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

[whodathot]

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..

 

Annie,

The qualifying conditions are not an exclusive list. It's just a starting point. You could have severe gastritis and be helped. Some people are so messed up by gastritis they can't eat and that dang big Pharma nexium crap doesn't always work. That's why a medical doctor, not the state, gets to make a decision. And remember, as long as he has a good reason to do so, no one should say boo.

[Frank R]

What I learnt up there at Medgrow from their lawyer was that as long as the law doesn't prohibit an action that action is legal...

And as clearly stated by earlier posts the imposes no such restrictions to patients and caregivers who are registered.

My take on the law is that its intended for ready and immediate access to medical marijuana for patients via caregiver to patient, patient to caregiver and patient to patient transfers, which would allow for establishments such as the dispensaries and compassion clubs.

The plant count and medical marijuana weight limits are to control production and distribution.

It is these constraints that will drive the creativity and ingenuity needed to provide the highest quality Michigan produced medical marijuana to patients in a safe environment at affordable prices.

This is America, where commerce is first, and free trade is the law of the land.

Amen.

[phaquetoo]

thats what the law says but leo and the courts are not following that law or any other ones for that matter so to be safe have a card

 

 

I hear yea glf and I agree, but even a court appnted attny will get you off with a.d or paperwork. Just blows we got to go thru it,

 

Rev is rite also, its the law! Why dont po po have to follow the law?

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[boroboro]

I hear yea glf and I agree, but even a court appnted attny will get you off with a.d or paperwork.  Just blows we got to go thru it,

 

Rev is rite also, its the law! Why dont po po have to follow the law?[img]http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif[/img]  

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

 

 

 

Because they have the guns...

 

 

 

[Hempcheff]

 

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...."

 

 

I could not have said it better myself!

 

 

I have been trying for quite some time to find the words to express this exact post. Thanks for taking the time to explain in detail my very thoughts, lol, ive always seen "primary" as a status in regards mainly to growing/possessing plants, and to provide a guarantee that the patient has someone to be "responsible" for him or her.

[Southern Cross]

 

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?)

 

There is really no conservative manipulation required. There are two types of protections, Section 4 and Section 8. Section 4 is supposed to be the safest and not expose a registered patient or caregiver to any penalty. In practice it hasn't always worked that way.

 

I certainly agree that Section 8 opens it up the way it should be. Among other things, Prop 1 said,

"» Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana." And under § 8 a physician only needs to "state" that a patient could receive "therapeutic or palliative" benefit for a "serious or debilitating" condition etc. A Section 4 debilitating condition is defined, but a Section 8 "serious" condition is not.

 

The protections under Section 8 are much much broader than under Section 4. But when someone asks if we are allowed to dispense to patients other than ours, it seems like they are trying to be safe and, in most jurisdictions, the protections under section 4 are much much safer than under section 8.

 

So, I agree that the law allows anything related to the medical use of cannabis, but the safe (or conservative) answer is, stick with Section 4 and only dispense to patients listed on your caregiver's card.

[Cheliose]

If you are contemplating doing something that could jeopardize your freedom, it would be wise to seek the advise of an attorney rather than the advise of people on an internet forum.

 

The correct answer, although many might not like to hear it is, absolutely not.

 

Section 333.26424

 

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

As much as I hate to be the barer of bad news, the law clearly states that the only legal transfers are those that go from caregiver to one of their five registered patients.

[whodathot]

The point being a PRIMARY caregiver. You can be a primary AND a secondary caregiver. Show me in the law where it says you can only be a primary caregiver exclusively and not a secondary caregiver.

 

A primary CG should not be subject to arrest when providing to registered / connected patients This is supposed to pre-empt actions by LEO, but we all know how LEO doesn't let this stop them. The law also allows for an affirmative defense when an unregistered patient/caregiver relationship arises. You might be arrested first, but dammit, you prolly going to be arrested even if you are a registered CG and following the law. If they start looking, a little card isn't going to stop a bullet. So think about the reality of the situation. If you are in their sights, following the 5 patient rule or not, you will be doing all your explanations to a judge and jury.

 

Flashing a registry card is not going to matter if someone wants you bad enough. From what I've been reading, people have had their homes destroyed and property taken just for growing for themselves and only 1 patient. Usually it's the "concerned citizen" that does the damage. (Read about the Saginaw guy who went through this....) If you're in Oakland (which I am not) then you have cause to be scared, even if you're totally following the 5 patient rule.

