Patient To Patient. Cg To Cg Transfers

[master.caregiver]

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!

 

 

when i say legalize it dosent mean for every one it should have age restrictions just like tabacco and alcohol unless it is a child that whould benifit and has doctors and parent consent but i really dont think handing out "free samples at the local high school" a good idea i just think it should be sold like tabbaco is nothing more nothing less

[GreatLakesMeds]

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.

 

 

By your line of thinking, wouldn't that make it legal for anybody at all to sell marijuana to any cardholder?

[GreatLakesMeds]

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?

 

 

I don't know how you can get past this:

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

[peanutbutter]

I don't know how you can get past this:

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

OK .. who is lawfully allowed to provide marijuana to a patient that doesn't have a caregiver?

[peanutbutter]

By your line of thinking, wouldn't that make it legal for anybody at all to sell marijuana to any cardholder?

 

Correct.

 

The street dealer on the corner. The action of selling marijuana to a patient is protected.

 

After the patient drives away, the dealer can properly be arrested for the rest of the marijuana the patient didn't purchase. Holding marijuana isn't protected for the dealer.

[chi_guy]

I don't know how you can get past this:

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

 

This section refers to the issuance of registry cards. A registered caregiver can only assist 5 patients with "their" medical use when it comes to growing and possession of dry usable. But a registered caregiver can "engage" in the medical use of marihuana at any time as long as the conduct related to marijuana is for the patient who receives it.

[GreatLakesMeds]

Correct.

 

The street dealer on the corner. The action of selling marijuana to a patient is protected.

 

After the patient drives away, the dealer can properly be arrested for the rest of the marijuana the patient didn't purchase. Holding marijuana isn't protected for the dealer.

 

Why isn't the dealer protected for holding marijuana? He just sold to a patient and is holding more for other patients. How is he any different than a dispensary?

[GreatLakesMeds]

This section refers to the issuance of registry cards. A registered caregiver can only assist 5 patients with "their" medical use when it comes to growing and possession of dry usable. But a registered caregiver can "engage" in the medical use of marihuana at any time as long as the conduct related to marijuana is for the patient who receives it.

 

 

(simplifying by strinking out the clauses that don't apply)

 

"The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, provided that a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana."

 

So if a primary caregiver may assist more than 5 patients, than he can't get any registration cards at all.

[Guest Wayne]

Look if John goes over to Bill's house and when John leaves Bill has 2 1/2 ounces of cannabis that he didn't have prior to John's vist. Given that John isn't Bill's designated caregiver he's going to prison. Why? Because he either is required to turn himself in or Bill is required report to LEO that John transferred cannabis in violation of the law. No way around it!

[GreatLakesMeds]

Look if John goes over to Bill's house and when John leaves Bill has 2 1/2 ounces of cannabis that he didn't have prior to John's vist. Given that John isn't Bill's designated caregiver he's going to prison. Why? Because he either is required to turn himself in or Bill is required report to LEO that John transferred cannabis in violation of the law. No way around it!

 

+ rep for the scorching and insiteful sarcasm.

[peanutbutter]

Why isn't the dealer protected for holding marijuana? He just sold to a patient and is holding more for other patients. How is he any different than a dispensary?

 

Probably bookkeeping.

 

For protection to be provided to the street dealer, the dealer would have to provide documentation to prove that every bit of the material being held would reasonably be expected to go to patients.

 

Every bit.

 

Hard to prove on the corner like that.

 

Within a locked building with copies of every persons ID cards it is easier to control the flow to be only for patients.

 

Control of the medicine is the question. Correct?

[Guest Wayne]

I guess in the end some require validation from someone. Now the question becomes: Who has the authority to validate this issue for you, this community, and LEO.

Kinda like self validation, if you can't validate yourself I can do it for a $500 consultation fee. You won't be disappointed and will leave knowing exactly who you are.

[wojcikaf]

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?

 

you must have read the rhode island law then . because i am holding a copy of the law right now. i have read it severave time and it says nothing about that. patient to patient is ok

[chi_guy]

(simplifying by strinking out the clauses that don't apply)

 

"The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, provided that a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana."

 

So if a primary caregiver may assist more than 5 patients, than he can't get any registration cards at all.

 

We don't disagree on the point that to be a "registered" primary caregiver you are protected for assisting up to 5 patients with their medical use. The reason behind this again is to limit the amount of dry usable a registered primary caregiver can possess and also limit the amount the registered primary cg can cultivate. In a situation when a "registered" patient or a "registered" primary caregiver transfers meds to someone they are not connected to through the department, they are not acting as that patient's primary caregiver. They are merely engaging in the transfer of marihuana as they are protected to do so by the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

 

Also, I keep hearing people bringing up the Rhode Island law and comparing it with ours. Last time I checked Rhode Island didn't have an affirmative defense. The affirmative defense also applies to primary caregivers. It puts no number on the amount of patients a primary cg can assist. There are only three requirements which must be satisfied and the case MUST be dismissed.

