Jump to content

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


bigdogbolog

Recommended Posts

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 never thought you were a cop, but you can understand folks being cautious and assuming the worst, as they say better to keep your donkey covered, than to flaunt it in the wind, no?

 

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.

That is more in line with what I thought you do for a living... Wonder which side of the aisle those attorneys are on... just sayin.

 

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.

First, anybody carrying a QP to a single patient at once is obviously asking for trouble, especially if it is a weekly thing. Delivering more than 2.5 ounces to a single patient in a single trip is taking one outside of the immunity section protections. However, if a patient needed more that same week, I could understand it, as I have pointed out and other have, medibles and oils consume a bunch of material at one time.

 

The other thing is that people around the state should not be living their lives based on what "Hang em High" Cooper and "Roscoe" Bouchard (Kekekeke, I am gonna get those dope users this time) are up to in Oakland County. While there definitely will be some case law set by the various raids and arrests there, it won't be by the lower courts, it will occur up top.

 

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.

Uhm, I know for a fact that the lawyer that was representing me would not (and is not) afraid of Oakland county, he currently has quite a few cases down there. Seeing as the lawyer I want to represent me has a similar understanding of the law, I am not all that concerned about him recommending I plead out. Glad that your opinion is that anybody charged in Oakland County will be convicted, care to comment on the charges filed against Laura Johnson of Ferndale, or how the lovely PA of Oakland County jumped the gun there? I wonder how many more cases are exactly like it... some defense attorneys are smelling blood in the water.

 

Psst, that 99.9% conviction rate says nothing about what will happen in a jury trial, it is solely based on the prosecutors being willing to make deals to pad their stats, and folks being willing to accept those deals. That number is not intimidating, and if anything suggests that perhaps it is the prosecutors that are afraid to go to trial. With such a high conviction rate, one would think that the streets of a particular Oakland County city would be far safer..

 

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

Interesting perspective on our judicial system. Ignore the facts, lets focus on more opinion and propaganda...

 

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.

The reality is that many incidents between police and registered folks actually go as the law suggests, those incidents don't garner any headlines or even the same weight of word of mouth. Then you have folks like the County Drunk, Persecuting Attorney, and Sheriff Coltrane down in Oakland County that have to mug for the cameras, lie, exaggerate, and distort anything resembling the truth, to further their personal ambitions, people be damned.

 

An attorney that advised a client that they could use the Section 8 affirmative defense because they didn't fall under the guidelines of the immunities offered in Section 4, assuming the person met the 3 prongs asked for... would be a good advocate for that client. Of course remaining in the guidelines of Section 4 would be the preferred thing to do, however, as the law, COA, and ballot initiative point out a patient only need be qualified, registration and compliance with section 4 just affords more protections, they are not mandatory.

 

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.

I don't know where you got off on this tangent of delivering over the allowed amounts, I can only assume it is because you cannot or will not address the actual discussion of can a cg or patient provide another patient with meds.

 

Seeing as you claim to be a caregiver, what will happen to your patient(s) if your crop fails? Are they out of luck? Is that where you tell them, that they need to sit back and wait for you to get it up and running again, harvest, dry and cure? Remember we are talking reality here.

 

 

I look forward to any response to any of my questions, as you now seem to not want to engage in dialogue but fill the pages with anecdotes....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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 ;)

 

You know, I'm really glad you asked that question because it goes right to the heart of what I am saying.

 

The answer is that it would be up to a judge or jury to decide what they think is reasonable. And to answer your $64,000 question you would need to go to trial. Now here is the catch. It doesn't matter because your lawyer probably will not let you go to trial - unless you don't have a choice.

 

He won't let you go to trial because most judges, or people on a jury will not believe that your patient is consuming a QP every week. And if the judge or jury reaches the conclusion that nobody can use this amount, or that it is highly unlikely, they will also reach the conclusion that a reasonable man would know this and would know the patient was trafficking. Based on this conclusion they will enter a guilty verdict and you will be spending some time at OCJ bitching about how unfair the system is and about how you were within your rights and all the other stuff written in this thread.

