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

[peanutbutter]

But, to tell people that it is LEGAL to assist people that aren't your patients is just WRONG!

 

I guess the voters are just plain evil ..

 

section 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 professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

[Irishgreen]

I guess the voters are just plain evil ..

 

 

 

No........ Not evil.

 

But, your trying to twist my words is a little skeezey.

 

And, to be honest.......most of the voters just voted FOR MM, not against it. Not many actually KNEW nor still do, what the law says.

 

I realize that there are parts and words in the law that were written for specific reasons. I, not being a lawyer, will not pretend to know exactly what the purpose "and" was used and not "also" etc. But, I do know there are subtle differences in small words such as those. So, they VERY well have meant for everyone that is a legal patient or caregiver to be able to exchange whatever they want to. BUT<<<<<<< I will stand here again and say........"This has NOT been tested in court yet!" It has NOT been proven legal.

 

If you (the masses) WANT to help EVERY person out there, that is YOUR choice. But, the question was whether it was legal.

 

And, the answer is .......................................We don't know. The Attorney General has refused to clarify the law. It will have to go through the court systems to know for sure.

[bigdogbolog]

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.

[bigdogbolog]

i have 5 pat. however i dont have my pat. caed yet just caregiver. i am needing to know this because i have a large supply of meds and cant seem to get rid of them. i DO NOT want to loose my card so that is y i need to dispense to pat. that arent mine

[The Digital Nomad]

i have 5 pat. however i dont have my pat. caed yet just caregiver. i am needing to know this because i have a large supply of meds and cant seem to get rid of them. i DO NOT want to loose my card so that is y i need to dispense to pat. that arent mine

 

you didn't hear it from me -

use a patient as a broker

 

-DN

[+RevThad]

 

If you (the masses) WANT to help EVERY person out there, that is YOUR choice. But, the question was whether it was legal.

 

And, the answer is .......................................We don't know. The Attorney General has refused to clarify the law. It will have to go through the court systems to know for sure.

 

The answer is, it is legal until some part of the law is struck down by a court. It doesn't work the other way around.

 

What happened to the presumption of innocence and being a nation of laws? This country truly has changed, and it is becoming more obvious that so has the mindset of it's citizens.

 

I remember being taught that it was better that 100 guilty folks go free than 1 innocent person be locked up, the opposite of that seems to be the mood of many these days. I am afraid for our nation when I see law abiding citizens being rounded up so that the possible 1 criminal doesn't go free.

 

The reason we are at the point where LEO does what it wishes and is interpretting the law instead of enforcing the law, is we have allowed it to do so. Over the years, we looked the other way as they shook down folks we didn't agree with. We rationalized their actions with "they are dealing with criminals"... It is time to reverse that trend, or we are really going to make Orwell look like a prophet.

[freakydawg420]

WOW~~~~~

 

YOU can do what YOU want.

 

But, "Spirit of the law" and whether or not you are going to get arrested are 2 different things!

 

There are many ways to prepare for your CG going on Vacation for a month, or the other items you listed.

 

The fact is, there ARE going to be times we will be out of meds.

 

I had an AWESOME perpetual grow going for almost a year. I had enough meds and was clocking it JUST right.............I even thought, "Heh......I may NEVER have to depend on the outside world for meds again!" Then we were robbed. Things happen, I will be waiting for about 7 weeks for my next crop to be ready, and to be back on track. I UNDERSTAND!!!!! It SUCKS!

 

But, to tell people that it is LEGAL to assist people that aren't your patients is just WRONG!

 

According to the law, and how it is CURRENTLY written, it apears to be PERFECTLY LEGAL for A CG to help A PATIENT acquire their meds. If they didn't want them to be able to help patiets other than their own, wouldn't they word it as "their patient" or your patient" instead of A PATIENT? Am I not "A Patient"?

 

I'm only going by what the law actually states, not what some of the LEO's and others want it to.

 

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

(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 professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

If you are a caregiver, are you still not a person?

 

So to say that ANY PERSON may assist A registered qualifying patient, but then say YOU can't, just because you are someone elses CG, just does not make sence period.

 

EDIT

[freakydawg420]

No........ Not evil.

 

But, your trying to twist my words is a little skeezey.

 

And, to be honest.......most of the voters just voted FOR MM, not against it. Not many actually KNEW nor still do, what the law says.

