MACC is working on it TMB....all of their dispensaries are closed. Our club works with them and had to shut down.
Michigan MMj ~ Recent Challenges
- Thread starter MIway
- Start date
The MMMA farmers market in Jackson is open today. I won't be going for a couple weeks as the dust settles. It was a great option for patients and caregivers alike.
Flint dispensaries are open today. Genesee county prosecutor isn't going to send anyone into investigate them he says.
we have been going over this same thing with a lawyer... and they said that wont fly. you can try it and fight it in court but i wouldnt want that to be my only leg to stand on.
Places in ann arbor were raided yesterday and thats the most liberal place in michigan...
All dispensaries in my area... still open, most not taking new patients atm, but some have had the local cops and even the mayor come in after the ruling. Still open.
I hope this doesn't go any further.
So do we have to rely on them appealing it? Shouldn't dispensary owners all band together and get a good group of lawyers to fight this?
Anyone going to the rally at the capital on sept 7th?
Yah`mon
The MACC have 7 lawyers and consist of 50+ dispensaries in michigan. trust me we are all over it. the fucked up shit is theres not much to do. attorney general opinion is considered law until it gets challenged and overturned in court.
All dispensaries in my area... still open, most not taking new patients atm, but some have had the local cops and even the mayor come in after the ruling. Still open.
I hope this doesn't go any further.
So do we have to rely on them appealing it? Shouldn't dispensary owners all band together and get a good group of lawyers to fight this?
Anyone going to the rally at the capital on sept 7th?
Yah`mon
The MACC have 7 lawyers and consist of 50+ dispensaries in michigan. trust me we are all over it. the fucked up shit is theres not much to do. attorney general opinion is considered law until it gets challenged and overturned in court.
and yes you bet your ass ill be there sept 7
read an article on this, and they said the raids in AA were scheduled before the CA ruling, so not necessarily to do with that.
^You could smoke at my club if you were a VIP member, but they're shut down. Never was offered a $4.00 BHO ROOR rip, wtf?!?!
Poopy...do they have comment cards at the club? I'd even pay my dues this time if they give me BHO rips, lol.
Poopy...do they have comment cards at the club? I'd even pay my dues this time if they give me BHO rips, lol.
ijim
Member
Medical Cannabis grew under a Republican administration.
where?
ijim
Member
If you sell Cannabis in any state it is illegal. A donation to recover cost is the only legal transfer. Just like in Arizona the flip flopping of state government provides the opportunity for all with a recommendation to grow and circumvent the 25 mile radius of a dispensary ban for cultivation.
I think, and maybe someone can prove me wrong.. that the dispensaries
may have sprung up from assumption. My former employer's brother is a caretaker in Michigan and from what I could gather, co-ops and dispensaries were/are pretty much in a gray area. Honestly I hope I'm wrong here so don't bite my head off lol.. but I think the problem was how to determine who was the caretaker for whom, and how to keep that straight. Numbers and such
may have sprung up from assumption. My former employer's brother is a caretaker in Michigan and from what I could gather, co-ops and dispensaries were/are pretty much in a gray area. Honestly I hope I'm wrong here so don't bite my head off lol.. but I think the problem was how to determine who was the caretaker for whom, and how to keep that straight. Numbers and such
Dispensary were allowed because the laws says we can be compensated for our work. which everyone read that means we can receive money for our product. It also states that patient to patient transfers are legal.
because of this we were suppose to be allowed dispensaries they raided a spot took us to court on these two issues and we won.... They appealed it and of course they only have to sway 2 people to overturn the verdict in the appeal.
which is what happened. instantly making all disp and any caregiver selling product to anyone but there patients illegal.
because of this we were suppose to be allowed dispensaries they raided a spot took us to court on these two issues and we won.... They appealed it and of course they only have to sway 2 people to overturn the verdict in the appeal.
which is what happened. instantly making all disp and any caregiver selling product to anyone but there patients illegal.
Yah`mon
Member
For an economy such as ours, you would think anything that created jobs and revenue that would be pumped back into the local economy would be a blessing.
To bad as poopy said, 2-3 people with their own interests got to make the decision for 100,000+ patients/caregivers and always going up in the number of patients/caregivers.
Snyder can say all he wants in favor of or just say its not on his mind other things are. When the real agenda is well known. Just ask any union worker in the state. Snyder says a lot of things and swings the other way when your backs turned.
I just hope this can go to the supreme court and be over ruled, or an initiative gets going to change things.
There's probably a lot of suffering patients out there right now because of 2-3 people's choices. Hope they find some relief.
