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

[bobandtorey]

When presenting a concurring opinion, a judge may agree with the decision of the majority court, but feels he/she needs to add something more. It is also true that a concurring opinion is expressed to offer additional reasons and/or explanations.

 

It is true that a concurring opinion is not binding and cannot be cited as such. In cases when there is no binding precedent, the concurring opinion can be cited as a persuasive or authoritative precedent.

 

Whether O’Connell opinion is liked or not, he did bring to light many issues that needs to be addressed. Although Justice O’Connell slips in quotes passages from new and classic novels, judges from lower courts will no doubt use the Justices opinion as a guide when deciding cases that may come before them. This is something that could not happen if the Justice’s opinion was dissenting. When another medical marihuana case comes before Justice O’Connell, we now know how he will rule.

 

you are sure right about that i was at the Ferndale court the last time and sure enough the judge was saying just that just ask Michal K what the judge said in waterfor

[Cheliose]

The issue at hand is whether or not care givers can provide (sell) MMJ to people that are not their patient.

 

Since the MMMA has no language in it what so ever that protects any sale of MJ whether MMJ or not, it is correct to conclude that any sales are illegal. In fact, many have suggested that receiving compensation based on quantity, even to your own patient could constitute a sale.

 

I myself am very disturbed by this language. I am also disturbed by language that does seem to suggest that a CG can only receive compensation for costs and not for labor. That to me sounds flat out stupid. As a business owner, the entire proposition makes no sense and has the effect of nullifying the whole MMMA where CG are concerned. Anyway, if you don't keep any records or have an accounting system it would be nearly impossible to decipher.

 

Anyway, the thing is, many prosecutors and judges are fascists. As soon as the focus of conversation turns to how one might raise an affirmative defense in court, the conversation is already moot. Reason being, if you are in that position, you are hosed. First, your legal fees are going to be freaking astronomical if you do decide to go to trial. Second, few lawyers are going to let you go to trial. The reality is that most lawyers are going to try their best to get you a plea bargain in exchange for a guilty plea. If you are otherwise a law abiding citizen the prosecutor may agree to this and your lawyer is going to tell you you are dodging a bullet just to get the plea.

 

I don't know where you all live but I can tell you that if you go over to Oakland County Circuit Court and look at their records you will find a 99.9% conviction rate. The place is a bona fide kangaroo court and most of the time your best hope is to draw a judge who hand out light sentences. Ask any lawyer and they will tell you that in OC, you have a snowball's chance in hell of a not guilty verdict.

 

So, the way to win is to cover your but and then cover your covering. That is why I started the thread on guilt by finances. You want to be prepared for a everything a sharp prosecutor may throw at you. The way to do this is to brain storm and consider every single angle that a sharp prosecutor might use and deny him of that angle.

 

The way to lose before you get started, is to hand him all the angles and then try to think up ways to argue against him.

 

For instance, if you rent an apartment as a grow house with nobody living there. Do you honestly think a prosecutor isn't going to be on that like flies on poop? Is your answer to his deluge of questions going to be that you were within your plant count? That is like handing an attacker a baseball bat because you think you are fast enough to dodge it.

 

The way to win is to stay under the radar and within the confines of the card system. I'm sure you can all think of productive ways to use your overages that don't raise a king sized red flag over your head. Getting greedy and being stubborn and foolish will burn you every time.

[bobandtorey]

The issue at hand is whether or not care givers can provide (sell) MMJ to people that are not their patient.

 

Since the MMMA has no language in it what so ever that protects any sale of MJ whether MMJ or not, it is correct to conclude that any sales are illegal. In fact, many have suggested that receiving compensation based on quantity, even to your own patient could constitute a sale.

 

I myself am very disturbed by this language. I am also disturbed by language that does seem to suggest that a CG can only receive compensation for costs and not for labor. That to me sounds flat out stupid. As a business owner, the entire proposition makes no sense and has the effect of nullifying the whole MMMA where CG are concerned. Anyway, if you don't keep any records or have an accounting system it would be nearly impossible to decipher.

 

Anyway, the thing is, many prosecutors and judges are fascists. As soon as the focus of conversation turns to how one might raise an affirmative defense in court, the conversation is already moot. Reason being, if you are in that position, you are hosed. First, your legal fees are going to be freaking astronomical if you do decide to go to trial. Second, few lawyers are going to let you go to trial. The reality is that most lawyers are going to try their best to get you a plea bargain in exchange for a guilty plea. If you are otherwise a law abiding citizen the prosecutor may agree to this and your lawyer is going to tell you you are dodging a bullet just to get the plea.

 

I don't know where you all live but I can tell you that if you go over to Oakland County Circuit Court and look at their records you will find a 99.9% conviction rate. The place is a bona fide kangaroo court and most of the time your best hope is to draw a judge who hand out light sentences. Ask any lawyer and they will tell you that in OC, you have a snowball's chance in hell of a not guilty verdict.

 

So, the way to win is to cover your but and then cover your covering. That is why I started the thread on guilt by finances. You want to be prepared for a everything a sharp prosecutor may throw at you. The way to do this is to brain storm and consider every single angle that a sharp prosecutor might use and deny him of that angle.

 

The way to lose before you get started, is to hand him all the angles and then try to think up ways to argue against him.

