Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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

 

Give me an example of "talking down" to people.

 

By "talking down," do you mean that I am too articulate and demonstrate too much knowledge? Are you suggesting that I should dumb down my posts because posting information that is contrary to the beliefs of others hurts their feelings? If anything, I have been by far one of the most respectful and least insulting people participating in this thread even though I have been the subject of numerous attacks.

 

Although I have become frustrated with a couple of particularly argumentative and counter productive posts, I have in general remained more civil than everyone else and I challenge you to show me any examples of me saying anything in the way you are describing. If anything, your accusations should be directed toward the other posters in this thread and not me.

 

All I am doing is trying to help people who are probably young and clearly in need of advice and direction that may prevent them from throwing their life away. If you think I am talking down to people due to this assumption I think you are mistaken. Most of the opinion posted in this thread, is indicative of young people or people who probably have a history of bad choices. I can not see many older, wise people believing what most of the posters here believe.

 

You know, I did mention this conversation to my lawyer and friend of more than 25 years. He suggested that I was wasting my time and told me that there are people in life that will find a way to screw up no matter what you do for them or how many chances they get. I'm starting to see that he is probably right and that this is all just a waste of time.

 

I think I see now that you guys aren't interested in anything I am saying or in any real life facts. What you are after is a one sided conversation in which everyone takes turns posting words of support for what you all want to be true or think should be true.

 

Well then, go ahead. Ignore everything I'm saying and go do your thing. Let me know how that works out for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 276
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

this topic is not in law so like buyer beware....cargiver beware

That, PB is VERY true!   I just wanted the other side of the coin to be shown. It seemed like everyone was jumping on the "yeah it's totally legal" band wagon..............mean while this poor sch

The answer is, it is legal until some part of the law is struck down by a court. It doesn't work the other way around.   What happened to the presumption of innocence and being a nation of laws? T

Give me an example of "talking down" to people.

 

By "talking down," do you mean that I am too articulate and demonstrate too much knowledge? Are you suggesting that I should dumb down my posts because posting information that is contrary to the beliefs of others hurts their feelings? If anything, I have been by far one of the most respectful and least insulting people participating in this thread even though I have been the subject of numerous attacks.

 

Although I have become frustrated with a couple of particularly argumentative and counter productive posts, I have in general remained more civil than everyone else and I challenge you to show me any examples of me saying anything in the way you are describing. If anything, your accusations should be directed toward the other posters in this thread and not me.

 

All I am doing is trying to help people who are probably young and clearly in need of advice and direction that may prevent them from throwing their life away. If you think I am talking down to people due to this assumption I think you are mistaken. Most of the opinion posted in this thread, is indicative of young people or people who probably have a history of bad choices. I can not see many older, wise people believing what most of the posters here believe.

 

You know, I did mention this conversation to my lawyer and friend of more than 25 years. He suggested that I was wasting my time and told me that there are people in life that will find a way to screw up no matter what you do for them or how many chances they get. I'm starting to see that he is probably right and that this is all just a waste of time.

 

I think I see now that you guys aren't interested in anything I am saying or in any real life facts. What you are after is a one sided conversation in which everyone takes turns posting words of support for what you all want to be true or think should be true.

 

Well then, go ahead. Ignore everything I'm saying and go do your thing. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

cheliose you're doing it again. This is a classic example you gave it to us just now, . You just made the example for us. Thanks. Also you're assuming people are gonna follow through with what they're posting, NO, they're asking, trying to be sure they understand. You think we're dumb. There are many articulate people here, many who know a lot, but they express themselves without treating others like they're dumb. Do as you will. I know a lot of things, but I don't brag about it, I offer ideas, advice but never insult someone for not knowing, understanding, being younger, or making bad choices. I might tell them I think they're making a mistake, but ... and you don't know us well enough to judge us and you don't know how old I am. Many people make bad choices and sometimes they learn from them, as I have, and likely so have you. We are not dumb. You have proven nothing.