 

I realize that there are parts and words in the law that were written for specific reasons. I, not being a lawyer, will not pretend to know exactly what the purpose "and" was used and not "also" etc. But, I do know there are subtle differences in small words such as those. So, they VERY well have meant for everyone that is a legal patient or caregiver to be able to exchange whatever they want to. BUT<<<<<<< I will stand here again and say........"This has NOT been tested in court yet!" It has NOT been proven legal.

 

If you (the masses) WANT to help EVERY person out there, that is YOUR choice. But, the question was whether it was legal.

 

And, the answer is .......................................We don't know. The Attorney General has refused to clarify the law. It will have to go through the court systems to know for sure.

 

If the law was inteded to only have a patient get their meds from their PRIMARY CG (again, why primary if no secondary is allowed?) then it should have been worded that way.

 

The fact is, right now, the law is written the way it is, and worded the way it is. If they want to take away from it, and change the law to allow less than they currently do, then they need to change the law.

 

You can't post the speed limit at 70, and write speeding tickets at 60 and say that you didn't mean to post the 70MPH sign, so too bad.

 

As the law is written now, "A" CG can provide for "A" patient, legally IMO and the opinion of plenty of lawers who do know more than I do about it.

---

"And, to be honest.......most of the voters just voted FOR MM, not against it. Not many actually KNEW nor still do, what the law says."

---

When we voted we were asked several questions that asked if we would support a law that "allowed this" and "disallowed that". We voted for it, and knew many of the issues we voted for if I remember correctly. I will see if I can find the actual list of questions from the ballot.

[freakydawg420]

Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care

 

Ballot Wording as approved by the Board of State Canvassers

 

August 21, 2008

 

 

 

 

PROPOSAL 08-1

 

 

 

A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO PERMIT THE USE AND CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR SPECIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS

 

 

 

The proposed law would:

 

» Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.

» Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.

» Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.

» Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

 

 

Should this proposal be adopted?

 

Yes ¨

 

No ¨

 

----

 

taken from:

http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/michigan-ballot-for-2008-proposal-1-medicinal-marijuana/

[bobandtorey]

According to the law, and how it is CURRENTLY written, it apears to be PERFECTLY LEGAL for A CG to help A PATIENT acquire their meds. If they didn't want them to be able to help patiets other than their own, wouldn't they word it as "their patient" or your patient" instead of A PATIENT? Am I not "A Patient"?

 

I'm only going by what the law actually states, not what some of the LEO's and others want it to.

 

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

(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 professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

If you are a caregiver, are you still not a person?

 

So to say that ANY PERSON may assist A registered qualifying patient, but then say YOU can't, just because you are someone elses CG, just does not make sence period.

 

EDIT

 

Daily Tribune Staff Writer

 

ROYAL OAK — The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan will not represent the patient whose medical marijuana was seized by police during a traffic stop earlier this year.

 

The ACLU offered to provide legal services for Christopher Frizzo, 46, of Royal OAK to help him get back 6.75 grams of medical marijuana prescribed for his multiple sclerosis. However, Frizzo declined.

 

“They don’t want to seek any type of compensation monetarily for the suffering I’ve gone through,” Frizzo said, adding that he was hospitalized within six weeks of police confiscating his medical marijuana.

 

“I have medical documents that prove I suffered a relapse. It’s clear I have suffered irreparable harm physically and emotional damage. I was harassed and had my medicine taken.”

 

Rana Elmir, ACLU spokesperson, said she couldn’t comment.

 

“Mr. Frizzo has chosen not to retain the ACLU in his challenge, but I can’t get into the details,” she said. “We do wish him the best and support his cause.”

 

ROYAL OAK police pulled over Frizzo for an improper lane change on Jan. 11 on Woodward Avenue. He has a state-issued card identifying him as a patient qualified to use medical marijuana. However, his card was stamped “no caregiver” to indicate he obtained it from someone registered with the Michigan Department of Community Health. Police confiscated the medical marijuana because Frizzo couldn’t show he got it from a registered caregiver.

 

“The officer took it and I went without it until my next disability check,” Frizzo said. “The next month I had a seizure, migraines and couldn’t breathe. I had to go to the hospital.”

 

The ACLU contends Royal OAK police “unlawfully confiscated” Frizzo’s medical marijuana. Their attorneys have said marijuana from any source enters a “safe harbor” once it is possessed by a registered patient and it can’t be taken by police.