 

For instance, if you rent an apartment as a grow house with nobody living there. Do you honestly think a prosecutor isn't going to be on that like flies on poop? Is your answer to his deluge of questions going to be that you were within your plant count? That is like handing an attacker a baseball bat because you think you are fast enough to dodge it.

 

The way to win is to stay under the radar and within the confines of the card system. I'm sure you can all think of productive ways to use your overages that don't raise a king sized red flag over your head. Getting greedy and being stubborn and foolish will burn you every time.

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/topic/24672-ca-of-mt-pleasant-oct-16-menu/page__pid__221078#entry221078

[+RevThad]

The issue at hand is whether or not care givers can provide (sell) MMJ to people that are not their patient.

 

Since the MMMA has no language in it what so ever that protects any sale of MJ whether MMJ or not, it is correct to conclude that any sales are illegal. In fact, many have suggested that receiving compensation based on quantity, even to your own patient could constitute a sale.

 

I myself am very disturbed by this language. I am also disturbed by language that does seem to suggest that a CG can only receive compensation for costs and not for labor. That to me sounds flat out stupid. As a business owner, the entire proposition makes no sense and has the effect of nullifying the whole MMMA where CG are concerned. Anyway, if you don't keep any records or have an accounting system it would be nearly impossible to decipher.

 

That is the biggest misconception though, the MMMA does address sales. It clearly defines who cannot be sold to, and thus defines who can be sold to.

 

"(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"

 

Any reasonable person reading the compensation clause would conclude that labor was a cost, as that is the common understanding of the word. Costs would include "the total spent for goods or services including money, time and labor".

 

However, in light of your point, and that of Justice O'Connell, let's look at the pertinent clauses, and how they work or don't work.

 

(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.

 

The emphasized part is what I would like to touch on first, it doesn't say for cultivating or for processing, it says for assisting in the medical use. As we have discussed before medical use as defined by the law has many actions included in it, the pertinent ones to this discussion are acquisition and transfer. In other words, a caregiver can be compensated for helping procure or in the transfer of marijuana, for medical purposes.

 

The second part of that clause, simply states that such compensation shall not be considered as a sale of controlled substances, for legal purposes, and so that the state law is not in conflict with federal law.

 

Here is the kicker, even if O'Connell's opinion was correct that such activity was still illegal because of other laws and health codes...

 

Section 7(e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

 

Technically speaking, folks that are in compliance with section 4 (registered and within quantity limits) are protected from a PA even starting criminal proceedings in association with the medical use of marijuana. Remember the immunities in section 4 protect from both arrest and prosecution.

 

 

As for the rest of the points in your post, I think there is some real value in there, we may not agrre on everything you stated, but most of it is right on. Their conviction rate is high because, most people plea out to avoid the hassle and or costs (mental and financial), and therefore they get a higher rate of convictions. Cooper is going to go a long way towards bring that number down though, look at the woman she charged with 2nd Degree murder, before the cause of death was determined.

[Cheliose]

That is the biggest misconception though, the MMMA does address sales. It clearly defines who cannot be sold to, and thus defines who can be sold to.

 

"(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"

 

Any reasonable person reading the compensation clause would conclude that labor was a cost, as that is the common understanding of the word. Costs would include "the total spent for goods or services including money, time and labor".

 

However, in light of your point, and that of Justice O'Connell, let's look at the pertinent clauses, and how they work or don't work.

 

(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.

 

The emphasized part is what I would like to touch on first, it doesn't say for cultivating or for processing, it says for assisting in the medical use. As we have discussed before medical use as defined by the law has many actions included in it, the pertinent ones to this discussion are acquisition and transfer. In other words, a caregiver can be compensated for helping procure or in the transfer of marijuana, for medical purposes.

 

The second part of that clause, simply states that such compensation shall not be considered as a sale of controlled substances, for legal purposes, and so that the state law is not in conflict with federal law.

 

Here is the kicker, even if O'Connell's opinion was correct that such activity was still illegal because of other laws and health codes...

 

Section 7(e) All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act.

 

 

Technically speaking, folks that are in compliance with section 4 (registered and within quantity limits) are protected from a PA even starting criminal proceedings in association with the medical use of marijuana. Remember the immunities in section 4 protect from both arrest and prosecution.

 

 

As for the rest of the points in your post, I think there is some real value in there, we may not agrre on everything you stated, but most of it is right on. Their conviction rate is high because, most people plea out to avoid the hassle and or costs (mental and financial), and therefore they get a higher rate of convictions. Cooper is going to go a long way towards bring that number down though, look at the woman she charged with 2nd Degree murder, before the cause of death was determined.

 

Dude, you really need to stop playing high school lawyer wanna be. All you are doing is spreading bad advise that is going to get people into serious trouble. It almost seems you are trying to convince people to a guinny pigs.

 

Any prosecutor would tear your argument to shreds. The statutes talks about sales being illegal and about transfers not being considered sales. You are making a giant leap in logic when you go from a CG providing their patient, to a dispensary SELLING MJ to people for whom they are not the PGC.

 

And if you think the conviction rate is high due to people plea bargaining, you are darn skippy! That is what I've been trying to tell you. If you are charged with manufacturing, you will most likely plea out the case if you are lucky. Even then, you are talking huge legal expenses and a year or two of off the charts stress. Redden and Clark were just a couple guys with a personal closet grow and look what happened to them. What do you think is going to happen to the guy selling openly on Craig's List?

