Patient To Patient. Cg To Cg Transfers

[master.caregiver]

is it leagal for patient to trade,give,donate or sell to another patient wht abought caregiver to caregiver transfer trade,ect.... i know the law says any one who sells mary jane to any one not allowed under this law is guilty but the law also says to whom a caregiver is connected thru the mdch any LAWERS out there that can answer this or mabye some one who has seen or dealt with this...

[noctuanlreef]

laws are really loose...basically patient to patient transfers can occur caregiver to patient transfers i beileve gets different in the fact that if you are only a caregiver you can only transfer to your designated patient(s)

[noctuanlreef]

but they also state that on site michigan.gov site that 20 days after your check/money order has been cashed, if you don't receive a card by that time you are technically legal.. and that actually isn't the full case.. police are legally arresting and seizing plants and meds from patients/caregivers constantly soley because they don't posses a legal license issued from the state.. so when i say loose i mean weird loose cause theres so many things said in one aspect but when it comes to the people controling the laws it's whatever they say really...

[Nemosity]

MMMA as given to me by my doctor in March reads:

 

333.26429 Failure of department to adopt rules or ISSUE VALID REGISTRY IDENTIFICATION CARD

 

Part 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 it's 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."

 

However, it will take all of us together to demand that LEO's are instructed on the current law and as such, act in a manner according to the oath they swore to uphold.

 

Which reminds me, we need a list of State Legislators and their contact information stickied on this site, so that in a manner concurrent with our constitutional rights, We the People, may write, phone, or visit our elected officials and voice our concerns.

[noctuanlreef]

yeah that's what's posted however this will speak about what i am saying when i say don't act like your legal with your paperwork cause in the LEO's eyes you aren't till you have a card

 

check this out

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/mi/2010/12/articles/arrests_confusion_grow_michigans_murky_law_marijuana.html

[master.caregiver]

im clear on the 20 day thing but not so on the caregiver to care giver or p to p

[lkline300]

yeah that's what's posted however this will speak about what i am saying when i say don't act like your legal with your paperwork cause in the LEO's eyes you aren't till you have a card

 

check this out

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/mi/2010/12/articles/arrests_confusion_grow_michigans_murky_law_marijuana.html

 

But after 20 days you are legal. I know there is a risk you'll run into an ignorant leo. But in a way your advising people to give up there rights. I for one will act legal when I know I am. Leo is wrong, don't let them dictate the rules.

 

I will be renewing my card this month, I'm sure I wont have my card by june, Am I to tear down my grow, quit medicating for 2 months, I think not........

 

Granted if standing up for your rights will cause great harm to u or people close to you then stay in your comfort zone. I for one know I'm on the right side of the law. If spending a day with leo is what it takes to teach them the rules so be it. I give up my rights to no one.

[philanthropy]

As far as the transfer question. I've combed through everything I've been able to find and have fallen short of reading any legal opinions on the state law from actual lawyers. Mostly just posts from MMMA members with quotes from the law.

as far as C2P, heres what i was able to dig up.

"4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

Sec. 4(e) 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."

 

I put the 'a' in bold and size 7 to point out the fact that it does not say "with assisting their registered qualifying patients", but it says "with assisting a registered qualifying patient"

"4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

Sec. 4(g) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, 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 providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana."

 

if we look at the definitions page and look at the words "medical use" and "marihuana paraphernalia...


"3. Definitions.

Sec. 3(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."

 

i'm not a lawyer, but doesn't sound like grea area to me. sound pretty clear cut that this laws intent is to allow Medical Patients and Caregivers grow, buy, sell, transfer, deliver, possess, use (for patients), etc...

it would be dumb to have a system where we could use it but not get it. buy it but not sell it.

 

 

*broken links removed*

[master.caregiver]

thank u that is also wht i interperted when i was first started reading the laws but wasent sure b/c of everything people have said and what i have read with others invlovement with the leo im not a lawer and the laws are confusing to some i hope these threads will help all those who have had tis question them selfs

[master.caregiver]

just read this

 

(B) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, 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 assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

this was in 333.26424 sec 4-b of the state leg.

[master.caregiver]

these are the things that make the laws confusing

[Captain Obvious]

just read this

 

(B) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, 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 assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

this was in 333.26424 sec 4-b of the state leg.