 

Sb

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I again encourage you to read the law. You can come up with all the hypothetical flim flam and scary stories you want, but the bottom line is, the law says what is and is not allowed, and you need to stop telling people that even if they follow it they will probably go to prison anyway. Thats basically what you keep saying over and over isn't it?

 

The law is written, and did pass, that means it must now be enforced wether or not your people actually like it.

 

The law says paraphernalia associated with medical use IS PROTECTED. Sec 4 of the MMMA.

Asserting medical use for your paraphernalia relating to the consumption of marijuana.

 

If we are set to a VERY STRICT WEIGHT LIMIT of 2.5 OZ, but are not allowed to own a scale (according to YOU) how the hell are we supposed to stay within the law? Does that even make sense to you?

 

Common sense tells you that it can not be done. Unless you expect patients that have never used or seen marijuana to be able to reach in a bag and pull out exactly 2.5 OZ BY EYE and throw the rest away, you are foolish to think that a scale is not needed.

 

Didn't you lie (I mean say) that you were a caregiver? Please explain to me how you stay within the limits and keep your patients within limits of 2.5oz each by eyeballing their meds. You must have been eyeballing bags for years to not need a scale anymore, expecially when talking about your patients legal well being.

 

 

"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."

 

Because when you follow the law, and the rules of this act, thats exactly what it is.

Because if you do not violate any part of the act as currently written, you are protected from prosecution BY LAW.

 

Because:

"333.26424 Qualifying patient or primary caregiver; arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; conditions; presumption; compensation; physician subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; marihuana paraphernalia; person in presence or vicinity to medical use of marihuana; registry identification issued outside of department; sale of marihuana as felony; penalty.

 

 

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

 

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount."

"

 

Are you forgetting to read the very first and most important part of OUR NEW LAW? The part that says, as long as we follow it, this law is exactly that: A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD for patients and caregivers who are acting in accordance to this law.

 

THE LAW says it, right there. WE ARE NOT TO BE ARRESTED, PROSECUTED, or face PENALTY in ANY MANNER.....

 

As long as we are follong the guidelines of this law.

 

Yes the law that we the 63% of the people of the state of Michigan passed.

 

Yes the law that the LEO's swore they would UPHOLD AND ENFORCE!! Guess if you can't enforce the laws you don't like, you better start looking for a new job.

 

BTW, I hear there are Hydro stores opening up on every corner.

 

Maybe you can send your resume' over. I am sure they can use the laugh, (I mean the help)

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 things I wanted to mention....

 

1) (the original question in this post)

 

(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.

 

In (e) it states, A REGISTERED primary caregiver, and A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT..... it does not say a primary caregiver and THEIR patient. It does not say THE primary caregiver, or THE patient. It clearly says A CG may receive comp from A PATIENT for assisting... (even though it is worded differently in other areas)

 

If they don't want to allow CG to PT tranfers other than between the 5 PT and CG assigned to them, they need to word this differently.

 

As worded according to the english language, they are telling us in writing that "A CG can provide for A PATIENT"

 

Whatever that means to YOU I guess, until they change it.

 

2) Paraphernalia.....

 

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

 

This should include your scales, pipes, vaporizers, clips, keif boxes, ect.... Basically, if it can be used in some part of medical use of marijuana, it should be covered by the law and should NOT BE TAKEN BY LAW.

 

3) Even if you argue my point in (e) above, and say it does not mean you can assist patients other than your own, this part covers it too....

 

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

A PERSON. It says A PERSON.

 

Now you can argue till the cows come home, but wether or not a CG has 5 patients, he is still A PERSON. I am A PERSON, and JoeJoe up the street is A PERSON, and guess what???