[+RevThad]

Dude, you really need to stop playing high school lawyer wanna be. All you are doing is spreading bad advise that is going to get people into serious trouble. It almost seems you are trying to convince people to a guinny pigs.

 

Any prosecutor would tear your argument to shreds. The statutes talks about sales being illegal and about transfers not being considered sales. You are making a giant leap in logic when you go from a CG providing their patient, to a dispensary SELLING MJ to people for whom they are not the PGC.

 

And if you think the conviction rate is high due to people plea bargaining, you are darn skippy! That is what I've been trying to tell you. If you are charged with manufacturing, you will most likely plea out the case if you are lucky. Even then, you are talking huge legal expenses and a year or two of off the charts stress. Redden and Clark were just a couple guys with a personal closet grow and look what happened to them. What do you think is going to happen to the guy selling openly on Craig's List?

This thread is not about dispensaries, I openly admit that their status needs to be worked out through either legislation or the judiciary.

 

So let me get this straight, first you argue that sales are not covered under the law, and then you suggest that it says they are illegal. Please get your argument straight, the grasping at straws and acting as they are facts is becoming mundane.

 

Let us try to discuss this then point by point. I submit that the topic of sales is covered in the MMMA, and defines who is allowed to sell and who is allowed to buy. It even sets up a penalty for selling to somebody not allowed to use marijuana under the act. Please explain this exact clause, for those of us that are unable to understand the plain language of the law.

 

(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.

 

If sales were not to be allowed to folks covered by the act, they could have easily made it to read. As they used similar language in other parts of that very section...

 

Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to somebody whom he or she is not connected through the department's registration process 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.

 

Or even to:

 

Sales of marijuana to anyone is prohibited, a registered qualifying patient or registered caregiver who sells marijuana, 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.

 

However, the law does neither of those things. It sets a clear limit on who can be sold to. You know the same way tobacco and alcohol laws limit who can be sold to; by setting up penalties for selling to people under a certain age.

[mibrains]

The law only apeers poorly written and confusing to those of you who don't want US to have these new rights the law gives us. And it is only confusing, because you can't understand how we finally got these rights when you obviously don't agree with them.

 

Guess what, you were wrong, we are not the minority. YOU ARE. The law is written. All you have to do now is read it, and stop trying to add provisions that are not there!

 

I think you need to take your own advice. Seperate what you feel is wrong, (our new rights) from what you want the law to say. The 2 are clearly not the same.

 

See, LEO's just dont want to understand the law, so they call it confusing. HELLO, stop confusing it, just read the darn thing. The law says what it means if you just stop adding to it and twisting what it says. READ IT period.

 

I know you don't want us to have these rights, but you are the one who needs to realize things are not how they used to be, and they are obviously not how you want them to be, but guess what? It'll be ok, you can either accept the fact that we DO have new rights, and stop trying to interfere with them, and admit to yourself that the poles weren't fixed, and the vote did really pass, and move on OR you can keep stomping around saying "it can't be" and live a miserable life trying to interfere with other peoples rights.

 

The choice is yours, but guess what.....

 

times are indeed changing

yep

well said

[Cheliose]

This thread is not about dispensaries, I openly admit that their status needs to be worked out through either legislation or the judiciary.

 

So let me get this straight, first you argue that sales are not covered under the law, and then you suggest that it says they are illegal. Please get your argument straight, the grasping at straws and acting as they are facts is becoming mundane.

 

Let us try to discuss this then point by point. I submit that the topic of sales is covered in the MMMA, and defines who is allowed to sell and who is allowed to buy. It even sets up a penalty for selling to somebody not allowed to use marijuana under the act. Please explain this exact clause, for those of us that are unable to understand the plain language of the law.

 

(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.

 

If sales were not to be allowed to folks covered by the act, they could have easily made it to read. As they used similar language in other parts of that very section...

 

Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to somebody whom he or she is not connected through the department's registration process 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.

 

Or even to:

 

Sales of marijuana to anyone is prohibited, a registered qualifying patient or registered caregiver who sells marijuana, 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.

 

However, the law does neither of those things. It sets a clear limit on who can be sold to. You know the same way tobacco and alcohol laws limit who can be sold to; by setting up penalties for selling to people under a certain age.

 

No, it does not. The law articulates a couple things that are specific violations. By what principle of logic are you assuming that the existence of these violations means that the opposite meaning must be permissible? In essence, you are saying A is illegal, B is illegal, C is neither A nor B, so C is legal. This is an invalid syllogism.

 

What if I said, killing a police dog is a felony. Therefore, if the dog is not a police dog, but a regular dog, killing it isn't a crime?

[bobandtorey]

Cheliose does make some points for sure about how long it will be in court we were only two people with Recommendation and waiting on cards i was just tell the people at the Ferndale place that today

are case seams simply compared to theirs and look were we are

[+RevThad]

No, it does not. The law articulates a couple things that are specific violations. By what principle of logic are you assuming that the existence of these violations means that the opposite meaning must be permissible? In essence, you are saying A is illegal, B is illegal, C is neither A nor B, so C is legal. This is an invalid syllogism.