 

That, my friend, is how it works in real life. Really, I don't know what you guys think I gain from sharing this with you. If I was LEO, I wouldn't be telling you how to avoid prosecution; I would be making friends with you and setting you up.

 

Quite frankly I am done with this. My lawyer buddy told me that some people can't be helped and need to learn the hard way and even then they still won't learn. He ought to know because he makes a sick living off of guys like that.

 

So, go ahead guys. Disregard everything I have said and go ahead and do your thing. Just make sure you save for a legal defense. You don't want a court appointed attorney.

 

Have fun storming the castle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would say you still make some good points and i would say that we were kinda luck i think because we didn't have a court appointed attorney or we would be inn jail right now they don't care about no AD

witch every one knows thats what you would be using from day one i think card or no card thats why the AD is so important because all will have to use it i think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very sad to see so many personal attacks in this thread, and I think the wrong person may've been banned. Our opponents are masterful at personal attacks, and they're prob'ly LAUGHING at us. We don't need to stoop to their level. Debating an issue is good as long as they can make their points without the side comments asulting someone's character and behavior. Those who judge, you don't know them well enough to assume to insult someone's intelligence or actions, unless of course they outright say or do something really obviously uncalled for. I understand an unpopular view being pounced and stomped on, and, whether or not that view is right or wrong, it'd be interesting to see from that perspective, as long as the person doesn't insult someone else while expressing it. The one being insulted will never even consider another possibility now. When someone attacks someone else, the attacked person isn't gonna listen anymore, and even if the point is valid, that person will disregard it because of how the message was delivered. Diplomacy and respect will get you farther than accusations. Everyone interprets the law from their own personal view. Many more would gladly join this kind of discussion if they weren't afraid of being attacked. Even someone with a "thick skin" can only take so much.

 

In the end it may not matter what any of us think, but I hope the final decision goes in our favor.

 

I've been seriously considering leaving this site, and when I do, I will exit quietly.

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very sad to see so many personal attacks in this thread, and I think the wrong person may've been banned. Our opponents are masterful at personal attacks, and they're prob'ly LAUGHING at us. We don't need to stoop to their level. Debating an issue is good as long as they can make their points without the side comments asulting someone's character and behavior. Those who judge, you don't know them well enough to assume to insult someone's intelligence or actions, unless of course they outright say or do something really obviously uncalled for. I understand an unpopular view being pounced and stomped on, and, whether or not that view is right or wrong, it'd be interesting to see from that perspective, as long as the person doesn't insult someone else while expressing it. The one being insulted will never even consider another possibility now. When someone attacks someone else, the attacked person isn't gonna listen anymore, and even if the point is valid, that person will disregard it because of how the message was delivered. Diplomacy and respect will get you farther than accusations. Everyone interprets the law from their own personal view. Many more would gladly join this kind of discussion if they weren't afraid of being attacked. Even someone with a "thick skin" can only take so much.

 

In the end it may not matter what any of us think, but I hope the final decision goes in our favor.

 

I've been seriously considering leaving this site, and when I do, I will exit quietly.

Sb

 

I'm sorry this has upset you. I know there has been a lot of fur flying. I don't know if you followed the whole thread because there are parts missing now.

 

You're right about the personal attacks too. Sometimes when someone feels that their intelligence has been insulted they react poorly. I'm not saying it's right I'm just saying it's human nature to defend oneself and people have different ways of doing that.

 

But I really hope you're not serious about leaving. I really enjoy your posts. They are always thoughtful and considerate.

 

I'll promise to watch my comments more closely if you'll promise to reconsider leaving this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry this has upset you. I know there has been a lot of fur flying. I don't know if you followed the whole thread because there are parts missing now.

 

You're right about the personal attacks too. Sometimes when someone feels that their intelligence has been insulted they react poorly. I'm not saying it's right I'm just saying it's human nature to defend oneself and people have different ways of doing that.

