Immaculate Conception Rule/Law

GregS said:

Sec. 8 could not possibly more plainly state that patients and their caregivers can use the defense. The documents I have laid out are intended to permit patients to assign caregiver status to as many caregivers as they need, and protect those caregivers.

Will you please respond to the quote from Bylsma?

Click to expand...

[T]o establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4.Any defendant, regardless
of registration status, who possesses more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana or 12 plants not kept in an enclosed, locked facility may satisfy the affirmative defense under § 8. As long as the defendant can establish the elements of the § 8 defense and none of the circumstances in § 7(b) [of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(b)] exists, that defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges.

What that one? The one that specifically talks about the amounts a self growing patient may possess and exceeding those limits? The one that talks about a patient that didn't meet section 4 being able to use section 8 to explain themselves to the court? That one?

That is a pretty basic part of the law to help defend patients, so you are maintaining by adding 'any defendant' they meant to include your unregistered caregiver idea? THAT is what you are using to claim the courts support your idea of an 'unregistered caregiver'? Little concrete in your ideation today? Would 'any defendant' include folks charged with bank robbery? Are they not 'defendants' too? Does that mean it is ok to rob a bank and claim as section 8 defense because you had a joint in your pocket?

You are amusing. A little sad and confused, but amusing. Thanks for the chuckle. Best go medicate now greg.

Dr. Bob

Yes. That. If you were to read and understand Bylsma, you would see that possession limits are particular to that case, and subsequently specifically mentioned. Those parts in italics speak to the ultimate protection of the AD.

[T]o establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4.Any defendant, regardless of registration status, who possesses more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana or 12 plants not kept in an enclosed, locked facility may satisfy the affirmative defense under § 8. As long as the defendant can establish the elements of the § 8 defense and none of the circumstances in § 7(b) [of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(b)] exists, that defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges.

Dr. Bob said:

Expand the logic of Greg.

An 'unregistered caregiver' sees 100 patients at a farmers market, selling each 2.5 ounces. The 'unregistered caregiver' retains 2.5 ounces for those 100 patients to cover resupply. That is 5000 ounces. So if this is the usual and customary business this 'unregistered caregiver' does each week at the farmers market, that means that each month they need to be able to lay their hands on over 20,000 ounces of meds, and would still be considered, per greg, to be engaging in reasonable activity to cover the 100 patients they service every week. So they point to section 8 and say it is ok for them to have enough plants to cover this 20,000 ounces a month. How many would that be growers? Maybe 2 ounces per plant, 3 month growing period, I would say a minimum of 30,000 plants under cultivation, and according to Greg, section 8 protects this activity.

Too extreme an example? Do we have to figure in 'reasonableness'? Let's say greg's unregistered caregiver only does 1/10 of that at the farmers market, that is 3000 plants needed? Let's say that reduced number gets 1/2 ounce rather than 2.5 ounces a week, that translates out to 600 plants. Let's say greg is SOOOO good that he gets 4 ounces a plant, now we are down to 150 plants.

The entire idea is absurd. Back to the drawing board greg.

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

They don't have to, but they can. Your examples and comments are pretty silly, violate every rule of dialectic, which is used to seek truth, and are what we have come to expect. Your statements are more accurately described as rhetoric or polemics. I insist that they are what are used to obscure truth.

GregS said:

Yes. That. If you were to read and understand Bylsma, you would see that possession limits are particular in that case, and subsequently specifically mentioned. Those parts in italics speak to the ultimate protection of the AD.

[T]o establish the elements of the affirmative defense in § 8, a defendant need not establish the elements of § 4.Any defendant, regardless of registration status, who possesses more than 2.5 ounces of usable marijuana or 12 plants not kept in an enclosed, locked facility may satisfy the affirmative defense under § 8. As long as the defendant can establish the elements of the § 8 defense and none of the circumstances in § 7(b) [of the MMMA, MCL 333.26427(b)] exists, that defendant is entitled to the dismissal of criminal charges.

Click to expand...

So you are giving us the earth shattering news that IF, let me say that again, IF a patient can establish all three prongs he can get a section 8 dismissal, and his caregiver will be protected as well. Now exactly what does that have to do with your unregistered caregiver and has 150 plants for his 10 patients getting 1/2 an ounce a week? Recall what I said about if you pick the right numbers, you are entitled to win the lottery.

You logical 'leap' is to assume because the section 8 defense exists and requires certain elements, your premise of an unregistered caregiver with unlimited patients and plants is somehow supported. I'll get some popcorn and watch you try and pull that one off in front of a court that says even GIVING marijuana to a patient you are not registry related to is not covered under the act as you try and justify your farmers market.

Wow, it just gets better and better.

Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob said:

So you are giving us the earth shattering news that IF, let me say that again, IF a patient can establish all three prongs he can get a section 8 dismissal, and his caregiver will be protected as well. Now exactly what does that have to do with your unregistered caregiver and has 150 plants for his 10 patients getting 1/2 an ounce a week? Recall what I said about if you pick the right numbers, you are entitled to win the lottery.

You logical 'leap' is to assume because the section 8 defense exists and requires certain elements, your premise of an unregistered caregiver with unlimited patients and plants is somehow supported. I'll get some popcorn and watch you try and pull that one off in front of a court that says even GIVING marijuana to a patient you are not registry related to is not covered under the act as you try and justify your farmers market.

Wow, it just gets better and better.

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

I won't engage in these silly number games. The only three numbers that matter in the AD are the three prongs necessary to prove the defense. The numbers are very much on our side, and those are the numbers I choose, tyvm.

GregS said:

They don't have to, but they can. Your examples and comments are pretty silly, violate every rule of dialectic, which is used to seek truth, and are what we have come to expect. Your statements are more accurately described as rhetoric or polemics. I insist that they are what are used to obscure truth.

Click to expand...

No, they cannot. At all.

You are really starting to stumble.

Dr. Bob

It would take someone demented enough to think that such production will not bring attention by the feds, and the state clowns would shit themselves.

That is hyperbole Bob. I recognize it for what it is, and posit that any reasonable person sees it that way too.

So your big plan relies on someone deciding to NOT do something you feel is clearly legal and defensible under section 8. Self restraint so to say? Vol restriction to how many plants, how many patients? Give us the numbers you say are appropriate for your position Greg, and how do they mesh with your section 8 free for all?

Something I am very interested is how you carefully explain why your unregistered caregivers are not limited to 5 patients and 72 plants like registered caregivers.

Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob said:

So your big plan relies on someone deciding to NOT do something you feel is clearly legal and defensible under section 8. Self restraint so to say? Vol restriction to how many plants, how many patients? Give us the numbers you say are appropriate for your position Greg, and how do they mesh with your section 8 free for all?

Something I am very interested is how you carefully explain why your unregistered caregivers are not limited to 5 patients and 72 plants like registered caregivers.

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

You have pretty clearly demonstrated that you do not have the gray matter to get it.

This is simply more hyperbole.

I'm not sure about immaculate conception? The fella who got us started looked a white Jesus now that I think about it tho. Sure as u breath he was no virgin

I thought he looked more like Neandrethal, waay before the bronze age.