 

What if I said, killing a police dog is a felony. Therefore, if the dog is not a police dog, but a regular dog, killing it isn't a crime?

Okay, let us try and simply it even more for you.

 

Prior to the MMMA... all sales of marijuana were illegal.

 

If sales of marijuana were to remain unchanged under the new law, there would be no reason to restate that position, further there would be no reason to include a limitation on them as they would all still be illegal. They could have simply stated that any sale would also constitute a violation of the act and would result in the included penalty.

 

Again, please explain for us slow folks what the plain language of that clause states.

 

Or since you want to show off your logic following skills lets approach it from another angle.

 

According to the MMMA:

What is the penalty for selling to somebody that is allowed to use marijuana under the act?

 

 

As for your closing, it seems that killing a dog (that is not a police dog) is not a felony as police officers are doing it all over the place...

[Highlander]

I decided a long time ago to get away from debating what the law actually allows. I am one of the few patients who takes a conservative view of the law, but folks around here don’t take too kindly to that and don’t usually welcome such opinions, so I’ve tried to bite my tongue.

 

Cheliose seems relatively new here, so for his sake, I’ll start by saying that his point of view isn’t very different from mine on many of his opinions, but on the issue of “sales” I’d like him to consider –

 

The law states “A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.”

 

 

I think we can agree for the purposes of this discussion that “compensation” means “the patient hands the CG money.” So if I as a caregiver assist a patient with medical use of marijuana, it is OK for the patient to give me money. How much money? The amount of money equivalent to my cost to have completed all of the necessary steps to arrive at the patient’s door with some marijuana. And what exactly does “cost” mean? There is no definition in the MMMA, so we turn to the dictionary (I used Websters…and we’re looking at the noun here not the verb due to the part of speech in the act)

 

Cost (n):

1 a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something : PRICE b : the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object

2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something

 

There is a term in economics called “opportunity cost,” and explaining it helps explain 1b and especially 2 above. Opportunity cost is what you could have gotten instead of what you did get. For example, if you are at walmart and spend $200 on ice cream and chips, your opportunity cost is defined as – a 20-inch TV or 80 gallons of gas, or $200 in your pocket, a new puppy, or 40 packs of cigarettes…..or a day off work. Labor is a cost.

 

If I spend 2 hours trimming an ounce of marijuana, the cost of that effort is that I didn’t make $40 working for my uncle Louie’s roofing company. My labor is part of my cost. By definition “cost” includes what you sacrifice.

 

As a caregiver, I can legally be compensated for my costs to grow, process, and deliver my marijuana. The notion that “cost” includes only out-of-pocket expenses is not supported by the definition of “cost.” If the law wanted a CG to only get paid out-of-pocket expenses it would have said just that..but instead it uses “cost.”

 

So what does “Shall not constitute” mean? According to Webster’s, “constitute” means:

 

1: to appoint to an office, function, or dignity

2: SET UP, ESTABLISH: as a : ENACT b : FOUND c (1) : to give due or lawful form to (2) : to legally process

3: MAKE UP, FORM, COMPOSE

 

The only definition that is relevant here is “make up, form, compose.”

 

So the law says, “if a caregiver hands a patient some marijuana, and the patient hands the caregiver some money, the transaction isn’t a sale of controlled substances”

 

The law doesn’t say it is illegal to sell; it says that it is impossible for a caregiver to sell marijuana to his patient. It means “If the deal is between a CG and his patient, Ya can’t call it a sale.”

 

How much money changes hands is not controlled by the law.

 

One might refute this opnion with the recent COA (non-binding) opinion that does not agree with mine. But before anyone takes the judge's opinion over mine, I would like to ask, why didn't the judge provide a valid/legal definition of "cost" in his opnion? Rather than seek out the definition of this obviously important word, he made up his own definition...he MADE UP HIS OWN DEFINITION. Had he used a published definition of "cost" there is no way he could conclude that it is illegal for a caregiver to sell to his patient. This is black and white folks.

 

Judge Turner said that the MMMA was the worst piece of legislation he's ever seen. Judge O'Connel's concurring opinion was the worst piece of bench legislation I've ever seen.

[+RevThad]

Highlander,

 

Cool post. I completely agree with your reading of that clause. I agree with your breakdown of it, save a small semantical difference but it isn't important enough to list. I can even respect your personal conservative take on the law, it may even be the most prudent way to approach things.

 

As for your initial point, I find that many folks with differing opinions are treated the way they are is because of the way they discuss the topic. For example, if I were to start stating that the sky is neon green, and you start showing me pictures of it being blue or black, yet I continue to claim that you are just cherry picking pictures, because I know for a fact that it is neon green, and I refuse to provide any proof other than my own words, how do you think I would be treated? (sorry about the insane run-on sentence there but I ain't goin back to fix it.)

 

Even with the most disturbing of posters (aka trolls) I try to remain civil, and at least discuss the points they make, sometimes I falter, but who doesn't. I honestly believe that discussing these issues with folks that have opinions from all sides of them gives us better clarity, helps refine the points, and even educates the folks at all levels of the spectrum. I learn more and more, each and every day from such interactions, as I am forced to look at, reread, research, and reflect on my own understanding of our law, and other material that is related to it.

