Patient To Patient. Cg To Cg Transfers

[master.caregiver]

very nice PB thank u for ure input on this and philanthropy ty 2 u 2

[+Annnie]

im new here and am not a lawyer but.. i want to add this in for food for thought. a caregiver is allowed to assist in the medical use of marijuana for a registered qualifying patient and that means 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.so what if say a patient can only afford their medication if they transfer their excess for donation? wouldnt their caregiver be allowed to assist them in that way?

[lawyercaregiver]

I will say again my legal opinion is that CG to CG or PT to PT transfers are ILLEGAL unless the CG is the REGISTERED CG FOR THAT PATIENT.

 

Now, precisely what and who is illegal? We know a patient can get marijuana to alleviate their medical condition. No legal problems there. HOWEVER, the PT or CG who sells/transfers etc to another PT who is not their registered PT and you are not their registered CG is illegal for the person transferring (but NOT the patient receiving).

 

A little caveat, if you transfer (or trade for example) and you are not profiting financially then it is STILL illegal. However you have a darn good case for the Misdemeanor charge of Distributing Marijuana Without Renumeration (it was meant for people who, for example, pass a joint at a concert) instead of the FELONY charge of Distribution of a Controlled Substance.

 

A Patient to Patient trade is a real close case and could be ruled OK under the MMM because they can BOTH claim they are simply purchasing their own medication.

 

Yes, I could definitely be wrong, but I don't think so....but remember, take a pocketful of cash to lawyer in his office if you want legal advice. Read a Blog if you want the opinion of some guy...

[master.caregiver]

I will say again my legal opinion is that CG to CG or PT to PT transfers are ILLEGAL unless the CG is the REGISTERED CG FOR THAT PATIENT.

 

Now, precisely what and who is illegal? We know a patient can get marijuana to alleviate their medical condition. No legal problems there. HOWEVER, the PT or CG who sells/transfers etc to another PT who is not their registered PT and you are not their registered CG is illegal for the person transferring (but NOT the patient receiving).

 

A little caveat, if you transfer (or trade for example) and you are not profiting financially then it is STILL illegal. However you have a darn good case for the Misdemeanor charge of Distributing Marijuana Without Renumeration (it was meant for people who, for example, pass a joint at a concert) instead of the FELONY charge of Distribution of a Controlled Substance.

 

A Patient to Patient trade is a real close case and could be ruled OK under the MMM because they can BOTH claim they are simply purchasing their own medication.

 

Yes, I could definitely be wrong, but I don't think so....but remember, take a pocketful of cash to lawyer in his office if you want legal advice. Read a Blog if you want the opinion of some guy...

are u a lawer if so i guess this says it all

[peanutbutter]

OK .. delivery and transfer.

 

Both words are in the law as "medical use."

 

Who is the receiver in the word "transfer?" The patient or the other person?

 

Since it must be a completely lawful action, I guess it must be the patient that does the "transfer." To whom???

 

How about "deliver?" Who is the receiver and who is the sender for a delivery kind of action?

Let's see .. it's supposed to be a lawful action .. therefore it must be the patient doing the "delivery." To whom???????

 

I see .. all of those kinds of transactions are the same thing as "acquire." And each of those transactions must involve the patients caregiver .. So then .. if a patient is going to consume marijuana, they MUST have a caregiver. If they don't then they are criminals.

 

What about all of those patients that do not have a caregiver? Acquire, transfer and delivery is illegal for someone that doesn't have a caregiver? Some are trying to say just that. In fact people have been arrested just for that. Acquiring meds without a caregiver .. a new crime.

 

 

I will say again my legal opinion is that CG to CG or PT to PT transfers are ILLEGAL unless the CG is the REGISTERED CG FOR THAT PATIENT.

 

Now, precisely what and who is illegal? We know a patient can get marijuana to alleviate their medical condition. No legal problems there. HOWEVER, the PT or CG who sells/transfers etc to another PT who is not their registered PT and you are not their registered CG is illegal for the person transferring (but NOT the patient receiving).

 

A little caveat, if you transfer (or trade for example) and you are not profiting financially then it is STILL illegal. However you have a darn good case for the Misdemeanor charge of Distributing Marijuana Without Renumeration (it was meant for people who, for example, pass a joint at a concert) instead of the FELONY charge of Distribution of a Controlled Substance.

