Patient To Patient. Cg To Cg Transfers

[GreatLakesMeds]

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

 

Do you have some credentials to back up this legal advice? Or are you relying on a layperson's interpretation?

 

Everyone who reads these forums can read like any other layperson. Do you offer more than that?

[lawyercaregiver]

View PostHighlander, on 10 April 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:

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.

 

Not legal advice, just my opinion like everybody else but OK, actually I do have some qualifications to comment so I will

 

You are playing word games that are not going to impress and independent judge though I am sure Redden Judge O'Connell would agree. THE qualifying patient does not necessarily have to be the patient transferring. Rather the qualifying patient is the patient for whom the palliative benefit is provided. Clearly THE qualifying patient can assert the section 8 affirmative defense. The issue is whether the seller can also assert the defense (and what he needs to show) if they are not protected under the caregiver registry system.

 

The act is hardly clear. However, the overall aim of the act was CLEARLY to set up a very open and protected distribution system for medical marijuana in Michigan. The law is not clear that the seller in any transaction is protected even though it is clear the buyer is protected. So this issue we are arguing about makes no sense at all. ANY reasonable court that looks at the issue of reconciling the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act with constitutional protections in the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions (and about a million other statues) must conclude that patient to patient transfers are allowed. Nothing else makes sense. How and whether we regulate that process (and how many people are going to go to jail before the courts sort it out) is still a real issue.

 

Unless the State legislature acts on the issue of P2P transfers the Michigan Supreme Court will ultimately decide this issue.

 

Be warned, there is no requirement that court's be reasonable or fair. A government powerful enough to "GIVE" you your rights is also powerful enough to take them away.....

[master.caregiver]

wanna hear the opinion of somebody that actually wrote the law check this link out

 

http://www.upnorthmedia.org/watchupnorthtv.asp?SDBFid=2198#vid

[Highlander]

Since it says "the patient's" condition rather than " a patient's" doesn't that refer to a specific patient in that section?

 

By your explanation "the patient" referred to in the excerpt we are discussing would necessarily be a different patient than the "the patient" referred to as having the protections earlier in the section. Can you clarify this for me? I don't see how you can start the section with "the patient" being the transferer and then use "the patient" to describe a different person (transferee) later in the same section.

 

Not legal advice, just my opinion like everybody else but OK, actually I do have some qualifications to comment so I will

 

You are playing word games that are not going to impress and independent judge though I am sure Redden Judge O'Connell would agree. THE qualifying patient does not necessarily have to be the patient transferring. Rather the qualifying patient is the patient for whom the palliative benefit is provided. Clearly THE qualifying patient can assert the section 8 affirmative defense. The issue is whether the seller can also assert the defense (and what he needs to show) if they are not protected under the caregiver registry system.

 

The act is hardly clear. However, the overall aim of the act was CLEARLY to set up a very open and protected distribution system for medical marijuana in Michigan. The law is not clear that the seller in any transaction is protected even though it is clear the buyer is protected. So this issue we are arguing about makes no sense at all. ANY reasonable court that looks at the issue of reconciling the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act with constitutional protections in the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions (and about a million other statues) must conclude that patient to patient transfers are allowed. Nothing else makes sense. How and whether we regulate that process (and how many people are going to go to jail before the courts sort it out) is still a real issue.

 

Unless the State legislature acts on the issue of P2P transfers the Michigan Supreme Court will ultimately decide this issue.

 

Be warned, there is no requirement that court's be reasonable or fair. A government powerful enough to "GIVE" you your rights is also powerful enough to take them away.....

[Southern Cross]

Not legal advice, just my opinion like everybody else but OK, actually I do have some qualifications to comment so I will

 

You are playing word games that are not going to impress and independent judge though I am sure Redden Judge O'Connell would agree. THE qualifying patient does not necessarily have to be the patient transferring. Rather the qualifying patient is the patient for whom the palliative benefit is provided. Clearly THE qualifying patient can assert the section 8 affirmative defense. The issue is whether the seller can also assert the defense (and what he needs to show) if they are not protected under the caregiver registry system.

 

The act is hardly clear. However, the overall aim of the act was CLEARLY to set up a very open and protected distribution system for medical marijuana in Michigan. The law is not clear that the seller in any transaction is protected even though it is clear the buyer is protected. So this issue we are arguing about makes no sense at all. ANY reasonable court that looks at the issue of reconciling the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act with constitutional protections in the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions (and about a million other statues) must conclude that patient to patient transfers are allowed. Nothing else makes sense. How and whether we regulate that process (and how many people are going to go to jail before the courts sort it out) is still a real issue.

 

Unless the State legislature acts on the issue of P2P transfers the Michigan Supreme Court will ultimately decide this issue.

 

Be warned, there is no requirement that court's be reasonable or fair. A government powerful enough to "GIVE" you your rights is also powerful enough to take them away.....

We know that a registered qualifying patient can receive and be in possession of a reasonable amount of cannabis for medical use. (Well, maybe not in Oakland County) Many people seem to focus on the word "transfer" to justify patient to patient transactions. While I don't disagree with that I see a stronger argument from the word "delivery" to cover the patient who gives cannabis to another qualifying patient.

 

"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."

 

Thoughts?

[Hempcheff]

Lol, that about sums it up and ends it eh? When faced with a dilemma, be patient and the answer shall present itself

 

(no sarcasm there)

 

We know that a registered qualifying patient can receive and be in possession of a reasonable amount of cannabis for medical use. (Well, maybe not in Oakland County) Many people seem to focus on the word "transfer" to justify patient to patient transactions. While I don't disagree with that I see a stronger argument from the word "delivery" to cover the patient who gives cannabis to another qualifying patient.

 

"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."

 

Thoughts?

