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

[+EdwardGlen]

I have. To a new patient who only had 30 day old paperwork but couldn't find anyone who would accept the donation.

[freakydawg420]

"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?

 

 

Makes perfect sence to me. There is no "Primary" if there is no secondary option. Otherwise our language would not call for the word primary at all, it would simply say "caregiver" and nothing more.

 

They specifically put the word PRIMARY in there, it has to mean something if it was put in a sentence that it would otherwise not be needed.

 

Once the word primary is attatched to the word caregiver it changes the meaning of the word caregiver, and by the nature of the new meaning of the word itself, allows for more than just 1 option.

[Guest sub4me]

What a mess.

[T1420]

Well said!! couldn't have said it better myself.

I hear ya on that point. Cops seem to be throwing the rules out the window, still no reason for us not to follow em. I refuse to turn away a patient if I can help them and they are qualified, that may bite me in the donkey, or it may backfire on the cops that try to violate my rights.

 

I am not saying that we need to put neon signs out and flaunt it, but we should also not be afraid to follow the law. If we become afraid, they win. Simple as that.

[Hempcheff]

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

 

 

why would they use "primary" instead of "caregiver",

 

second, "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."

 

it states A patient, not his patient, or the patient.

 

arent all patients and caregivers connected through MDCH via registration?

[freakydawg420]

(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.

 

 

I still think this part plays a big role here. It clearly says that there will be a punishment for selling MJ to someone NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE IT for medical purposes. They do NOT however put forward any punishment for selling or giving to a LEGAL PATIENT that you are not a primary caregiver for.

 

That, along with the fact that there is a "PRIMARY" caregiver, leans very heavily towards being legal to also have a secondary. Otherwise, why don't they have a punishment for it?

 

If it is a crime, and I can be charged with it, where is it written not to do it?

If it is a crime, and I can be charged, what is the fine for doing it??

 

If you make something a crime to do, there has to be a law that the citizens can look at, and see that it is in fact illegal, and know what the punishment/fines for commiting that crime are.

 

Otherwise, isn't it a form of entrapment, to make something illegal, and arrest people for it, but never tell them it was illegal in the first place?

 

So tomorrow they can change the law, make cigarettes illegal, not inform anyone.... allow us to buy them anyway, and then arrest us all??

 

If it is illegal, there has to be a law written somewhere that says so. Otherwise, it can not be enforced legally.

The citizens have a right to know the laws they are expected to follow. Weather they read them or not, is up to them, but they must be posted somewhere.

 

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

 

The reason it is no excuse is IT IS POSTED (by law), and it is up to us to read it, and follow it once they put the info clearly in front of us.

[Southern Cross]

why would they use "primary" instead of "caregiver",

 

second, "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."

 

it states A patient, not his patient, or the patient.

 

arent all patients and caregivers connected through MDCH via registration?

Yes, but "in accordance with this act" includes Sec 6 (d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in 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 the link or connection, as meant by this act, is the registry identification card. So if a patient designates a primary caregiver that caregiver's info will be on the back of the patient's card and the caregiver will be issued a card for each patient the caregiver has consented to be linked to and the caregiver can be connected or linked to up to 5 patients.

 

At least that's the way I read it. If anyone can set me straight please reply.

[Hempcheff]

Yes, but "in accordance with this act" includes Sec 6 (d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in 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 the link or connection, as meant by this act, is the registry identification card. So if a patient designates a primary caregiver that caregiver's info will be on the back of the patient's card and the caregiver will be issued a card for each patient the caregiver has consented to be linked to and the caregiver can be connected or linked to up to 5 patients.

 

At least that's the way I read it. If anyone can set me straight please reply.

 

The link/connection is the registration itself. So a person can be a "primary" caregiver for up to 5 patients meaning he is responsible for those five patients and if selected, for the cultivation of the plants, and a non-primary cg to any registered qualified patient, as they are connected by being registered through the MDCH.

 

[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:etc....

 

this is where the confusion sets in, the sentence structure places "in accordance with this act" is referring to "with the medical use of marijuana", not with "for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process"

 

there should actually be a comma there, but no punctuation is required.

 

if im mistaken, please clarify for me, i think people sometimes just see the words, and not remember basic grammer and how sentence parts relate to each other. not insulting anyone, im just sayin'

[Southern Cross]

The link/connection is the registration itself. So a person can be a "primary" caregiver for up to 5 patients meaning he is responsible for those five patients and if selected, for the cultivation of the plants, and a non-primary cg to any registered qualified patient, as they are connected by being registered through the MDCH.