 

A Patient to Patient trade is a real close case and could be ruled OK under the MMM because they can BOTH claim they are simply purchasing their own medication.

 

Yes, I could definitely be wrong, but I don't think so....but remember, take a pocketful of cash to lawyer in his office if you want legal advice. Read a Blog if you want the opinion of some guy...

[HerbanLegendSeeds]

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.

 

 

This should have been done in the first place, but I agree we need to change our law to state it clearly

[peanutbutter]

Thank you skyquest

 

ACLU of MI has stated that patient to patient and caregiver to caregiver transfers are defendable actions. If harassed, contact Shelli Weisberg sweisberg@aclumich.org

[dutch&Dutchess]

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.

 

 

if humanity played it safe we might still be in caves, tradition you know.

P to P is protected plain and simple

no properly run PRIVATE compassion club like 3rd coast seed in Ypsi will be getting "hammered" (interesting choice of verbs) any time ever. LEGALIZATION IS COMING the prohibitionists best get used to the idea of CAREER CHANGE

[Greg Starks]

I have to apologize for not reading this thread in its entirety. When I heard Rae Ramsdell discuss this topic, I recall her saying that MDCH considered C2C transfers to be legal. Her interpretation regarding C2P transactions limits caregivers to the five patients assigned to them, and thus the standard 'dispensary' model is not legal. I may be wrong, but this is what I remember. I also remember her specificially saying P2P was not considered legal. I'm pretty sure she would be willing to reiterate these positions, and I will ask her to do that if you wish. In the end, my understanding of the C2C interpretation is a practical one, realizing that a supply chain must exist in some manner, and this manner seemed the most appropriate.

 

It is important to remember that MDCH doesn't do law enforcement, though. In the end, the Departments of Attorney General and State Police will make the final decisions that determine whether people will be allowed to act in certain ways, and whether after doing so they will be fined and possibly confined.

 

From most people's perspective, the important questions appear to revolve around whether and how people can be compensated for these transactions. Some answers remains unclear, except that we know that registered (or affirmatively qualified) patients can pay their assigned caregivers for MM without it being considered a sale under the controlled substances act. More clarification is needed, and is sure to come from both the MDCH and the Courts...

[peanutbutter]

I have to apologize for not reading this thread in its entirety. When I heard Rae Ramsdell discuss this topic, I recall her saying that MDCH considered C2C transfers to be legal. Her interpretation regarding C2P transactions limits caregivers to the five patients assigned to them, and thus the standard 'dispensary' model is not legal. I may be wrong, but this is what I remember. I also remember her specificially saying P2P was not considered legal. I'm pretty sure she would be willing to reiterate these positions, and I will ask her to do that if you wish. In the end, my understanding of the C2C interpretation is a practical one, realizing that a supply chain must exist in some manner, and this manner seemed the most appropriate.

 

That's interesting. BTW .. Who is "Rae Ramsdell?" I'm guessing that she is someone inside the MDCH.

So according to her .. C2C transfers are legal yet P2P are not???????

 

It is important to remember that MDCH doesn't do law enforcement, though. In the end, the Departments of Attorney General and State Police will make the final decisions that determine whether people will be allowed to act in certain ways, and whether after doing so they will be fined and possibly confined.

 

Gee .. I thought it was the law, the people and elected officials that decided if people get fined and or confined. Not the people given the task of enforcing our decisions.

 

There are situations that are taking place, right now, where completely innocent people are going to jail. That is what takes place when public servants decide to ignore the law, arrest everyone and "let the judge sort it out."

 

THE PATIENTS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE PART OF THE WAR NOW.

[phaquetoo]

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.

 

 

well im sure glad you know your legal, and you dont care what leo thinks, spending a day with leo to teach him the laws! No offense but im pretty sure you are going to spend the day with leo and they are going to show you what they think of the law, and you will go to court and your life will be turned upside down, but if you live alone and you have no family to worry about, go for it, I already did my 2 cases, im done, they taught me what they think of the law. and im gonna listen, i will remain unseen and unheard out in the real world!

[Greg Starks]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Ms. Ramsdell's title is Regulatory Division Director, she is the person whom through rules and practices are determined. Nice job distinguishing between persons and transactions insofar as exemptions/permissions under the law are concerned! While I am sympathetic to your last points, I would reiterate that these folks are on Terra Incognita (new strange ground), are grossly underfunded (fully allocating fees paid would fix that), and in my judgment are working unbelievable hours and doing the best they can with what they have. And yes, my remembrance is that c2c is permissible, and p2p is not. I will seek clarification.

