Medical Marijuana Distribution System Working Document

[Southern Cross]

I am going to lay this out in a bit of a different order than is customary when discussing this issue. Most people want to know whether patient to patient, cg to cg, cg to patient, or patient to cg transfers are legal or not. With that in mind let us start with what we know is not legal, the law itself lays this out in very plain language and even structures the penalties.

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

So where does that leave us? The only people that a registered patient or registered caregiver cannot sell marijuana to are those not covered by the act.

 

I think you have jumped to a conclusion here. This only tells us what will happen if we sell to someone not covered under the act. But just because a highway sign tells us what will happen if we injure or kill a construction worker in a construction zone doesn't mean it's OK to injure or kill a construction worker not in a construction zone.

 

So just because this act states what will happen to us if we sell to someone not covered under the act it doesn't specifically say it's OK for anyone to sell to anyone else if they are both covered by the act. In fact it says, "A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances."

 

So it says a registered caregiver can be compensated for costs. It doesn't say they can make any profit and it doesn't say anything else.

 

Please help me out here I'm not seeing where it says anything about anybody selling to anybody except it says for sure you can't sell to someone not covered by the act and if you do here's what will happen. You'll lose your card, you could go to prison and you could have to pay $2000 in addition to other penalties. I know that in another place it says other penalties don't apply, but here it says they could.

[AbsoluteRoyal]

Will our interpretation have any impact on the people who matter most? I think the PAs, LEOs, and activist judges with agendas will not care much what we have to say. It seems to me the best chance for a good outcome is to put our efforts into getting cases like Bob and Tory's into the Supreme Court and making sure they have the legal power to win. I'm not convinced we have a coordinated enough effort in supporting these important cases.

 

To me the most important question right now is that of a bona fide doctor/patient relationship. Because so many doctors wont or cant write recommendations this will effectively kill the law for many of us.

 

I agree with this statement 100%.

[+RevThad]

Evening, and good questions.

 

If one sets a limit on who you can not sell to, one must assume that all others are acceptable, or the language would have just stated any sales of marijuana to anybody will be punished by... Make more sense?

 

Sort of along the same type of limits that apply to tobacco and alcohol.... You can not sell to anybody under a certain age, which leaves everybody above that age as eligible.

 

The important clause in the compensation rule is "Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances." In other words that behavior cannot be seen by law enforcement or prosecutors as the sale of a controlled substance.

 

I am open to other interpretations of them, as this community needs to hammer out these details. I look forward to your reply.

[Southern Cross]

As much as Justice O'Connell wants to ignore it there is one particular clause that makes his entire opinion moot.

 

(e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

Let's focus on this sentence and on the part, "the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act."

 

As you stated the COA says there are two protections under this act §4 and §8.

 

Let's just look at §4 of this act because once you get to §8 you've already been arrested.

 

§4 of this act provides some very specific things that must be done in order to be protected from prosecution and from losing your stuff. A patient and a caregiver must possess a registration card. Once they have the card they are protected from prosecution as long as they don't go over the amount specified.

 

Other people, including physicians, are protected if they are helping a patient use MMJ. etc.

 

A registered primary caregiver, meaning one with a card, can be compensated for costs. It doesn't say costs plus a few dollars for their time and effort. Costs only.

 

A person recognized in another state as a qualified patient is protected under this act.

 

 

I think that about sums up what will be protected under §4 of this act. I hope there's more, but I don't see it.

[Southern Cross]

 

The important clause in the compensation rule is "Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances." In other words that behavior cannot be seen by law enforcement or prosecutors as the sale of a controlled substance.

 

I am open to other interpretations of them, as this community needs to hammer out these details. I look forward to your reply.

I'll agree that the compensation will not be treated as sales of a controlled substance.

 

I have more to say, but it has been a long day. I'm going to kick back, medicate and try to get back with you in a while.

[+Silverblue]

Yes I like that CC model, member to member, private, discrete.

 

Sb

[+RevThad]

Anita Bonghit wrote in black

My responses in blue

Let's focus on this sentence and on the part, "the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act."

What is medical use as provided for by this act? "(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition." When put into context of the quote you replied to, would that not mean that no other acts of this state can or do apply to a person engaged int any of those listed verbs in conjunction with helping a registered patient?

 

 

As you stated the COA says there are two protections under this act §4 and §8.

 

Let's just look at §4 of this act because once you get to §8 you've already been arrested.

