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

[MightyMightyMezz]

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.

 

 

 

Yes, but then look here.

 

(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.

 

Delivery? Transfer? I interpret this to mean that patients may deliver or transfer medicine to other qualifying patients and that caregivers may assist. According to the definition this would be medical use. That is a literal reading of the words.

 

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,

 

 

[chi_guy]

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.

 

 

Ummm No.

 

First of all you're quoting from the "protections" section of the law and your quote of section 4b is only relating to one protection of many that are included in this section. If a CG is only protected for assisting his/her own patient why is there any need for sections 4d and 4e. Those are separate protections just like 4b

It should be clear to those that have evaluated the law as a whole, that clearly section 4b only requires patients and cg's to be connected for two reasons listed in subsections 1 and 2 of 4b, and that is to limit the amount of marihuana one person can cultivate and limit the amount of dry usable one person can possess. Section 4b in no way limits the transfer of medical marihuana which is clearly protected under 4d which also places limits on the amount of marihuana that is possessed.

 

You see, to leo it is not about p2p transfers or c2p transfers it is about the evil "dispensaries" who they feel are nothing better than drug dealers on the street. As long as transfers are allowed they are not going to be able to prevent the evil California style dispensaries. This propaganda about "dispensaries" really is more about politics than about law. So much so that even the term "dispensary" is given a negative connotation associated with profiteering. The politicians get lobbyed by huge industries which have vested interests not seeing any type of cannabis industry gain strength. In medical marihuana the major opposition seems to be the pharmaceutical companies because of cannabis being used to treat so many different conditions. They want to control it but it is a natural plant that is safer than aspirin. It seems in this country that it is ok for doctors and big pharma to make buttloads of money for providing pharmaceuticals to people which kill thousands of people each year, but if medical marihuana providers make money they are painted as greedy profiteers and are likened to street drug dealers for providing medicine that has 0 deaths attributed to its use. The politicians use fear tactics on the public by associating medical marijuana with crime to gain support against mmj and it works. Even though the facts show that very little crime has proven to be associated with medical marihuana.

[Irishgreen]

 

OK

 

Again, WE can argue all WE want.

 

My OPINION is.........

 

IT WILL HAVE TO BE FOUGHT OUT IN COURT BEFORE WE KNOW HOW THE COURT SEES IT!

 

Everything else is speculation.

[Irishgreen]

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

 

Sorry, this kinda didn't register in my brain yesterday...........

 

If you are having trouble with too much usable on hand, either

 

1. Look into making Butter, oil, tinctures, Hash, Iso oil, BHO, etc. There are MANY ways to keep your usable amount within limits.

 

2. Slow your perpetual grow a bit. If you are harvesting 2 or 3 at a time, slow it so you are only harvesting 1 or 2. (You don't HAVE to grow 12 plants per patient, maybe your patients only need 9 in a rotation)

 

3. Grow smaller plants. You can flip them whenever you want to. If you are finding the strain you have is a huge producer and your patients aren't keeping up, a smaller plant of that variety will help you out quite a bit.

 

 

Of the above probably doing a little of all of them will help you.

 

Sorry, the heat of debate took over a tad.

 

I, personally don't condone other methods of relieving your self of overages. OBVIOUSLY. Not at least until you decide what YOUR level of acceptable risk. If your MOTHER needed medication..........you're probably safe. Otherwise...............I would wait until some rulings come out.

[jeff from bad axe]

Anybody in need of medicine should be able to get it any place,time,person,disp,or CC.

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

OK

 

Again, WE can argue all WE want.

 

My OPINION is.........

 

IT WILL HAVE TO BE FOUGHT OUT IN COURT BEFORE WE KNOW HOW THE COURT SEES IT!

 

Everything else is speculation.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I am not arguing or speculating, only analyzing the words in the law.

[+420Atheist]

I don't know about anyone else, but I am not arguing or speculating, only analyzing the words in the law.

 

I think that is what everyone is trying to do but reading the law the question of transfer to a patient not associated with the caregiver is one IMO the courts could go either way on. Unlike Bob and Tory's case which seems more cut and dry that B&T were in the right. There really are good points on both sides of the caregiver to unassociated patient question.

