Are We Allowed To Dispense Meds. To Paitents That Arent Ours?

[bobandtorey]

i think this is what they were saying

http://www.legislatu...z01nf25i2rut445))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-333-26424

 

333.26424 Qualifying patient or primary caregiver; arrest, prosecution, or penalty

 

(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:

 

does not exceed: ???

[esadmf]

ok well i have yet to read any where in the law that it says that caregiver transfers must be to only one of their own five patients.

 

Section 4b of the Law states that “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,

 

the way section 4b reads is that both only need be connected through states registry. IE: each is registered with the state. but i have yet to read they need to be specially registered to each other. the registration process is not defined by law as the what connected through is defined as.. if the word solely was thrown in their then there would be no question. very gray .

uncle fornicator is satan

 

[thexception]

I havent read the whole thread, but the answer is absolutely NO. So anyone doing this or offering "overages" is not within the law as written. Their will always be those trying to find a gray area where there is none.

 

The verbage pertaining to this states VERY CLEARLY: The caregiver must sign a statement agreeing to provide marihuana only to the qualifying patients who have named the individual as their caregiver.

 

The meaning is VERY CLEAR, you can ONLY provide MJ to the patients that have named YOU the caregiver as such. And you SIGNED a statement agreeing to that.

 

Having said that I sometimes wish that everyone that is SELLING MJ to patients not registered as THEIRS, would have their cards YANKED then maybe it wouldnt take 4 MONTHS to get a card for the REAL MEDICAL USERS & caregivers working within the current law & grateful for it!!! You cant SELL MJ, you can only get compensated for its procurement. And since a caregiver with 5 patients is already compensated by the patients, either there arent ANY overages OR if there are them being passed to other people, then becomes an outright SALE of MJ, plain & simple.

 

Which brings me to dispenseries. The only way I can see that, this can be neither legal nor illegal (since there is no verbage about them whatsoever) is that the dispensary/business owner, has NO registered cards, not even for themselves. Because even if they have a card for themselves, listing themselves as a caregiver, again they are limited to 12 plants & only for themselves. Where as we all know a dispensary is SELLING MJ, (nothing more) I think outside the "caregiver & registered arena" that doesnt seem to be legal or illegal within the state law; but that is just my opinion.

[StonedPlanet]

patient to patient transactions are legal.

so ask yourself this question instead:

 

are you a patient looking make a trade with another patient? or a cg looking to have more than 5 patients?

 

if you answered that you are a patient yourself and want to trade with another patient, that IS covered in the MMMA.

[Hempcheff]

ok well i have yet to read any where in the law that it says that caregiver transfers must be to only one of their own five patients.

 

Section 4b of the Law states that “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,

 

the way section 4b reads is that both only need be connected through states registry. IE: each is registered with the state. but i have yet to read they need to be specially registered to each other. the registration process is not defined by law as the what connected through is defined as.. if the word solely was thrown in their then there would be no question. very gray .

uncle fornicator is satan

 

 

I agree 100% with your post, in fact id go as far as to say the 5 patient limit imposed on a caregiver is to cull the activity of excessive GROWING, as the law clearly states that a caregiver can assist A patient, not "his/her" or "the", with the medical use.

 

in addition:

 

"Section 4b of the Law states that “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,"

 

the registry is the connection, not the individual relationship between a caregiver and the patients they signed on. if that were the interperetation, then by the wording we would only be able to assist patients with medical use "at the departments registration process" and that makes no sense at all. so that last part of the sentence describes the registry, not the place where medical use takes place. Here is an easier, color coded breakdown

 

 

1. “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,

 

2. for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected

 

3.through the department's registration process

 

with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act,"

 

reading it this way would limit the caregiver to only the patients they signed on, and would only limit them to assisting someone "at" the registration process

 

doesnt make much sense to remove #3 from #2 does it? with that being the case, #2 and #3 together is someting alltogether different, and signifies that the departments "registration process" itself is the link that connects all patients and caregivers.

 

remember, if a=b, (P2P) and b=c (P2CG) then a=c (CG2CG) because the patient is covered for acquiring from any source with medical use, and the CG is covered by ASSISTING with medical use, which by definition allows the transfer TO patients by caregivers.

[Irishgreen]

Actually Prop 1 made two links. One for registered patients and caregivers and one for unregistered patients and caregivers. The first is the registered qualifying patient and registered caregiver. Those protections are covered in Section 4 of the Act and how the Department of Community Health will administer the registration process is covered in Section 6. This is the strongest link. It protects from arrest, prosecution, penalty and so on. It limits the number of plants to 12 and the amount a patient and caregiver may possess to 2.5 ounces each and it limits a patient to only one primary caregiver and a caregiver to a maximum of 5 patients.

