Can We Sell To Unregistered Patients

[peanutbutter]

First of all, sure there is intent involved. The intent needs to be for treating the condition. You just said no need for intent and then followed it with a sentence INDICATING the NEED for intent?!?!

 

If I were a caregiver and my patient had 2.5 oz sitting at his house and told me, "that is all I need to get me through until my card expires," then my buying more for the ostensible use of that patient would be illegal. What you are suggesting is that my intent controls the legality of the transaction from the seller's standpoint. In other words if I am a legal buyer then he becomes a legal seller. So what if I am an illegal buyer as above? Then he becomes an illegal seller? That makes no sense.

 

The intent necessary is the intent to commit the crime. The seller has no basis for selling when he is not qualified to sell just like the liquor license example. Therefore he has intent to commit a crime.

 

Since it would not be a crime there can be no intent to commit a crime. And please .. I already noted the element of medical purpose.

[brbud]

In a word or two Hell no. Let the gov, any gov, tea bagger or lefty play with the MMMA and we will lose it all.Between Big business (Pharma) and the Government I think I mught just go back to the old way of staying below the radar and not getting renewed again.

Amen to that Bro

everybody sic o pharma

Shame...nuther missed op for state rev. Hey u state bean counters wtf?

the law as writen is Good Law...lets not **** it up

[DenturesLost]

the caregiver is still allowed to posess 2.5 ounces at any given time, whether the patient needs it or not. He is allowed to provide an "uninterrupted supply"

 

example,

 

If I were a caregiver and my patient had 2.5 oz sitting at his house and told me, "that is all I need to get me through until my card expires," 2 days later there is a fire/robbery and the patient no longer has meds. you, as the caregiver in your scenario say "sorry, you told my that was all you needed, ill start growing a plant for you, come back in 12 weeks."

 

i just dont see the logic there

You're changing the terms of the argument without changing the outcome. The point is there needs to be intent. So let's shore up the argument and say the patient and the cg BOTH have their 2.5oz. The fact is you are trying to factor in a contingency to change the intent. The argument being set forth is that there is a point in time when the intent to purchase by the cg does not support treating his pt. You can argue 1000 contingencies in the hypothetical and then I can shore them up. What difference does it make? We are arguing intent here. I don't think you get it.

[peanutbutter]

If the courts continue to fail to respect the protections of the ID card and insist that only the protections of section 8 apply, there is no reason to get an ID card.

 

The only thing that is required for "case dismissed" is evidence a doctor said it might help you.

[DenturesLost]

Since it would not be a crime there can be no intent to commit a crime. And please .. I already noted the element of medical purpose.

You noted medical purpose as to intent. No kidding. You wrote, "No need for the intent element. As long as it is for medical purpose." Boiled down it says no need for intent as long as there is intent.

 

The point that you are not absorbing is that the seller's intent or ability to commit the crime is not contingent on the buyer's intent. It is generally illegal to sell if you aren't a cardholder. I think we can agree on that. Your argument is that it all of a sudden becomes LEGAL to sell if the PURCHASER is legal to buy. How about you reason that one out for us. How is it you think the actions of the buyer and the buyers intent somehow magically control the seller's criminal intent???

[peanutbutter]

It is generally illegal to sell if you aren't a cardholder. I think we can agree on that.

 

OK .. I've been properly chastised for not including "criminal" when I said "intent."

 

As for the point I quoted:

 

The AD section of the law is for unregistered patients and caregivers.

 

Caregivers sell to patients. They also give to patients.

[Guest Happy Guy]

There is definitely an arguement that can be made that the protection starts when you have the rec. from the doc. These protections are subject to rigorous inspection of the paperwork which a registration would avoid. If the paperwork passes the inspection then it's just as valid as the card. The card avoids the inspection because the inspection has already been performed by MDCH. Make sense?

[+420Atheist]

If the courts continue to fail to respect the protections of the ID card and insist that only the protections of section 8 apply, there is no reason to get an ID card.

 

The only thing that is required for "case dismissed" is evidence a doctor said it might help you.

 

Has there ever been a case that did not respect the card? I know some did not accept paperwork as they are obligated to do but I had not heard of any going to trial under section 8 that had their physical card.

[peanutbutter]

There is definitely an arguement that can be made that the protection starts when you have the rec. from the doc. These protections are subject to rigorous inspection of the paperwork which a registration would avoid. If the paperwork passes the inspection then it's just as valid as the card. The card avoids the inspection because the inspection has already been performed by MDCH. Make sense?