 

To be on the safe side we will not be transferring in any way any of our extras should that ever be necessary. We will just stop growing until we get within 4 months of being out. Once this is sorted out I would love to be able to trade for different strains and even make some of the electricity cost back by working with dispensaries. Even if it does not go the way I hope I'm at least grateful that no laws have to be broken to get effective and safe pain relief.

[+Dickinson County CC]

Each person has a level of risk they are willing to live with.

 

 

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.

 

 

We can argue all we want. Its as simple as if you believe it and have money to back it up go out and start one. You may be just fine, but you may not.

With no regulations on just how they are to operate etc I just see it as a major financial risk to operate one or even go outside the patient caregiver system.

You can say black is white and white black or gray for that matter. I for one won't do anything that I wouldn't tell anyone to do myself which is why our club is successful. We inform people on the areas that cause trouble, for all of you Trolls, and simply tell them that to stay safe don't do transfer outside your cg/pt, stay away from the AD. Someday we may get clarifications either by memo or by case.

Till then...if your operating a dispensary, running a so called 'compassion club' thats basically a dispensary,selling 'overages' to said dispensaries at the cost of your patients, going outside the pt/cg system then your are just running a risk.

All I care is that you understand that NONE OF THIS IS SET IN STONE!

And interpretations are like muffin makers

we all have one.

[bobandtorey]

We can argue all we want. Its as simple as if you believe it and have money to back it up go out and start one. You may be just fine, but you may not.

With no regulations on just how they are to operate etc I just see it as a major financial risk to operate one or even go outside the patient caregiver system.

You can say black is white and white black or gray for that matter. I for one won't do anything that I wouldn't tell anyone to do myself which is why our club is successful. We inform people on the areas that cause trouble, for all of you Trolls, and simply tell them that to stay safe don't do transfer outside your cg/pt, stay away from the AD. Someday we may get clarifications either by memo or by case.

Till then...if your operating a dispensary, running a so called 'compassion club' thats basically a dispensary,selling 'overages' to said dispensaries at the cost of your patients, going outside the pt/cg system then your are just running a risk.

All I care is that you understand that NONE OF THIS IS SET IN STONE!

And interpretations are like muffin makers

we all have one.

 

I would also add that are case will only prove that you don't need a card but the card is better just ask kingpinn

[GaylordMedicinals]

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.

 

Actually, the section you quoted seems (to me) to mostly be about defining the amounts a single caregiver or patient can possess/grow - the idea being that they didn't want huge thousand plant marijuana farms grown by a single person to be protected, or for one person to be walking around with 50 pounds of meds.

 

See how clearly, section (b) sets out to define it's conditions (1) (2) (3) - all directly defining what and how much a person can possess. It's important to remember that 1-3 are subpoints of (b) - (b) isn't about assisting patients - it's about limiting weight/plants, and defining "incidental" plant matter.

 

I also think you're misreading section (d) which is particularly important - it sets out an affirmative defense for a patient *or* caregiver assuming only three conditions can be met:

 

(1) Possess card

 

(2) Not over limits (I'm telling you, these limits were important when it was written and a lot of the emphasis they put on setting maximum amounts a person could possess is now being twisted to mean you can't help qualifying patients with serious medical conditions)

 

(3) Marihuana was being used for medicinal purposes

 

 

This is the most important point:

 

Nowhere in the affirmative defense is there a condition about the caregivers and patients being connected "through the departmental registration process".

 

They laid it out so clearly in the guidelines regarding amounts (b) because they obviously didn't want huge grows springing up. They didn't include it in the affirmative defense - going so far as to use the non-possessive language "the qualifying patient" - because they obviously didn't want to restrict the access registered patients would have to meds.

 

Section (d) is key here.

 

Cheers.

[Irishgreen]

Holy cow........I quoted section4 because section 4 is the section that talks about being a qualified CG etc.

 

In order to be considered a CG, and LEGAL you should fit the criteria AND agree to follow the law as it is written. I have went and copied ALL of section 4 so as not to be accused of only pointing out a small portion. Of Coarse this is ONLY section 4. The section that addresses whether or not YOU are qualified to be a CG.

