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

[Highlander]

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?

 

I think this is where chi_guy and I will probably agree to disagree - or maybe we'll agree - I don't know yet.

 

But what we do agree on is that the definition of medical use is (for example) "transfer for the purpose of helping "a" patient" and so even if the presumption falls as I have claimed it will/may, the statute still extends protection to both GIVER and RECEIVER.

[Highlander]

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

 

Think of this example.

 

There are a bunch of dogs at the pound; your wife says - go to the pound and get a dog, then bring the dog home, feed the dog, water the dog, and put the dog to bed.

 

"A dog" refers to one of the many dogs. Once you choose a dog, you are stuck with that same dog for the rest of the paragraph. You don't go to the pound and pick Fido and then come home and feed Max.

 

You said, "Since here it says "a" instead of "the" this could mean any qualifying patient or caregiver."

 

We found the root of your misunderstanding. "A" does not and cannot mean "any." The two words have very different meanings in grammar and statutory construction. I would agree with your entire assertion if the clause said "any patient" but since it says "a patient" followed by "the patient" we are talking about the same patient. This isn't a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of fact.

 

So what all this really means -

 

If a (non-CG) patient transfers to another patient for the benefit of the receiver's medical condition, then the giver is engaged in medical use of marijuana and is protected. But the act does not presume that the giving patient is engaged in medical use in this instance - it isn't an automatic conclusion. It could be up to the giver to prove (in court) that the transfer was for the benefit of the receiver and, therefore, meets the definition of medical use.

[westmich]

"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.

 

Thank you for explaining your position and how you arrived at it. I think it gives patients who take your advice some insight. I only wish you would have started here in the first place.

 

If I was a newb and read your first statement I would get pretty excited. I would think, "Wow! I have patient card and it lets me legally sell pot to anyone else with a patient card even if I have a felony conviction." That's awesome! Why didn't I hear about it in the news, though? Why isn't LEO bitching from the rooftops that the whole place is going to hell in a hand-basket because anyone with a patient card can now sell weed.

 

That's what really pisses me off about this debate. People state that it is 100% legal like a bald faced fact. You ask them to back it up and it's take the word "the" here and the word "the" from the glossary section of the law and of course it always depends on what the meaning of the word "is", is. Give me a break. If you want to sell that bad go become a caregiver.

 

And I am not trying to be a hypocrite. I have purchased pot for 20 years and it never once came from a registered caregiver. I have helped others out since I can now legally grow. But the question wasn't what will you do or what is morally right, the question is what is legal.

[Guest Wayne]

Careful what you wish for. Legal? I've said it many times before. Prove your point. Go down to the local LEO and make the transaction in the lobby and make sure an officer is at the desk to observe. Tell them you making a point and are engaging in a totally legal transaction, provide them copies of your cards. Better yet have someone take video, post it on You Tube (guaranteed millions of hits the first day), and provide a copy to LEO Then just walk away a free citizen. You will be educating LEO on the law and proving your point.

Then take all this before the rules committee if reconvened to make changes. We can't possibly lose any rights. Even a committee appointed by a ultra-conservative republican governor after the next election cycle would be afraid to touch the rules. Even if matters like this are brought to their attention by the LEO lobby, the prosecutors lobby, or all the anti medical marijuana group as a coalition, we outnumber them and can mobilize an army that will crush them politically with our influence and power. Don't ya think????

To date many answers will be coming via the courts and unfortunately by brave individuals of this community, many who will suffer great loss and personal grief to affirm our rights. Shall we honor them by poking our fingers in the eye of LEO, prosecutors, and the community at large by making these needless arguments? Not me!

It's as plain as the nose on your face. Civil disobedience may be technically illegal, and you may risk prosecution (persecution?) if caught engaging in it, but morally it's up to you and your concience.