 

§4 of this act provides some very specific things that must be done in order to be protected from prosecution and from losing your stuff. A patient and a caregiver must possess a registration card. Once they have the card they are protected from prosecution as long as they don't go over the amount specified. Section 4 protects not just from prosecution, but also arrest and or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act,

 

Other people, including physicians, are protected if they are helping a patient use MMJ. etc.

Agreed.

 

A registered primary caregiver, meaning one with a card, can be compensated for costs. It doesn't say costs plus a few dollars for their time and effort. Costs only.

What do you consider to be costs? There are obvious costs, such as electricity, genetics, equipment, water, and growing materials (soil, nutrients, etc..), then you also have intangible costs such as time, travel, perhaps risk mitigation (i.e. lawyer, insurance). One might even have a cost of acquisition (i.e. buying meds from another source).

 

A person recognized in another state as a qualified patient is protected under this act.

Where is a qualifying visiting patient to acquire meds when in Michigan, as it is still against most laws to travel with cannabis across state lines, much less travel through them. Logically then, there must be some place for them to acquire medications, I suggest that the law provides for them to be able to purchase from patients and or caregivers in our state.

 

I think that about sums up what will be protected under §4 of this act. I hope there's more, but I don't see it.

As you suggest the COA chimed in on what protections are provided in §4 they said "Section 4 refers to a “qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card” and protects a qualifying patient from “arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner . . . .”

 

I agree with your position on Section 8, it only kicks in after somebody is arrested, and that is the risk one takes by not registering as a patient or caregiver. It also protects a registered patient or caregiver if arrested because not being in compliance with Section 4.

 

Again excellent points, and I hope my position is clarified. I am enjoying this back and forth as it helps focus the talking points, and tests the positions I am expressing.

 

Have a great evening

[+RevThad]

I'll agree that the compensation will not be treated as sales of a controlled substance.

 

I have more to say, but it has been a long day. I'm going to kick back, medicate and try to get back with you in a while.

I can definitely understand the long day... my better half is pregnant and all of the appointments have been keeping us running. We had the first ultrasound today, and the baby is doing fine, and has a great heartbeat, still too early to determine sex...

 

Enjoy your relaxation time, and I hope the medicating helps you ease down after that long day.

[Southern Cross]

I'll agree that the compensation will not be treated as sales of a controlled substance.

 

I have more to say, but it has been a long day. I'm going to kick back, medicate and try to get back with you in a while.

Ok, I should have done that awhile ago.

 

So, if we start with §7 (e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

As long as we satisfy the requirements of §4 of this act, and don't violate any other provision of §7 then no other laws or acts, including the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, apply to the medical use of marijuana as far as the State of Michigan is concerned.

[+RevThad]

Yes I like that CC model, member to member, private, discrete.

 

Sb

I like that concept as well, as a patient's medical conditions, treatments, or medications should always be private and discreet.

[Southern Cross]

I can definitely understand the long day... my better half is pregnant and all of the appointments have been keeping us running. We had the first ultrasound today, and the baby is doing fine, and has a great heartbeat, still too early to determine sex...

 

Enjoy your relaxation time, and I hope the medicating helps you ease down after that long day.

Congratulations!

 

Yes, the meds certainly helped. Thanks.

 

I'm looking forward to the next section.

[Hempcheff]

Excellent explanation, Rev, and i have to agree with you on all points, I do see alot of people chopping up the language to dispute it lately, I hope this thread doesnt take that route. And we need to be vigilant with regards to LEO's efforts to derail any type of organization we do in open forums.

[+Silverblue]

Being this is a public forum this is why I am careful what I say though I'd love to share much more. There are many people I'd love to meet and have deep discussions with from here.

 

Now, in considering a best strategy, I'm thinking: I wish we could all sit down and talk, all sides, which means leo too- to come to an agreement. I'm so tired of the "us vs them" because the "them" is always against the us" feeling, tired of always being on the defensive. It doesn't have to be this way, if only we could get them to listen. Not everyone will want to comply, whether it's them against us or us against them. Humans will always resist. Sometimes compromise is an option, sometimes it is not. When a law defines how a situation is to be handled, those who enforce it are supposed to do so as it was written. When the law says patients and caregivers are protected, that's IT- there's no question.

 

So if leo is reading this, and have been for awhile, by now they should be able to see that we are doing our best to work WITHIN the law. (Can we all agree on that, leo?) Above all, THIS is the ultimate goal, true? They expect us to comply, that's why we're here, picking the law apart and trying to interpret its meaning, because certain people are picking the law apart and interpreting its meaning as they see it. However they see it, its meaning is clear enough that they should follow it as intended. The law was designed to protect MM users and those who assist them; that's it in a nutshell, right? When it gets into semantics, that's where the trouble starts.

