Can Garegivers Provide Medicine, To Patients Other Then His Own.

[stickyicky]

srry all way newbie 1st post if the state would set up dispencerys buy overages from cargivers and resel to the public they have a form of controle and taxation

[master.caregiver]

dont know if this person is a lawer or not but lawercaregiver said and i quote

 

"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..."

 

 

this is why we need an ammedment to our law b/c we can all assume what the law means but only a lawer can realy be sure

[peanutbutter]

dont know if this person is a lawer or not but lawercaregiver said and i quote

 

"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.

 

Not long ago, there was a patient that was arrested for about 5 grams.

That patient had "NO CAREGIVER" on the back of their card.

 

The marijuana was considered evidence of a crime taking place. The logic was that the patient could not legally obtain marijuana. Therefore the patient had to have committed a crime to simply have the marijuana.

 

I submit that the purpose of the new law WAS NOT to cause patients without caregivers to be criminals.

 

And as long as these irresponsible lawyers keep saying that such people are criminals, we will needlessly have innocent people going to jail.

 

this is why we need an ammedment to our law b/c we can all assume what the law means but only a lawer can realy be sure

 

They are not gods and even have the ability to make a mistake, from time to time.

[creaks]

Ok, so we must use caregivers. Can we sign 2 caregivers? That way the meds won't be interrupted?

[MLM]

Ok, so we must use caregivers. Can we sign 2 caregivers? That way the meds won't be interrupted?

 

No. Read the Act. Michigan Medical Marihuana Act

[philanthropy]

dont know if this person is a lawer or not but lawercaregiver said and i quote

 

"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..."

 

 

this is why we need an ammedment to our law b/c we can all assume what the law means but only a lawer can realy be sure

 

 

take the worlds 10 best lawyers and put them in a room to debate an issue like this with this law, and they are all going to have different opinions.

 

take the worlds 10000 best cancer doctors and get them to try and find a cure for cancer, and you end up with 10000 different opinions.

 

take the worlds top scientists and have a summit to discuss global warming, and some will come out of the summit believing its a real human problem and some will come out believing its natures natural course (of course these idiots were sleeping during all the presentations of evidence)

[philanthropy]

Ok, so we must use caregivers. Can we sign 2 caregivers? That way the meds won't be interrupted?

 

 

no you do not have to have a caregiver. a patient who is purchasing/transferring cannabis is ALWAYS protected by the act. regardless of who is transferring/selling to them.

 

the debate is wither or not a registered patient can transfer to another registered patient. more specifically, wither or not the person who is doing the transfer/sale can get in trouble if they are a registered patient. or with caregivers who are transferring to patients who are not registered to be their patient.

 

peanutbutter was using the royal oak case (christopher frizzo) as an example of showing that reguardless of what the law means, there are uneducated officers/district attorneys/judges out there that do not know anything about the law and are breaking it by arresting patients.

[Ms Chocolate]

To the question: Can Garegivers Provide Medicine, To Patients Other Then His Own?

 

In reading Section 4 -Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana - Part 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,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: (1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.

 

So the answer would be NO! Not legally.

[chi_guy]

To the question: Can Garegivers Provide Medicine, To Patients Other Then His Own?

 

In reading Section 4 -Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana - Part 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,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: (1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.

 

So the answer would be NO! Not legally.

[chi_guy]

Time to break it down. Patient to patient transfers are legal no exceptions, so is patient to cg. However cg to cg is legal but still open to interpretation. When reading the act we have to be careful in assuming things without taking the intent of the act as a whole.

 

Clearly the MMA act gives blanket protection to anyone engaged in the medical use of marihuana so long as the end result of that use is for a patient who benefits from it.

 

We need to uphold this, and stop nitpicking about b.s.. I swear that LEO is actively succeeding at scaring this community into submission. Making us believe things are illegal when they are not.

 

(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:

 

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he

or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary

caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying

patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

(3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.

 

Reading Section 4(B) people assume that a primary cg can only assist in the medical use with those whom you are connected to through the department's registration process. But that is incorrect, being connected to someone through the department's registration process as a cg allows two things: Grow 12 plants per person, and or keep 2.5 oz of dried usable per patient you are connected too. So long as you are within these guidelines, this section doesn't restrict transfer's to those you are not connected too. But it does protect you so long as you are not growing or possessing more than you should.

 

Very simple definition of 4(B) primary caregivers are protected for growing or possessing cannabis for patients who are registered to them. So long as they don't exceed plant count or dry usable amount.

[dutch&Dutchess]

only 2 groups oppose P2P

Prohibitionists and

Criminals

[Highlander]

take the worlds 10 best lawyers and put them in a room to debate an issue like this with this law, and they are all going to have different opinions.

 

Catchy, but so far all of the attorneys I have either talked to or read their opinions on-line have weighed in on the side of "p2p transfers are illegal."