 

Unregistered patients and caregivers are protected under Section 8, the Affirmative Defense (AD.) These protections are much broader. They have no limits on how many caregivers a patient can acquire from or on how many patients an unregistered caregiver can assist with the medical use of cannabis. Medical use is defined in Section 2 of the act and includes acquisition and transfer, cultivation and manufacture etc. The only limit on quantity is no more than reasonably necessary to provide an uninterrupted supply of medicine.

 

The main problem with Section 8 is it doesn't protect from arrest and prosecution. In other words, you have already been busted when you assert the AD.

 

 

You are absolutely 100% correct.

[Highlander]

Your interpretation is flawed because the phrase "connected through the department's registration process" becomes redundant with "registered qualifying patient" and "registered primary caregiver." The term "registered" necessitates that we are talking about a patient or CG who have been both been through the registration process.

 

If the patient is "registered" and the CG is "registered," and if your interpretation is correct, then the phrase "through the Dept.'s registration process" becomes unnecessary because "registered" means that both patient and CG are in the registry.

 

Standard staturotry interpretation says that every word/phrase has meaning; it is there for a reason. Therefore, the only conclusion one can come to is that the relationship defined by "connected through the registration process" is not the same relationship or set of circumstances that exist when two people happen to be registered in the same registry but not formally associated.

 

But interestingly, is says a "primary CG who has been issed and possess a card can assist a qualifying patient" It doesn't say "registered qualifying patient" but of course the patient would have to at least have his paperwork submitted to the Dept. It doesn't say the patient has to be "registered." So I believe that the correct interpretation is that a CG with a card can help a patient who has submitted the paperwork naming the caregiver. Nothing about 20 days. Nothing about the CG needs to have a card with the patient's name on it...just "a card."

 

So what this language tells us is that if I am a CG or patient with a card already (any registry ID card), I can sign up a new patient, submit the paperwork, and safely assist that patient starting day 1.

 

 

 

 

I agree 100% with your post, in fact id go as far as to say the 5 patient limit imposed on a caregiver is to cull the activity of excessive GROWING, as the law clearly states that a caregiver can assist A patient, not "his/her" or "the", with the medical use.

 

in addition:

 

"Section 4b of the Law states that “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,"

 

the registry is the connection, not the individual relationship between a caregiver and the patients they signed on. if that were the interperetation, then by the wording we would only be able to assist patients with medical use "at the departments registration process" and that makes no sense at all. so that last part of the sentence describes the registry, not the place where medical use takes place. Here is an easier, color coded breakdown

 

 

1. “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,

 

2. for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected

 

3.through the department's registration process

 

with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act,"

 

reading it this way would limit the caregiver to only the patients they signed on, and would only limit them to assisting someone "at" the registration process

 

doesnt make much sense to remove #3 from #2 does it? with that being the case, #2 and #3 together is someting alltogether different, and signifies that the departments "registration process" itself is the link that connects all patients and caregivers.

 

remember, if a=b, (P2P) and b=c (P2CG) then a=c (CG2CG) because the patient is covered for acquiring from any source with medical use, and the CG is covered by ASSISTING with medical use, which by definition allows the transfer TO patients by caregivers.

[Southern Cross]

You are absolutely 100% correct.

 

It seems like you and I have been in agreement on this from the beginning. Others want to stretch Section 4 to include whatever they want it to say. They don't like to look at Section 6 where it spells out in detail how the registration process works. 1 primary caregiver per patient and 5 patients per caregiver period.

 

I agree with the majority that patient to patient transfers will probably be allowed under the AD, but until there is a court ruling I won't tell anyone that it is absolutely legal.

 

If someone is going to go through the registration process why would they then try to stretch the rules? I like the way you put it back in September so I included your quote below.

 

 

My question is WHY would you want to dispense to someone unregistered to you?

 

You are risking your card, and your patients that you have currently, medication?

 

I get compassion, and care giving..... but, what is the true reason? I can't think of a need large enough for me to risk my card and my patients medication.

 

If they are really in need, why wouldn't they WANT to sign you as a CG?

 

While you MAY be covered under the AD section of the law, No one has tested that YET...............so everyone piping up here saying "yes it's legal" is saying it without a court case proving it's legality.

 

And, if it were as plainly legal as some are claiming it to be..............the dispensaries that were raided probably wouldn't have been raided.

[Hempcheff]

Then by your own device for interpereting the law (scrutiny) where every word has a specific purpose, then this sentence, answers the question once and for all:

 

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

as this simple word ( a ) instead of (his or the) allows transfers from any caregiver to any patient.