[Highlander]

Careful what you wish for. Legal? I've said it many times before. Prove your point. Go down to the local LEO and make the transaction in the lobby and make sure an officer is at the desk to observe. Tell them you making a point and are engaging in a totally legal transaction, provide them copies of your cards. Then just walk away a free citizen. You will be educating LEO on the law and proving your point.

Then take all this before the rules committe if reconvened to make changes. We can't possibly lose any rights. Even a committe appointed by a ultra-conservative republican governor after the next election cycle would be afraid to touch the rules. Even if matters like this are brought to their attention by the LEO lobby, the prosecutors lobby, or all the anti medical marijuana group as a coalition, we outnumber them and can mobilize an army that will crush them politically with our influence and power. Don't ya think????

 

I like this approach. If someone is willing to shout to the masses "p2p transfers are 100% legal," then they ought to put their own neck on the line; otherwise he is just trying to lure someone else to be that test case.

[Guest Wayne]

Most of my non-cannabis using neighbors who supported us didn't understand the Proposal to mean an open wide market of pt2pt/c2c transfers. They read it the same way I did. Were they aware, many would significantly alter their opinions. Who's side you want the public on? The public made the difference, they can again. Oops I'm sorry overturning this thing is IMPOSSIBLE, the equivalent of a man scaling the summit of Mt. Everest naked, without equipment or support teams.

My mistake, sorry!

[dutch&Dutchess]

ANYONE assisting a patient in obtaining medication is protected...ANYONE...it is black and white in the law....read it and weep. I know several lawyers who not only see the legality but also engage in p2p almost daily

[Guest Wayne]

So the Mexican cartels can then set up shop and legally distribute brickweed at discounted prices as long as they strictly transfer to patients, and maybe caregivers, in possession of the legal paperwork? How cool is that. One of the narcotics team members testified at Bud's trial that the going price on the street when they make buys is $100 an ounce. Get the word out and let the competition roll.

[dutch&Dutchess]

So the Mexican cartels can then set up shop and legally distribute brickweed at discounted prices as long as they strictly transfer to patients, and maybe caregivers, in possession of the legal paperwork? How cool is that. One of the narcotics team members testified at Bud's trial that the going price on the street when they make buys is $100 an ounce. Get the word out and let the competition roll.

Yes they can and may indeed be trying to figure out how they can do it without tipping their hand as to who they are. WE need to set up an SRO that can certify cannabis medically

[Guest Wayne]

Will there be an appeals process if a caregiver's medicine is not certified by the SRO? This is fun. ny

[chi_guy]

"Wow! I have patient card and it lets me legally sell pot to anyone else with a patient card even if I have a felony conviction."

 

"If someone is willing to shout to the masses "p2p transfers are 100% legal," then they ought to put their own neck on the line; otherwise he is just trying to lure someone else to be that test case."

 

Look I'm not trying to tell anyone to do anything nor am I trying to lure people to become test cases. There plenty of possible test cases out there anyway.

 

My neck has been on the line for those in the community who know me. What I don't like is members of our community telling people that it is illegal. I don't care if people with felonies or anyone else wants to transfer, if they are transferring to people with cards. To me it's better than forcing them to support the Cartels by going to the street to by "brick" because they are patient's waiting to harvest or their CG screwed up and is out of meds. Also there is no Health insurance covering the costs of patient's meds and I support those that can recoup these costs by transferring to other patients.

 

By saying it is illegal we are implying as I said before that patient's who pass a joint to each other are criminals. I can't swallow that.