[peanutbutter]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Ms. Ramsdell's title is Regulatory Division Director, she is the person whom through rules and practices are determined. Nice job distinguishing between persons and transactions insofar as exemptions/permissions under the law are concerned! While I am sympathetic to your last points, I would reiterate that these folks are on Terra Incognita (new strange ground), are grossly underfunded (fully allocating fees paid would fix that), and in my judgment are working unbelievable hours and doing the best they can with what they have. And yes, my remembrance is that c2c is permissible, and p2p is not. I will seek clarification.

 

It is the procedure that gets to me ..

 

Once upon a time there was this war .. And because it's a war, every rotten trick the "good guys" can apply is just fine.

 

Now some of the "pot heads" have found a new loophole .. medical.

 

Sooooo .. the powers that be decide to just ignore the loophole. Until they are forced to honor it.

 

If it was anything else, that was completely legal, what is taking place would be called ARMED ROBBERY.

 

We have armed gangs of thugs, using paramilitary tactics against unarmed civilian populations. And they intend to keep doing it until they are forced to stop.

 

That's the kind of thing that makes you want to puke.

 

So the innocent victims of this policy are supposed to accept whatever this corrupt system hands out to them?

 

It's time for them to respect the people.

[master.caregiver]

It is the procedure that gets to me ..

 

Once upon a time there was this war .. And because it's a war, every rotten trick the "good guys" can apply is just fine.

 

Now some of the "pot heads" have found a new loophole .. medical.

 

Sooooo .. the powers that be decide to just ignore the loophole. Until they are forced to honor it.

 

If it was anything else, that was completely legal, what is taking place would be called ARMED ROBBERY.

 

We have armed gangs of thugs, using paramilitary tactics against unarmed civilian populations. And they intend to keep doing it until they are forced to stop.

 

That's the kind of thing that makes you want to puke.

 

So the innocent victims of this policy are supposed to accept whatever this corrupt system hands out to them?

 

It's time for them to respect the people.

thats great this so called war was all over nixons daughter dateing a hippie right after that all of a sudden mary janes no longer welcome. and why arrent the leo being charged it is exactly that, it is armed robery but i guess thats what we get for puting up with a capitalist goverment. its time the people took back the country dumped the trash thats in there now

[philanthropy]

thats great this so called war was all over nixons daughter dateing a hippie right after that all of a sudden mary janes no longer welcome. and why arrent the leo being charged it is exactly that, it is armed robery but i guess thats what we get for puting up with a capitalist goverment. its time the people took back the country dumped the trash thats in there now

 

our system is beautiful

 

its flaw is the lack of public participation. creates an enviroment where abuses are abundant. if you want to take it back, not only should you vote, but petition, and write. talk to your elected officials. educate them and your LEO.

 

change happens slowly. but if we all give up, then it never happens at all, and we only have ourselves to blame.

 

inspire others to get active.

[Highlander]

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

 

i REALLY need it.

 

(m) A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may give marijuana to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process, provided that no consideration is paid for the marijuana, and that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in section 21-28.6-4.

 

Here you go. It was suggested in another post that maybe RI didn't need this amendment to make p2p transfers legal. I would submit that the amendment was necessary to make p2p transfers a protected action for cardholders...(rather than an action that can result in prosecution followed by charges dismissed under an affirmative defense scenario) and this is what is most important.

[ccpulsipher]

the problem that i see with the lobbist is that she is working only with a small paert of our coumminty and she is also being very sective and lying to our coumminty and in my opion she is working to get the law changed so that only a few large scale people can grow mainly her little group that she is lobbying for i think she needs to be stoped

[dutch&Dutchess]

black and white letter law...anyone ANYONE assisting a patient in obtaining medication is protected.

[CannabisPatient#1]

I agree with your post, but I interpret the law a bit differently. Sale of Cannabis or Cannabis clones is not legal. Transfer is legal. Compensation is for costs associated with assisting i.e. electricity, light bulbs, grow nutes, water, soil. So give away the marijuana and the clones/seeds and get a donation to cover the costs of operation.

 

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]

caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana."

[dondjinn]

Hey little idea, everyone who's concerned email your posts to your local officials. Make it clear to them what is needed, you never know they might listen!

[continuobrisa]

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."