[Highlander]

only 2 groups oppose P2P

Prohibitionists and

Criminals

 

I don't see where this debate has even been about who wants p2p to be legal vs. those who want it to be illegal. It is about what protections the law grants us. All of the legal professionals whose opinions I have heard/read have said the transfer is illegal for the transferer. Only laypeople are maintaining that p2p transfers are legal for both sides of the transaction.

[chi_guy]

"only lay people are maintaining p2p transfer are legal"

 

Okay smart guy you think your precious attorneys know it all. Most of us need to realize that most attorneys know jack about the MMMA act. If p2p transfers are illegal than how come the ACLU stated they are legal and willing to take on cases regarding p2p transfers. I guess they are "lay" people like the rest of us. Also if P2P transfers are illegal like you say, that means every patient that passes a joint to another patient would be breaking the law. Because that is also considered a transfer, the same as one patient giving their meds to another patient. If this is so illegal than how come their is med tents in almost every medical cannabis event you go to. I guess they are all criminals.

[philanthropy]

just gotta wait for court cases.... then we all gotta show up and show support to create precedence

[Highlander]

If p2p transfers are illegal than how come the ACLU stated they are legal and willing to take on cases regarding p2p transfers.

 

If the ACLU is willing to take on a p2p case, we know it is with the intent/hope that the matter will set legal precedent, right? And in order to do so, the matter would run through the entire court system from district to circuit, appeals and probably the state supreme court….

 

So who wants to be that front-line patient?

 

When someone says “p2p transfers are 100% legal” it leads patients - sick people – to risk a behavior that could run them through, as Gregory Schimd (One of my precious attorneys who will warn you against p2p transfers) says, “The trauma of litigation.” None of my patients are prepared to run that legal marathon.

 

Kingpinn (Larry King, Shiawassee County, Dog kennel locked enclosure, under appeal by PA)was raided almost a year ago, the PA appealed the case….He’ll probably be in the legal system for 2-3 years total…this a person with a debilitating medical condition….

 

Call p2p patient transfers legal or illegal – it doesn’t matter. There is going to be a test case, and people need to be aware of this risk.

[chi_guy]

The fact of the matter is that p2p's are legal.

 

If you truly need a 100% guarantee that you wont have to go through litigation at some point, you are probably better off not dealing with cannabis at all. Because even if you believe you are operating 100% within the law leo doesn't always operate within the law. Hell, I know card carrying patients who have their meds seized by leo for no good reason, which is a violation of the law per section 4h:

 

(h) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is

possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as

allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be seized or

forfeited.

 

Just because they want p2p to be illegal, and are willing to waste taxpayers money prosecuting patients, doesn't mean it is. If we unite on this subject than they will be less willing to pursue it. But as long as we stay divided on it, they definitely will pursue it. It won't be easy for them to do it being as they really have no legs to stand on, which is why I assume the test case still hasn't come yet.

 

In the Dog Kennel case, correct me if I'm wrong but I heard that the kennel was not secured to the ground and could be lifted up, which could permit access to persons other than a registered patient or a registered caregiver. Because of this unfortunate situation should we be advising patients not to grow outside in locked and enclosed facilities as well.

[Highlander]

The fact of the matter is that p2p's are legal.

 

If you truly need a 100% guarantee that you wont have to go through litigation at some point, you are probably better off not dealing with cannabis at all. Because even if you believe you are operating 100% within the law leo doesn't always operate within the law. Hell, I know card carrying patients who have their meds seized by leo for no good reason, which is a violation of the law per section 4h:

 

(h) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is

possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as

allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be seized or

forfeited.

 

Just because they want p2p to be illegal, and are willing to waste taxpayers money prosecuting patients, doesn't mean it is. If we unite on this subject than they will be less willing to pursue it. But as long as we stay divided on it, they definitely will pursue it. It won't be easy for them to do it being as they really have no legs to stand on, which is why I assume the test case still hasn't come yet.

 

In the Dog Kennel case, correct me if I'm wrong but I heard that the kennel was not secured to the ground and could be lifted up, which could permit access to persons other than a registered patient or a registered caregiver. Because of this unfortunate situation should we be advising patients not to grow outside in locked and enclosed facilities as well.

 

Your definition of "legal" must be that the Affirmative Defense protects such actions; clearly the transfer is not an action one's registration card protects.

 

Saying "p2p transfers are legal" is no different than saying, "You can grow 20 plants per patient." After all, you can always use the AD.

 

What's sad is that LEOs are overstepping bounds of the law, yes....and certain people are encouraging patients to push boundaries in the other direction without advising them of the risks.

[chi_guy]

"Your definition of "legal" must be that the Affirmative Defense protects such actions; clearly the transfer is not an action one's registration card protects."