[bobandtorey]

We know that a registered qualifying patient can receive and be in possession of a reasonable amount of cannabis for medical use. (Well, maybe not in Oakland County) Many people seem to focus on the word "transfer" to justify patient to patient transactions. While I don't disagree with that I see a stronger argument from the word "delivery" to cover the patient who gives cannabis to another qualifying patient.

 

"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."

 

Thoughts?

 

We know that a registered qualifying patient can receive and be in possession of a reasonable amount of cannabis for medical use.

and unRgistered per the C.O.A opinon

[bobandtorey]

Not legal advice, just my opinion like everybody else but OK, actually I do have some qualifications to comment so I will

 

You are playing word games that are not going to impress and independent judge though I am sure Redden Judge O'Connell would agree. THE qualifying patient does not necessarily have to be the patient transferring. Rather the qualifying patient is the patient for whom the palliative benefit is provided. Clearly THE qualifying patient can assert the section 8 affirmative defense. The issue is whether the seller can also assert the defense (and what he needs to show) if they are not protected under the caregiver registry system.

 

The act is hardly clear. However, the overall aim of the act was CLEARLY to set up a very open and protected distribution system for medical marijuana in Michigan. The law is not clear that the seller in any transaction is protected even though it is clear the buyer is protected. So this issue we are arguing about makes no sense at all. ANY reasonable court that looks at the issue of reconciling the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act with constitutional protections in the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions (and about a million other statues) must conclude that patient to patient transfers are allowed. Nothing else makes sense. How and whether we regulate that process (and how many people are going to go to jail before the courts sort it out) is still a real issue.

 

Unless the State legislature acts on the issue of P2P transfers the Michigan Supreme Court will ultimately decide this issue.

 

Be warned, there is no requirement that court's be reasonable or fair. A government powerful enough to "GIVE" you your rights is also powerful enough to take them away.....

 

are case does not have any p2p so i guess your saying that people like judge OConnell are the kind of judge's your up against is that what you are saying?

[GreatLakesMeds]

Not legal advice, just my opinion like everybody else but OK, actually I do have some qualifications to comment so I will

 

You are playing word games that are not going to impress and independent judge though I am sure Redden Judge O'Connell would agree. THE qualifying patient does not necessarily have to be the patient transferring. Rather the qualifying patient is the patient for whom the palliative benefit is provided. Clearly THE qualifying patient can assert the section 8 affirmative defense. The issue is whether the seller can also assert the defense (and what he needs to show) if they are not protected under the caregiver registry system.

 

The act is hardly clear. However, the overall aim of the act was CLEARLY to set up a very open and protected distribution system for medical marijuana in Michigan. The law is not clear that the seller in any transaction is protected even though it is clear the buyer is protected. So this issue we are arguing about makes no sense at all. ANY reasonable court that looks at the issue of reconciling the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act with constitutional protections in the Michigan and U.S. Constitutions (and about a million other statues) must conclude that patient to patient transfers are allowed. Nothing else makes sense. How and whether we regulate that process (and how many people are going to go to jail before the courts sort it out) is still a real issue.

 

Unless the State legislature acts on the issue of P2P transfers the Michigan Supreme Court will ultimately decide this issue.

 

Be warned, there is no requirement that court's be reasonable or fair. A government powerful enough to "GIVE" you your rights is also powerful enough to take them away.....

 

 

So you are saying that Section 4 plays out like this:

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient(transferor) 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 (transferor) possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient (transferor) has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient (transferor), 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.

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient (transferor) or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient (transferor) 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 (transfee’s) debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

If I understand your opinion, "the/a patient" refers to the guy who is giving/selling the marijuana all the way through the section...and then, suddenly, at the end and without warning, "the patient" means a differrent person altogether..the receiver. I'm no a lawyer, so I can't get into the legalese, but grammatically speaking, I am quite sure that "the patient" is the same person throughout that section and you can't swap a different patient in at the end.

 

I need to add, that PB made the very good point some time ago that the PRESUMPTION of medical use may be rebutted under a situation where the transferor does something with MJ that doesn't alleviate his own condition, but as long as he is able to establish that the conduct was for the purposes of alleviating A patient's condition, the activity falls under the definition of "medical use" ...... and all patients have protection for medical use.

 

See what I mean? If you are a patient and within your limits and all of your conduct with MJ is for the purposes of alleviating YOUR condition, you are presumed to be engaged in medical use and, by default, protected. If, as a patient, your conduct is NOT for the purposes of alleviating YOUR condition, the the presumption of medical use may be rebutted. That doesn't mean that you are guilty...only that the burden then shifts more to the patient to prove that his conduct with marijuana was "medical use," which in this case, is the transfer for the purposes of alleviating a patient's debilitating condition.

 

Am I making sense?

[Hempcheff]

Yay, and answer to the P2P question finally solid, its a yes http://www.scribd.com/doc/45428940/Compassionate-Apothecary-Opinion

 

 

also, as far as cg to cg, it is the very nature of the caregiver status to help provide an uninterrupted supply of medication for a patient. wether a cargiver grows or not, they are still allowed to acquire, transfer, deliver, etc... that is crystal clear in the law.

 

 

 

 

none the arguments in this thread that take the position that cg to cg xfers are against the law,

 

take into consideration that that argument inherently forces mmj patient to force another individual to break the law (street dealer, caregiver), because the logic against cg to cg, when applied deeper into the question doesnt hold up.

 

i shall field your questions now

[Southern Cross]

The way p 2 p sales helps me to alliviate my pain is that I am able to trade meds to other patients until I can find a strain that helps my medical condition. If I were to do a p 2 p transfer that would allow me to use the proceeds to purchase by donation other strains that help me alliviate my pain. This is a good defense to express how p2p transfers help alliviate my medical conditions.