- http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0o5yig45xxpsi2e0otbff345))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26424

 

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."

- http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0o5yig45xxpsi2e0otbff345))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26424

 

 

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."

- http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(0o5yig45xxpsi2e0otbff345))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26423

 

 

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.

 

Thank you so very much!

 

A question came up in tonights TC CC public meeting and I thought exactly what you posted. (Which was contrary to what was said at the meeting.) I knew it was in the law laid out very clearly.

 

I'm a qualified caregiver - not both a patient and caregiver - and it was said at the meeting that a qualified caregiver (not both patient and caregiver) could only offer services to the medical use of marijuana to the (up to 5) patients assigned to him or her.

 

It would be strange to only offer my compassion and expertise to only 5 people in this great state. Also, it seems to me that the last statistics of the patient to caregiver ratio is very high and expected to get higher unless more patients start growing for themselves.

 

I have put the effort and investment into my grow room for high quality, high yield production. Not all patients can or will do that.

 

I would have found the sections in the law to get the answer. Thanks for posting it before me.

[chi_guy]

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: 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?

 

 

Yes you have been stating your interpretation of section 4d for quite sometime. Since your interpretation basically states that a patient cannot engage in the transfer of marijuana. How can you use your interpretation to say cg to patient transfers aren't legal. 4b states a cg is protected for "assisting" a patient in his or her medical use that is connected to them through the department and places limitations on plant count and dry usable amounts. However in 4d it clearly states that registered cg's or patient's can "engage" in the medical use of marihuana. Here there is no mention of being connected through the department's registration process. here's my point:

 

(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.

 

Using your grammar rules how can the presumption be rebutted if a cg transfers to a patient?

[master.caregiver]

these are all regular people interpertations of the law so just imagine what the judjes and PA are doing the same thing that we all are well it says this and means this no it means this well we can argue this fact amoungst our selfs for ever but what it comes right down to in REALITY is what the judges and jurys decide hopefully they see thing the way some of us do but most of them have thier own meanings to the laws .... my point is alot of inocent people have been messed with and draged thru the process b/c of these INTERPERTATIONS best to ask an attrny and follow your own judgement and not just trust some post some one made. legalizie it tax it and we all whould be alot safer

[Guest Wayne]

I love a good dead horse beating as much as the next guy. Sucks having to sweat all this small stuff now that cannabis is legal for some. Imagine the worry free world that existed when nobody cultivated, posessed, transported or transfered cannabis prior to Proposal 1. We want to be able to do transfers down at the courthouse or local sheriff's office lobby. Maybe pass out free samples at high school sporting events. Whatever!

[peanutbutter]

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: 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?

 

Yes you have been stating your interpretation of section 4d for quite sometime. Since your interpretation basically states that a patient cannot engage in the transfer of marijuana. How can you use your interpretation to say cg to patient transfers aren't legal. 4b states a cg is protected for "assisting" a patient in his or her medical use that is connected to them through the department and places limitations on plant count and dry usable amounts. However in 4d it clearly states that registered cg's or patient's can "engage" in the medical use of marihuana. Here there is no mention of being connected through the department's registration process. here's my point:

 

(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.

 

Using your grammar rules how can the presumption be rebutted if a cg transfers to a patient?

Yes .. that would mean that the caregiver must get the medical benefit also.

 

The words "transfer" and "delivery" are intended to protect more than just the patient within the activity. Both sides are protected.

 

If that is not the case then the new law establishes that patients are able to consume but can not obtain the medicine to do so. (This presumes that every one follows the exact letter of the law and remains 100% legal.) A farce as far as logic goes. Even more so when words like "transfer" and "delivery" are presented, in a favorable light, as legal activities.

 

The logic, presented by highlander, makes caregivers illegal.

 

Highlanders logic suggests two different ways to interpret this section of code. These two different interpretations depend on who is being talked about.

 

It is OK to transfer to a patient if you are the patients caregiver.

It is not OK to transfer to a patient if you are not the patients caregiver.

 

"the patients caregiver" is not listed as a qualifier. Those are words that the mind of highlander places in the law.

 

Many people try to push those words into the law. In their minds. It is very clear, within their own minds, that those words must be there. They should be there .. so they are there.

 

This is the logic that opponents of the law tried to use against us before the election.

 

"Prop 1 would make it lawful for a patient to consume marijuana. However, it makes no provision for the patient to obtain it." BS .. it was BS then and it's BS now.