[Nameless_Hero]

Someone just ban that guy. He spends all day thinking about the next thread to start just to get some attention. If you want someone in the MMJ community to be your friend that badly, then go to a compassion club meeting. Maybe that way you can see how everyone isnt a drug dealer. The time of being intellectual is over with you buddy. Again and again you contradict previous posts you yourself have made. Just drop it. I mean everyone here should be flattered that you are soo into them. Borderline stalker/obsessive. I hope that you at least clock in prior to sitting down at the computer.

[Cheliose]

I decided a long time ago to get away from debating what the law actually allows. I am one of the few patients who takes a conservative view of the law, but folks around here don’t take too kindly to that and don’t usually welcome such opinions, so I’ve tried to bite my tongue.

 

Cheliose seems relatively new here, so for his sake, I’ll start by saying that his point of view isn’t very different from mine on many of his opinions, but on the issue of “sales” I’d like him to consider –

 

The law states “A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.”

 

 

I think we can agree for the purposes of this discussion that “compensation” means “the patient hands the CG money.” So if I as a caregiver assist a patient with medical use of marijuana, it is OK for the patient to give me money. How much money? The amount of money equivalent to my cost to have completed all of the necessary steps to arrive at the patient’s door with some marijuana. And what exactly does “cost” mean? There is no definition in the MMMA, so we turn to the dictionary (I used Websters…and we’re looking at the noun here not the verb due to the part of speech in the act)

 

Cost (n):

1 a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something : PRICE b : the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object

2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something

 

There is a term in economics called “opportunity cost,” and explaining it helps explain 1b and especially 2 above. Opportunity cost is what you could have gotten instead of what you did get. For example, if you are at walmart and spend $200 on ice cream and chips, your opportunity cost is defined as – a 20-inch TV or 80 gallons of gas, or $200 in your pocket, a new puppy, or 40 packs of cigarettes…..or a day off work. Labor is a cost.

 

If I spend 2 hours trimming an ounce of marijuana, the cost of that effort is that I didn’t make $40 working for my uncle Louie’s roofing company. My labor is part of my cost. By definition “cost” includes what you sacrifice.

 

As a caregiver, I can legally be compensated for my costs to grow, process, and deliver my marijuana. The notion that “cost” includes only out-of-pocket expenses is not supported by the definition of “cost.” If the law wanted a CG to only get paid out-of-pocket expenses it would have said just that..but instead it uses “cost.”

 

So what does “Shall not constitute” mean? According to Webster’s, “constitute” means:

 

1: to appoint to an office, function, or dignity

2: SET UP, ESTABLISH: as a : ENACT b : FOUND c (1) : to give due or lawful form to (2) : to legally process

3: MAKE UP, FORM, COMPOSE

 

The only definition that is relevant here is “make up, form, compose.”

 

So the law says, “if a caregiver hands a patient some marijuana, and the patient hands the caregiver some money, the transaction isn’t a sale of controlled substances”

 

The law doesn’t say it is illegal to sell; it says that it is impossible for a caregiver to sell marijuana to his patient. It means “If the deal is between a CG and his patient, Ya can’t call it a sale.”

 

How much money changes hands is not controlled by the law.

 

One might refute this opnion with the recent COA (non-binding) opinion that does not agree with mine. But before anyone takes the judge's opinion over mine, I would like to ask, why didn't the judge provide a valid/legal definition of "cost" in his opnion? Rather than seek out the definition of this obviously important word, he made up his own definition...he MADE UP HIS OWN DEFINITION. Had he used a published definition of "cost" there is no way he could conclude that it is illegal for a caregiver to sell to his patient. This is black and white folks.

 

Judge Turner said that the MMMA was the worst piece of legislation he's ever seen. Judge O'Connel's concurring opinion was the worst piece of bench legislation I've ever seen.

 

I agree with you 100%. In retrospect, it was foolish of me to even get involved in any conversation regarding MMJ law in this forum. People here clearly only want their opinions reinforced and are poised to attack anyone who offers a different opinion. It is too bad people are not open to objective dialog on the issue.

 

That being said, I know a few lawyers and as a business owner I have experience with the legal system and that gives me a different perspective on how things work. Basically, what I have learned is that the law is messed up and that even when you win, you lose. The only real way to beat the system, is to steer completely around it. But my experience and the decades of experience of lawyers that I am passing on is clearly falling on deaf and hostile ears. Evidently, a few people here even think I should should be silenced because I don't agree with them. That is a sad commentary on how people's views on freedom have changed. Free speech as long as you agree with me. Wow!

 

As for the notion of sales and compensation, the MMMA uses some strange language. "Reasonable compensation" is clearly subject to interpretation. I personally think the suggestion that CGs are not permitted to make a fair profit is ridiculous. And, my argument would certainly be that recompense for your labor and expertise falls within the definition of reasonable compensation. The problem with this is that if one couldn't convince a judge of this, they would be hosed. I would rather not find out.

 

The important thing to note is just what you said; the law considers the exchange of money for your SERVICE to be compensation for your SERVICE and not a sale of an actual product. In fact, if it was the sale of a product, you would need to collect sales tax. The way most CG that I know do it, and the way I do it is to pro-rate the cost of your CG services according to product quantity. That is perfectly valid accounting wise and it therefore precludes anyone from calling it a sale. The other option I see used is to contract a set amount per month with a monthly fee. You can then pro-rate as needed.