 

Correct, however if the Caregiver is also a Patient they can Transfer to another Patient.

 

Patient to Patient Transfers are Legal.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sec. 4(e) 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."

 

 

 

Caregiver Transfers are still a little to much in the Gray area for a lot of people to feel safe. I have not seen a Case hit the Courts yet to get the 100% go ahead on this aspect of the Act.

[master.caregiver]

that is the positive side of being a patient and a caregiver

[Highlander]

 

 

Correct, however if the Caregiver is also a Patient they can Transfer to another Patient.

Patient to Patient Transfers are Legal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 4(e) 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."



Caregiver Transfers are still a little to much in the Gray area for a lot of people to feel safe. I have not seen a Case hit the Courts yet to get the 100% go ahead on this aspect of the Act.

I have been fighting the battle on this topic for over a year. Bad information abounds and is likely to get someone in trouble sooner or later.

The Act is pretty clear. It states:

The presumption [of medical use…in this case “transfer”] may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

It is pretty simple…if you have some marijuana and you do something with it (in this case, transfer to another patient) then that something better alleviate YOUR qualifying medical condition…otherwise that transfer isn’t legal.
If you are a patient and give marijuana to another patient, how does that alleviate your medical condition? It doesn’t, so you are not protected from arrest.

Your conduct with marijuana must be for the purpose of alleviating your condition…This is black and white.
I have yet to hear one qualified legal professional articulate how/why p2p transfers are legal/protected under the act.

Please read Rhode Island’s MMA: *broken link removed*
The protections granted are EXACTLY the same as in MI. Our law was modeled on theirs….and the Rhode Island legislature has seen fit to specifically add p2p transfers as allowable under an amendment…..because their Act didn’t. Are all of you who grandstand that p2p transfers are protected suggesting that you have more legal saavy than the entire Rhode Island State Legislature, the congressional judiciary committees, and the courts?

[nigel]

Good points Highlander, Someone will always come back and ask how the Ypsi dispensary is doing it though. And I'm sure allot of people (including myself) are somewhat confused as to how the Affirmative Defense comes into play.

 

One person I did hear say p2p was legal was Mary Lindemann. A lobbyist who is working with the likes of Tim Beck on protecting the future of the law.

[Highlander]

Good points Highlander, Someone will always come back and ask how the Ypsi dispensary is doing it though. And I'm sure allot of people (including myself) are somewhat confused as to how the Affirmative Defense comes into play.

 

One person I did hear say p2p was legal was Mary Lindemann. A lobbyist who is working with the likes of Tim Beck on protecting the future of the law.

 

I, too, wonder how the Ypsi dispensary is still going...and maybe I'm wrong...but I want patients to understand that "p2p transfer is legal" is not a universal opinion.

 

I think the guys in Ypsi will get hammered sooner or later. I hope not. Time will tell.

 

I advocate playing it safe. Anyone who is a patient already has more problems than they need.

[master.caregiver]

so basicly p2p transfers are illegal unless we get an amendment to our act

Cg to Cg transfers are legal? and unless ure patient is reg thru dept to u transfer is illegal any one else have input on this?

[master.caregiver]

TOO ALL READERS Please Consault and attny before u do any thing u think might get u in trouble im not sure if any one here is a attny and whould hate to see any one get messed with because of what may be posted here this is just a thread to try to help answer some questions that many have

[philanthropy]

AWESOME POST highlander! thank you.

 

i would like to say this.

 

so we have 1 section of the law, section 4(d)(2), of which you quoted, says cant do anything but alleviate our or our patients qualifying medical condition.

 

but we have section 4(e) that does protect any Cg to any P transfer

 

then we have section 4(b specifically protecting Cg to P transfers when they are registered together.

 

so it seems that the combination of these 3 sections makes a confusing "grey area"

 

but the masterpiece that in my opinion that takes the confusion out of the mess is this combination

 

"Section 4(i)

A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, 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, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

Section 3(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."

 

 

now, in the legal system, when there are multiple sections of a law that can be perceived as "grey area" or "up to interpretation", it comes down to the courts to decide this interpretation. to accurately do this, it is usually practiced to look at the INTENT of the law and INTENT of the voters who inacted it. i would find it hard to believe any argument that would propose that the voters wanted a law that 100 thousand million percent allowed for MM patients to buy marijuana, but didn't allow anyone to sell it to them.