 

After that.......the law says "in accordance with this act" which means......ALL other areas apply. Even the MANY times in THIS section when it is stated OVER and OVER that a CG must be linked to a patient through the registration system.

 

 

33.26424 Qualifying patient or primary caregiver; arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; conditions; presumption; compensation; physician subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; marihuana paraphernalia; person in presence or vicinity to medical use of marihuana; registry identification issued outside of department; sale of marihuana as felony; penalty.

 

 

 

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana. 4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

 

Sec. 4. (a) 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.

 

(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.

 

(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.

 

(f) A physician 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 the Michigan board of medicine, the Michigan board of osteopathic medicine and surgery, or any other business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for providing written certifications, in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship and after the physician has completed a full assessment of the qualifying patient's medical history, or for otherwise stating that, in the physician's professional opinion, a patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the serious or debilitating medical condition, provided that nothing shall prevent a professional licensing board from sanctioning a physician for failing to properly evaluate a patient's medical condition or otherwise violating the standard of care for evaluating medical conditions.

 

(g) 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, for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia for purposes of a qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana.

 

(h) Any marihuana, marihuana paraphernalia, or licit property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marihuana, as allowed under this act, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be seized or forfeited.

 

(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.

 

(j) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.

 

(k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

 

 

History: 2008, Initiated Law 1, Eff. Dec. 4, 2008

Compiler's Notes: MCL 333.26430 of Initiated Law 1 of 2008 provides:10. Severability.Sec. 10. Any section of this act being held invalid as to any person or circumstances shall not affect the application of any other section of this act that can be given full effect without the invalid section or application.

 

© 2009 Legislative Council, State of Michigan

 

[Irishgreen]

Actually, I believe you are reading it wrong.

 

The AD is the Defense you will use ONCE YOU ARE ARRESTED! So, you WILL get arrested in order to be able to use it.

 

The OP said he did NOT want to get arrested.

 

Section 4 that I quoted is telling you how to be a legal patient or CG.

 

All of these "fishing expeditions" people are doing with the law is kinda scary.

 

Looking for ways to get around what it says.

 

If you are comfortable with it that is your business.

 

But, when someone comes to us and asks how to stay out of jail, all these responses referring to the AD is exactly what he did NOT want to do!

 

 

Actually, the section you quoted seems (to me) to mostly be about defining the amounts a single caregiver or patient can possess/grow - the idea being that they didn't want huge thousand plant marijuana farms grown by a single person to be protected, or for one person to be walking around with 50 pounds of meds.

 

See how clearly, section (b) sets out to define it's conditions (1) (2) (3) - all directly defining what and how much a person can possess. It's important to remember that 1-3 are subpoints of (b) - (b) isn't about assisting patients - it's about limiting weight/plants, and defining "incidental" plant matter.

 

I also think you're misreading section (d) which is particularly important - it sets out an affirmative defense for a patient *or* caregiver assuming only three conditions can be met:

 

(1) Possess card

 

(2) Not over limits (I'm telling you, these limits were important when it was written and a lot of the emphasis they put on setting maximum amounts a person could possess is now being twisted to mean you can't help qualifying patients with serious medical conditions)

 

(3) Marihuana was being used for medicinal purposes

 

 

This is the most important point:

 

Nowhere in the affirmative defense is there a condition about the caregivers and patients being connected "through the departmental registration process".

 

They laid it out so clearly in the guidelines regarding amounts (b) because they obviously didn't want huge grows springing up. They didn't include it in the affirmative defense - going so far as to use the non-possessive language "the qualifying patient" - because they obviously didn't want to restrict the access registered patients would have to meds.

 

Section (d) is key here.

 

Cheers.

[Irishgreen]

I think you have a good way of looking at things!!

 

 

 

Thanks.......... Just want people to stay out of jail.

 

 

I can't afford to help pay for any more to be incarcerated over this wonderful, beautiful plant! J/K

[Ms Chocolate]

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.

 

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

 

If someone wants to provide for patients with whom they are not connect via registration, they may do so. They should be aware that doing so places them at risk of arrest. Protection passes though the cards. As was stated in the first comment, and as Irish has said more than once, no & understand the risk you are assuming.