 

Anyway, I really am here to share what I know about the law and how it works in order to help people avoid prosecution. I find it unfortunate that people would rather shoot the messenger because they don't like the message. I guess I ought to know better.

[+Annnie]

I thought the AG recently told the Mdch that a the law was to be "Liberally defined to apply the Spirit of the law" and they were to use the laymans understanding of what the law meant.. It reads pretty darn clear if you ask this layman..

[petoskeystoned]

When the law passed in 2008 it seems to me that the intent of the people (at least MY people) that passed the law (us) logically would have designed a system where as long as everyone involved is "qualified" to participate in the transfer or use of anything involving pot, you are within the law. With exception of course, like age and felonies and limits and driving and such of course. Let's just rewrite the damg thing.

[Southern Cross]

I agree with you 100%. In retrospect, it was foolish of me to even get involved in any conversation regarding MMJ law in this forum. People here clearly only want their opinions reinforced and are poised to attack anyone who offers a different opinion. It is too bad people are not open to objective dialog on the issue.

 

That being said, I know a few lawyers and as a business owner I have experience with the legal system and that gives me a different perspective on how things work.

 

This is your whole problem. You seem to think that the rest of us just fell off the back of a turnip truck and you are uniquely qualified to educate us regarding law and life. There are many here who have life experiences similar to what you describe.

 

Basically, what I have learned is that the law is messed up and that even when you win, you lose. The only real way to beat the system, is to steer completely around it.

 

Do you seriously think you are the only one who has learned that?

 

 

Anyway, I really am here to share what I know about the law and how it works in order to help people avoid prosecution. I find it unfortunate that people would rather shoot the messenger because they don't like the message. I guess I ought to know better.

Please consider that it is the way the message is delivered that makes people want to shoot the messenger. I offer Highlander's post and the response to it as proof that a properly delivered opposing viewpoint is welcomed here.

[chi_guy]

These discussions are important and I understand that people with opposing opinion such as cheliose may be working for the leo. But you have to have respect for arguments that they make if they have substance. Because this is what we are fighting against and unless we here all opposing viewpoints we won't be caught off guard in court. I brought a point regarding caregivers in another thread started by jaychat but it seems to have disappeared. I would have liked to heard responses too it. I think it is absurd for people even to entertain the notion that patients and caregivers can't sell meds to each other. Both parties are allowed to possess, acquire, transfer, deliver, etc.. . Why, absent any regulation are we too think that it is illegal. The act doesn't state specifically that you can smoke a bong does that mean it is illegal. That act doesn't specifically say you can sell marihuana but it does provide protections for engaging in the medical use. This notion that it is illegal is fear mongering by leo who will do anything to try and stop mmj industry from flourishing. The problem is though they can't stop it, the ball is rolling either they get out of they way or get rolled over. In regards to this thread I would like add that the law specifically does protect caregivers for receiving compensation for "costs associated with" assisting a patient not just "costs". The key terms here are "associated with". This gives caregivers the right to charge for a host of things that are "associated with" assisting "a" patient in the medical use.

[+Annnie]

When the law passed in 2008 it seems to me that the intent of the people (at least MY people) that passed the law (us) logically would have designed a system where as long as everyone involved is "qualified" to participate in the transfer or use of anything involving pot, you are within the law. With exception of course, like age and felonies and limits and driving and such of course. Let's just rewrite the damg thing.

thats how this layman reads it as well.. and when i voted for it this was what i expected.. and have been told over and over is legal.. by hubbard law firms box chart and also the ppl involved in writing the law who spoke at my cc club .. Why is this being so overcomplicated.

[+RevThad]

I agree with you 100%. In retrospect, it was foolish of me to even get involved in any conversation regarding MMJ law in this forum. People here clearly only want their opinions reinforced and are poised to attack anyone who offers a different opinion. It is too bad people are not open to objective dialog on the issue.

I hardly believe that it was foolish of you to get involved in this conversation of the law, especially in this forum. However I must disagree with your description of the discussion here. As I have repeatedly said and asked for any evidence supporting your opposing points, I am truly interested in seeing it and reading it. I am seeking valid arguments from both sides of the issues, as it will be used to form my own opinions. I have yet to attack you, and you have stated many different opinions. It really is a shame that some folks aren't open to objective dialogue on the issues...

 

That being said, I know a few lawyers and as a business owner I have experience with the legal system and that gives me a different perspective on how things work. Basically, what I have learned is that the law is messed up and that even when you win, you lose. The only real way to beat the system, is to steer completely around it. But my experience and the decades of experience of lawyers that I am passing on is clearly falling on deaf and hostile ears. Evidently, a few people here even think I should should be silenced because I don't agree with them. That is a sad commentary on how people's views on freedom have changed. Free speech as long as you agree with me. Wow!

I speak to lawyers on the front lines of this vary war, on a regular basis, and many if not all have very similar opinions as mine. That being said, they are also running into prosecutors and judges that are simply anti-mj, regardless of it being medicinal or recreational, that do not like any part of the law. Nobody is ignoring what you are saying, least of all me, I have simply been asking for some sort of proffer of support for what you are saying, again I have been far from hostile (you will know if that switch ever gets flipped). You will also notice that I have been encouraging your participation in these discussions, even though we have opposing views. For the record, on a privately owned message board, such as this, we are guests of the host, and they have the right to censor or prevent any speech presented on it.