 

But I really hope you're not serious about leaving. I really enjoy your posts. They are always thoughtful and considerate.

 

I'll promise to watch my comments more closely if you'll promise to reconsider leaving this site.

Well I am glad you realize you are one of the people I was referring to, I hadn't expected a public response, but I do appreciate it. I get emotional too and I know it's hard not to "punch back", so to speak. Right now I am too tired to say anything more.

 

Sincerely, Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I'm really glad you asked that question because it goes right to the heart of what I am saying.

 

The answer is that it would be up to a judge or jury to decide what they think is reasonable. And to answer your $64,000 question you would need to go to trial. Now here is the catch. It doesn't matter because your lawyer probably will not let you go to trial - unless you don't have a choice.

 

He won't let you go to trial because most judges, or people on a jury will not believe that your patient is consuming a QP every week. And if the judge or jury reaches the conclusion that nobody can use this amount, or that it is highly unlikely, they will also reach the conclusion that a reasonable man would know this and would know the patient was trafficking. Based on this conclusion they will enter a guilty verdict and you will be spending some time at OCJ bitching about how unfair the system is and about how you were within your rights and all the other stuff written in this thread.

 

That, my friend, is how it works in real life. Really, I don't know what you guys think I gain from sharing this with you. If I was LEO, I wouldn't be telling you how to avoid prosecution; I would be making friends with you and setting you up.

 

Quite frankly I am done with this. My lawyer buddy told me that some people can't be helped and need to learn the hard way and even then they still won't learn. He ought to know because he makes a sick living off of guys like that.

 

So, go ahead guys. Disregard everything I have said and go ahead and do your thing. Just make sure you save for a legal defense. You don't want a court appointed attorney.

 

Have fun storming the castle.

 

Not sure about where you are from, but where I am from the lawyer does not tell the guy who hired him wether or not he is going to go to trial. The lawyer is still advising, it is still up to the client that hired them wether they want to cop a plea to any charges or go to trial. You are still ultimately the one who decides trial, or plea.

 

I'm also curious where you are from that they can just assume someone is trafficing, without any witnesses, or evidence, and convict someone soley based on "you must know because he uses a lot".

 

Again, I still ask where in the law it says it is illegal for a CG to provide THEIR PATIENT more than X amount in a givin time period. Not sure where you get the QP/Week number from, but I do agree that would be considered pretty heavy use. Maybe they are making some high grade oil for a particular ailment? Maybe they are having a get together of legal patients for a camp out? Not sure since this would be private info, only to be discussed by the PATIENT, and whoever they chose to share that private info with.

 

Until you see some kind of proof that a patient is doing something wrong with THEIR MEDS, or some evidence that they are selling them to someone who is not suposed to have them as allowed under the act, you have to assume they are using them for some form of medicinal use as covered by the law.

 

You are not supposed to assume they are doing something illegal, and you certaintly can not convict them on these evidence-less assumptions.

 

Isn't it supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?

 

Your way sounds more like never innocent, assumed guilty, convicted as assumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are we debating how much a patient would reasonably use? And in doing so, we are comparing what a STONER would use as the benchmark for comparison for what a medical patient would use.

 

Maybe we ought to go back and think about this - the law says a CG can grow 12 plants for a patient. To keep this easy, let's assume that the CG is not a patient himself and is growing only 12 plants.

 

Say the CG cuts down 2 plants and gets 5 ounces. He delivers 2.5 and has 2.5 on hand so both patient and CG are within limits. But since *someone* thinks an ounce a month is enough, that five oz. is enough to last 5 months...???? is the CG then to destroy all of the plants in his flower room since there is *no possible legal way* to use the meds?

 

Looking at this another way, the law allows for 12 plants per patient. Why are we arguing what a reasonable consumption is? A reasonable consumption for a patient is what his 12 plants are able to produce....and breaking that down...

 

2 mothers - leaves 10 plants in rotation

 

2 weeks to clone

4 weeks to veg

8 weeks to flower

2 weeks to dry

 

16 weeks per plant

each plant yields 2oz.