 

Wrong again my friend, patient transfers are a protection not an Affirmative Defense. This has been explained many times before but let me go through once more for you. Even if I do you probably still will have some negative assertion, but here we go anyway.

 

Section 4a under Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

 

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.

 

This paragraph states that a patient in possession of a registry identification card is protected from arrest or prosecution in any manner for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act. So long as they don't exceed plant count or dry usable amount.

 

This means that a patient is protected for engaging in "medical use"

Now what is the definition of medical use? We will find this under

Section 3e titled "Definitions"

 

(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.

 

Both words "acquisition" and "transfer" fall under this definition. So the party acquiring and the party that is transferring are both protected.

 

No some may say that somehow the part of the paragraph 4a that says "in accordance with this act" means that by transferring meds a patient is not in accordance with the act. Section 4d requires two conditions be met for

it to be presumed that a qualifying patient or caregiver is engaging in the medical use of marijuana in accordance of this act.

1. be in possession of a registry identification card.

2. in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amounts allowed.

 

Now, 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.

 

This has been misinterpreted by people. In the situation of a transfer the end result is alleviating a qualifying patients debilitating condition. It in no way states the parties involved have to be connected through the depts registration process. what it does mean is that if evidence is found that a registered patient or caregiver is engaged in conduct that isn't related to a patient's medical use then they are not engaged in the medical use of marijuana in accordance with this act. i.e. If a patient or a caregiver is selling their meds to the black market.

[philanthropy]

i agree with the logic structure chi_guy presents, we have posted this all before over and over in this thread and the other one.

 

i agree with highlander that people need to understand that there is a risk involved. i agree that there will be arrests (unlawful arrests). i agree that people should be warned about the dangers. but i feel that its time (appropriate social consciousness/support/awareness/acceptance of our cause) for us all to stand up and do what we do and not live in fear. if we are following the law, we should not have any fear. we should not have to act like criminals. and if we do not live in fear, if we do not hide, if we stand up and say publicly "i'm here, i use cannabis, i am not a criminal, i'm your neighbor, i'm your doctor, i'm your lawyer, i'm your waitress/waiter, i'm your mechanic, i'm your mayor, etc..." then the times will continue to change. hope will be returned to the next generation who have lost all belief that the people in this country have any power to enact change. inspiration will ensue.

[Highlander]

 

Now, 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.

 

This has been misinterpreted by people. In the situation of a transfer the end result is alleviating a qualifying patients debilitating condition. It in no way states the parties involved have to be connected through the depts registration process. what it does mean is that if evidence is found that a registered patient or caregiver is engaged in conduct that isn't related to a patient's medical use then they are not engaged in the medical use of marijuana in accordance with this act. i.e. If a patient or a caregiver is selling their meds to the black market.

 

 

(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.

 

The first "the" establishes that there is a specific patient we are talking about....and through the balance of the section, you can't switch patients with "the" patient. The patient we are talking about in the first paragraph is necessarily the same patient we are talking about in the third paragraph.

 

Boiling it down, the Act says: "the patient's" conduct with marijuana must be for the purpose of alleviating "the patient's" condition.

 

Both "the patient's" refer to the same patient.

 

Even in your own summary of the language from the Act, you state "This has been misinterpreted by people. In the situation of a transfer the end result is alleviating a qualifying patients debilitating condition." You use "a" qualifying patient, rather than the "the" qualifying patient that is used in the act, and that makes all the difference.

 

Now if the Act said "the patient's" conduct with marijuana must be for the purpose of alleviating "a patient's" condition.....then I would agree that p2p transfers are not only legal but are also actions protected by one's card status.

 

Let’s start with the presumption that, as a registered patient in possession of marijuana, the patient is engaged in “medical use” of marijuana. The Act protects a patient who is engaged in “medical use” of marijuana from arrest, etc.

 

There are situations in which the patient will lose the presumption of medical use:

1. The patient is in possession of more usable marijuana than is allowed;

2. The patient is in possession of more plants than allowed; or

3. The patient’s conduct with marijuana is not for the purpose of alleviating the patient’s debilitating medical condition.

 

So what does it mean when the patient loses the presumption of medical use? It doesn’t mean that the patient was not engaged in medical use – it just means that it is no longer presumed that patient engaged in medical use. Once the patient is no longer presumed to be engaged in medical use, the patient is subject to arrest, and the burden of proof will be on the patient to prove that he was engaged in medical use. This means that he goes to court.

 

So boil it all down. “Medical use” of marijuana includes transfer to alleviate “a patient’s condition.” But a patient isn’t presumed to be engaged in medical use if his conduct with marijuana is not for the purpose of alleviating his own condition.

 

So the end scenario is that if Patient A transfers to Patient B and neither is the other’s caregiver, then the presumption of medical use is out since the transfer was not for the purpose of alleviating Patient A’s condition. In absence of the presumption of medical use, Patient A is subject to arrest. Patient A will then have to prove that his conduct was for the purpose of alleviating “a patient’s” condition, therefore it meets the definition of medical use.