[+JuztBudz]

Isn't it much better to err on the conservative side of this issue? How many of us is guilty of giving iffy advice? I have always felt that we need to take baby steps as far as this law goes, at least until the courts have an opportunity to voice their opinion. This is why the BACC has avoided becoming a dispenser of meds. While I applaud those with the intestinal fortitude to push the limits, I am not that person. I won't expose my membership to the violence and sadness that pushing those limits can bring. Maybe I'm just a big chicken, or am I simply being smart? That is for time to tell. If my approach is wrong, then, when the time comes I will apologize to my members for holding them back. But, I won't have to bail anyone out of jail out of guilt simply because I got ahead of what was intended by the law. Please folks, be careful out there, apparently lives ARE at stake. Peace...j.b.

[bobandtorey]

Isn't it much better to err on the conservative side of this issue? How many of us is guilty of giving iffy advice? I have always felt that we need to take baby steps as far as this law goes, at least until the courts have an opportunity to voice their opinion. This is why the BACC has avoided becoming a dispenser of meds. While I applaud those with the intestinal fortitude to push the limits, I am not that person. I won't expose my membership to the violence and sadness that pushing those limits can bring. Maybe I'm just a big chicken, or am I simply being smart? That is for time to tell. If my approach is wrong, then, when the time comes I will apologize to my members for holding them back. But, I won't have to bail anyone out of jail out of guilt simply because I got ahead of what was intended by the law. Please folks, be careful out there, apparently lives ARE at stake. Peace...j.b.

 

i for one understand this very well words well said JB

 

Peace to you and your club

[dlovas]

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?

All I am going to say is that p2p is written in the law. I have been thru it 20 times and did not see anyplace CG 2 p. p2p Yes. The dispensaries are going that route. not acting as a CG. But there is also the bit about un-interuppted supply and helpling one adminster their medicine. But those in my opinion are a further stretch. p2p is pretty CLEAR...well not to the boys up in oakland county that choose not to fight real criminals. ANd Kill senior citizens.

[dlovas]

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?

p2p is really the only clear part.

[chi_guy]

Actually, the section you quoted seems (to me) to mostly be about defining the amounts a single caregiver or patient can possess/grow - the idea being that they didn't want huge thousand plant marijuana farms grown by a single person to be protected, or for one person to be walking around with 50 pounds of meds.

 

See how clearly, section (b) sets out to define it's conditions (1) (2) (3) - all directly defining what and how much a person can possess. It's important to remember that 1-3 are subpoints of (b) - (b) isn't about assisting patients - it's about limiting weight/plants, and defining "incidental" plant matter.

 

I also think you're misreading section (d) which is particularly important - it sets out an affirmative defense for a patient *or* caregiver assuming only three conditions can be met:

 

(1) Possess card

 

(2) Not over limits (I'm telling you, these limits were important when it was written and a lot of the emphasis they put on setting maximum amounts a person could possess is now being twisted to mean you can't help qualifying patients with serious medical conditions)

 

(3) Marihuana was being used for medicinal purposes

 

 

This is the most important point:

 

Nowhere in the affirmative defense is there a condition about the caregivers and patients being connected "through the departmental registration process".

 

They laid it out so clearly in the guidelines regarding amounts (b) because they obviously didn't want huge grows springing up. They didn't include it in the affirmative defense - going so far as to use the non-possessive language "the qualifying patient" - because they obviously didn't want to restrict the access registered patients would have to meds.

 

Section (d) is key here.

 

Cheers.

 

 

This is what I have been saying, why are people not understanding this?

[bobandtorey]

I think it is important for all of us to understand that our interpretations of this law, though those interpretations may be in conflict and many in number, ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT. PERIOD.

 

Our interpretations are how people get medicine in Michigan, right or wrong. This clarification we're seeking from the courts is a double-edged sword: it is us and our interpretations being questioned by authorities and being allowed to prove that they are legal in a court of law. If we do not interpret, and then seek case law, there is no clarification.

 

That being said, not every patient or caregiver is ready for the stress and expense of this test. Those people should act very conservatively. But they should heavily support those doing the testing if they are acting out of compassion for patients.

 

We must stop subtly stabbing our warriors in the back out of fear.