[Highlander]

I don’t see passing (except for the guy who owned the joint in the first place) a joint as “transfer of marijuana” if the person you hand it to is a patient. The guy who brought the joint transfers it to the group. Each other smoker who merely takes a hit and passes it along is assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

Let’s use an example:

 

Guy A: He is Guy B’s CG and also a patient (note that a CG can help a patient with “medical use” of marijuana. A patient has the right to “medical use” of marijuana)

Guy B: Registered qualifying patient

Guy C: Registered qualifying patient

Guy D: LEO with a valid patient card

 

1. Guy A pulls out a joint, lights it, and hands it to Guy B

2. Guy B takes a hit and passes the joint to guy C;

3. Guy C takes a hit and passes it to Guy D;

4. Guy D takes a hit and says “wow, this instantly erased my back pain”

5. Guy A gives Guy D a bag of the same meds they are smoking.

6. All hell breaks loose, and cops swarm in.

7. Guy D decides to be an donkey and say “ha ha ha, gotcha stupid “medical marijuana” fools. Yeah, my back hurts and I got a card, but we all know that this whole medical marijuana thing is a big joke any anyone who uses MJ “medically” is just getting high.”

 

Guy A gets arrested for the act of giving marijuana to Guy D. Since Guy A isn’t Guy D’s caregiver, the presumption that the transfer was “medical use” (transfer to help a patient) isn’t valid since. Now Guy A must go to court and prove that the transfer was for medical use.

 

And since “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.”

 

Guy A’s case is dismissed. He transferred MJ to a LEO for the purpose of alleviating LEO’s qualifying condition. It doesn’t matter that LEO was crafting a sting. Guy A’s purpose for transferring the MJ to guy D was for the purpose of alleviating Guy D’s condition.

 

Guy B doesn’t get arrested. He used marijuana, provided by his legal CG. He then assisted Guy C with “using” marijuana. Anyone can do that.

 

Guy C does not get arrested either. He got MJ from another patient, which is 100% OK. He then assisted Guy D with “using” marijuana just like Guy B did.

 

Guy D. Now Guy D has a real problem. He just smoked some pot and then went on to make a case against himself…that MJ isn’t medicine and it doesn’t work. So Guy D, while a patient, had conduct with marijuana that was not for the purpose of alleviating his qualifying condition (he said so). So Guy D loses the presumption that his conduct was medical use. So the poor gentleman gets arrested.

 

Now that Guy D’s presumption of medical use is lost, he goes to court to try to prove that he was engaged in medical use. But once in court, the evidence all points to his use not being for the purpose of alleviating his condition. Therefore, his conduct with marijuana was not “medical use,” and he is not protected from conviction.

 

So after all this, I’d offer that p2p transfers are legal – yes even 100% legal (assuming both patients are genuinely registered, etc.), but if the transferor is not the receiver’s CG, the transferor could be arrested and tried but would not be convicted…EVEN if he transferred to a patient who was also a LEO as long as the transfer was made for the purpose of alleviating the receiver’s condition.

 

So the real danger lies in the patient doing the transferring NOT knowing if the receiving patient is who he says he is, that his card is real, and that his card has not been revoked. Transfer to one of those (non patient) guys and you are sunk.

 

If this analysis is watertight (and I’m starting to believe it is), then any transfer of MJ between registered patients may allow for the “giver” to be arrested but not convicted….and what would be the point of LEO arresting or harassing any person they knew could not be convicted?

 

Under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act "A person may request an agency to promulgate a rule. Within 90 days after filing of a request, the agency shall initiate the processing of a rule or issue a concise written statement of its principal reasons for denial of the request. The denial of a request is not subject to judicial review."

 

The AG’s office has already deferred clarification of gray areas to MDCH through the Administrative Procedures Act (after last year’s rally in Lansing.)

 

So why not approach the MDCH with:

- P2P transfers are legal (insert qualified legal analysis)

- Yet P2P transfers may subject patients to arrest

- Arresting and trying patients for p2p transfers is a waste of valuable court and law enforcement resources

- MJ is legal for patients to possess and use, but this right is hampered by lack of an efficient distribution system. P2p transfers will keep money out of the black market.

 

And ask them to promulgate the following rule:

 

“There shall be a presumption that any registered qualifying patient engaged in the transfer of marijuana to any other registered qualifying patient is engaged in the medical use of marijuana.”

 

There really isn’t a good reason for the MDCH not to agree to this – is there?