10 plants in rotation

 

equals well over an ounce per week - based on some very modest assumptions.

 

It is absurd to think that a patient should be limited to 25% of what his plants can easily produce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I read somewhere that the 2.5 oz is per month.

 

Sb

Nope, it is just at any given moment. "the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana" and the other reference to an amount comes from section 8 "were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana "

 

A patient that was using medibles and or oils would naturally and reasonably be using more than 2.5 ounces a month, and could likely be consuming that much in a week or day, depending on what they are making or their medical condition. Each individual is different, and their consumption will reflect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, it is just at any given moment. "the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana" and the other reference to an amount comes from section 8 "were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana "

 

A patient that was using medibles and or oils would naturally and reasonably be using more than 2.5 ounces a month, and could likely be consuming that much in a week or day, depending on what they are making or their medical condition. Each individual is different, and their consumption will reflect that.

This brings up another question. I have recently been able to afford to make medibles. Right now I'm using a mixture of lower quality leaves, trim and some small buds. Plus the quality of this particular strain is not what I was led to believe, but that's another story. :(

 

I'm on a pretty high dose of pharmaceuticals and had been talking with my doctor about raising my dose or trying another combination. He was pushing for methadone and I "Just said NO"! :) I'm trying to figure, based on the effects I've noticed with this strain, how much it would take to completely eliminate narcotics. With the new strains I have now I'm thinking around 2.5 ounces per week.

 

So, figuring at least 10 days to cure I'll need quite a bit of harvested bud to maintain an uninterrupted supply of useable cannabis. The law states,

"(j) "Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant."

 

When do curing flowers become "useable marihuana" under the law?

 

I guess this will be another affirmative defense decision? :thumbsd:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this will be another affirmative defense decision?

That is why the AD is so important every one will need to use it i think

Yes, unfortunately anyone who is not in strict compliance with Section 4 will have to use the AD until we get some case law on these issues. Even then some counties, not just Oakland, will even challenge those in strict compliance just to cash in on federal forfeiture laws. :growl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This brings up another question. I have recently been able to afford to make medibles. Right now I'm using a mixture of lower quality leaves, trim and some small buds. Plus the quality of this particular strain is not what I was led to believe, but that's another story. :(

 

I'm on a pretty high dose of pharmaceuticals and had been talking with my doctor about raising my dose or trying another combination. He was pushing for methadone and I "Just said NO"! :) I'm trying to figure, based on the effects I've noticed with this strain, how much it would take to completely eliminate narcotics. With the new strains I have now I'm thinking around 2.5 ounces per week.

 

So, figuring at least 10 days to cure I'll need quite a bit of harvested bud to maintain an uninterrupted supply of useable cannabis. The law states,

"(j) "Usable marihuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the marihuana plant, and any mixture or preparation thereof, but does not include the seeds, stalks, and roots of the plant."

 

When do curing flowers become "useable marihuana" under the law?

 

I guess this will be another affirmative defense decision? :thumbsd:

 

To me the curing time is THE gray area.

I have thought though, using a labeling system could help you IF YOU NEED it in court.

 

Say a caregiver has 5 patients....

 

5 Jars of cured ready to use meds. (one for each patient, 2.5oz ea)

 

Say 2 more jars each with CURING. Clearly labeled "CURING - NOT READY UNTIL: Date: Strain: Patients Name: Curing Since: ect....

 

You could even go as far to label other containers such as TRASH.

 

IMO, it may help a defence if everything is clearly labeled like this, as it shows your intent with all material involved.

Might not be a be all end all in defense, but could help us??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the curing time is THE gray area.

I have thought though, using a labeling system could help you IF YOU NEED it in court.

 

Say a caregiver has 5 patients....

 

5 Jars of cured ready to use meds. (one for each patient, 2.5oz ea)

 

Say 2 more jars each with CURING. Clearly labeled "CURING - NOT READY UNTIL: Date: Strain: Patients Name: Curing Since: ect....