 

[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:etc....

 

this is where the confusion sets in, the sentence structure places "in accordance with this act" is referring to "with the medical use of marijuana", not with "for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process"

 

there should actually be a comma there, but no punctuation is required.

 

if im mistaken, please clarify for me, i think people sometimes just see the words, and not remember basic grammer and how sentence parts relate to each other. not insulting anyone, im just sayin'

I think, "in accordance with this act" is referring to the whole act. They use the phrase at least 8 times under different sections. They also use, "under this act" and "pursuant to this act" which mean essentially the same thing. But if we're going to talk about sentence structure and how sentence parts relate to each other then let's look at the rest of the sentence after that phrase and tell me your understanding of the part highlighted in green.

 

I think it means the caregiver is allowed to grow marijuana only for the patient whose name is on the caregiver's card.

 

It continues-

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.

[bobandtorey]

Thanks i do know they have re-opened in Ferndale so i guess we will know soon for sure

[Southern Cross]

Thanks i do know they have re-opened in Ferndale so i guess we will know soon for sure

Yeah, I'm curious what their defense will be. I haven't heard anything more about them or Everybody's Cafe which is a different issue really. EC was a club and I think the cops bought inside and out in the parking lot and then at a different location. All from the same guy I guess.

 

Maybe there is more to it. That's all I could get from the Detroit News article.

 

I don't think the dispensaries are going to try to use section 4, but I don't know.

[Hempcheff]

I think, "in accordance with this act" is referring to the whole act. They use the phrase at least 8 times under different sections. They also use, "under this act" and "pursuant to this act" which mean essentially the same thing. But if we're going to talk about sentence structure and how sentence parts relate to each other then let's look at the rest of the sentence after that phrase and tell me your understanding of the part highlighted in green.

 

I think it means the caregiver is allowed to grow marijuana only for the patient whose name is on the caregiver's card.

 

It continues-

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.

 

i read that as referring only to the cultivation of plants, #2 does not address useable marihuana,

 

 

but is it up to 12 plants, or if i am able to maintain 2 plants, can my CG cultivate the other 10?

[Southern Cross]

i read that as referring only to the cultivation of plants, #2 does not address useable marihuana,

 

 

but is it up to 12 plants, or if i am able to maintain 2 plants, can my CG cultivate the other 10?

I agree that the #2 only addresses cultivation. I'm looking at how it all ties in together to establish the patient/caregiver relationship and how a primary caregiver, under sec. 4 protections, is only protected by being specified by a patient to grow MMJ for that patient.

 

The way I understand sec 4 (a)... " 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." the qualifying patient can either grow 12 plants or have a caregiver grow 12 plants, but not both. In other words, a patient can either grow their own plants or have someone else grow their plants, but can't split the amount by growing 2 and having someone else grow the other 10.

 

Under sec. 8 (a) (2) and (3) protections it's "collectively" meaning between the two of them. And the amount is, "not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana etc."

 

So, a patient could grow 2 and the caregiver could grow as much as the patient needs and claim protection under Sec. 8, but not under Sec. 4.

 

How do you read it?

[Hempcheff]

It continues-

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.

 

 

anita, so far i agree with cultivation you on all counts, thanks for the 12 plant thing, it came up when another patient asked about it. he wanted to know if he could use 3 plants to learn to grow with, and have a cg grow the other stock. i suppose if they have an agreement to share grow space, (rent/lease, utilities, nutes, etc...) if its all documented then it shouldnt be a problem as there is no provision in the law restricting the number of enclosed locked facilities. I should have thought about that before.

 

ok, here is the part that im prolly gonna get some flamin' for, but i stand by it:

 

None of the language states who's useable cannabis is being supplied to each patient. only plant ownership is covered.

 

It states "an amount of marihuan" not "an amount of the patients 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

 

again, not "the patients marihuana" only "useable marihuana"

 

Which is a legal transfer between any scenario involving patients and caregivers with the exception of a CG/street sale (for arguments sake).

[chi_guy]

I understand the idea that all patients and caregivers are connected through the department's registration process. But the plain language of 4b1 seems as thought if that were correct than you would be able to possess 2.5oz for all patients and caregivers registered to the department. In my opinion the plain language of 4b doesn't seem to apply to the situation of transferring meds to each other. So whatever being connected through the department's registration process actually means doesn't apply to the situation of transferring meds. It clearly is meant to put limitations on the amounts possessed and grown. I believe 4d is what protects the actual action of transferring meds.