 

That would solve this whole issue….get the presumption of medical use to extend to the “giver.”

 

So let’s ask the MDCH to add this rule? Get a bunch of us patients to sign a petition asking the MDCH to promulgate this one rule.

 

Who’s on board?

[chi_guy]

Anytime possession goes from one person to another a transfer occurs. Since the Act doesn't define what is considered a "transfer" we go by the Legal definition which is:

 

transfer 1) the movement of property from one person or entity to another. 2) passage of title to property from the owner to another person. 3) a piece of paper given to allow a person or shipment to continue travel.

 

dictionary law.com

 

Now that we all agree p2p transfers are legal. Is it legal to receive renumeration for the transfer? In other words is it legal for the "Giver" to get paid by "Receiver" for the transfer?

 

The 2nd definition of transfer is passage of title to property from the owner to another person. In situations of passage of title there usually is payment involved.

 

Is this something people should consider or does it not matter?

[dutch&Dutchess]

I don’t see passing (except for the guy who owned the joint in the first place) a joint as “transfer of marijuana” if the person you hand it to is a patient. The guy who brought the joint transfers it to the group. Each other smoker who merely takes a hit and passes it along is assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

Let’s use an example:

 

Guy A: He is Guy B’s CG and also a patient (note that a CG can help a patient with “medical use” of marijuana. A patient has the right to “medical use” of marijuana)

Guy B: Registered qualifying patient

Guy C: Registered qualifying patient

Guy D: LEO with a valid patient card

 

1. Guy A pulls out a joint, lights it, and hands it to Guy B

2. Guy B takes a hit and passes the joint to guy C;

3. Guy C takes a hit and passes it to Guy D;

4. Guy D takes a hit and says “wow, this instantly erased my back pain”

5. Guy A gives Guy D a bag of the same meds they are smoking.

6. All hell breaks loose, and cops swarm in.

7. Guy D decides to be an donkey and say “ha ha ha, gotcha stupid “medical marijuana” fools. Yeah, my back hurts and I got a card, but we all know that this whole medical marijuana thing is a big joke any anyone who uses MJ “medically” is just getting high.”

 

Guy A gets arrested for the act of giving marijuana to Guy D. Since Guy A isn’t Guy D’s caregiver, the presumption that the transfer was “medical use” (transfer to help a patient) isn’t valid since. Now Guy A must go to court and prove that the transfer was for medical use.

 

And since “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.”

 

Guy A’s case is dismissed. He transferred MJ to a LEO for the purpose of alleviating LEO’s qualifying condition. It doesn’t matter that LEO was crafting a sting. Guy A’s purpose for transferring the MJ to guy D was for the purpose of alleviating Guy D’s condition.

 

Guy B doesn’t get arrested. He used marijuana, provided by his legal CG. He then assisted Guy C with “using” marijuana. Anyone can do that.

 

Guy C does not get arrested either. He got MJ from another patient, which is 100% OK. He then assisted Guy D with “using” marijuana just like Guy B did.

 

Guy D. Now Guy D has a real problem. He just smoked some pot and then went on to make a case against himself…that MJ isn’t medicine and it doesn’t work. So Guy D, while a patient, had conduct with marijuana that was not for the purpose of alleviating his qualifying condition (he said so). So Guy D loses the presumption that his conduct was medical use. So the poor gentleman gets arrested.

 

Now that Guy D’s presumption of medical use is lost, he goes to court to try to prove that he was engaged in medical use. But once in court, the evidence all points to his use not being for the purpose of alleviating his condition. Therefore, his conduct with marijuana was not “medical use,” and he is not protected from conviction.

 

So after all this, I’d offer that p2p transfers are legal – yes even 100% legal (assuming both patients are genuinely registered, etc.), but if the transferor is not the receiver’s CG, the transferor could be arrested and tried but would not be convicted…EVEN if he transferred to a patient who was also a LEO as long as the transfer was made for the purpose of alleviating the receiver’s condition.