 

If you want to be totally safe, don't grow, don't ingest. If you want to follow the law, do so, but don't impose restrictions on others that don't exist, then you are just abrogating our rights and making the law smaller than it is.

 

It is a fallacy to think that sticking to Section 4 is more conservative or safe for the foregoing reasons. If you are targeted, you WILL be spending money to defend yourself. Do you want your attorney arguing to the judge and jury that 5 patients only is what the law says? Heck no, you are going to interpret the law in the most liberal fashion possible.

 

 

WDT

[Southern Cross]

If you are contemplating doing something that could jeopardize your freedom, it would be wise to seek the advise of an attorney rather than the advise of people on an internet forum.

 

The correct answer, although many might not like to hear it is, absolutely not.

 

Section 333.26424

 

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

As much as I hate to be the barer of bad news, the law clearly states that the only legal transfers are those that go from caregiver to one of their five registered patients.

Excellent example of what I've been warning about. I'm going to start saving posts like this!

 

For all of you who are counting on the protections of Section 8, the Affirmative Defense, what happens if you get a judge who doesn't understand the AD and thinks that you can't assert the AD unless you have your registration card? There are many judges who think that way. Then what happens if you get a jury with several people who are as confused about the law as Cheliose?

 

You are screwed! And it's off to the Court of Appeals. Then suppose you get OConner and another judge who agrees with him? You're off to the Supreme Court. I know that it has to happen to get the case law established. But I'm not volunteering for that. So I'll just repeat this part.

 

"So, I agree that the law allows anything related to the medical use of cannabis, but the safe (or conservative) answer is, stick with Section 4 and only dispense to patients listed on your caregiver's card."

[Southern Cross]

The point being a PRIMARY caregiver. You can be a primary AND a secondary caregiver. Show me in the law where it says you can only be a primary caregiver exclusively and not a secondary caregiver.

 

A primary CG should not be subject to arrest when providing to registered / connected patients This is supposed to pre-empt actions by LEO, but we all know how LEO doesn't let this stop them. The law also allows for an affirmative defense when an unregistered patient/caregiver relationship arises. You might be arrested first, but dammit, you prolly going to be arrested even if you are a registered CG and following the law. If they start looking, a little card isn't going to stop a bullet. So think about the reality of the situation. If you are in their sights, following the 5 patient rule or not, you will be doing all your explanations to a judge and jury.

 

Flashing a registry card is not going to matter if someone wants you bad enough. From what I've been reading, people have had their homes destroyed and property taken just for growing for themselves and only 1 patient. Usually it's the "concerned citizen" that does the damage. (Read about the Saginaw guy who went through this....) If you're in Oakland (which I am not) then you have cause to be scared, even if you're totally following the 5 patient rule.

 

If you want to be totally safe, don't grow, don't ingest. If you want to follow the law, do so, but don't impose restrictions on others that don't exist, then you are just abrogating our rights and making the law smaller than it is.

 

It is a fallacy to think that sticking to Section 4 is more conservative or safe for the foregoing reasons. If you are targeted, you WILL be spending money to defend yourself. Do you want your attorney arguing to the judge and jury that 5 patients only is what the law says? Heck no, you are going to interpret the law in the most liberal fashion possible.

 

 

WDT

I agree with most of what you're saying. In Oakland County and a few other places the authorities don't care what the law says. But in most areas they are complying with the law. I have heard of many instances where the registration card was produced and that was the end of the matter. These incidents don't make big news so there isn't any discussion about them.

 

But if I get arrested and I'm in compliance with Section 4 then I don't want my lawyer confusing the issue by trying to assert anything unrelated to the case at hand. If I have a pure and simple case where I can just lay my cards on the table and I win, then I don't want my lawyer throwing a couple of jokers in just because he can.

 

I can't show you where the law says you can't be a secondary caregiver. It's real hard to prove a negative. Please show us where the law mentions a secondary caregiver then we'll talk.

[Cheliose]

No offense but you guys really have no clue how the law works.

 

I am however, will to help you guys out so that you don't get yourselves in trouble. I would hate to see anyone busted due to bad advise from the internet.

 

The entire MMJ act is based on affirmative defense. It works like this:

 

Growing, possessing or transferring weed is illegal. There is a small list of EXCEPTIONS to this law. These exceptions are specifically articulated in the MMMA. If your conduct is covered by one of these exceptions, you have an affirmative defense. If what you are doing is not expressly articulated as being permissible in the MMMA, it is illegal.