 

This is how I understand what's going on: If the law says registered patients are protected, and registered means those with a card, there's no way anyone can say it does not, though that seems to be what many leo's, judges, and the like, are doing. To me, registered means having the card. IF the cards came in a timely manner, that would be true, and still is, except that the cards are not going out on time, but the pt or cg is still registered, because there was no denial letter. Right? THIS is the BIG GRAY AREA to them, (leo, judges, etc.), right? It's like they're trying to say an apple is an orange, when it's obvious what it is. This needs to be cleared up. Once that's defined, then we can work on a distribution system. It seems to me many here have the first part well defined, which is, who's protected, and many also have the second part defined, which is, the distribution system between legally registered people. If only we could get that message across to the ones who see it differently. I hope this is making sense.

 

So the applicant is now waiting for the card, having had no denial letter. There has to be a way that leo will acknowledge these people are legally registered. That is the MDCH's problem. Those who were approved and those who were denied should be clearly listed so there's no question or doubt.

 

Now, should they be restricted to transferring only to those they're directly connected with, or not? If a visiting patient is protected, the answer is, anyone who is a legal applicant should be able to transfer to someone who's not directly connected with them. This is where the CC comes in. The CC handles overages, overages can go to the visitor.

 

I've seen these ideas brought up before and have read many posts, so many that they're blurring into one another. In my mind, these ideas work exactly within the law. It seems simple and straightforward enough to me. If I'm missing something, well, that's why this forum encourages as many views as possible to be seen and discussed.

 

After all I've been reading, I think I understand the law clearly, though I don't recall its exact wording. I hope I got it right, because as I see it, this is the foundation from which the solutions we work on will be built.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[Southern Cross]

 

Finally you have some sort of nut case judge that rambles on for 30 pages talking about what a terrible law it is and how it can't be interpreted properly and telling people not to become involved until the government fixes it. Sounds like a pattern to me.

 

That's why we're doing this. They're being dishonest, greedy and brutal. We're going to teach then how to read English, then we're going to teach them our law. If we can do this, they can. The government officials involved in this scam should be horse whipped.

I'm glad this judge did this so everybody can see what we are up against. I agree that this judge is a nut case, but this judge is not alone in his twisted thinking. If you take your chances with the Affirmative Defense you could find yourself in front of a judge who agrees with this guy. Then on appeal you could get two judges who agree with enough of this fuzzy logic to uphold your conviction.

 

Right now we seem to be on pretty safe ground at the Supreme Court level, but that could change. Plus, you see how long Bob and Torey have been caught up in the system and who knows how much longer this will take?

 

The more clarity we can provide here the better off everyone will be. Everyone needs to calm down and approach this in a methodical manor. It may seem a little painful for some who have been trying to explain our protections since the passage of Prop 1, but it's not as painful as what Bob and Torey and many others are going through right now and what others could go through in the future.

 

RevThad is doing an excellent job and the more constructive criticism we add now the clearer our position becomes.

 

Let's get this together so we can present a united front. Our image is a little tarnished right now because of some rogue elements in the justice system. And they will continue to tarnish our image to accomplish their goals until we come together and show them that the vast majority of us are doing this within the letter and spirit of prop 1.

[+RevThad]

I would tend to agree that something is going on with the application process. I am beginning to wonder how much of it is actually them being overwhelmed and how much of it is a higher up with a political agenda. Regardless of the cause of the unacceptable time it is taking to get cards out to patients and caregivers, they need to clarify to LEO and PAs what the law says on that matter.

 

(b) If the department fails to issue a valid registry identification card in response to a valid application or renewal submitted pursuant to this act within 20 days of its submission, the registry identification card shall be deemed granted, and a copy of the registry identification application or renewal shall be deemed a valid registry identification card.

 

Yes, I understand that LEO has been allegedly using forged paperwork to go after (entrap?) patients and caregivers that are willing to help a new patient or caregiver out. That in itself raises 2 issues. First the legal one, anytime identification is used as a qualifier for purchase of a product or entry to an establishment, the burden on the owner or cashier is only that the id is reasonably realistic.

 

More later..

[+RevThad]

Now to the second point I was going to make in that last post.