 

 

 

Your interpretation is flawed because the phrase "connected through the department's registration process" becomes redundant with "registered qualifying patient" and "registered primary caregiver." The term "registered" necessitates that we are talking about a patient or CG who have been both been through the registration process.

 

If the patient is "registered" and the CG is "registered," and if your interpretation is correct, then the phrase "through the Dept.'s registration process" becomes unnecessary because "registered" means that both patient and CG are in the registry.

 

Standard staturotry interpretation says that every word/phrase has meaning; it is there for a reason. Therefore, the only conclusion one can come to is that the relationship defined by "connected through the registration process" is not the same relationship or set of circumstances that exist when two people happen to be registered in the same registry but not formally associated.

 

But interestingly, is says a "primary CG who has been issed and possess a card can assist a qualifying patient" It doesn't say "registered qualifying patient" but of course the patient would have to at least have his paperwork submitted to the Dept. It doesn't say the patient has to be "registered." So I believe that the correct interpretation is that a CG with a card can help a patient who has submitted the paperwork naming the caregiver. Nothing about 20 days. Nothing about the CG needs to have a card with the patient's name on it...just "a card."

 

So what this language tells us is that if I am a CG or patient with a card already (any registry ID card), I can sign up a new patient, submit the paperwork, and safely assist that patient starting day 1.

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I think it could go either way.

 

Even though the "a" seems to make it legal for any exchange, the word "connected" could be defined as "connected to your specific CG", which would limit exchange's to ONLY your patients.

 

We know how courts rule when things can go either way...the Judge(s) toss out "intent" and the "law" and replace it with "personal choice".

 

If you get an anti- pot Judge they will rule against any exchange...if you get a pro-pot judge, they will say it's OK.

 

They simply manipulate the intent with legal lingo and justify their own personal opinion.

 

Example: Gore vs. Bush. Could have gone either way, but the Republicans had a supreme court majority and invented some "made up" lingo to give Bush a victory. If Democrats would have been the majority, Gore would have won. Happens every day. I would not want to be in court and take my chances unless I knew the Judge's political leanings.

Judges tend to go with the prosecutor's definitions and most prosecutors are hostile to any leniency on drug issue's. If it can be interpreted AGAINST marijuana users, medical or not, it probably will be.

[Highlander]

Then by your own device for interpereting the law (scrutiny) where every word has a specific purpose, then this sentence, answers the question once and for all:

 

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

as this simple word ( a ) instead of (his or the) allows transfers from any caregiver to any patient.

 

How are they connected through the registeration process? What does that mean? You can't just ignore the words.

 

You are trying to say that "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" means the same thing as "for assisting a qualifying patient with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act"

 

If they meant the same thing, then the drafter would have used the second version rather than the first. And since the two statements, by rule of statutory interpretation, necessarily mean something different, what is the difference between the two?

 

"Connected through the MDCH registration process" means something...what is that? It can't mean simply that both the pt and CG are in the registry, because then the phrase would be unnecessary/redundant...so it is impossible for the phrase to mean that. So what exactly does that phrase mean?

[Hempcheff]

How are they connected through the registeration process? What does that mean? You can't just ignore the words.

 

You are trying to say that "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" means the same thing as "for assisting a qualifying patient with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act"

 

If they meant the same thing, then the drafter would have used the second version rather than the first. And since the two statements, by rule of statutory interpretation, necessarily mean something different, what is the difference between the two?

 

Sorry highlander, the two sentences are not the same, and the law reads different when the verbage is removed. the "registration process" does not occur between a patient and a caregiver, the "registration process" occurs with the MDCH thus connecting the registered caregivers and patients, as well as the unregistered patients (A Qualifying Patient), and affording protections granted in section 4 to registered caregivers and patients, and makes the AD available to qualifying, non registered patients.

 

 

and as far as i know, the law does not provide for unregistered caregivers, correct me if im wrong.

 

so to sum it up, a registered caregiver can distribute medication to any qualified patient (registered or non registered) as both are afforded protections in a transfer via medical use.

 

What cannot occur as a result of this verbage, (which is IMO is the main intent of the 5 patient rule), is a defense to grow for unregistered patients. again, im sure this is to limit the number of plants being grown by any given registered caregiver.

[Highlander]

the "registration process" occurs with the MDCH thus connecting the registered caregivers and patients, as well as the unregistered patients (A Qualifying Patient

 

 

so to sum it up, a registered caregiver can distribute medication to any qualified patient (registered or non registered) as both are afforded protections in a transfer via medical use.

 

If the patient isn't registered, how is the CG connected to the patient through the registration process?