[UrbanFarmer]

It puts no number on the amount of patients a primary cg can assist.

 

Care to elaborate on that one??

[chi_guy]

Care to elaborate on that one??

 

Sure there is no need to elaborate. To successfully present an affirmative defense there is nothing that requires a primary cg to only be assisting 5 patients.

[clownkiller69u2]

[peanutbutter]

Sure there is no need to elaborate. To successfully present an affirmative defense there is nothing that requires a primary cg to only be assisting 5 patients.

 

LOL Nice .. very nice.

 

Something new!! I like it.

 

I looked it up thinking it would be in there .. either section 8 directly or in 7 ..

 

NOPE not there!!

 

most cool. Hope it grows wings.

[phaquetoo]

I guess if you realy want to find out how much you can get away with, Go for it!

You are the one who has to fight it in court if there is a prob, your family and patients are the ones that will suffer!

If you dont think po po's aren't on here reading? Think again!

 

Loose Lips sink ships!

FTW

Peace

Jim

[Guest Wayne]

So just who's validation is going to make this all right for the worriers? Name? Title? Who is the ultimate authority? Anybody know?

[chi_guy]

LOL Nice .. very nice.

 

Something new!! I like it.

 

I looked it up thinking it would be in there .. either section 8 directly or in 7 ..

 

NOPE not there!!

 

most cool. Hope it grows wings.

 

Thank you, I hope it does too. Unregistered primary CG's are protected by the affirmative defense and so are unregistered patients. We have to understand how powerful the A.D. is and why. "They" know how powerful it is that is why they spread misinformation stating that patients and cg's are required to register with the state. If the three elements of the A.D. are satisfied then the case must be dismissed. Guess what that means. A waste of their time and effort trying to prosecute someone and not getting a conviction.

[anonymousgrower?]

Old Topic but I was wondering the same than found this article.

 

The Decision: Isabella County Trial Court Chief Judge Paul H. Chamberlain said that ambiguity exists in parts of the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA). He denied the prosecutor's office request for a preliminary injunction against the defendants, based on the business model, which he said appears to be operating within the parameters of the Act.

 

From the Decision: "[T]his court finds that the patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries of marihuana between registered qualifying patients fall soundly within medical use of marihuana as defined by the MMMA. This court also finds that because the Legislature provided the presumption of medical use of marihuana in MCL 333.26424(d) , it intended to permit such patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries of marihuana between registered qualifying patients in order for registered qualifying patients to acquire permissible medical marihuana. ... Essentially, defendants assist with the administration and usage of medical marihuana, which the Legislature permits under the MMMA. "

 

 

[Danielshemp]

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?

 

 

Oh my God. I really can't believe this.

 

"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."

 

Your argument is flawed. This would be up to the prosecutor to prove. If I decide to take a few tokes on my bowl, then by your definition I had better be prepared to prove that I was alleviating my debilitating condition. I'm sorry if I insult, but this is the lamest statement I have read since I began posting here. Please stop creating confusion, the media doesn't need the competition.

[Danielshemp]

I would hope everyone has read this,

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient 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 the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

 

"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.

 

Please note the words acquisition, possession, delivery, transfer or transportation. Pay particular attention to the word transfer. One definition of transfer, "a conveyance, by sale, gift, or otherwise, of real or personal property, to another." I am a registered patient. I need to acquire meds. I call my friend, whom is also a registered patient. He is in possession and agrees to a transfer. He agrees to deliver because I am unable to drive. He then transports the meds to me.

 

This is exactly how the law was intended. I hope this helps to clarify that which was already clear.

[GreatLakesMeds]

Your argument is flawed. This would be up to the prosecutor to prove. If I decide to take a few tokes on my bowl, then by your definition I had better be prepared to prove that I was alleviating my debilitating condition. I'm sorry if I insult, but this is the lamest statement I have read since I began posting here. Please stop creating confusion, the media doesn't need the competition.

 

This is some of the most irresponsible advice I have seen on here. "It would be up to the prosecutor to prove.." So you are saying yourself that the action isn't legal - but it would be impossible to convict? So that makes it is OK to do it??? I don't get it...sounds like weak and risky legal footing. The OP's question is about what is legal, not what is hard to prove.

 

Who is talking about a few hits on a bowl anyway? The discussion is about transfers. Your comparison is apples and oranges. A PA can't prove you hit the bowl for fun rather than to alleviate your condition. A PA can prove that you transferring marijuana doesn't alleviate your condition, because, well, it doesn't. If you give marijuana to your brother, does that help YOUR condition?