 

You could even go as far to label other containers such as TRASH.

 

IMO, it may help a defence if everything is clearly labeled like this, as it shows your intent with all material involved.

Might not be a be all end all in defense, but could help us??

Thanks.

 

At least this would provide some type of documentation. Good idea. :goodjob:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AD defense? Hell they don't even need to have search warrant signed up here!

Yeah, it's gonna take a long time and a lot of pain and suffering before we start getting any Supreme Court decisions. That's why it's very important that we have friendly faces on the Supreme Court. There are two seats open this time and there are two good people and two Reefer Madness types.

 

It's important to vote for Leyton for AG and these people for the court.

 

"Justice Alton Thomas Davis is the leading candidate in a new Supreme Court poll commissioned by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Close behind is our other candidate, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Denise Langford Morris. Justice Bob Young - a justice who has protected polluters, Big Oil, insurance companies, sexual predators, and drunk drivers - finished dead last.

 

We need to make sure we elect fair and impartial justices to the Court this November. Those justices are Justice Davis and Judge Langford Morris.

 

Justice Davis has garnered bipartisan support throughout his entire career. He spent 21 years as a Circuit Court Judge - 17 as Chief Judge - and he has been a judge on the Court of Appeals the past five years.

 

Judge Denise Langford Morris has served on the Oakland County Circuit bench for 18 years. She was the first and is currently the only African American elected in a county-wide contested race in the history of Oakland County. Judge Langford Morris has been a prosecutor, a social worker, and a fair and impartial judge. Justice Alton Thomas Davis is the leading candidate in a new Supreme Court poll commissioned by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Close behind is our other candidate, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Denise Langford Morris. Justice Bob Young - a justice who has protected polluters, Big Oil, insurance companies, sexual predators, and drunk drivers - finished dead last.

 

For the past 10 years, Justice Bob Young and the Engler Court have been rated as one of the worst in the country. Young and his Republican colleagues have ruled in favor of insurance companies and corporations 80% of the time.

 

Young has ruled that oil companies can dump waste water into Michigan's Au Sable River. He has ruled to protect workplace sex offenders, and has even protected drunk drivers. Bob Young has an agenda and is too extreme for Michigan. It's no wonder he finished dead last in the recent Michigan Lawyers Weekly poll and that two years ago Young was voted the "Worst Justice" on the Michigan Supreme Court by Michigan lawyers.

 

Help us get the word out to elect Justice Davis and Judge Langford Morris and defeat Bob Young.

 

We need to take back our Court and make it work for the people again. Not for insurance companies, polluters, sex offenders, and drunk drivers."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the curing time is THE gray area.

I have thought though, using a labeling system could help you IF YOU NEED it in court.

 

Say a caregiver has 5 patients....

 

5 Jars of cured ready to use meds. (one for each patient, 2.5oz ea)

 

Say 2 more jars each with CURING. Clearly labeled "CURING - NOT READY UNTIL: Date: Strain: Patients Name: Curing Since: ect....

 

You could even go as far to label other containers such as TRASH.

 

IMO, it may help a defence if everything is clearly labeled like this, as it shows your intent with all material involved.

Might not be a be all end all in defense, but could help us??

 

ok, i believe section 4 covers the "grey area" regarding curing:

 

 

(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(curing, cooking, oils, etc...) was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

As i read it, and not cherry picking, this covers quantities of marijuana above 2.5 ounces of useable marijuana. The presumption is that it is for medical use, and the burden falls on persecutors to prove that the quantities are not for medical use.

 

the labeling system and records would bolster the defense as it would make it more difficult to prove that the marijuana was not intended for medicinal use. For example: edibles, curing time, salves, ointments, simpson oil, whose actual weight does not reflect the amount of marijuana, but a 6oz brownie currently counts as 6oz of marijuana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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.

 

The rebuttal is any evidence the prosecutor has that could possibly convince a judge or jury "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."