 

As for the notion of sales and compensation, the MMMA uses some strange language. "Reasonable compensation" is clearly subject to interpretation. I personally think the suggestion that CGs are not permitted to make a fair profit is ridiculous. And, my argument would certainly be that recompense for your labor and expertise falls within the definition of reasonable compensation. The problem with this is that if one couldn't convince a judge of this, they would be hosed. I would rather not find out.

We do agree on one thing, that not permitting a CG or whoever to make a fair profit is ridiculous, yet by using the word fair we are further allowing for subjective bias to determine what is fair. Which kind of brings us back to another point, Justice O'Connell did a whole lot of grandstanding in his opinion, one particular recommendation by him shows where his true feelings lie:

 

"Until our Supreme Court provides a final comprehensive interpretation of this act, it would be prudent for the citizens of this state to avoid all use of marijuana if they do not wish to risk violating state law. I again issue a stern warning to all: please do not attempt to interpret this act on your own. Reading this act is similar to participating in the Triwizard Tournament described in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: the maze that is this statute is so complex that the final result will only be known once the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to review and remove the haze from this act."

 

The important thing to note is just what you said; the law considers the exchange of money for your SERVICE to be compensation for your SERVICE and not a sale of an actual product. In fact, if it was the sale of a product, you would need to collect sales tax. The way most CG that I know do it, and the way I do it is to pro-rate the cost of your CG services according to product quantity. That is perfectly valid accounting wise and it therefore precludes anyone from calling it a sale. The other option I see used is to contract a set amount per month with a monthly fee. You can then pro-rate as needed.

Again, you accuse folks of reading into the law things that are not there, but then do it yourself. The law doesn't mention the word "service", it simply uses the words "costs associated with", and that such compensation shall not be considered as "sale of a controlled substance". That last little bit is important for legal reasons, and for matters of keeping the state law from conflicting with federal law (which requires registration with various federal agencies to transfer or sell controlled substances). Your suggestions on how to setup an agreement are definitely valid, and should be considered by anybody looking to keep an accurate account of money in and out.

 

Anyway, I really am here to share what I know about the law and how it works in order to help people avoid prosecution. I find it unfortunate that people would rather shoot the messenger because they don't like the message. I guess I ought to know better.

I really do appreciate your sentiment, and do hope that your stated purpose is genuine. Nobody around here, well perhaps a few of the LEO types, want anybody being prosecuted for exercising their rights under this law. I will even concede that sometimes my writing is not the most conservative analysis of the law, but it is accurate with the plain language that it contains, and as has been mentioned by our CoA and the AG, we should be reading it in a liberal, literal fashion, that keeps in line with the intent of the voters initiative.

 

The attempting to play the victim now is not very becoming. Nobody has fired a shot at you, at least I haven't yet. While you may or may not be used to folks that know you, simply taking your word for things, around these parts we require proof. Just one last thing, conversation requires both sides to communicate, not just one side trying to speak louder to avoid answering the other party's questions...

 

So here is a simple one:

According to the MMMA, what is the penalty for selling marijuana to somebody that is allowed to use it for medical purposes under the act?

[freakydawg420]

So here is a simple one:

According to the MMMA, what is the penalty for selling marijuana to somebody that is allowed to use it for medical purposes under the act?

 

 

~waving hand frantically ~

 

I KNOW, I KNOW!

[Nameless_Hero]

I welcome people who have opposing viewpoints in this debate. That is what makes America great in many ways; the right to free speech as well as the right to not speak at all. But that is the issue here: rights. Part of a GOOD debate is the ability to look at the whole picture and at least have some succession to the opposing party's view on the given situation. And Cheliose, you have done this on several occasions and I applaud you for it. At least you are attempting to use facts and some logic to defend your position versus hiding behind the "children" defense or something equally ignorant. But you go from saying "there is no need to charge ridiculous prices" and "you shouldn't be making a ton of money from being a caregiver" to "you cannot make any money at all". You are blindly labeling an ENTIRE group of people based on nothing more than assumption. At some point in your posts you use the word "inevitable" to describe certain situations. But history and more importantly, RECENT history has shown that medical marijuana and the decriminalization of it is the only inevitability. In the 1920s and 30s, jazz music was looked at by many to be almost a blasphemous genre of music. Then Elvis and rock n roll in the 50s was viewed to corrupt our children. Finally hip-hop in the 1990s was looked at the same way. These things much like marijuana survived and thrived despite many people's opposing viewpoints against them.

 

Now I can get behind the points you make about how a judge or prosecutor may look at a situation. It is very unfortunate but true that many people's very freedom can lie in the hands of someone's opinion. That is how our society can work. But just going by historical trends alone, in 10 years this debate will be obsolete. And who knows, maybe alcohol will take its place. And although marijuana may very well be decriminalized nationwide some day, you want to know the best part of America? You and people similar to you can CHOOSE to not ingest it all you want. That is your freedom and your right. So keep in mind that when you post here, you are actually referring to several people who may lose their freedom and their rights. That is why we "high school lawyers" are passionate about this. Fighting for freedoms and rights.

