dispensaries no longer legal. fuck.
- Thread starter gladstoned
- Start date
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
Because I am a well respected doc and they are glad to be sending patients my way in Muskegon given the alternatives there.
Dr. Bob
bloodytrichomes
New Member
lol ok dr troll .im sure your a legend in your own mind .ill use the word hypocrite im sure youll have there respect when your running around the forums protesting them to close like respectible people...your a joke and im glad you helped me show that. now dr troll go play as like i said your bull sh t is falling on deaf ears on this site .my post clearly shows your involved with a dispencery . but you claim they should close ..you sir are a troll. a spammer .untruthfull. and a hypocrite.......care to share the alternatives in muskegon ?would that be dr david crocker who is very respected in muskegon as when your name comes up its around a joke
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
LOL you are a funny guy. I'll let you ramble off. As for Dave I like and respect him, we worked together on a case the other day. Wasn't aware he was even in Muskegon. He is a good guy. Always room for two there.
As for your claim I was a dispensary owner or whatever it is you are implying, guess I've already responded to that. BTW I am on weedmaps, marijuanadoctors.com, and several other websites, including many club sites. Guess I am everywhere. I'm also quoted in the newspapers, you think that means I own them too?
Like I said, you are rather amusing, but we are trying to have an adult conversation about an important issue. Please quit trying to hijack the threat with your rants.
Dr. Bob
As for your claim I was a dispensary owner or whatever it is you are implying, guess I've already responded to that. BTW I am on weedmaps, marijuanadoctors.com, and several other websites, including many club sites. Guess I am everywhere. I'm also quoted in the newspapers, you think that means I own them too?
Like I said, you are rather amusing, but we are trying to have an adult conversation about an important issue. Please quit trying to hijack the threat with your rants.
Dr. Bob
Milovan
Well-Known Member
I used to own a 2 pet stores and the average mark up for most retailers is 300%.
bloodytrichomes
New Member
go read dr troll who said you own anything..dont try and act stupid you know dave is here .and there is no we you arnt one of us
bloodytrichomes
New Member
better than vegas
bloodytrichomes
New Member
agreed but do you really think they care death will happen before ya get a trial
Cory and trevor
Well-Known Member
LOL nah Corso I wouldn't make the mistake on the real. you're a square dude.
Murfy
Well-Known Member
2. Under § 7(a) of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(a), any medical use of marijuana must
occur in accordance with the provisions of the act. Absent a situation triggering the affirmative
defense of § 8 of the MMMA (MCL 333.2642
, § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth the
requirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana. MCL
333.26424(d) creates a presumption of medical use and then states how that presumption may be
rebutted. A rebutted presumption of medical use renders immunity under § 4 of the MMMA
inapplicable. Under the statute, the presumption may be rebutted upon a showing that the
conduct related to marijuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patients
debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition in accordance
with the act. The definite article in § 4(d) refers to the qualifying patient who is asserting § 4
immunity. Because the MMMAs immunity provision contemplates that a registered qualifying
patients medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his or her own
debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with that condition, and not another
patients condition or symptoms, § 4 does not authorize a registered qualifying patient to transfer
marijuana to another registered qualifying patient. Similarly, to be eligible for § 4 immunity, a
registered primary caregiver must be engaging in marijuana-related conduct for the purpose of
alleviating the debilitating medical condition, or symptoms associated with the medical
condition, of a registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the
registration process of Michigans Department of Community Health. Thus, § 4 does not offer
immunity to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana to anyone other than a
registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the states registration
process. Defendants business facilitated patient-to-patient sales, but those transfers did not
qualify for § 4 immunity because they encompassed marijuana-related conduct that was not for
the purpose of alleviating the transferors debilitating medical condition or its symptoms.
Because defendants medical use of marijuana did not comply with the immunity provisions of
§§ 4(a), (b), and (d), defendants could not claim that § 4 insulated them from a public nuisance
claim.
occur in accordance with the provisions of the act. Absent a situation triggering the affirmative
defense of § 8 of the MMMA (MCL 333.2642
, § 4 of the act (MCL 333.26424) sets forth therequirements for a person to be entitled to immunity for the medical use of marijuana. MCL
333.26424(d) creates a presumption of medical use and then states how that presumption may be
rebutted. A rebutted presumption of medical use renders immunity under § 4 of the MMMA
inapplicable. Under the statute, the presumption may be rebutted upon a showing that the
conduct related to marijuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patients
debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition in accordance
with the act. The definite article in § 4(d) refers to the qualifying patient who is asserting § 4
immunity. Because the MMMAs immunity provision contemplates that a registered qualifying
patients medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his or her own
debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with that condition, and not another
patients condition or symptoms, § 4 does not authorize a registered qualifying patient to transfer
marijuana to another registered qualifying patient. Similarly, to be eligible for § 4 immunity, a
registered primary caregiver must be engaging in marijuana-related conduct for the purpose of
alleviating the debilitating medical condition, or symptoms associated with the medical
condition, of a registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the
registration process of Michigans Department of Community Health. Thus, § 4 does not offer
immunity to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana to anyone other than a
registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the states registration
process. Defendants business facilitated patient-to-patient sales, but those transfers did not
qualify for § 4 immunity because they encompassed marijuana-related conduct that was not for
the purpose of alleviating the transferors debilitating medical condition or its symptoms.
Because defendants medical use of marijuana did not comply with the immunity provisions of
§§ 4(a), (b), and (d), defendants could not claim that § 4 insulated them from a public nuisance
claim.
Murfy
Well-Known Member
this decision is still at conflict-
with this
333.26428 Defenses.
8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.
(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.
this does not, however protect from arrest.
with this
333.26428 Defenses.
8. Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.
(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.
this does not, however protect from arrest.
Corso312
Well-Known Member
Milovan ....agreed, pet industry is ridiculous ....I was 24 before I realized how vets,and pretty much anyone would rape people in that biz. I order 5 in one vaccine to give to dogs at around 2$ a shot...same shot vet. Wants 55$ for n 40$ for office visit...huge ripoff ...my dog needs to be dying to see a vet.
Cory and trevor
Well-Known Member
The font and red helped. I see what you're saying....but the first part is sarcastic
Figong
Well-Known Member
It does sort of, doesn't it? In that it says un-interruptable supply.. and in any jail or prison that exists, marijuana falls under contraband... no allowance, for any reason.
mrbungle79
Well-Known Member
thats too bad, didn't think genessee county was gonna go that route. although that was just burton...any word from flint yet? gonna be seriously surprised if detroit or a2 and the surrounding cities decide to follow burton.
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
That is not good news
Going to have to head up and support Chad, as I am a member at HempHill.http://www.hemphillwellnesscenter.com/
[video=youtube;C3Df-y-Nj7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3Df-y-Nj7k[/video]
hockey4848
Well-Known Member
heard a number of them have shut down in ypsilanti.
JeromeT
Well-Known Member
Something tells me that was by design.