 

So the real danger lies in the patient doing the transferring NOT knowing if the receiving patient is who he says he is, that his card is real, and that his card has not been revoked. Transfer to one of those (non patient) guys and you are sunk.

 

If this analysis is watertight (and I’m starting to believe it is), then any transfer of MJ between registered patients may allow for the “giver” to be arrested but not convicted….and what would be the point of LEO arresting or harassing any person they knew could not be convicted?

 

Under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act "A person may request an agency to promulgate a rule. Within 90 days after filing of a request, the agency shall initiate the processing of a rule or issue a concise written statement of its principal reasons for denial of the request. The denial of a request is not subject to judicial review."

 

The AG’s office has already deferred clarification of gray areas to MDCH through the Administrative Procedures Act (after last year’s rally in Lansing.)

 

So why not approach the MDCH with:

- P2P transfers are legal (insert qualified legal analysis)

- Yet P2P transfers may subject patients to arrest

- Arresting and trying patients for p2p transfers is a waste of valuable court and law enforcement resources

- MJ is legal for patients to possess and use, but this right is hampered by lack of an efficient distribution system. P2p transfers will keep money out of the black market.

 

And ask them to promulgate the following rule:

 

“There shall be a presumption that any registered qualifying patient engaged in the transfer of marijuana to any other registered qualifying patient is engaged in the medical use of marijuana.”

 

There really isn’t a good reason for the MDCH not to agree to this – is there?

 

That would solve this whole issue….get the presumption of medical use to extend to the “giver.”

 

So let’s ask the MDCH to add this rule? Get a bunch of us patients to sign a petition asking the MDCH to promulgate this one rule.

 

Who’s on board?

verbose response to say the least but bottom line....the law already says in effect what you state above

anyone assisting a patient in obtaining medication is protected

it really is quite that simple.

[Guest finallyfree09]

i already posted this in another thread but i will post it again here since no one has taken notice of this little gem of a passage from the law...

 

sec 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 proffesional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana in accordance with this act or for assisting a refistered qualifying patient with using or ADMINISTERING marihuana.

 

 

definition of administering...

 

1) to have charge of; manage

2)

a) to give or apply ain a formal way; administer last rites

B) to apply as a remedy; administer a sedative

c) to direct the taking of; an oath

3) to mete out; dispense: administer justice

 

 

if you look up the definition to dispense it says to supply or administer. interesting eh?

[chi_guy]

Yes, we all know about 4i

 

It's tricky because The person in question is not using or administering the marihuana. They are "assisting" a registered patient with using or adminstering marihuana. The language of this suggests that a person can assist, if that assistance is can be construed as a transfer to the patient than you are right. But if the person in question isn't able to legally possess in the first place i.e. not patient or a caregiver than it also a sticky situation.

[Guest Wayne]

Me thinks this community likes contributing arguments for prosecutorial consideration. If we can do it, they can too, in front of a jury. Shall we expend our energy defending the core principles of this law, or shall we push limits at every opportunity, in every manner possible? Gonna be an interesting battle. But then we have the same unlimited resources that LEO, prosecutors, and anti marijuana politician's do. On this even ground we can't possibly lose anything, anytime, anywhere. Total victory is close at hand. The enemy will surrender unconditionally any day now. So push, push ,push 'em back where they belong.

I don't believe LEO, prosecutors, or anti marijuana politicians and their supporters will even consider introducing any rule changes to the MDCH if we petition them to open the rules for our amendments, what possible changes could they request anyway? Nothing I can think of. Even if they do I'm certain the MDCH rules committe will be looking to only strengthen and broaden our rights and protections, leaving the opposition in the same confused state they find themselves in now.

[chi_guy]

I know we've been through this but I still feel we need some clarification.