 

The protections afforded are Section 8 AD, which is raised in court after arrest, etc.. Please be clear on this so people know the difference between the two.

 

You say that the registration takes place at MDCH. I agree. So how could a CG assist a "qualifying patient" as opposed to a "registered qualifying patient" as you say. The unregistered qualifying patient isn't part of the registry, so he isn't connected to the CG, since again, the connection, in your words, occurs through MDCH.

 

Again, what does "Connected through the registration process mean?"

 

Also, you say that the two sentences I claimed you believed were equivalent are not so, but then you go on to say, "so to sum it up, a registered caregiver can distribute medication to any qualified patient (registered or non registered) as both are afforded protections in a transfer via medical use."

 

How is that not the same as "for assisting a qualifying patient with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act?"

 

So we come back to what does "Connected through the registration process mean?"

[Hempcheff]

If the patient isn't registered, how is the CG connected to the patient through the registration process?

 

The protections afforded are Section 8 AD, which is raised in court after arrest, etc.. Please be clear on this so people know the difference between the two.

 

You say that the registration takes place at MDCH. I agree. So how could a CG assist a "qualifying patient" as opposed to a "registered qualifying patient" as you say. The unregistered qualifying patient isn't part of the registry, so he isn't connected to the CG, since again, the connection, in your words, occurs through MDCH.

 

Again, what does "Connected through the registration process mean?"

 

Also, you say that the two sentences I claimed you believed were equivalent are not so, but then you go on to say, "so to sum it up, a registered caregiver can distribute medication to any qualified patient (registered or non registered) as both are afforded protections in a transfer via medical use."

 

How is that not the same as "for assisting a qualifying patient with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act?"

 

So we come back to what does "Connected through the registration process mean?"

 

Part of the registration process includes Qualification, agreed?

 

in order to do that you need a form provided by the MDCH,

 

in order to be "qualified" said form must be signed by a doctor.

 

through the "process" of registering,( filling out paperwork, getting records, getting the proper doctors and/or caregiver information and again, and the actual filing of those forms as well) a patient becomes qualified through the MDCH, and thus is now part of the "connection" through the MDCH by being donned a Qualifying, but non registered patient.

 

again, the verbage you removed prior, would limit the protections afforded by the section 4 defense.

[Hempcheff]

in addition to my logic behind the above post, this all goes towards the assurance of an "uninterrupted supply" of medicine.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Part of the registration process includes Qualification, agreed?

 

in order to do that you need a form provided by the MDCH,

 

in order to be "qualified" said form must be signed by a doctor.

 

through the "process" of registering,( filling out paperwork, getting records, getting the proper doctors and/or caregiver information and again, and the actual filing of those forms as well) a patient becomes qualified through the MDCH, and thus is now part of the "connection" through the MDCH by being donned a Qualifying, but non registered patient.

 

again, the verbage you removed prior, would limit the protections afforded by the section 4 defense.

In my opinion, you are really stretching. What you are saying doesn't make any practical sense. Obviously, connected by registration means... connected by registration. The only way to be connected by registration is to be connected on the forms. Judges will sort this out but it's going to have to make some sense too.

[Hempcheff]

i dont think its a stretch at all, what about patients that dont have assigned caregivers and are between harvests? if they know a caregiver, but

dont know any of his 5 patients, for example, and that caregiver has overages, since they are connected through the MDCH registration process ("THE CARD") then the patient can acquire and the caregiver can transfer in accordance with medical use and "assisting" with medical use respectively.

[Guest Happy Guy]

i dont think its a stretch at all, what about patients that dont have assigned caregivers and are between harvests? if they know a caregiver, but

dont know any of his 5 patients, for example, and that caregiver has overages, since they are connected through the MDCH registration process ("THE CARD") then the patient can acquire and the caregiver can transfer in accordance with medical use and "assisting" with medical use respectively.

You make a GREAT case for NEED. But need doesn't translate over to understanding the wording of our law. Our best hope for patients without meds is the judge in Isabella County's opinion on transfers being legal between registered patients. It's as close as we have come to helping the need.

[Highlander]

in addition to my logic behind the above post, this all goes towards the assurance of an "uninterrupted supply" of medicine.

 

OK but uninterrupted supply is a Section 8 defense (arrest, arraignment, trial, case dismissed $10,000 later). So yeah - legal - but not necessarily safe.

 

I'd like to stick with Section 4 for this discussion. You don't need to have the Dr. sign the MDCH form to be a qualifying patient. QP means, "(h) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition."