 

The ACLU had asked Royal OAK police to return Frizzo’s medical marijuana or reimburse him for it. The ACLU also asked the police to assure the public the department wouldn’t seize medical marijuana from registered patients who obtain it from unregistered individuals.

 

ROYAL OAK City Attorney David Gillam said the state act passed in 2008 wouldn’t set up a caregiver registry if patients could obtain medical marijuana from anywhere. He recommended Royal OAK police refuse the ACLU’s requests.

 

Frizzo said the ACLU was ready to file a lawsuit in Oakland County Circuit Court, but he decided not to go forward with the Detroit affiliate. Frizzo said he will contact other ACLU branches and civil rights attorneys.

 

“The ACLU in New York sued Jet Blue for a man who had to cover his Arabic T-shirt and he was awarded $240,000,” Frizzo said, “but they don’t want to seek anything for someone who has a serious illness and had their medicine taken away. We’re not on the same page.”

 

Frizzo contends any lawsuit against Royal OAK police should seek damages for his personal suffering in addition to settling the question of whether police can seize medical marijuana from registered patients.

 

“This is an important issue,” Frizzo said. “People are not taking marijuana seriously as a medicine. To not seek compensation for medicine taken from a sick person puts out a bad message.”

 

Contact Catherine Kavanaugh at cathy.kavanaugh@dailytribune.com or (586) 783-0216.

[herb green]

I think the most important thing the law tells us in reference to this is that its illegal to sell it to someone who is not certified to have it

 

That has a specific penalty in the law which is I believe 2 years...

 

It tells us what we can't do...p2p is not on the "can't do list"

 

Yep, dont sell it to some who can't have it!

 

I think any tranfer... caregiver>patient or patient>patient or caregiver>other patient all should be private anyway...

 

Just dont sell it to someone who cant have it like the law says

[peanutbutter]

» Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

 

 

Should this proposal be adopted?

 

A direct question asked of the voters.

 

There are claims that are being made that a caregiver and/or patient MUST be registered to be protected. That is a false claim.

 

It is also very dangerous to sell to someone that is not your patient. The danger is that our legal system and law enforcement does not understand this aspect of our law.

 

This is an important point. A point that is being hammered over and over again by prosecutors in the Oakland County cases. If you repeat a lie often enough, people believe it.

 

If we all agree with them it will become defacto law.

[pic book]

Are we allowed to dispense meds to patients that aren't ours?

 

Right now sheriffs and police chiefs are asking the same thing. Leo do their legal research in a more drastic manner than most of us. They ask the prosecutor if, given certain facts, she will prosecute. If the answer is 'yes,' they arrest. Step two is if the judge refuses to dismiss the case upon the defense attorney's motion. And step three is if, at the close of the defense case, the judge gives the jury instructions favorable to the prosescution and the jury votes to convict.

 

In the future, given the same facts, Leo will arrest, having assumed that case law supports it. However, if the first arrest resulted in no conviction they will try another 2 or 3 times and if those also fail to produce dconvictions, they cease and desist, considering such arreststo be a waste of their time and effort.

 

Where are we in these three steps regarding the question, are we allowed to dispense meds to patients that aren't ours?

[Irishgreen]

All I am going to say, is we can WANT all types of things to be legal.

 

And, MAYBE they are! BUT>>>>>>>> Until it goes through the courts and is appealed to the highest court, we are at RISK of arrest!

 

I am NOT going to sit here and stay silent when there are so many of you telling this guy to go ahead and do it!

 

He needs to know the risk he is taking, and unless he REALLY knows the person, it is a LARGE risk at this point in time.

 

This has NOTHING to do with guilty until proven innocent, or if the law doesn't say you can't then you can.

 

That reminds me of how I used to get in trouble because I would try to outsmart my mom by saying, "Well, you didn't say I COULDN'T!"

 

It's not what the law doesn't say, it is what it DOES say.

 

If everyone was MEANT to go willy nilly and trade MM as freely as tomatoes, then I believe the law would have been written MUCH differently.

 

 

 

And, as for this.............

 

 

The proposed law would:

 

» Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.

» Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.

» Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.

» Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

 

 

 

YEAH........that clarifies things..................

 

Exactly as I said. Reading that doesn't clarify ANYTHING about our law.

 

I have the entire law printed for reference in a 3 ring binder, in page protectors, that I refer to often. Believe me...........I can interpret it a million ways. MY interpretation means NOTHING.