 

It was stated in previous threads that in section 4d which states:

 

(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 legal gurus state that the patient who is "engaged" the medical use of marihuana must do so in order to alleviate his or hers own medical condition and not to alleviate another patient's condition.

Now this suggests that patients cannot transfer meds at all. Because the legal definition of transfer means

change of ownership.

 

Now if we look at Section 8 Affirmative Defense and Dismissal for Medical Marihuana.

 

This section doesn't necessarily apply to Registered patients or cg's but it gives some insight on the issue at hand.

 

Section 8a 3

 

The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in

the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or

transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to

treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms

of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

 

Section 8a 3 is written very similarly to section 4d

 

Instead of saying the patient or primary cg were "engaged" in the "medical use" of marihuana. As it

does in the first section of 4d. In section 8a3 it specifically says the patient or primary cg were

"engaged" the "transfer" of marihuana or paraphernalia.

 

Now again since a patient can't transfer to him or herself. There is no way a patient can transfer to

alleviate his or her own condition.

 

This is my last post on this issue.

[peanutbutter]

 

Section 8a 3

 

The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in

the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or

transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to

treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms

of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

 

Section 8a 3 is written very similarly to section 4d

 

Instead of saying the patient or primary cg were "engaged" in the "medical use" of marihuana. As it

does in the first section of 4d. In section 8a3 it specifically says the patient or primary cg were

"engaged" the "transfer" of marihuana or paraphernalia.

 

Now again since a patient can't transfer to him or herself. There is no way a patient can transfer to

alleviate his or her own condition.

 

This is my last post on this issue.

Is it lawful, in either locations, for a patient to acquire marijuana? Yes. There have been people that have claimed that the law does not allow a patient to "obtain" marijuana. That argument seems to have died off.

 

Now then, in either section, a caregiver may also acquire the medicine. Does that action directly benefit the patient? No it does not. Not directly. The acquiring of material by the caregiver is for the benefit of the patient, later, in a second transfer that takes place between the patient and caregiver. The first "transfer" being between the caregiver and the source of the marijuana that allows the caregiver to have the medicine for the patient.

 

1. caregiver purchases marijuana for his/her patient. Legal transfer as long as the patient receives the medicine ultimately.

2. patient receives the medicine from the caregiver. Again, legal transfer.

 

It is flawed to argue that the patient must receive an immediate benefit to their person for the transaction to be legal. As I've just pointed out, it is lawful for the caregiver to acquire for the patient. In that case the benefit to the patient is delayed and not immediate. Therefore delayed benefit to the patient makes the action by the caregiver lawful.

 

Delayed benefit to patients, will provide legal protections to caregivers and others.

[simonbloomfield]

There are negative people and then there are people who have taken the time to consult with legal professionals in order to provide sound advice.

 

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 protected.

 

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. The affirmative defense may get you off the hook - after you are dragged through the courts.

 

I’d like to know where you formed this opinion and why you are so absolute. Did Victor Vicious say on the radio that p2p transfers are legal? Or did you pick this up from one of the many people who want sooo badly for p2p transfers to be protected?

 

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?

 

Believe what you want, but please don’t present this view as absolute. It confuses people and will likely get someone into trouble.

I'm going to save your response to this question. It is by far the most definitive and logical answer to the question....."I am a Caregiver/Patient, Can I supply other patients medicine"? Thanks for taking the time.

[nigel]

Well, I finally made it through this thread. Can't lie though, I did skim through some. Was suprised to see all the neg rep handed out.

 

But there are "clubs" or "dispensaries" activily operating in more than just a couple major Michigan cities. The Ypsi place has been doors open for quite some time. The Lansing place had an article in the NEWS depicting the very details of the MM sale. And I'm sure Ann Arbor has something as well. LEO is obviously well aware of all these places. They have not been shut down. These are facts. Are they not?

 

I believe Michigan is heading in a similar direction as California. Not with the dispensary aspect. But with the total cluster f**k of having every county or city having it's own rules and regulations on the law. Which is once again another bulls**t burden placed on the patient.