 

Yes, according to (i) - A PERSON (including you, me, joe joe, and the CG up the road) shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution or penalty IN ANY MANNER..... for being in the presence or vicinity of medical use of marihuana OR FOR ASSISTING A REGISTERED qualifying patient with USING OR ADMINISTERING marihuana

 

Section 333.26423 Definitions:

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

If as "A PERSON" I can not be arrested or prosecuted IN ANY MANNER, for assisting a registered patient with USING or ADMINISTERING marihuana, and (e) clearly defines medical use as: "acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana" then I as a person, (CG, PT or otherwise,) CAN LEGALLY DELIVER and TRANSFER marihuana to a patient.

 

Bottom line is, it says a person (ANY PERSON) can deliver, or transfer MMJ to a registered qualified patient, and it is protected under the law, AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.

 

If you post a law and tell me I am allowed to do something specifically, you can not arrest me for doing it, until you change the law and make it illegal to do.

 

Again, if you post the speed limit at 70, and write me a ticket for driving 65, you are not going to win when the lawyers get done - period.

(unless you have changed the speed limit, and posted it so I am aware)

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 things I wanted to mention....

 

1) (the original question in this post)

 

(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.

 

In (e) it states, A REGISTERED primary caregiver, and A REGISTERED QUALIFYING PATIENT..... it does not say a primary caregiver and THEIR patient. It does not say THE primary caregiver, or THE patient. It clearly says A CG may receive comp from A PATIENT for assisting... (even though it is worded differently in other areas)

 

If they don't want to allow CG to PT tranfers other than between the 5 PT and CG assigned to them, they need to word this differently.

 

As worded according to the english language, they are telling us in writing that "A CG can provide for A PATIENT"

 

Whatever that means to YOU I guess, until they change it.

 

2) Paraphernalia.....

 

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

 

This should include your scales, pipes, vaporizers, clips, keif boxes, ect.... Basically, if it can be used in some part of medical use of marijuana, it should be covered by the law and should NOT BE TAKEN BY LAW.

 

3) Even if you argue my point in (e) above, and say it does not mean you can assist patients other than your own, this part covers it too....

 

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

A PERSON. It says A PERSON.

 

Now you can argue till the cows come home, but wether or not a CG has 5 patients, he is still A PERSON. I am A PERSON, and JoeJoe up the street is A PERSON, and guess what???

 

Yes, according to (i) - A PERSON (including you, me, joe joe, and the CG up the road) shall not be subject to arrest or prosecution or penalty IN ANY MANNER..... for being in the presence or vicinity of medical use of marihuana OR FOR ASSISTING A REGISTERED qualifying patient with USING OR ADMINISTERING marihuana

 

Section 333.26423 Definitions:

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

If as "A PERSON" I can not be arrested or prosecuted IN ANY MANNER, for assisting a registered patient with USING or ADMINISTERING marihuana, and (e) clearly defines medical use as: "acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana" then I as a person, (CG, PT or otherwise,) CAN LEGALLY DELIVER and TRANSFER marihuana to a patient.

 

Bottom line is, it says a person (ANY PERSON) can deliver, or transfer MMJ to a registered qualified patient, and it is protected under the law, AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.

 

If you post a law and tell me I am allowed to do something specifically, you can not arrest me for doing it, until you change the law and make it illegal to do.

 

Again, if you post the speed limit at 70, and write me a ticket for driving 65, you are not going to win when the lawyers get done - period.

(unless you have changed the speed limit, and posted it so I am aware)

 

Careful with this one - "medical use" is not the same as "using." You can't insert all the megical verbs of "medical use" in place of "using."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful with this one - "medical use" is not the same as "using." You can't insert all the megical verbs of "medical use" in place of "using."

 

"FOR ASSISTING A REGISTERED qualifying patient with USING OR ADMINISTERING marihuana"

 

assisting with using - I take to mean I can help (assist) with USING. I can help a patient "USE" medical marihuana under the law. The only legal definition they provide for USING marijuana is called "medical USE" So all we have to go by, is the term the MDCH provides us. According to the definition of medical USE of marihuana stated by the MDCH

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

If you look up the word "using" on dictionary.com you are automatically directed to the word "USE"

 

There are several definitions of the word USE on dictionary.com, BUT only a couple that would even remotely apply to our definition.