 

One must wonder if it isn't a tactic of LEO to scare compassionate folks into not helping newly registered patients and caregivers. From many of the posts I have seen around here and other places, there are a huge number of people that won't help anybody that doesn't have the actual plastic in their hand. While this is of course their right, they should not suggest that the purpose for doing so is the law. By suggesting that the law requires a plastic card to be in the hand of a person we help, we are just furthering the lies of LEO and over zealous PAs. If we are a compassionate movement perhaps we should remember the meaning of compassion.

 

One meaning suggest that we suffer together with.... while others go further "gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another's suffering. It is often, though not inevitably, the key component in what manifests in the social context as altruism."

 

The English noun compassion, meaning to suffer together with, comes from the Latin. Its prefix com- comes directly from com, an archaic version of the Latin preposition and affix cum (= with); the -passion segment is derived from passus, past participle of the deponent verb patior, patī, passus sum. Compassion is thus related in origin, form and meaning to the English noun patient (= one who suffers), from patiens, present participle of the same patior, and is akin to the Greek verb πάσχειν (= paskhein, to suffer) and to its cognate noun πάθος (= pathos).

[+Silverblue]

BB what you said to me about what they're doing, is very sad. It would figure that such an agenda would be so elaborately covered up this way. I can see how you came to these conclusions, it does seem obvious. I've seen these ideas stated before, prob'ly by you. It wouldn't surprise me that all this is true. Anything initiated by The People is usually ruined by big business and/or government, added to that a criminal element, (common criminal, not gov. criminal), then we move up to gov. criminals, which also includes politicians, corporate types, leo types, judges, etc.). Especially when something benefits The People, and seen as being controversial, like MM is. As usual, greed overtakes those who see fit to seize control, and soon, a takeover scheme is born. There are many examples to choose from in history, including recent events. Sadly, it IS us against them, because it IS them against us. Those who don't believe in what they're doing to us need to step up and speak out, which many are doing, but we can't do it alone, we need their voices too.

 

Even I could balance the budget better than they could, though I'm no accountant, I know how to prioritize. That's the bottom line, not rocket science. They ain't so dumb not to know that, but they just don't care. They have no conscience, which becomes everyone's problem.

 

So if this plan they have is what we're up against, all I have to say is, UH-OH. I guess even if no one had started a dispensary, eventually the gov would still try to take over the distribution. Big pharama has been trying for years to stop the natural care profession, and take it over. They have their grubby, filthy hands in this war, too. If we The People did business the way government does, and these big, greedy, unconscionable, contemptible, greedy, corrupt companies, etc., we'd all be bankrupt, impoverished, and in jail.

 

We know what needs to be done, we know what should've been done. We have a good idea how to fix it, all we need is to make gov, etc., stay out of our way and do their job or get out.

 

I'd rather work with everyone than against them, but they started it, it's OUR RIGHT to fight back. It's up to us to do what we can to put an end to this horrible war. We'll do it peacefully, with Dignity and Pride. We must win, for the good of our community. I'm doing what I can, though I wish I could do more.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[+RevThad]

Bump to point to update on page 1 of this thread and to ask for help with the following....

 

 

 

That being said there is one area that I need help figuring out for this sort of distribution system to work. It is the mandated limits in Section 4, and how to account for them. By accounting for who owns what, we can document that nobody is violating those limits, and therefore nobody is placing themselves at risk outside of the protections of Section 4.

 

I am not sure if some sort of consignment would work, or how it would work. I look forward to any and all input on that issue.

[+RevThad]

RevThad, The law states that it just has to be stored in a locked enclosed facility, or in possession of the patient or the caregiver. It doesn't say the location has to be in the CG's house or patent's house. So if it's locked at a distribution system, and that area is the CG or PT area, you are still in possession.

I don't remember seeing that the medication needed to be stored in a locked enclosed facility, just plants. That being said, my concern was more about being able to prove at a moment's notice that all medication was within the limits of Section 4. It gives some room as each caregiver can theoretically have 12.5 ounces if not a patient and 15 ounces if they are also a patient. Are you suggesting that we recommend that any medications stored at a CC are separately stored and secured with a lock? It would make it easier to log quantities and ownership.

 

That is why I through it out for suggestions on it.

[Hempcheff]

I don't remember seeing that the medication needed to be stored in a locked enclosed facility, just plants. That being said, my concern was more about being able to prove at a moment's notice that all medication was within the limits of Section 4. It gives some room as each caregiver can theoretically have 12.5 ounces if not a patient and 15 ounces if they are also a patient. Are you suggesting that we recommend that any medications stored at a CC are separately stored and secured with a lock? It would make it easier to log quantities and ownership.

 

That is why I through it out for suggestions on it.