 

--Honestly I wish we had the internet a couple hundred years ago Cheliose. That why I could debate you on how the world is not flat but in fact round

[Cheliose]

I have been a registered caregiver since they started administering cards. I am now putting together a caregiver group. That is all the information I will give in public. All this LEO stuff is silly. Being cautious doesn't make people LEO.

 

I happen to know several attorneys and regularly get behind the scenes info on how these things work. Let me share with you guys a common scenario so that you understand where I am coming from.

 

Suppose some putz is a patient of yours and he gets caught re-selling your product. The cops are able to scare him and get him to set you up in order to avoid jail. So, he starts buying a QP per week from you. This goes on for a month and then you get raided. And unfortunately for you, you live in Oakland County. So, you get raided, they take your stuff and they charge you. You hire a lawyer and he looks at the evidence against you.

 

Now, what will most likely happen at this point is that your lawyer will try to get you a plea bargain. He will explain to you that if you choose to go to trial in Oakland County, you will be found guilty and you will do time. He will also explain that none of your excuses will really matter because under no circumstances will you be taking the stand. You will also learn the meaning of the term "constructive knowledge."

 

So, you either plea guilty to a reduced charge or you roll the dice in a jurisdiction in which 99.9% of defendants are found guilty. It will be explained to you that none of this technical garbage matters because the only thing that will come into play is whether or not a jury believes you were trafficking through your patient. And at a QP per week, there will be no question. Again, the term "constructive knowledge" will be used.

 

You see, the facts don't always matter. When theory clashes with reality, reality wins every time.

 

I think the big miscommunication in this thread is that I am talking about what happens in reality and most of you are talking about the way you feel things ought to be. If you ask me how things ought to be, you might find our opinions are not that different. But, if you ask me if you want to be in the position of having to raise the affirmative defense for conduct that is over and above that delineated in section 4, my response is going to be a resounding "hell no!" In fact, if a lawyer were to advise you otherwise, he could potentially be sued for malpractice and or disbarred.

 

If in the future the law is determined to allow transfers in excess of that articulated in section 4, then things will be different. But, until that happens you are playing with fire. Perhaps if you all wanted to talk about what should be, it would have been better to title the thread "should P2P or C2C transfers be allowed" and not "are we allowed."

 

These are two very different questions.

[freakydawg420]

I have been a registered caregiver since they started administering cards. I am now putting together a caregiver group. That is all the information I will give in public. All this LEO stuff is silly. Being cautious doesn't make people LEO.

 

I happen to know several attorneys and regularly get behind the scenes info on how these things work. Let me share with you guys a common scenario so that you understand where I am coming from.

 

Suppose some putz is a patient of yours and he gets caught re-selling your product. The cops are able to scare him and get him to set you up in order to avoid jail. So, he starts buying a QP per week from you. This goes on for a month and then you get raided. And unfortunately for you, you live in Oakland County. So, you get raided, they take your stuff and they charge you. You hire a lawyer and he looks at the evidence against you.

 

Now, what will most likely happen at this point is that your lawyer will try to get you a plea bargain. He will explain to you that if you choose to go to trial in Oakland County, you will be found guilty and you will do time. He will also explain that none of your excuses will really matter because under no circumstances will you be taking the stand. You will also learn the meaning of the term "constructive knowledge."

 

So, you either plea guilty to a reduced charge or you roll the dice in a jurisdiction in which 99.9% of defendants are found guilty. It will be explained to you that none of this technical garbage matters because the only thing that will come into play is whether or not a jury believes you were trafficking through your patient. And at a QP per week, there will be no question. Again, the term "constructive knowledge" will be used.

 

You see, the facts don't always matter. When theory clashes with reality, reality wins every time.

 

I think the big miscommunication in this thread is that I am talking about what happens in reality and most of you are talking about the way you feel things ought to be. If you ask me how things ought to be, you might find our opinions are not that different. But, if you ask me if you want to be in the position of having to raise the affirmative defense for conduct that is over and above that delineated in section 4, my response is going to be a resounding "hell no!" In fact, if a lawyer were to advise you otherwise, he could potentially be sued for malpractice and or disbarred.

 

If in the future the law is determined to allow transfers in excess of that articulated in section 4, then things will be different. But, until that happens you are playing with fire. Perhaps if you all wanted to talk about what should be, it would have been better to title the thread "should P2P or C2C transfers be allowed" and not "are we allowed."

 

These are two very different questions.

 

 

Where in the law does it mention anything about an amount per month you can supply to your patients? The only mention of amount is 2.5 oz ON HAND and 12 plants. No where does it limit the amount a patient can use in a month, day, week or year. Also, nowhere does it say that if you give more than X amount (other than 2.5oz at a time) to a patient in a givin amount of time will you be considered as selling drugs.

 

I do like the grasping at straws though, it only shows how desperate you are getting

[Southern Cross]

Where in the law does it mention anything about an amount per month you can supply to your patients? The only mention of amount is 2.5 oz ON HAND and 12 plants. No where does it limit the amount a patient can use in a month, day, week or year. Also, nowhere does it say that if you give more than X amount (other than 2.5oz at a time) to a patient in a givin amount of time will you be considered as selling drugs.

 

I do like the grasping at straws though, it only shows how desperate you are getting

I'm saving the rest of my Troll food for the next one.