 

It will be the final judge that slams his down his gavel's interpretation that matters.

 

And, as for laws by defacto.....let's talk about the people saying that your meds need to be double locked, or locked in a briefcase in your car.

 

I think those types of little "safety nets" people have thrown out there have been mistaken for law as well........

[Irishgreen]

I also, have voiced my opinion. My point was to make sure the OP knew there was a large risk involved.

 

Everyone has their own opinions. And, that is fine.

 

I just know that when I had the police over here after we were robbed, I was 100% comfortable because I KNEW I was within the law. And, I have a police report confirming over and over again, "Legal grow" "Legal patient and caregiver" ETC (my spouse is my cg)

 

KNOWING I was within the law and not HOPING I was, was a huge relief at an extremely stressful time.

 

I would just hope we would want each other as a community to stay as safe as possible. If I give advice, it is going to be on the conservative side. That way, I won't be feeling guilty, or have to help bail someone out of jail cause I gave them crappy advice!

 

Stay safe people!

[GreatLakesMeds]

I believe that everyone should take the advice of Irish Green – know your risks, then act.

 

After reading the recent Cox opinion regarding the MDCH contracting out the card processing, I posted a discussion about Cox’s position on how to interpret grey areas with an initiated act, which generally involved consideration of: what the voters understood they were voting for, what a common person would think if they read the law, a liberal interpretation to allow rights rather than limit them, and the language on the ballot.

 

I think that in consideration of all of those tests above, p2p transfers are protected.

 

I think a common person reading the law would believe that patients being granted the right to “medical use” which includes “transfer” allows p2p transfers. It makes sense. We’re not talking about vicoden here. People can sell and trade homemade canned goods and preparations made from legal herbs without any problem – yet many of these products could be dangerous. An improperly canned food item is far more likely to kill the consumer than would some cannabis. The voters understand cannabis to be among other home remedies. Sharing these low-risk preparations makes sense. P2P transfers pass the “what did the voters intend” test.

 

A liberal interpretation would expand the right of medical use. It would include the ability to have a more likely continual supply of meds by allowing patients to share. The voters intended to allow patients the right to access to cannabis. The law must be interpreted broadly here with the underlying consideration for acts that provide for patient access to cannabis and that are not otherwise illegal. P2P transfers pass the “liberal interpretation/expansion of rights” test.

 

The ballot language:

» Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.

» Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.

» Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.

» Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

If all we had to go on was this – there is no reason to think that transfers between cardholders would be illegal. (As an aside, note Item #2 doesn’t say “ registered qualifying patient.” The voters didn’t limit a CG to work with only registered patients, but I digress.) I can’t even explain why P2P transfers make sense in considering the “ballot language” test because it just makes such an overwhelming amount of sense.

 

We need the AG to clear this up. I’m confident in my interpretation. We need an AG willing to address it. Don’t you think that if P2P transfers were illegal, that Mike Cox would have issued that interpretation a long time ago? He can’t because he can’t support p2p transfers being illegal with any solid legal footing. He doesn’t want to say that grey areas should expand our rights (read, access) to cannabis.

[freakydawg420]

It's not what the law doesn't say, it is what it DOES say.

 

 

And I still stand firm that it does say it is allowed, if you read the law without adding to it, interpreting it in other words, or taking away from it. It's been pointed out in the written law several times, it is there.

 

What has not been shown, is one single sentence in the current written law that says it is not allowed.

 

However, it is also clear that not all LEO's agree.

Are there going to be problems, probably.

Are there going to be arrests that should not be made? You can count on it.

 

Are there risks?? 100% there are and you are correct, you should know that there are risks, and be careful.

 

I don't think the 2 of us will see eye to eye on what the law currently allows, and thats fine. I am sure the law will be amended and clear it up in the future.

 

I do think everyone should read the law, come up with an understanding, and ask a lawyer what they interpret it as, and then do what you feel you are comfortible with.

[Irishgreen]

OK..................

 

What is the purpose of a cg being allowed 5 patients? WHY does it specifically set a limit to the number of people a CG can help?

 

If it were meant for a CG to be able to help anyone they want, there would be no 5 patient limit. THAT IS CLEAR.

 

Patient to Patient is a little more open for debate in my opinion, because both parties are legal to "posses" "obtain" etc.

 

There are fewer limitations imposed on patients than there are CG's. After all, the law WAS written for patients.

