Immaculate Conception Rule/Law

As we all know, the Michigan Courts handed down a ruling stating transfers outside the patient caregiver relationship are illegal. Where am I missing the boat? Does that ruling not effectively leave the entire michigan medical cannabis community without legal access PERIOD!?

The rule shuts down transfers all together from my understanding, by requiring immaculate conception to begin with.. And what about "reciprocity"? The law makers clearly gave an avenue for visiting patients. HOW can one legally gain access without a caregiver? The law also requires you to be a resident to have a caregiver...?

Where is the first transaction? (chicken or the egg, one has to come first) Where does the caregiver or patient gain access to genetics legally to start? If cannabis does not originate in MI, how does it become legally obtained? I understand seeds are not counted against a patient per weight etc., however is the transaction of obtaining it legal, or is the ruling something that should be exposed as a catch 22 and a law suit filed?

Woodsmantoker~

Well looks like they're trying to figure something out... I dont know if its good or bad but its happening.

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2013/07/michigan_lawmakers_plan_to_legalize_revive_medical_marijuana_dispensaries.php
Michigan lawmakers plan to legalize, revive medical marijuana dispensaries

If you cant tell if its a good thing or not, I see that as not a good thing...

In the mean time?

Cut off access? I do believe folks can grow their own or have a caregiver, as the law says, can't they?

Dr. Bob

Dr. Bob said:

Cut off access? I do believe folks can grow their own or have a caregiver, as the law says, can't they?

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

If a Patient in need of MJ finds a pot Doc and gets their card from LARA without a Caregiver (hundreds of dollars and months later), how would you suggest they legally obtain medication (if still alive) at that point?

PATIENTS CAN ACQUIRE FROM ANY SOURCE.

it is that source... that is in danger during the transfer. the "transferor" as they call it.

Dr. Bob said:

Cut off access? I do believe folks can grow their own or have a caregiver, as the law says, can't they?

Dr. Bob

Click to expand...

The point he is trying to make is that a new patient or caregiver has to illegally obtain clones or seeds to even start growing.

I brought this up months ago but it seemed to fall on def ears. Making patient to patient transfers legal is the most important thing that needs to happen for us all...

Huel Perkins said:

The point he is trying to make is that a new patient or caregiver has to illegally obtain clones or seeds to even start growing.

I brought this up months ago but it seemed to fall on def ears. Making patient to patient transfers legal is the most important thing that needs to happen for us all...

Click to expand...

quoted cuz I can't "like" more than once! worst thing that could have happened is making it illegal to pass one to another patient. insanity, complete insanity.

tomcatjones said:

PATIENTS CAN ACQUIRE FROM ANY SOURCE.

it is that source... that is in danger during the transfer. the "transferor" as they call it.

Click to expand...

exactly. Protecting the little fish and STILL able to fuck with anyone nearing big fish status. cops and lawyers are dicks not retards LOL.

I can't help but point out that the AD provides instant coverage. I have thoughts to make a couple of minor changes to the contract that I wrote and will bump the Sec. 8 thread, where it appears, with them.

Further, I am seeking information regarding the risk and cost involved in a sec. 8 defense. What is the earliest point during due process when an individual can have the motion to dismiss heard?

Cory and trevor said:

exactly. Protecting the little fish and STILL able to fuck with anyone nearing big fish status. cops and lawyers are dicks not retards LOL.

Click to expand...

Sounds almost like entrapment to me...

Bob and others,

Yes, my points are regarding the first transaction. I have worked extensively to raise awareness of the issue in Alaska. (Same rule). The point I would like made most clear however is regarding reciprocity. The courts say the act was not intended to afford any other transfer however there are no two ways about it, a visiting patient cannot reciprocate without an illegal act being commited (regardless of whom would be charged) that was not the intent of the act and the change creates the problem...

Reciprocity is one of the most advanced portions of the MMA. The law makers wrote it in, the courts ruled it out...worth a case and hearing.

Say I live in AK. I am a card holder. I have brain surgery planned at UofM. How do you suggust I "reciprocate" during my one month stay? (Doc bob?)

(folks I am away from my desk) If someone would be so kind as to paste for us the section of the MMA regarding reciprocity for review and comment, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

( Visiting patients may act as a patient of the state of MI for the 30 day window afforded however, as with caregivers of MI (of which a visiting patient does not have), obtaining the substance to start, is illegal) Imagine chicken farming is illegal.. Technically, there are no legal chickens to start with in the state. A law is passed allowing chickens. The farmers are told: you can have eggs, you can have chickens, but you cannot get either one from anyone but the farmer/caregiver you sign up with that will act as the supplier because a new ruling "clarified" that transfers outside that relationship are illegal....? Where does that farmer/caregiver get them? Obviously, a problem and there would be an uprising of pissed off farmers who are not stupid enough to allow someone to pull the rug out by saying you can have it but not obtain it legally... Explain to me how I as a now legal chicken caregiver, am suppose to obtain the chicken or the egg without commiting a crime according to the ruling? CLEARLY, not what was intended but regardless, unacceptable and dubious!

Regardless of which comes first, the chicken or the egg, one has to be obtained legally in order to have either one, legally. (I just have to say) "DUH!" Whats going on here?

Huel Perkins said:

Sounds almost like entrapment to me...

Click to expand...

ACTUALLY.......

from the recent CoA ruling.... IT IS like entrapment... and they know it.. and quoted...

"Similar to entrapment, § 4 immunity does not negate any element of a marijuana-related
crime; rather, it provides immunity from arrest, prosecution, or penalty to marijuana users who
meet certain delineated requirements.3
MCL 333.26424. Like a defendant who proves
entrapment, a defendant is entitled to dismissal of any marijuana-related charges if he or she
qualifies for § 4 immunity under the MMMA"

At GREG S... please... join us here at https://www.facebook.com/groups/thsmi/ much conversation regarding on going cases and procedure. could use any from you as well as maybe gain something. just a good resource for on-going cases in the state as well..

www.ths-mi.org as well. 16 cases in the state just by word of mouth

woodsmantoker said:

Reciprocity is one of the most advanced portions of the MMA. The law makers wrote it in, the courts ruled it out...worth a case and hearing.

Click to expand...

...they havent had a response ever...

watch my video testimony to the House Judicary in 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9NUz2L5f0Gs#t=2660s

So what say we do something about that very point of which cannot be disputed?