 

In other words, if the jury believes the patient is buying more than what is reasonably necessary for their medical needs, gets caught with multiple sacks or a scale, OR if the patient gets caught selling. It can be anything, as long as the rebuttal sounds convincing to a jury.

 

ALL THIS IS DETERMINED BY COURT FINDING AND YOU WOULD NEED TO ROLL THE DICE GOING TO TRIAL ON FELONY CHARGES TO GET FIND OUT WHAT THE FINDINGS WILL BE. IF THE FINDINGS GO AGAINST YOU YOU ARE HOSED.

 

Why is this so hard to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, i believe section 4 covers the "grey area" regarding curing:

 

 

(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(curing, cooking, oils, etc...) was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

As i read it, and not cherry picking, this covers quantities of marijuana above 2.5 ounces of useable marijuana. The presumption is that it is for medical use, and the burden falls on persecutors to prove that the quantities are not for medical use.

 

the labeling system and records would bolster the defense as it would make it more difficult to prove that the marijuana was not intended for medicinal use. For example: edibles, curing time, salves, ointments, simpson oil, whose actual weight does not reflect the amount of marijuana, but a 6oz brownie currently counts as 6oz of marijuana.

Thanks!

 

So the prosecutor would have to have evidence, not just conjecture, that the amount was too much.

 

Looks like I'm better off making it into oil. It would be awful to go to jail for a pound of butter. :notfair:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(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.

 

The rebuttal is any evidence the prosecutor has that could possibly convince a judge or jury "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."

 

In other words, if the jury believes the patient is buying more than what is reasonably necessary for their medical needs, gets caught with multiple sacks or a scale, OR if the patient gets caught selling. It can be anything, as long as the rebuttal sounds convincing to a jury.

 

ALL THIS IS DETERMINED BY COURT FINDING AND YOU WOULD NEED TO ROLL THE DICE GOING TO TRIAL ON FELONY CHARGES TO GET FIND OUT WHAT THE FINDINGS WILL BE. IF THE FINDINGS GO AGAINST YOU YOU ARE HOSED.

 

Why is this so hard to understand?

how would a patient make sure they are in clear and unambiguous compliance with the law if they didnt have a scale? And what if they had multiple strains at once.. are you saying they should just put it all together?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how would a patient make sure they are in clear and unambiguous compliance with the law if they didnt have a scale? And what if they had multiple strains at once.. are you saying they should just put it all together?

Annie, according to that poster, everything about the law is grounds for leo to arrest, and prosecutors to go after patients. The poster also ignores the portion of the law that suggests that paraphernalia is acceptable for a patient or caregiver to possess, and actually necessary for the use of marijuana.

 

What the poster suggests is that folks that split their pills up in those reminder pillholders are sending up signals for intent to distribute.... at least that is the logical inference of their post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how would a patient make sure they are in clear and unambiguous compliance with the law if they didnt have a scale? And what if they had multiple strains at once.. are you saying they should just put it all together?

 

Those are valid questions. Unfortunately, they are ones that will be ignored by the prosecutor. The prosecutor is going to try to paint a picture that makes you look guilty in front of a jury. If a patient has a scale, it will be argued that it is used to weigh MJ for distribution. Having MJ in more than one bag has been one of the key components of trafficking or intent to distribute charges for decades. Even having Zip Lock bags in your house is used as evidence. Never mind the fact that every home has these bags.

 

See, the problem with wanting to analyze all the facts of the situation and respond to them one at a time is that the only way this happens in a court of law is if you proceed to trial. If there is enough evidence so that a bunch of old farts on a jury might be swayed by the arguments of the prosecutor, it is probable that you will be faced with the choice of rolling the dice and going to trial on serious trafficking felonies that include serious prison time, or entering a plea to a misdemeanor charge such as possession or some sort of intent.