 

So, that MAY be the loop hole everyone is looking for. The answer to the "which came first the chicken or the egg" question. We have to be able to start somewhere.

 

I get all that.

 

But, this early in the game.............we have to wait for the calls to be made. It's all happening now. Lot's of court cases going on. Things are being answered.

 

We know we can grow outside because of Kingpin's case. He went through hell, but............we know now. Enclosed, and locked CAN be outside. But, must still be enclosed and locked. If the police need to ask for the key to get in, you are safe. We KNOW that now. Everything else is debatable.

[freakydawg420]

Honestly, the written law does not tell me "why" so I can only assume.

 

Possibly they wanted to keep the maximum amount of plants being grown by 1 person to less than 100 plants, who knows.

I just know thats what it says, CG gets 5 patients (plus his/her self) and 12 plants each.

 

"Patient to Patient is a little more open for debate in my opinion, because both parties are legal to "posses" "obtain" etc.

 

There are fewer limitations imposed on patients than there are CG's. After all, the law WAS written for patients.

 

So, that MAY be the loop hole everyone is looking for."

 

We do seem to agree on P2P. Maybe the advice to be givin is, yes CG to random Patient apears to be legal as the law is currently written, but just to cover your donkey, become a patient as well to be sure until we get it all sorted out

 

I am just glad we are finally at a point in time where we actually have a reason to be asking all these questions, and debating over our (fairly) new law

[Irishgreen]

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.

 

© A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

 

(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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see..........It kinda does specify that a CG is covered from arrest ONLY for assisting HIS/HER own REGISTERED patients.

 

 

 

 

 

Several times.

 

 

 

[GreatLakesMeds]

OK..................

 

What is the purpose of a cg being allowed 5 patients? WHY does it specifically set a limit to the number of people a CG can help?

 

If it were meant for a CG to be able to help anyone they want, there would be no 5 patient limit.

 

What we need to remind ourselves is that this law was written by the MMP, whose larger mission is legalization of cannabis, right? They see medical as a steppingstone, I believe. It would stand to reason that the MPP would have approached the intricate details in a such a fashion as to nearly code the case law that would unfold.

 

Quite honestly, I believe that the law was written to empower the patient. If a caregiver must have a patient, “to which he is connected through the department” for each 12 plants and each 2.5 oz of meds on-hand, than he will necessarily take care of his patients. No patients, no plants. Limiting registered, plant-rights patients to 5 per CG keeps grows small-scale and generally under federal attention.

 

And if the law allows this CG to dispense to patients to whom he isn’t connected through the MDCH, then the CG can grow surplus to be sold to other patients, which lowers the cost of assisting his patients (the ones he is connect to through the MDCH) with the medical use of cannabis.

 

Short version – if growers can legally sell the surplus they could grow if they had the market for it, then suddenly being a patient becomes something of value….caregivers would be/will be willing to offer meds for free to a patient who allows him 12 plants. Really, if you put 12 plants in the hands of a competent grower, he should be able to grow more than 1 person (well, most people) would really use.

[bobandtorey]

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.

 

© A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

 

(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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see..........It kinda does specify that a CG is covered from arrest ONLY for assisting HIS/HER own REGISTERED patients.

 

 

 

 

 

Several times.

 

 

 

 

so thats all settled if i was a caregiver i would not do it

 

you sure know a lot about this Law Are we going to be OK with are case do you think?

[Irishgreen]

so thats all settled if i was a caregiver i would not do it

 

you sure know a lot about this Law Are we going to be OK with are case do you think?

 

I do think you guys are ok Bob. You are the perfect AD case, as it has been said before.

 

You guys completely qualify, the law was passed, there State just wasn't ready yet. It really seems pretty cut and dry as far as I'm concerned.

 

I honestly can't believe it's been drug out as long as it has.

 

You also deserve compensation once you are found innocent! (not just NOT guilty)

[MightyMightyMezz]

(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 professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

I interpret this to mean that any person can assist a registered qualifying patient to smoke/ingest their medicine.

[bobandtorey]

I do think you guys are ok Bob. You are the perfect AD case, as it has been said before.

 

You guys completely qualify, the law was passed, there State just wasn't ready yet. It really seems pretty cut and dry as far as I'm concerned.

 

I honestly can't believe it's been drug out as long as it has.

 

You also deserve compensation once you are found innocent! (not just NOT guilty)

 

Thank you