 

perhaps in a manner similar to a tobacco shop, with storage denoting caregiver ownership and current pt. numbers, and wether those patients have status as a cg and their pt/cg network, to justify the quanities in question. after all, leo only has to make 1 call to verify a number, and if a patient number is not avaliable, then the id number they used on the application is used until they recieve the plastic card, and updated accordingly.

[+RevThad]

Hemp, would these be locked containers? Or just something with a lid for separating and organizing?

 

The reason I ask is it would make a difference as to how meds would be distributed to patients or caregivers from the medications that are stored there. Also who would have access to the medications that are under lock and key... While these issues are probably best solved by the individual Compassion Clubs, I feel that we should at least figure out a policy that we recommend.

[Hempcheff]

Im assuming with these that we agree P/P, P/CG, CG/CG, CG/P, and finally, P/out of state cardholder, and CG/out of state cardholder, are allowed under the law. (my stance is they are, the law would be null if we were restricted in aquisitional resources to maintain an uninterrupted supply, and if they werent , visiting people from another state would have to befriend someone the day they arrived, fill out CG paperwork, and wait for that person to get a card before acquiring medicine) if this is not the belief, then it needs to be addressed before we go any further with this section.

 

 

 

one way could be for select staff/ voted members perhaps (like a distribution board) assigned to dole out medicine, perhaps on consignment, or allow the grower themselves have space that could be "rented" out, for lack of a better term, on assigned days, theoretically, a grower could have medicine at a different CC every day. another option could be to become vendors and set it up like the canna-market that cereal city has had success with in the past. .

 

 

either way I still think the key obstacle here, working within the law, is going to be documentation* of the caregivers and patients involved to justify quantity. One caveat here, there will always need to be a staff comprised of people with pt/cg status with patient loads that correlate with quantities on hand to maintain such quantities under the act.

 

finally, if those doling out medicine happen to run out of the 15 ounces they are permitted or whatever amount they have that day, then they can go secure some more medicine, or be done for the day, and have another caregiver scheduled in.

 

patients will follow cargivers when they can , if they are operating in a safe, clean environment, then they will be more inclined to frequent those environments for say education, demonstrations, information, etc...

 

 

 

*with the privacy issues being covered by using pt and caregiver numbers.

[Guest sub4me]

State run dispensaries sound great to me. I see no reason a patient should be bound to some greedy CG for meds. I'm pro dispensary private or goverment run.

[Hempcheff]

Im assuming with these that we agree P/P, P/CG, CG/CG, CG/P, and finally, P/out of state cardholder, and CG/out of state cardholder, are allowed under the law. (my stance is they are, the law would be null if we were restricted in aquisitional resources to maintain an uninterrupted supply, and if they werent , visiting people from another state would have to befriend someone the day they arrived, fill out CG paperwork, and wait for that person to get a card before acquiring medicine) if this is not the belief, then it needs to be addressed before we go any further with this section.

 

 

 

one way could be for select staff/ voted members perhaps (like a distribution board) assigned to dole out medicine, perhaps on consignment, or allow the grower themselves have space that could be "rented" out, for lack of a better term, on assigned days, theoretically, a grower could have medicine at a different CC every day. another option could be to become vendors and set it up like the canna-market that cereal city has had success with in the past. .

 

 

either way I still think the key obstacle here, working within the law, is going to be documentation* of the caregivers and patients involved to justify quantity. One caveat here, there will always need to be a staff comprised of people with pt/cg status with patient loads that correlate with quantities on hand to maintain such quantities under the act.

 

finally, if those doling out medicine happen to run out of the 15 ounces they are permitted or whatever amount they have that day, then they can go secure some more medicine, or be done for the day, and have another caregiver scheduled in.

 

patients will follow cargivers when they can , if they are operating in a safe, clean environment, then they will be more inclined to frequent those environments for say education, demonstrations, information, etc...

 

 

 

*with the privacy issues being covered by using pt and caregiver numbers.

 

i had this thought in another thread as well, why cant we establish locations throughout the state, organized and managed by modeling after VFW, Eagles, KofC, etc...

[+RevThad]

State run dispensaries sound great to me. I see no reason a patient should be bound to some greedy CG for meds. I'm pro dispensary private or goverment run.

Interesting concept, it is not provided for under current law, but let's discuss it for a moment.

 

In your idea, would the state then grow and dispense? Or hire growers to handle the cultivation part?

 

I am a bit confused on your comments though, on one hand you suggest that CGs are greedy, and on the other you favor private dispensaries.. would you please clarify.

 

Thanks in advance.