 

Now, if the jury was a bunch pro-legalization people, they probably would listen to all of your answers. But, a bunch of anti-pot people are not going to buy any of it. Plus, people aren't stupid. If a patient is a 21 year old kid with no job and he is caught at a party getting high with 5 other non-patients and he has 6 1/8th bags and a wad of money in his pocket, he may face charges even though he has a card. If his house is then searched and more weed and a box with a scale and baggies is found, they then have a case.

 

Then what they do is scare him into making buys and may even try to get him to buy "unreasonable amounts" from his care giver. After establishing a pattern of purchases from the CG that they think is an amount that a jury is likely to find to be beyond the probably medical use, they now bring a case against the CG based on the language above.

 

Really, it is easy. They have the kid buy more than what most people would think is reasonable for medical use and the care giver should have known. Really, that is all they need to prosecute and it is going to be darn tough to explain why this kid with Chrone's disease is buying five times what he can possibly be using. That is exactly what the language in that section suggests.

 

Really, I don't understand why people can't look at an issue in terms of the reality of what is, instead of what they think ought to be. Why is it that people think that the law is fair or just simply because it should be and they want it to be. What ought to be isn't going to keep you out of jail. Knowing how things happen in real life will.

 

People have been unfairly getting sent up on bogus pot charges for decades. Cops lie and make up probably cause, judges turn a blind eye to 4th amendment rights, judges hand out overly harsh sentences. All this has been going on for decades. Why do people think that all of the sudden the new MMMA is going to be this all powerful get out of jail free card that will trump any and all prosecution. The legal system simply doesn't work that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

cheliose, People who come in here acting like they're an authority on some topic who talk down to others like those people don't know what they're talking about.... well even if that person is sincere and they may know something of these matters.... no one's gonna listen because of how the message is being delivered. It's almost like saying, "hey stupid, the stove is hot!" well ok the stove is hot but why did ya have to call me stupid, maybe I knew, maybe I didn't know. I don't care how much someone knows, they have no right to talk down to people. and don't think I haven't forgotten that crack about "high school lawyer wanabees." I almost reported that one. THAT was INAPPROPRIATE and I'm glad someone responded to it, but I see his patience is being tried and I wouldn't wanna see him get angry. I could sense he was getting hot under the collar and getting very close to showing it. WHY can't you share your message without the insults?

 

I don't care how many degrees someone has, they have no right to act like a snobby know-it-all. I don't care how experienced, how old, how much, how many whatever, someone has, status, whatever, that doesn't makes them better than someone else, all it makes them is more exposed to certain info and experiences. You don't know us well enough to judge us. Ya know, I had a similar experience with someone who I thought was compassionate and I am so sick and tired of dealing with people who think they have the right to talk down to others just because they have some authority or whatever it is that make them think they have the right to ...

 

HOW DARE YOU COME IN HERE AND THUMB YOUR NOSE AT THIS COMMUNITY LIKE THIS. These people are trying to abide by the law. If you are sincere in your efforts to help, your approach STINKS..

 

FRIENDS why do we have to put up with this? WE DON'T.

 

I have been extremely diplomatic with everyone here, but sometimes it's not enough.

 

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok, i believe section 4 covers the "grey area" regarding curing:

 

 

(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(curing, cooking, oils, etc...) was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

As i read it, and not cherry picking, this covers quantities of marijuana above 2.5 ounces of useable marijuana. The presumption is that it is for medical use, and the burden falls on persecutors to prove that the quantities are not for medical use.

 

the labeling system and records would bolster the defense as it would make it more difficult to prove that the marijuana was not intended for medicinal use. For example: edibles, curing time, salves, ointments, simpson oil, whose actual weight does not reflect the amount of marijuana, but a 6oz brownie currently counts as 6oz of marijuana.

 

I am understanding that to mean, it should automatically be assumed that a cardholder or registered cg is usiing marijuana legally.... HOWEVER the prosecution can rebutt, with evidence, that the marijuana was not being used for medical purposes IF he has such evidence to present.

 

I can not imagine an incidence where they could prove that marijuana use was not for medical purposes though.

 

Am I right here, or just totally missreading this one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...