 

Scenario 1 – The patient’s conduct was for the purpose of alleviating the patient’s condition = presumed medical use = no arrest.

Scenario 2 – The patient’s conduct was not for the purpose of alleviating the patient’s condition = no presumption of medical use = patient gets arrested. Patient then must prove his conduct was for the purpose of helping “a patient” = case dismissed.

 

This isn't my interpretation, this is what has been discussed by several attorneys, including on this website and at CC meetings. This is the opinion of Greg Schmid, who was the attorney behind PRA2000, the ballot initiative effort in 2000 for legalization...so please don't assume that those of us who advocate presentation of conservative analysis of the Act are against this cause.

 

So to say p2p is legal...yeah...if the transfer was for the purpose of alleviating a patient's condition, then there appears to be a strong if not guaranteed legal defense against conviction, but people need to understand that "legal" does not necessarily mean that you are protected from arrest.

[chi_guy]

(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:

 

Yes I did say that section d is misinterpreted and you seem to be one of those who deliberately misinterpret it. Throwing Greg Scmhid's name around doesn't make your points anymore valid.

 

You said:

 

"But a patient isn’t presumed to be engaged in medical use if his conduct with marijuana is not for the purpose of alleviating his own condition"

 

You assume the word "the" automatically means the patient making the transfer and not the one receiving. A patient can't transfer to him or herself. The reason why it says "the" instead of "a" is because the "conduct" has to be directly related to "the" patient not "a" patient. If patient A transfers to patient B the conduct in question is the transfer. The transfer is not related to Patient's A condition but is related to patient B's condition. therefore the purpose of the conduct related to marihuana in this scenario is for alleviating the qualifying patient's condition.

[Highlander]

(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:

 

You assume the word "the" automatically means the patient making the transfer and not the one receiving. A patient can't transfer to him or herself. The reason why it says "the" instead of "a" is because the "conduct" has to be directly related to "the" patient not "a" patient. If patient A transfers to patient B the conduct in question is the transfer. The transfer is not related to Patient's A condition but is related to patient B's condition. therefore the purpose of the conduct related to marihuana in this scenario is for alleviating the qualifying patient's condition.

 

No - the word "the" refers to both patients, but only one at a time. By definition, the word, “the” is used to restrict the meaning of a noun to a specific item.

 

For example and using names for the sake of this discussion, "Giver" and "Receiver” to designate the two patients involved in the transfer:

 

You can’t use Giver as “the patient” in the first paragraph and then use Receiver as “the patient” in the third paragraph. The definite article, “the” restricts the specific meaning of each instance of “the” to the identical meaning of the first one in each context.

 

You have to run “Giver” and “Receiver” through the presumption test individually.

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that GIVER is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if GIVER:

(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 GIVER’S debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

And

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that RECEIVER is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if RECEIVER:

(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 RECEIVER'S debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

So using our example of “transfer” we get:

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that GIVER is engaged in the TRANSFER of marihuana in accordance with this act if GIVER:

(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 the conduct related to [TRANSFER OF] marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating GIVER’S debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

This makes perfect sense and means that if GIVER transfers marijuana and the transfer was not for the purpose of alleviating GIVER’s condition, then the presumption can be rebutted. Whether GIVER can transfer to himself doesn’t matter because the grammatical construction of this part does not ever state that. Proper use of the definite article does not mean that the Giver transfers to himself….just that the guy we’re talking about who transfers in the first paragraph is the same guy were talking about in the third.

 

So what the Act does not say (but you contend it does) is:

 

d) There shall be a presumption that GIVER is engaged in the TRANSFER of marihuana in accordance with this act if GIVER:

(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 the conduct related to [TRANSFER OF] marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating RECEIVER’S debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

The Congressional Research Service has published a good document on statutory interpretation that covers these topics.

 

http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/CRS/CRS-ON-97-589.pdf

[chi_guy]

I like you

 

The only problem I see with your assertion is you state that since it says "the patient" in the first paragraph and it says "the patient" in the third paragraph these two have to be one in the same. I can agree with this, however, the first paragraph in the beginning specifically says:

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.

 

Since here it says "a" instead of "the" this could mean any qualifying patient or caregiver. So if we use your example:

 

There shall be a presumption that Giver is engaged in the transfer of marihuana in accordance with this act if the Receiver:

(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 the conduct related to [TRANSFER OF] marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating RECEIVER’S debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

The receiver is "the patient" and giver is "a" patient

[UrbanFarmer]

Okay gentleman, question: If both the giver and receiver are both car holding patients, doesn't that pretty much automatically create the presumption that both are engaged in the transaction for medical use? Unless, of course, it's already been established that the receiving patient is a black market seller?