 

The argument that the MMMA doesn't say you can't do something and there for it is legal is wrong. The MMMA has to specifically say you CAN do something. If it does not say you CAN, it is presumed to be illegal.

 

Now there are gray areas such as growers coops and what constitutes possession. But, with regard to the question of whether or not it is legal to transfer to patients not registered to you the answer is an absolute "no." This simply isn't debatable.

 

The MMMA provides an affirmative defense for patients in possession and for transfers from primary caregiver to their 5 registered patients. All other transfers are illegal.

 

 

Now if you disagree with the law or don't like the law, that is your prerogative. But the law is clear on the issue.

[bobandtorey]

that would mean that Dispensary are illegal

[Southern Cross]

No offense but you guys really have no clue how the law works.

 

I am however, will to help you guys out so that you don't get yourselves in trouble. I would hate to see anyone busted due to bad advise from the internet.

 

The entire MMJ act is based on affirmative defense. It works like this:

 

Growing, possessing or transferring weed is illegal. There is a small list of EXCEPTIONS to this law. These exceptions are specifically articulated in the MMMA. If your conduct is covered by one of these exceptions, you have an affirmative defense. If what you are doing is not expressly articulated as being permissible in the MMMA, it is illegal.

 

The argument that the MMMA doesn't say you can't do something and there for it is legal is wrong. The MMMA has to specifically say you CAN do something. If it does not say you CAN, it is presumed to be illegal.

 

Now there are gray areas such as growers coops and what constitutes possession. But, with regard to the question of whether or not it is legal to transfer to patients not registered to you the answer is an absolute "no." This simply isn't debatable.

 

The MMMA provides an affirmative defense for patients in possession and for transfers from primary caregiver to their 5 registered patients. All other transfers are illegal.

 

 

Now if you disagree with the law or don't like the law, that is your prerogative. But the law is clear on the issue.

Thanks for helping us out here. I thought the voters passed prop 1 in 2008. I'm glad you cleared that up. We really only passed the part you like right?

[bobandtorey]

once on here long ago a Lawyer told me that if it not in the Law it's legal

If you got the money

[phaquetoo]

that would mean that Dispensary are illegal

 

 

Bob I seriously dont know if the despensarys are legal or ilegal? I beleive its a grey area, and if does not say specificly that there can not be a business that despense mm to registered patients, how can it be ilegal! got me confused, and I totaly take my hat off to all of the despense for forging ahead and making the law either reconize them or we will fight!

 

they should be every where a liqiour store can do busines if demand allows for it or if some one wants to opent one.

 

Patients need choices and they need to experiment a lil with dif types to see what works for them best. the worst thing that can happen when they get the wrong weed is they get the munchies and veg out on the couch or bed, they wont be hurt, and most likely will be happy before they get tired!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

[Cheliose]

Dispensaries are absolutely not legal in MI. This has been made abundantly clear by the architects of the legislation and by prosecutors.

 

Look, whether or not you agree with how the law is worded is a separate issue. The question at hand is what we can do without being prosecuted. Those things are described in the MMMA. What is important to know is that the MMMA provides for an affirmative defense. This means that if your conduct isn't specifically mentioned in the act, it is illegal. Again, the law says that all cultivation, possession, etc is illegal - EXCEPT that specifically articulated in the MMMA.

 

Now, there may be other questions that fall into gray areas. Suppose a guy harvests his plants only to find he is over his weight limit and he is raided while the plants are still being cured. In this case he would be faced with making another affirmative defense in which he would argue that he has not yet had the opportunity to destroy the overage or give it to the patient.

 

How this would work in reality is that you would hire a lawyer who would decide if you should attempt a plea bargain or risk going to trial. If you are in Oakland County, there is a 99% chance your lawyer is going to advise that you accept a plea if you are lucky enough to get one.

 

What this boils down to in the end is just having a good understanding of how the law works and what is meant by "affirmative defense." The last thing you want to do is to fall outside of the safeguards of the MMMA and be in a situation in which your lawyer is telling you to plead out to a possession charge and be banned by the judge from MMMA participation in order to avoid serious felony prosecution.

 

The purpose of the law is to allow medical users to use while preventing entrepreneurs from getting rich off of it. The best advise is to stick to your 60 or 72 plant limit and not try to gain the system. Johnny law may be an donkey, but he isn't stupid.