 

(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.

 

"Engaged in the medical use" means engaging in the activities which are defined under 3e "medical use"

 

(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.

 

 

Acquisition, delivery, and transfer are all permitted.

[chi_guy]

I think, "in accordance with this act" is referring to the whole act. They use the phrase at least 8 times under different sections. They also use, "under this act" and "pursuant to this act" which mean essentially the same thing. But if we're going to talk about sentence structure and how sentence parts relate to each other then let's look at the rest of the sentence after that phrase and tell me your understanding of the part highlighted in green.

 

I think it means the caregiver is allowed to grow marijuana only for the patient whose name is on the caregiver's card.

 

It continues-

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.

 

"in accordance with this act" applies directly to 4d

 

(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:

[Southern Cross]

I understand the idea that all patients and caregivers are connected through the department's registration process. But the plain language of 4b1 seems as thought if that were correct than you would be able to possess 2.5oz for all patients and caregivers registered to the department. In my opinion the plain language of 4b doesn't seem to apply to the situation of transferring meds to each other. So whatever being connected through the department's registration process actually means doesn't apply to the situation of transferring meds. It clearly is meant to put limitations on the amounts possessed and grown. I believe 4d is what protects the actual action of transferring meds.

 

(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.

 

"Engaged in the medical use" means engaging in the activities which are defined under 3e "medical use"

 

(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.

 

 

Acquisition, delivery, and transfer are all permitted.

So, a patient can be in possession of 2.5 ounces and their caregiver can also be in possession of 2.5 ounces for that patient right?

[+RevThad]

So, a patient can be in possession of 2.5 ounces and their caregiver can also be in possession of 2.5 ounces for that patient right?

Correct.

[+RevThad]

Awesome discussion here guys.

 

As for a valid defense for these dispensaries or anybody else, one need only look at what is stated in 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.

 

While clearly some have already gotten into the courts, I think pointing back to that clause can be grounds for asserting at a minimum the Section 8 protections, and possibly invoking the protection provided under Section 4.

 

The simple and most clear answer to any of the pending questions is that we do know the law clearly states that registered patients and caregivers are able to transfer to anybody else that is covered under the act, and still maintain their Section 4 protections, as long as they don't violate the quantity limits expressed in Section 4.

[laz]

That, PB is VERY true!

 

I just wanted the other side of the coin to be shown. It seemed like everyone was jumping on the "yeah it's totally legal" band wagon..............mean while this poor schlep is being taken away in hand cuffs saying "But, they said it was legal?!"

 

That wouldn't be fair.

 

He needs to know it is up to HIS level of risk he is comfortable with.

 

It has not been proven legal.

[whodathot]

What's even a more interesting issue is that caregivers and patients can be connected WITHOUT registration, as this is an affirmative defense for unregistered caregivers/patients.

 

The law clearly allows the PRIMARY caregiver (those caregivers who actually register) to keep 2.5 oz for each of his patients (while not necessarily designating a particular 2.5 oz to any one patient). Meaning if you are a caregiver with 5 patients (and if you are not a patient yourself), then the state wants to do simple math and limit you to possessing only 12.5 oz/60 plants. If you are a patient yourself, then you can possess 15 oz and 72 plants.

 

BUT you can also be a non-primary (secondary) unregistered caregiver for registered OR non-registered patients (read: multiple). Someone could be a patient with a primary registered caregiver but have no available medicine. In that case, he or she can contact you, even though you are not registered as a primary caregiver for that person, to dispense meds. The state has already verified your ability to be a caregiver if you are registered as a primary caregiver(meaning they've done a criminal check). You have been deemed worthy enough to be a caregiver OFFICIALLY. However in this situation you are acting as a secondary, non-registered caregiver who has no contract to provide for that patient, but you have filled the need in that situation. The patient may compensate you for your efforts.

 

Additionally, the law allows for unregistered caregivers and patients. So technically, you could be a PRIMARY registered caregiver for 5 patients (should you wish to go that route) but you could be an unregistered caregiver for others, exceeding 5. The law limits you, in black and white, to only registering five patients to your name, but it does not limit you from having other patients that you provide medicine for. The law limits the number of patients a person may be a PRIMARY caregiver for so that it can find an easy peasy way to limit plant count, which in my estimation, is the true concern of the law. Basically, they don't want people running a marijuana farm or possessing a kilo. I find no real harm in that as honestly, I think we should just use our resources to the best of our ability. You have agricultural land, great, grow some great homegrown medicine. You are a wonderful caretaker and people love calling you to deliver their meds? Great, have as many patients as you want. What's the true harm? Someone might get really good at something or have the ability to grow great medicine? And??? But I digress...

