instead...
are locks something i would recommend? of course.
I'm sorry you do not "appreciate" that i called your ramblings idiotic.. but... they were. you brought up irrelevant facts to an argument that i had already explained in detail. which is also a waste of my time. read it twice so i dont have to repeat. also i was able to prove said logic in half the time. hence my dislike for ramblings.
welcome to the interwebs: where i can bitch about the english language and refuse to capitalize a single letter.
when i had online composition back in the day it was a hybrid course.. teachers hated my format online but they all said they could understand me the best.