[bobandtorey]

Dispensaries are absolutely not legal in MI. This has been made abundantly clear by the architects of the legislation and by prosecutors.

 

Look, whether or not you agree with how the law is worded is a separate issue. The question at hand is what we can do without being prosecuted. Those things are described in the MMMA. What is important to know is that the MMMA provides for an affirmative defense. This means that if your conduct isn't specifically mentioned in the act, it is illegal. Again, the law says that all cultivation, possession, etc is illegal - EXCEPT that specifically articulated in the MMMA.

 

Now, there may be other questions that fall into gray areas. Suppose a guy harvests his plants only to find he is over his weight limit and he is raided while the plants are still being cured. In this case he would be faced with making another affirmative defense in which he would argue that he has not yet had the opportunity to destroy the overage or give it to the patient.

 

How this would work in reality is that you would hire a lawyer who would decide if you should attempt a plea bargain or risk going to trial. If you are in Oakland County, there is a 99% chance your lawyer is going to advise that you accept a plea if you are lucky enough to get one.

 

What this boils down to in the end is just having a good understanding of how the law works and what is meant by "affirmative defense." The last thing you want to do is to fall outside of the safeguards of the MMMA and be in a situation in which your lawyer is telling you to plead out to a possession charge and be banned by the judge from MMMA participation in order to avoid serious felony prosecution.

 

The purpose of the law is to allow medical users to use while preventing entrepreneurs from getting rich off of it. The best advise is to stick to your 60 or 72 plant limit and not try to gain the system. Johnny law may be an donkey, but he isn't stupid.

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/24437-off-to-the-farmers-market-in-lansing/page__pid__218989#entry218989

[+RevThad]

 

 

Look, whether or not you agree with how the law is worded is a separate issue. The question at hand is what we can do without being prosecuted. Those things are described in the MMMA. What is important to know is that the MMMA provides for an affirmative defense. This means that if your conduct isn't specifically mentioned in the act, it is illegal. Again, the law says that all cultivation, possession, etc is illegal - EXCEPT that specifically articulated in the MMMA.

 

 

How this would work in reality is that you would hire a lawyer who would decide if you should attempt a plea bargain or risk going to trial. If you are in Oakland County, there is a 99% chance your lawyer is going to advise that you accept a plea if you are lucky enough to get one.

 

What this boils down to in the end is just having a good understanding of how the law works and what is meant by "affirmative defense." The last thing you want to do is to fall outside of the safeguards of the MMMA and be in a situation in which your lawyer is telling you to plead out to a possession charge and be banned by the judge from MMMA participation in order to avoid serious felony prosecution.

 

The purpose of the law is to allow medical users to use while preventing entrepreneurs from getting rich off of it. The best advise is to stick to your 60 or 72 plant limit and not try to gain the system. Johnny law may be an donkey, but he isn't stupid.

Just got done reading your couple of posts in this thread and figured I would chime in; especially in light of the above and the following from another post.

 

The entire MMJ act is based on affirmative defense. It works like this:

 

Growing, possessing or transferring weed is illegal. There is a small list of EXCEPTIONS to this law. These exceptions are specifically articulated in the MMMA. If your conduct is covered by one of these exceptions, you have an affirmative defense. If what you are doing is not expressly articulated as being permissible in the MMMA, it is illegal.

 

Apparently, you missed the majority ruling in the Redden case. They seem to disagree with you position, and clearly understand that there are other protections besides the AD. One is granted the protections of Section 4 of the law by following those limits and requirements, those protections include, but are not limited to "shall not be arrested, prosecuted, etc...".

 

The affirmative defense kicks in only if a person fails to meet the requirements of Section 4.

 

Now to your claims of if it is not specifically mentioned in the law it is illegal. We live in a positive law state, in other words, unless something is specifically deemed to be illegal, it is considered to be legal. However, let's go a step further and look at the specific limitations set in the MMMAct.

 

Your reading of the law is that any sale or transfer of marijuana is illegal, unless the parties are connected via the registry. I suggest there would have been ample space for that exact language or a similar limit when they wrote the following into the law:

 

"Section 333.26424 (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."

 

Who is covered under this act for the use of marijuana for medical purposes? According to the COA, the ballot initiative, and the law, the answer is registered and unregistered patients and caregivers, and visiting qualifying patients.