 

Actually the card is the result of the validation of the letter. By having the letter verified, the state is allowed to issue the ID card.

 

The ID card protects the identity of the doctor while confirming that a real licensed doctor did indeed write a letter which qualifies a patient.

 

One of the protections of the ID card that some courts want to toss out.

 

edit .. just read you again. Looks like we agree.

[peanutbutter]

Has there ever been a case that did not respect the card? I know some did not accept paperwork as they are obligated to do but I had not heard of any going to trial under section 8 that had their physical card.

 

Bob and Torey

Keith Campbell

Terry Provost

 

the list is long.

 

In many cases the court views lack of the ID card, at the time of arrest, to be grounds to refuse the AD.

All of the cases I listed involves the defendant getting their ID card after arrest.

[Guest Happy Guy]

Here's one that had their card;

http://michiganmessenger.com/34325/royal-oak-seizure-of-medical-marijuana-from-licensed-patient-attracts-scrutiny

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/04/royal_oak_patient_who_had_medi.html

[+420Atheist]

Bob and Torey

Keith Campbell

Terry Provost

 

the list is long.

 

In many cases the court views lack of the ID card, at the time of arrest, to be grounds to refuse the AD.

All of the cases I listed involves the defendant getting their ID card after arrest.

 

Ok I get your point. That does seem just wrong as the AD is clearly separate from the card issuing process. I'm sure that will be settled in our favor in the supreme court.

[peanutbutter]

Judge OConnell has urged courts to examine every aspect of the doctors letter that made way for the patient to have the ID card.

 

A long, expensive trial. This would place a massive, insurmountable financial burden on a very poor segment of our population.

 

To promote every court to do so is cruel and inhumane.

[+RevThad]

First of all, sure there is intent involved. The intent needs to be for treating the condition. You just said no need for intent and then followed it with a sentence INDICATING the NEED for intent?!?!

 

If I were a caregiver and my patient had 2.5 oz sitting at his house and told me, "that is all I need to get me through until my card expires," then my buying more for the ostensible use of that patient would be illegal. What you are suggesting is that my intent controls the legality of the transaction from the seller's standpoint. In other words if I am a legal buyer then he becomes a legal seller. So what if I am an illegal buyer as above? Then he becomes an illegal seller? That makes no sense.

 

The intent necessary is the intent to commit the crime. The seller has no basis for selling when he is not qualified to sell just like the liquor license example. Therefore he has intent to commit a crime.

One is assuming that the seller is not a registered patient or caregiver. So in an attempt to clear things up a bit lets look at what the law says...

 

Section 333.26424 (k) Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

Marijuana may be sold to someone who is allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act. Those folks would be both registered and unregistered patients and caregivers, as the COA has ruled that both categories of those 2 groups are covered under the MMMAct.

 

Using your liquor license example, the law clearly states who cannot be sold to, and therefore defines who can be sold to. One must be born on or before this date in 1989... attempting to purchase by or sell to somebody that does not fit that description is in violation of the law.

 

The MMMAct does the same sort of thing, the registration is in fact also a medical marijuana license, it allows for certain actions, and sets limits on those actions, it even lays out penalties for violating those limits.

 

I use the term license because there is no better word to describe the registration card, it is something that is applied for, a fee is paid, if qualified the applicant receives a card that entitles (or licenses) them to perform particular things, and offers specific protections....

 

Just my ramblings... Alex, can I have plain English translations for $1000.

[+420Atheist]

Here's one that had their card;

http://michiganmessenger.com/34325/royal-oak-seizure-of-medical-marijuana-from-licensed-patient-attracts-scrutiny

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/04/royal_oak_patient_who_had_medi.html

 

He did not get arrested or charged they just took his marijuana. The cops were just harassing him because they knew they did not have any other case they could make. He should have gone with the ACLU lawyers as it is doubtful he will get any settlement of any size. Probably the lawyer will get it all if the lawyer has the resources to win. The ACLU would have had for sure.

[freemannabis]

make your points now, they will be heard.

 

Can we sell to patents or caregivers other then the ones listed under our caregiving? I believe the act says patients are allowed to get compensated for assisting other patients...right?

 

Whoah! I almost said: "Greetings, and welcome, 'newbie'".