 

Also, we don't need to check dictionary.com because MDCH has already provided for us the exact definition THEY WANT US TO APPLY.

How could they give us a clear definition of the term, and tell us whats allowed under the law for the term Medical USE, and then tell us, "ooops, what we meant to say was...."

 

It doesn't work that way. The rules and laws are posted, so that we can read them and follow them. They can not post the rules, tell use something IS ALLOWED, and then convict us of doing it and say, "ooops, we posted the wrong law"

 

The laws that are MADE, adopted and posted are the laws we as citizens are supposed to follow. Not the laws they meant to make, or wish they made.

 

No doubt, they will try to change the law, and will succeed at some points, BUT right now the law says what it says, and allows what it tells us is allowed.

 

Once they change it, they can repost it, and enforce it....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also,

 

We can't use any other form of the phrase "using marijuana", as any use of marijuana not considered "medical use" is illegal in the state of Michigan, and they would not be talking about it in this act unless they were specifically telling you what is NOT allowed.

 

Any mention of "using marihuana" (spelled with an h) has to be assumed to be "medical use" when mentioned in this act, or it would not be allowed under this act in the first place.

 

When they say "using marihuana" how could they NOT be talking about "medical use"? Remember, any use other than medical, is still illegal. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you guys got me and you are absolutely right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I am just making up a bunch of hypothetical nonsense that has no basis in law or in fact just to scare you. I'm sure nothing I say will ever really happen to anyone and has never happened to anyone. You are also correct in your assumption that the protections of the MMMA will provide an impenetrable defense to any and all MJ related conduct that is so powerful that no prosecutor would even dream of bringing charges against you. And you are right that even when it is obvious to everyone that the MMMA is being used as a front for illegal activity, it will not matter because the prosecution will have no way of defeating this all powerful law. After all, the MMMA of 2008 is the only piece of legislation regarding the subject of marijuana and all concepts relating to standards of proof and the determination of what is reasonable. Yep, there is no reason to bring in legal concepts from outside of the MMMA because none of them could possibly come into play. The MMMA is the first and last word on all concepts of law regarding an MJ offense.

 

And, I'm also lying about the procedure of a criminal case. What really happens is you walk in with a copy of the MMMA and educate the prosecution, judge, jury and everyone else on the language of the law and then tell the judge why he must throw the case out, which he does, also granting you a million dollar civil award against the police.

 

You guys are absolutely right. That is how it works and I am only trying to "scare" you for no apparent reason aside from the fact I have nothing better to do. Yep, you got it all figured out. Since you guys have everything figured out and are so smart, I bet you are all super successful as well. Such vast wisdom must be serving you well in other areas of life. Am I correct in that assumption?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, you guys got me and you are absolutely right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I am just making up a bunch of hypothetical nonsense that has no basis in law or in fact just to scare you. I'm sure nothing I say will ever really happen to anyone and has never happened to anyone. You are also correct in your assumption that the protections of the MMMA will provide an impenetrable defense to any and all MJ related conduct that is so powerful that no prosecutor would even dream of bringing charges against you. And you are right that even when it is obvious to everyone that the MMMA is being used as a front for illegal activity, it will not matter because the prosecution will have no way of defeating this all powerful law. After all, the MMMA of 2008 is the only piece of legislation regarding the subject of marijuana and all concepts relating to standards of proof and the determination of what is reasonable. Yep, there is no reason to bring in legal concepts from outside of the MMMA because none of them could possibly come into play. The MMMA is the first and last word on all concepts of law regarding an MJ offense.

 

And, I'm also lying about the procedure of a criminal case. What really happens is you walk in with a copy of the MMMA and educate the prosecution, judge, jury and everyone else on the language of the law and then tell the judge why he must throw the case out, which he does, also granting you a million dollar civil award against the police.