 

There is no grey area or confusion on this point. Some rogue prosecutors, politicians, and leo, may want to suggest that there is, but these folks aren't interested in what the law says anyways, they are only interested in the prohibition of marijuana; as they cannot discern the difference between medicinal and recreational use, and most don't even recognize the former.

[bobandtorey]

Who is covered under this act for the use of marijuana for medical purposes? According to the COA, the ballot initiative, and the law, the answer is registered and unregistered patients and caregivers, and visiting qualifying patients.

 

Great we will be FREE soon maybe we can say OK we are unregistered would that work

[Southern Cross]

 

What this boils down to in the end is just having a good understanding of how the law works and what is meant by "affirmative defense." The last thing you want to do is to fall outside of the safeguards of the MMMA and be in a situation in which your lawyer is telling you to plead out to a possession charge and be banned by the judge from MMMA participation in order to avoid serious felony prosecution.

 

The purpose of the law is to allow medical users to use while preventing entrepreneurs from getting rich off of it. The best advise is to stick to your 60 or 72 plant limit and not try to gain the system. Johnny law may be an donkey, but he isn't stupid.

That's a little better, you're attitude isn't quite as know it all as it was yesterday. Since your statements aren't quite as ridiculous as they were I'll stop ridiculing and try to help you understand what is meant by, "affirmative defense" as it relates to the MMMAct.

 

The best way to do that is to show you what the major drafter of the ballot initiative, and the model marijuana bill says. Karen O'Keefe provided an affidavit for the COA in the Redden/ Clark case. The part about the difference between the Section 4 protections and the Section 8 Affirmative Defense is here:

 

7. We intended for both Michigan law and MPP’s model legislation to include two levels of protection. The greater level of protection is meant for people who are registered with the state and have no more than 2.5 ounces and 12 plants. We intended for them to be immune from arrest under state law. The lesser level of protection was intended for people whose conduct is not wholly covered by Section 4. For example, we meant for its protection to extend to patients who may have a medical need for more marijuana or who may not be registered. We intended for them to be protected from being convicted, but not from being arrested.

 

8. The affirmative defense purposefully used broader terms than were used in Section 4. For example, we did not use terms like “registered qualifying patient” or make any reference to a registry ID card. Instead, it is one of the very few places in the measure that uses the stand-alone term “patient.” The affirmative defense and motion to dismiss also spells out that it can be raised if the patient and his or her caregiver collectively possessed “a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.” Had the intention been to limit the patient to 2.5 ounces and 12 plants, we would have said so instead of using 43 words to describe how much marijuana is permitted.

------------------------------------

 

I hope that helps your understanding of what is meant by "affirmative defense".

[GanjaWarrior]

thats what the law says but leo and the courts are not following that law or any other ones for that matter so to be safe have a card

 

 

Going with this train of thought shouldnt we just say toi hell with the law and do what we want casue if the cops are not following the law then you card doesnt me bunny muffin any way.

[Southern Cross]

[/b]

 

Your willing to base you freedom, future,and possesions to those very words?? Not wise my friend.

 

Where does it say that???

 

Would it help your reading comprehension if I typed slower?

 

Or maybe if I double spaced things?

 

Are you sure the stuff you got from your bad experience with a CG was really cannabis?

 

How do you know for sure?

 

You said you didn't have any experience with cannabis prior to the law. Did you have it tested?

 

I think it's likely that someone sold you some snake oil.

 

Have you ever tried electroshock therapy?

 

If the answer is Yes then don't do it anymore.

 

If the answer is No then try it. You've got nothing to lose.

[Grow Thread]

[/b]

you'd better be very careful out there.

 

some people are just not MMMA material.

 

don't be mad. it's ok. truly. there are tons of other "weed" forums out there who will honor your membership.

 

your negativity is not something we need around here.

 

it is one thing to argue a point..... it is another to come on this site and argue EVERY point..... create fires........ and then feed those fires to no end.

 

well, there is an end now.

 

you need to become a more positive person before you come back around this uppity group we have here. nobody is "guaranteed" anything from this site..... including myself.

 

thanks for understanding. sorry.

 

bye.

 

____please do not address any more posts to member sub4me as he/she will not be around to see them.

[boroboro]

Thanks Bubblegrower! A real, healthy debate can be beneficial to both sides, but we haven't had too much of that here with this character. <br>

[Cheliose]

 

Duplicate - sorry