[Highlander]

Well, I finally made it through this thread. Can't lie though, I did skim through some. Was suprised to see all the neg rep handed out.

 

Yeah, it is pretty sad to get negative reps for trying to respectfully provide a viewpoint in an attempt to keep people out of jail.

[peanutbutter]

There are negative people and then there are people who have taken the time to consult with legal professionals in order to provide sound advice.

 

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 protected.

I disagree with you. Does that make me a negative person?

 

I've spoken to attorney's on this topic before. Some I disagree with.

 

Have you spoken with any judges about p2p yet? Seems they would be more important than lawyers.

 

You state "of medical use..in this case "transfer" ."

 

You seem to equate the word "transfer" to the word "acquire." That is, you are only considering the person who is the receiver of the material.

 

OK .. you wish to twist the meaning of the word "transfer." How about "delivery?"

 

Tell me how I can "deliver" and not be handing the material to someone else?

 

I'll save you some time .. You'll shift the meaning of the words "transfer" and "delivery" again. Now you'll say that those words are indeed talking about a second person. But it is limited to the patients caregiver. Even though it doesn't say that at all.

 

The only qualifier, in the what is "medical use" section, is about the patient. There is no qualifier for the second person in the transaction. Nor is it limited to two people. The section clearly has several verbs that show more than one person may be involved in a protected transaction.

 

How about this one:

 

I'm a patient without a caregiver. Because I'm a patient I can "acquire" marijuana for my own medical purposes. That would be "medical use" under the law. I think we agree, so far.

 

My friend, who doesn't have any kind of medical condition, may lawfully assist me in my "medical use."

I'm out of herb and he knows someone ... Doesn't the law say my friend can assist me?

[ZsBuds]

the act DOES clearly state that a caregiver can only provide for THEIR patients.

 

333.26424 (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.

 

(bold) which means, that they have to be YOUR registered patient to provide for them. i actually had this question before; asked the question on both patient and caregiver side: if my primary c.g. happens to be out, can i go to another registered c.g.? if im a registered c.g. and a registered patient came to me and said their c.g. was out, can i provide them? emailed the state at the MMMP/MMMA and they told me no, has to be registered as your patient/c.g.

[Highlander]

 

My friend, who doesn't have any kind of medical condition, may lawfully assist me in my "medical use."

I'm out of herb and he knows someone ... Doesn't the law say my friend can assist me?

 

The law doesn't say your friend can assist you with "medical use" and all those amazing verbs included under that umbrella.

 

It says that your friend can assist you with "using" or "administering" medical marijuana.

 

I don't believe that helping someone "use" marijuana would include going and getting it....if this were the case it would be no different if your non-cg friend grew marijuana for you too.

 

"Use" is not "medical use." In fact "use" is one of the verbs included in the definition of "medical use," which is a pretty good indication that "use" has a more limited definition than the broader "medical use." And while "use" can be employed as a defense for a variety of actions, I believe time will show that "use" means generally helping cook with it or prepare a bowl, roll a joint, etc. for people who need help to use it.

 

And 'no' I do not believe that you are a negative person for disagreeing with me any more than I see myself as a negative person for presenting what might be the minority (but legally safer) opinion. The negativity results when the grown adults on this site can't seem to disagree with class.

 

Your question "have you asked a judge?" is the most important thing you said...and perhaps "have you asked an appeals court judge or supreme court justice?" is an even better question.....as it will likely be one or more of those folks who settle this and other debates once and for all.

 

That's what it comes down to.

 

It doesn't matter what we patients and caregivers think, what LEO thinks, what the PAs and lower court judges think, what VV or Peanutbutter, Greg, Brad, Greg Schmid, Matt Able, or the average voter believes.

 

What will matter is what judge/jury think. And the very fact that the decision will be made by them should give anyone reason enough to pause and think before they act on any of these matters of debate.