 

You guys are absolutely right. That is how it works and I am only trying to "scare" you for no apparent reason aside from the fact I have nothing better to do. Yep, you got it all figured out. Since you guys have everything figured out and are so smart, I bet you are all super successful as well. Such vast wisdom must be serving you well in other areas of life. Am I correct in that assumption?

 

 

Well for one I have not seen anyone say that this act will protect them from an illegal cover like you are mentioning. The fronts you mention are not LEGAL MMJ operations, and are obviously not covered if they are not complying with this act. YES I will agree with you on 1 point. YES there are some illegal fronts using our new law in a negitive way. YES they are breaking the law, and YES they should be prosecuted for using our law as a front.

 

You know what, thats all fine and dandy, but we were NEVER talking about ILLEGAL MJ in the first place.

 

We are a group of LEGAL patients using "MEDICAL MARIHUANA" not MJ.

 

So yes, this law should (and was made to) protect LEGAL patients and LEGAL caregivers from prosecution. I will argue that with you all day long.

 

You keep wanting to confuse LEGAL PATIENTS with illegal marijuana use, and what really bothers me is you don't seem to know the difference in the 2.

 

That is also why I called you a liar about being a caregiver. I will not for one second acknowledge the idea of someone like you who does not support the cause one bit being a representaion of what a caregiver is.

 

Whatever you think you are, caregiver is not it - I assure you.

 

You obviously do not support our cause, or our law that gives us these new rights. If you did, you would stop comparing every legal patient and CG to illegal druggies, and actually stand with us instead of trying to scare us into rolling over and giving up the parts of our new rights you don't agree with.

 

Again, if you do not like the law we as voters passed, and you do not want to enforce it, and obey it, go find a new job Mr Leo. That or try to change the laws you don't like. (just like we did) Until then, do your job and enforce the ones you are paid to enforce.

 

Yes, even the ones you don't like. You know, like prosecuting your buddies who forged the cards in order to entrap the patients and caregivers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me an example of "talking down" to people.

 

By "talking down," do you mean that I am too articulate and demonstrate too much knowledge? Are you suggesting that I should dumb down my posts because posting information that is contrary to the beliefs of others hurts their feelings?

 

I challenge you to show me any examples of me saying anything in the way you are describing.

 

If reading your own arrogant reply to one of the most peaceful, respectful people on this site doesn't ring any bells for you I'll be glad to help you out.

 

Posted 10 October 2010 - 07:55 PM

"No offense but you guys really have no clue how the law works. I am however, will to help you guys out so that you don't get yourselves in trouble."

 

Posted 13 October 2010 - 08:56 PM

"I'm sure many would just rather hear a lot of stoner talk and childish rants about how unfair "the man" is and how the cops can't do this and can't do that and how we should just say F you to the cops because we don't like authority and we are all too slick for them"...

..."For those who wish to contemplate things on an adult level and who have something to lose in life, this is a valid issue."

 

Posted 14 October 2010 - 05:54 PM

"You are just so clever. You even know a few logical fallacies and how to use them improperly. Good for you. Guys like you are a dime a dozen. You sit around getting high and trying to pretend like you know things you don't."

 

..."If you want facts, here is one for you. You are woefully lacking in the knowledge required to understand how the law works. You act like you do but you don't know Jack Spit. "

 

..."See, what I'm trying to do here is to keep a bunch of childish fools from messing up a good thing for everyone because they get greedy and abuse the system in an obvious manner."

 

I know you only asked for one example. but I got carried away. :D

 

Hope this helps, but I really don't think it will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:goodjob:

 

 

If reading your own arrogant reply to one of the most peaceful, respectful people on this site doesn't ring any bells for you I'll be glad to help you out.

 

 

 

I know you only asked for one example. but I got carried away. :D

 

Hope this helps, but I really don't think it will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also,

 

We can't use any other form of the phrase "using marijuana", as any use of marijuana not considered "medical use" is illegal in the state of Michigan, and they would not be talking about it in this act unless they were specifically telling you what is NOT allowed.