 

So the Act says that the REGISTERED CG is protected for helping a (note not "registered" here) Qualifying Patient he is connected to through the MDCH process. You are not connected to the MDCH when a Dr. says you have a debilitating condition. Being a qualifying patient only means you have a qualifying condition and a Dr. said so...doesn't have to be in writing...only that the diagnosis exists. No MDCH form required. If by virtue of being "qualified" you are suddenly part of the MDCH process, then the language "connected through the department's registration process" would be redundant. But redundant language can't exist in the Act, so "connected through the MDCH process" means something other than that the Dr. made a diagnosis.

 

So the only way the "qualifying patient" can be part of the MDCH process is if the QP has sent an application to the MDCH.

 

So the act says that a CG with a card can help a patient he is connected to through the process.

 

You suggest that all patients and CGs are connected to each other by virtue of the fact that they are in the registry. I believe that is what you feel "connected through MDCH" means.

 

I believe that "connected through MDCH" means that pt and CG have a documented relationship that is specific to their agreement with each other - not just that they happen to be on the same registry.

[Highlander]

i dont think its a stretch at all, what about patients that dont have assigned caregivers and are between harvests? if they know a caregiver, but

dont know any of his 5 patients, for example, and that caregiver has overages, since they are connected through the MDCH registration process ("THE CARD") then the patient can acquire and the caregiver can transfer in accordance with medical use and "assisting" with medical use respectively.

 

We can come up with scenarios all day long where a patient would go without unless the law says __________. A patient in need doesn't change the language in the law.

 

But then we can what if those scenarios to death. What if that same CG sells meds to the needy patient and makes his patients go without? Finding ways that the law won't protect everyone doesn't change the law.

[Irishgreen]

OK but uninterrupted supply is a Section 8 defense (arrest, arraignment, trial, case dismissed $10,000 later). So yeah - legal - but not necessarily safe.

 

I'd like to stick with Section 4 for this discussion. You don't need to have the Dr. sign the MDCH form to be a qualifying patient. QP means, "(h) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition."

 

So the Act says that the REGISTERED CG is protected for helping a (note not "registered" here) Qualifying Patient he is connected to through the MDCH process. You are not connected to the MDCH when a Dr. says you have a debilitating condition. Being a qualifying patient only means you have a qualifying condition and a Dr. said so...doesn't have to be in writing...only that the diagnosis exists. No MDCH form required. If by virtue of being "qualified" you are suddenly part of the MDCH process, then the language "connected through the department's registration process" would be redundant. But redundant language can't exist in the Act, so "connected through the MDCH process" means something other than that the Dr. made a diagnosis.

 

So the only way the "qualifying patient" can be part of the MDCH process is if the QP has sent an application to the MDCH.

 

So the act says that a CG with a card can help a patient he is connected to through the process.

 

You suggest that all patients and CGs are connected to each other by virtue of the fact that they are in the registry. I believe that is what you feel "connected through MDCH" means.

 

I believe that "connected through MDCH" means that pt and CG have a documented relationship that is specific to their agreement with each other - not just that they happen to be on the same registry.

 

 

 

For this and Post #277...........Bravo!

[phaquetoo]

I HAVE HEARD A LOT OF GOSSIP ABOUT WETHER OR NOT WE ARE ALLOWED AS CAREGIVERS TO DISPENSE MEDS TO PAITENTS THAT ARE NOT SIGNED UP WITH US. IN ADRIAN, WHERE I AM, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL RAIDS BY THOSE muffin makers OMNI I SEE ADS ONLINE FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THIS SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT LEAGAL. HOWEVER I DONT WANT TO HAVE MY DOOR KICKED IN FOR DRUG DEALING. SO CAN I DISPENSE TO ANY PATIENT? OR IS THIS JUST MORE moo-poo?

 

 

when i was growing up my momma told me I could be what ever I want to be! so I guess that means I can be a c.g to anyone cause my mom said so!

 

 

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

I beleive pt to pt is legal and cg. to any pt is also, but thats me, I have always thought I could get weed for any one i wanted to!

[Hempcheff]

when i was growing up my momma told me I could be what ever I want to be! so I guess that means I can be a c.g to anyone cause my mom said so!

 

 

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

I beleive pt to pt is legal and cg. to any pt is also, but thats me, I have always thought I could get weed for any one i wanted to!

 

thats all im saying

[phaquetoo]

yup!

 

Peace Bro!

FREE THE WEED!

Jim

[Wayne'sWorld]

Patient to patient transfers require that participants video tape the entire transaction, with audio, then you are required to submit your video with all MM paperwork, and a signed statement confessing to all activities, related to said transaction, shall be immediately filed with the local prosecutors office for review. Good luck!!

Failure to follow these guidelines shall result in your immediate arrest and incarceration. Be careful.