Yah`mon
To bad as poopy said, 2-3 people with their own interests got to make the decision for 100,000+ patients/caregivers and always going up in the number of patients/caregivers.
Snyder can say all he wants in favor of or just say its not on his mind other things are. When the real agenda is well known. Just ask any union worker in the state. Snyder says a lot of things and swings the other way when your backs turned.
I just hope this can go to the supreme court and be over ruled, or an initiative gets going to change things.
There's probably a lot of suffering patients out there right now because of 2-3 people's choices. Hope they find some relief.
Yah`mon
I think this can be argued & overturned... but as you guys pointed out, a handful of people making the decision for everyone else.
Personally, it seems that the AC had it in for the idea... cuz it's a pretty easy assertion/determination that 'acquire' in the definition of 'medical use', should include the purchase of something... esp when the word 'transfer' is also in there.
Most of us can think of acquiring an existing company... and when we use this word, inherent in it is our understanding that this also means a transaction for ownership where money is transferred between people. Acquiring is synonymous with purchasing.
This is from Webster's o/l... ACQUIRE...
1 formal : to get (something) : to come to own (something)
▪ They're planning to acquire [=buy] a new home in the country. ▪ He acquired [=got, inherited] a small fortune after the death of her parents. ▪ The two ships were acquired by the navy after the war. ▪ The team acquired three new players this year. : to come to have (something) ▪ She dreamed of acquiring [=gaining, getting] control of the company. ▪ When I saw her next she had somehow managed to acquire a few cuts and bruises. [=she had a few cuts and bruises] ▪ The old word has acquired a new meaning. ▪ This apparently minor event has acquired increasing significance in recent weeks.
Right there in the dictionary even.
But, they also include the word 'transfer' as mentioned before... which, also from Webster's...
1 [+ obj] : to move (someone or something) from one place to another
2 [+ obj] : to cause (something) to move from one person, place, or thing to another: such as
c technical : to give (property or rights) to another person
And this would/could cover the transfer of both the meds & ownership w/o a price or transaction, whereas the word 'acquire' is synonymous with transaction/purchase. Both a transfer of property & ownership is covered both with inferred cost & without... right there in the definitions.
Not to mention the law includes the 'compensation' for caregivers when they transfer meds to their patients... again, explicitly outlining a transaction with cost/price for services rendered.
It would have been nice to have included the actual word 'sale' in the definitions, but these things are often passed with the strict attention to the language... for what will get through & what will not. But they likely thought reasonable people would be able to discern that 'to acquire' means 'to purchase'.
Semantic crock of shit. What's the Supreme Court like here Poopy? Conservative law & order types too?
Personally, it seems that the AC had it in for the idea... cuz it's a pretty easy assertion/determination that 'acquire' in the definition of 'medical use', should include the purchase of something... esp when the word 'transfer' is also in there.
Most of us can think of acquiring an existing company... and when we use this word, inherent in it is our understanding that this also means a transaction for ownership where money is transferred between people. Acquiring is synonymous with purchasing.
This is from Webster's o/l... ACQUIRE...
1 formal : to get (something) : to come to own (something)
▪ They're planning to acquire [=buy] a new home in the country. ▪ He acquired [=got, inherited] a small fortune after the death of her parents. ▪ The two ships were acquired by the navy after the war. ▪ The team acquired three new players this year. : to come to have (something) ▪ She dreamed of acquiring [=gaining, getting] control of the company. ▪ When I saw her next she had somehow managed to acquire a few cuts and bruises. [=she had a few cuts and bruises] ▪ The old word has acquired a new meaning. ▪ This apparently minor event has acquired increasing significance in recent weeks.
Right there in the dictionary even.
But, they also include the word 'transfer' as mentioned before... which, also from Webster's...
1 [+ obj] : to move (someone or something) from one place to another
2 [+ obj] : to cause (something) to move from one person, place, or thing to another: such as
c technical : to give (property or rights) to another person
And this would/could cover the transfer of both the meds & ownership w/o a price or transaction, whereas the word 'acquire' is synonymous with transaction/purchase. Both a transfer of property & ownership is covered both with inferred cost & without... right there in the definitions.
Not to mention the law includes the 'compensation' for caregivers when they transfer meds to their patients... again, explicitly outlining a transaction with cost/price for services rendered.
It would have been nice to have included the actual word 'sale' in the definitions, but these things are often passed with the strict attention to the language... for what will get through & what will not. But they likely thought reasonable people would be able to discern that 'to acquire' means 'to purchase'.
Semantic crock of shit. What's the Supreme Court like here Poopy? Conservative law & order types too?
