Jump to content

Question About Mmma


Wild Bill
 Share

Recommended Posts

This just came to mind while looking over the MMMA. If there are any legal professionals who might be able to clarify this I would appreciate it. The Act says;

 

(15) "Primary caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and

who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana . . .

 

If there is a 'primary' caregiver (of first rank or importance or value; direct and immediate rather than secondary; "primary goals"; "a primary effect"; "primary sources"; "a primary interest") would that not imply that there could be 'secondary' caregivers? Someone who is able to provide medication for the patient when the 'primary' is unable to? If not implied then there doesn't seem to be anything to preclude one.

 

If the intent was to only have one available wouldn't the language be 'exclusive' caregiver?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go thinking again. That has no place in the law or in legal interpretation- you should all know that by now. :lol:

 

The entire spirit of the MMMA is all about very, very free distribution and availability of marijuana. Primary Caregiver is just one although not a particularly good one. After all, no protections are extended to "Secondary Caregivers.":thumbsd:

 

However, maybe we can use this thread to accumulate some other examples that the MMMA promotes the free distribution and availability of marijuana for medical use? How about this from section 4K:

 

"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"

 

Doesn't this imply that there is NOT a penalty for selling marijuana to someone who IS allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes under this act??? :thumbsu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go thinking again. That has no place in the law or in legal interpretation- you should all know that by now. :lol:

 

The entire spirit of the MMMA is all about very, very free distribution and availability of marijuana. Primary Caregiver is just one although not a particularly good one. After all, no protections are extended to "Secondary Caregivers.":thumbsd:

 

However, maybe we can use this thread to accumulate some other examples that the MMMA promotes the free distribution and availability of marijuana for medical use? How about this from section 4K:

 

"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"

 

Doesn't this imply that there is NOT a penalty for selling marijuana to someone who IS allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes under this act??? :thumbsu:

Good point. :D

 

Sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go thinking again. That has no place in the law or in legal interpretation- you should all know that by now. :lol:

 

The entire spirit of the MMMA is all about very, very free distribution and availability of marijuana. Primary Caregiver is just one although not a particularly good one. After all, no protections are extended to "Secondary Caregivers.":thumbsd:

 

However, maybe we can use this thread to accumulate some other examples that the MMMA promotes the free distribution and availability of marijuana for medical use? How about this from section 4K:

 

"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"

 

Doesn't this imply that there is NOT a penalty for selling marijuana to someone who IS allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes under this act??? :thumbsu:

 

After all, no protections are extended to "Secondary Caregivers it must be the AD that would protect them

i think

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all, no protections are extended to "Secondary Caregivers it must be the AD that would protect them

i think

 

and this one must be why they the PA took their cards i guess

"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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The entire spirit of the MMMA is all about very, very free distribution and availability of marijuana. Primary Caregiver is just one although not a particularly good one. After all, no protections are extended to "Secondary Caregivers.":thumbsd:

 

However, maybe we can use this thread to accumulate some other examples that the MMMA promotes the free distribution and availability of marijuana for medical use? How about this from section 4K:

 

"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"

 

Doesn't this imply that there is NOT a penalty for selling marijuana to someone who IS allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes under this act??? :thumbsu:

 

4(e) removes the requirement of being connected through the registration process, as it only uses the term "A registered primary caregiver" and "a registered qualifying patient".

 

4(i) removes even the qualification of being a caregiver to assist a registered patient, as it uses the term "A person" and "a registered qualifying patient".

 

Finally, as you mention 4(k) sets an obvious limit on who can be sold to, if it was meant to be restrictive they could have used the language already used in other clauses of the same section, something along the lines of "sells to somebody they are not connect to through the registration process..."

 

The law of the land, and the courts have all said that when reading voter initiated laws the most liberal and common meanings of the words is to be used in any construction of grey areas.

 

If selling marijuana was illegal prior to the enactment of the MMMA then there would be know need for the language in 4(k), unless the language in 4(k) actually sets a limit on those that became protected from other state laws concerning marijuana.

Link to comment
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...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...