 

Any mention of "using marihuana" (spelled with an h) has to be assumed to be "medical use" when mentioned in this act, or it would not be allowed under this act in the first place.

 

When they say "using marihuana" how could they NOT be talking about "medical use"? Remember, any use other than medical, is still illegal. ;)

 

"Use (using)" is one of the verbs included in the definition of "medical use," therefore the only conclusion can be that "use" includes a narrower collection of activities than does "medical use." If "using" and "medical use" meant exactly the same thing, then there would be no basis for "use" to be part of the defintion of "medical use." When one interprets a statute, every word means something....so the only answer here is that "use" means something other than "medical use."

 

 

What does "use" mean in this context? Noone knows yet because the courts have not ruled on this.

 

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

"When they say "using marihuana" how could they NOT be talking about "medical use"? Remember, any use other than medical, is still illegal. ;) "

 

The "assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana" narrows down the group of people a person can assist with "using" marijuana to only legit/registered patients.

 

"Medical use" is defined on its own. The similarity to "use" means nothing. It just adds to the confusion a layperson runs into when reading the law. The author of the proposition could just as easily have used the word "Tokin'" rather than 'medical use' but the law would still read the same..."tokin'" would include growing, transfering, cooking, eating ,etc....and "using or administering" would still mean what it means.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Use (using)" is one of the verbs included in the definition of "medical use," therefore the only conclusion can be that "use" includes a narrower collection of activities than does "medical use." If "using" and "medical use" meant exactly the same thing, then there would be no basis for "use" to be part of the defintion of "medical use." When one interprets a statute, every word means something....so the only answer here is that "use" means something other than "medical use."

 

 

What does "use" mean in this context? Noone knows yet because the courts have not ruled on this.

 

(i) A person shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

"When they say "using marihuana" how could they NOT be talking about "medical use"? Remember, any use other than medical, is still illegal. ;) "

 

The "assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana" narrows down the group of people a person can assist with "using" marijuana to only legit/registered patients.

 

"solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana."

 

thats all one sentence....

 

When they say "solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the "medical use" of marihuana OR for assisting a reg qual patient with USING or administering....

 

They have already established in the first half of the sentece that they are talking about "medical use of marihuana" OR for assisting with "USING" or administering. In the second half of the sentece, they are still talking about the medical use they mentioned in the first half.

 

It says for being in the presence or vicinity of MEDICAL USE, OR for assisting with USING.

 

They say using, and administering marihuana. They don't again say "administering MEDICAL USE marihuana" or "administering marihuana for medical use" because they have already established they are talking about "medical use". Since it's one sentence, and 1 section we are still talking about the same medical use throughout the entire sentece. Right?

 

Again, once we have established we are talking about medical use, we have to assume the rest of the sentence, and any mention of marihuana or its use has to be in the medical sence. Otherwise, the mention of "using" and "administering" marihuana both become illegal. UNLESS we are still talking about medical use marihuana wich makes it legal.

 

??? no ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

If reading your own arrogant reply to one of the most peaceful, respectful people on this site doesn't ring any bells for you I'll be glad to help you out.

 

 

 

I know you only asked for one example. but I got carried away. :D

 

Hope this helps, but I really don't think it will.

 

 

:goodjob:

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Sincerely, Sb

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

that is exactly my thought, the burden of proof switches to the prosecutor to prove that it wasnt for medical use, example, say 4 ounces clearly labeled for cooking, and other items that are used to process it for cooking, and food on hand prepared with cannabis, makes it very hard to prove that it isnt for medical use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"... OR if the patient gets caught selling. It can be anything, as long as the rebuttal sounds convincing to a jury.:

 

Please explain to me how you derive this conclusion from the rebuttable presumption language? It doesn't say anything about transferring as being part of the rebuttable presumption.

 

I understand you have a careful respect of the law, but I think it goes too far. People who are willing to follow the law may have to back it up in court, this much is true. But when I read your posts, they stretch things way to far in my opinion.