 

The law also allows you to have more than 12 plants per patient and 2.5 oz per patient if, as an affirmative defense, you can prove it is necessary. Such is the case of medibles/ointments/etc which may be the only way some patients can utilize their medicine or may prefer to utilize it (some people may not have the capacity or desire to smoke or eat marijuana. Therefore, more ounces or plants may be needed for that patient. You would have to prove this in court.

 

Until a binding court decision is handed down, the black letter law is all we have. Even if a trial court makes a decision, that decision is not binding on other jurisdictions. If you are prosecuted in Oakland County and a judge makes a decision about what the law means, this applies only to that case and other people in that exact situation in Oakland County. It does not apply to people in other counties. While a judge in another county might find that opinion persuasive, he is not bound by it. Then the defendant has a right to appeal the case.

 

Until the Court of Appeals rules upon a case, there is no binding precedent. A court of appeals decision may have little or no precedential value since an appellate case often gets kicked back to the trial level for further action. For example, the appellate court could do something as simple as say a defendant's right to a fair trial was denied, now trial court, conduct a new trial.

 

I would even go so far to say that while I totally think that CG to CG, CG to Patient, and Patient to Patient or PT to CG transfers are allowed under the law, I believe you have further protection if you are a patient AND a caregiver. It seems very clear to me that PT to PT is allowed. Thus, even if you are caregiver, as long as you are a patient too, you probably have an extra layer of protection because you can clearly show that PT to PT transfers are allowed.

 

While the trailblazers are often the people with the arrows in their back, you don't have to be a trailblazer. Keep your 5 patients and plant and useable medicine amounts within your risk tolerance.

 

I have a problem with a conservative interpretation of the law that isn't there. You can manipulate it to sound like you can only have so many patients and so many plants/oz but there is wiggle room depending on the individual case. And if you don't want to be attached to any caregiver guidelines/patient numbers, and you like blazing trails, I say, stay unregistered and you may have even a better argument (isn't that ironic?)

 

I'm not dispensing legal advice, just giving my opinion of how the law could be interpreted. Again, while I have no desire to be an unregistered caregiver and blaze that trail, I think it could be legally asserted, and possibly win.

 

I also think by going around and encouraging people to do less than what the law clearly states (only 5 patients per caregiver, for example) that this is a voluntary relinquishment of the rights clearly granted under the law and should be avoided. It's as someone stated earlier: if the speed limit sign says 70, you have a right to go 70 mph (barring unsafe road conditions) and the officer does not have a right to ticket you for speeding at 60 mph. On the other hand you could get ticketed for going 45 mph and too slow. Thus, in my estimation, many layman interpretations could downright hurt people who wish to follow the true intent and black letter of the law by encouraging people to do less than they should and in the end, this works to abrogate our true rights.

[+Annnie]

In the af Defense i also read it to say.. Any condition that a Dr feels would be helped by mm .. as opposed to the qualifying conditions outlined by the registry process..

(im not a lawyer and do not profess to know bunny muffin) This is strictly a laymans reading..

[boroboro]

Whodathot, you should get a prize for best first post of the week ! Well thought out, well written, and ample food for thought whichever side of the issue the reader is on.

 

I limit what I do and who I deal with not out of legal limitations, but out of fear of the police. Big difference.

[TheGanz]

Fear is the easiest way to control a group of people. Seems like Leo is doing a darn good job

[whodathot]

Boroboro,

 

Thanks! I'm just passionate about the issue and especially the legal issues. I totally understanding someone not wanting to stick his or her neck out. On the other hand, I'm against people making the rights of all of us smaller out of fear or ignorance of what the law actually says. It seems to me that in another year the picture is going to look differently. We are going to have a few decisions to guide us (while not necessarily ruling us due to lack of precedential value) and I think Leyton will be our new AG and he's pro MM as far as I can tell. This will get that numb nut Cox out of office (along with his hater homophobic Asst AG) and we can carry on as the law intended.

 

I've had legal consultation with some of the best and unfortunately, their advice has been to act like it's illegal even though it's not. They want to keep people safe, and I understand, but I absolutely will not act like what I want to do by following the best medical path for me and others is illegal. My spouse says, we are mini-Pharma, not big Pharma....time to assert our rights too.

 

WDT