 

Please am i miss under standing some thing here if they win we lose is that what am reading

[Hempcheff]

(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:

 

 

 

ok, first, doesnt the word "a" mean any qualified patient? why does the law not say "his/her", or "the" and a instead?

 

also, "to be connected through....." it doesnt mention being directly connected to your caregiver for transactions. it only says "through the departments registration process" arent we all connected to each other through the MDCH by being registered and having our cards?

[Southern Cross]

(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:

 

 

 

ok, first, doesnt the word "a" mean any qualified patient? why does the law not say "his/her", or "the" and a instead?

 

also, "to be connected through....." it doesnt mention being directly connected to your caregiver for transactions. it only says "through the departments registration process" arent we all connected to each other through the MDCH by being registered and having our cards?

Yes, and it would be great if the rules stopped there. It's very clear cut, plain and simple. Too bad it doesn't stop there. Your quote is from Sec. 4 (b). But then it goes on and Sec. 6 (d) says: The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named on a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver , and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

So then we are left with Sec. 8 Affirmative Defense where they again use the term patient's primary caregiver.

 

The problem I see is that these people in the judicial system all belong to the same gang; Prosecutors, Judges, LEO and even defense attorneys are all considered to be officers of the court. We do have what's called an adversarial system where the defense attorney takes the side of the victim against the prosecution. But the other members of this gang all tend to stick together. Anyone who has looked into our so called justice system knows that the line they like to use that you are presumed innocent is a bad joke. Polls have shown that most members of a jury will presume that if you have been charged by the police and prosecutor with the commission of a crime you must be guilty. Why would they charge you if you weren't guilty? is their reasoning.

 

If you are lucky and get a sympathetic jury and can afford to pay a good defense attorney you may get off at which point nothing has been settled because a decision at the Circuit Court level is not binding on other courts or even on other judges in the same circuit. And their gang has unlimited resources and will probably appeal the decision to a higher court. Now if you can afford it you are shelling out more money for your appeals court attorney. If you can't afford it and end up with a court appointed attorney... well, good luck.

 

Now at the appeals court and Supreme Court level is where case law is made, but it almost always focuses on a few very limited issues. So the next guy who has a slightly different set of issues is off to court. And so on.

 

My heart is with all of those who have stood up to challenge these rules in court, but I think our efforts are better spent working with groups like NORML and the MPP to challenge the legislative branch to write better rules. People in other states have done this and now have laws allowing for dispensaries, clubs and other options for patients to obtain their meds in addition to the patient caregiver relationships that we now have.

 

I'm not pretending to be a know it all here so if anyone can point out a flaw or flaws in my reasoning I welcome your comments.

[Hempcheff]

"Yes, and it would be great if the rules stopped there. It's very clear cut, plain and simple. Too bad it doesn't stop there. Your quote is from Sec. 4 (b). But then it goes on and Sec. 6 (d) says: The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named on a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver , and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

the use of the word "primary" by definition opens the door for other caregivers in a non-primary role. otherwise, why use the word primary at all? why not use sole, or bound to, or only, or some other term denoting a monogamous relationship between cargiver and the patient? instead, the language is phrased to be interpreted as main, lead, or 1st, as is the case with a "Primary" doctor.

 

does this make sense to anyone else?

[Southern Cross]

"Yes, and it would be great if the rules stopped there. It's very clear cut, plain and simple. Too bad it doesn't stop there. Your quote is from Sec. 4 (b). But then it goes on and Sec. 6 (d) says: The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named on a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver , and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

the use of the word "primary" by definition opens the door for other caregivers in a non-primary role. otherwise, why use the word primary at all? why not use sole, or bound to, or only, or some other term denoting a monogamous relationship between cargiver and the patient? instead, the language is phrased to be interpreted as main, lead, or 1st, as is the case with a "Primary" doctor.

 

does this make sense to anyone else?

It makes sense to me that the term primary opens the door for additional caregivers, but I'm not going to be the one to go through that door to find out what's on the other side.

[+420Atheist]

It makes sense to me that the term primary opens the door for additional caregivers, but I'm not going to be the one to go through that door to find out what's on the other side.

 

I hear you Anita. I don't want to be that test case either. I am grateful to those who are the first to go through those doors and pave the way for the rest of us.