 

WDT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 4b of the Law states that “A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

(3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.”

 

Knowing that qualifying patients are NOT obligated to register, I would strongly insist that you require those with whom you dispense have a recent doctor’s statement, that you get a statement from this person that what is dispensed will be used medically, and you only dispense a reasonable.

 

So too answer your question, YES! Just cya.

 

 

IMO this makes the answer NO - you must be connected to patient through the departments registration process.

 

That would make a max of 5 patients.

 

Yet everyone seems to be blind to this language whenever this daliy discussion comes up.

 

I do not understand how anyone could defend a YES answer to the OP question after reading Section 4b. Unless they are backing it up with Section 8 AD - which does not make it legal, just defensible in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO this makes the answer NO - you must be connected to patient through the departments registration process.

 

That would make a max of 5 patients.

 

Yet everyone seems to be blind to this language whenever this daliy discussion comes up.

 

I do not understand how anyone could defend a YES answer to the OP question after reading Section 4b. Unless they are backing it up with Section 8 AD - which does not make it legal, just defensible in court.

How? For starters 4(b) is not the only portion of the law that covers helping patients, it isn't even the only part of Section 4 that covers helping patients.

 

Remember that when reading a law, that every word has meaning, too, that voter initiated laws are to be read in a liberal manner that gives the most true sense of the voters intent, not hampering it.

 

In that light one needs to take serious note of the phrase "connected through the registration process" and when and where it is used. Then one must note the lack of using that language in Section 4 (e),(g),(i),(j)and(k). In a couple of those it even broadens the category of who can assist to simply "a person".

 

Finally, the inference that "visiting qualifying patients" would be afforded more protections and opportunities than people of our own state by some in law enforcement seems a bit skewed in the scheme of things. Obviously, those folks must acquire their medicine here in Michigan, unless law enforcement is encouraging these folks to violate several other states' laws, along with a few federal ones for trafficking over state lines.

 

As a registered caregiver I can only grow x amount of plants and possess a given quantity of meds based on the number of patients I am registered to, but as a person I can help any registered patient under section 4, and any unregistered patient under section 8...

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO this makes the answer NO - you must be connected to patient through the departments registration process.

 

That would make a max of 5 patients.

 

Yet everyone seems to be blind to this language whenever this daliy discussion comes up.

I do not understand how anyone could defend a YES answer to the OP question after reading Section 4b. Unless they are backing it up with Section 8 AD - which does not make it legal, just defensible in court.

EVERYONE? In their daily discussion? For a newbie, you seem to know us fairly well, but NO, do NOT generalize. I cannot speak for others, but I can honestly say that I do take that part very seriously and I'm sure the others are not blind to this wording. In fact, I've been questioning it to be sure that is the defining part of the law that we should be going by.

 

Sb

Link to post
Share on other sites

EVERYONE? In their daily discussion? For a newbie, you seem to know us fairly well, but NO, do NOT generalize. I cannot speak for others, but I can honestly say that I do take that part very seriously and I'm sure the others are not blind to this wording. In fact, I've been questioning it to be sure that is the defining part of the law that we should be going by.

 

Sb

 

 

My bad SB, "everyone" was a generalization and a shortcut slip on my part. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I do not understand how anyone could defend a YES answer to the OP question after reading Section 4b. Unless they are backing it up with Section 8 AD - which does not make it legal, just defensible in court."

 

Defensible means legal, duh. For example, it's illegal to kill someone unless it's in self defense or otherwise justifiable. So legally, it's ok. Not just defensible, but legal.

 

An affirmative defense is also allowed under rules of Criminal Procedure. For example, a defendant accused of assault may claim to have been intoxicated or insane, to have struck out in Self-Defense, or to have had an alibi for the night in question. Any one of these affirmative defenses must be asserted by showing that there are facts in addition to the ones in the indictment or information charging the defendant and that those additional facts are legally sufficient to excuse the defendant.

 

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Affirmative+Defense

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...