 

i do think that it is awesome that rhode island added in an amendment protecting p2p transfer. i also feel that we should do the same.

[nigel]

 

i do think that it is awesome that rhode island added in an amendment protecting p2p transfer. i also feel that we should do the same.

I believe the folks that are working with the lobbyists are attempting to do just that. Change the rules to give cardholders more defined rights.

[philanthropy]

hey highlander... can you tell me where i can find a copy of the rhode island p2p amendment?

 

i REALLY need it.

[peanutbutter]

Please read Rhode Island’s MMA: http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/PublicLaws/law05/law05443.htm

The protections granted are EXACTLY the same as in MI. Our law was modeled on theirs….and the Rhode Island legislature has seen fit to specifically add p2p transfers as allowable under an amendment…..because their Act didn’t. Are all of you who grandstand that p2p transfers are protected suggesting that you have more legal saavy than the entire Rhode Island State Legislature, the congressional judiciary committees, and the courts?

I guess it must have been someone else I talked to about RI.

 

Sir .. you are in error. Rhode Island's law is NOT exactly the same as ours.

 

Every word that is different is a location that could cause a difference in the way the respective laws are applied.

 

I haven't looked at the RI law closely enough to have an opinion about p2p under their law. Their amendment may or may not have been required. They did indeed pass the amendment.

[peanutbutter]

The presumption [of medical use…in this case “transfer”] may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

It is pretty simple…if you have some marijuana and you do something with it (in this case, transfer to another patient) then that something better alleviate YOUR qualifying medical condition…otherwise that transfer isn’t legal.

If you are a patient and give marijuana to another patient, how does that alleviate your medical condition? It doesn’t, so you are not protected from arrest.

 

Your conduct with marijuana must be for the purpose of alleviating your condition…This is black and white.

I have yet to hear one qualified legal professional articulate how/why p2p transfers are legal/protected under the act.

This is a powerful argument.

 

Let's look at the context.

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

If your proposed logic train is applied, then the presumption is gone, but not the defense. The fight turned slightly uphill.

 

This section seems to say that it is OK to consume marijuana in schools. At least it doesn't forbid the activity. You have to look at other sections to find the place that forbids having marihuana in school.

 

In the section that defines medical use, the action of "transfer" is listed. A lawful transfer is medical use.

 

It is the action that is defined as lawful. Not the person.

 

You have proposed that it is legal for one person but not the other. That would seem to violate the equal protection clauses of the Constitution. And it would require that it is the person that is lawful instead of the activity.

 

(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.

This is the location to examine to determine if what has taken place is "medical use."

 

There is only one test to determine if it is "medical use." That test is 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.

 

That and that alone is the determining factor that defines the activity as being "medical use" or not.

 

There is no other party to examine to make the determination. Only the patient that is receiving the benefit.

 

The other party is protected in that the activity is a legal action. It is "medical use."

 

There has been a long running promotion that said the law makes it legal to have but not legal to obtain.

 

If this were true, then simply having the medicine would be proof of a crime having taken place.

 

In that case, it would be impossible to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition. As such would require a violation of law.

 

If you MUST view it that way then section 7(e) would apply.

 

Section 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.

 

This means that the controlled substance act does not apply to "medical use." Any part that would prevent a 100% lawful method to do this "medical use" would not apply.

 

To allow a 100% lawful means for a patient to medicate, p2p transfers must be lawful. Even if it is only the very first time for seeds or cuttings.

 

Note that by 100% legal I mean by the standard of Michigan state law. Not talking federal.

[Highlander]

"then the presumption is gone, but not the defense"

 

Interesting food for thought.

[philanthropy]

wonderfully crafted logic structures peanutbutter. thank you

 

shall we lock and sticky this thread yet to prevent the numerous other similar threads we are repeating each other on?

 

i'm going to organize and print this thread out on paper. so that when its time for a court case on this somewhere in this state, i can contact the lawyers and provide these analysis and opinions.

 

this may save innocent peaceful people from incarceration! congratulations fellow humans!