 

: ]

 

In my "experienced" observation of this much over-stirred pot of contention full of this tastelessly abused political subject, my "personal" opinion on the matter is that the pot is only deliberately stirred - ever more and more desperately - by a certain unethical-minded faction of anti-free-minded persons and their pet entities that are hell-bent oupn sabatoging "WE The People's" overwhelmingly publically-supported "Voter Initiative" now enacted into Michigan Law as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

 

You know: "United 'We' Stand; Divided, 'They' FALL".

 

Clearly "They" [someone or someones] have surely been working much too hard to "divide" and conquor us all; Even way back in time since "Day One" of public indoctrination into "Grade School"!

 

(Remember, "Shirts" against "Skins"?! And, seperate "Boys Side" entrances and exits, and seperate "Girl's Side" doorways specifically designed to herd us all "by groups" and "classes" into and out of "elementary" ["grammar"] school)

 

Just ask one simple question before helping to re stir-up the blackened dregs at the over-charred and crusty bottom of the pot:

 

"Who might possibly 'benefit' or 'profit' in any way from working so relentlessly and ridiculously hard to convince 'The [alleged] Authorities,' or any other potentially or directly concerned citizen, or 'Community Board' of 'public officials' of anytown Michigan / USA, that there appears [to "them"] to be any so-called 'grey areas' in The MMMA, or 'division' among patients and other compassionate, free-minded supporters of the MMMA?"

 

I can just see "them," all now, saying: "SEE! Even 'They' see 'The Law' as 'vague'!

 

To me, it's crystal-clear: "The Law" is only "vague" and "gray" to someone solely looking to arrest, prosecute and convict harmless, victimized citizens of "WE The [real, actual] People" of Michigan / America.

 

How, and who, does that really "help"?

 

FREE YOUR MIND.

 

And, The HEALING Will Follow

[+420Atheist]

Judge OConnell has urged courts to examine every aspect of the doctors letter that made way for the patient to have the ID card.

 

A long, expensive trial. This would place a massive, insurmountable financial burden on a very poor segment of our population.

 

To promote every court to do so is cruel and inhumane.

 

I don't see that happening. The courts are not in a better position than the doctors to determine need. Not to mention that is clearly not a requirement in the law.

[bobandtorey]

In a word or two Hell no. Let the gov, any gov, tea bagger or lefty play with the MMMA and we will lose it all.Between Big business (Pharma) and the Government I think I mught just go back to the old way of staying below the radar and not getting renewed again.

 

 

maybe thats not a bad idea now that we no we don't need a card if every one was to do that that would open this Law up BIG time

why should we contend to give are money to the state if they won't follow the Law

[peanutbutter]

"They" call it war.

 

Whoah! I almost said: "Greetings, and welcome, 'newbie'".

 

: ]

 

In my "experienced" observation of this much over-stirred pot of contention full of this tastelessly abused political subject, my "personal" opinion on the matter is that the pot is only deliberately stirred - ever more and more desperately - by a certain unethical-minded faction of anti-free-minded persons and their pet entities that are hell-bent oupn sabatoging "WE The People's" overwhelmingly publically-supported "Voter Initiative" now enacted into Michigan Law as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act.

 

You know: "United 'We' Stand; Divided, 'They' FALL".

 

Clearly "They" [someone or someones] have surely been working much too hard to "divide" and conquor us all; Even way back in time since "Day One" of public indoctrination into "Grade School"!

 

(Remember, "Shirts" against "Skins"?! And, seperate "Boys Side" entrances and exits, and seperate "Girl's Side" doorways specifically designed to herd us all "by groups" and "classes" into and out of "elementary" ["grammar"] school)

 

Just ask one simple question before helping to re stir-up the blackened dregs at the over-charred and crusty bottom of the pot:

 

"Who might possibly 'benefit' or 'profit' in any way from working so relentlessly and ridiculously hard to convince 'The [alleged] Authorities,' or any other potentially or directly concerned citizen, or 'Community Board' of 'public officials' of anytown Michigan / USA, that there appears [to "them"] to be any so-called 'grey areas' in The MMMA, or 'division' among patients and other compassionate, free-minded supporters of the MMMA?"

 

I can just see "them," all now, saying: "SEE! Even 'They' see 'The Law' as 'vague'!

 

To me, it's crystal-clear: "The Law" is only "vague" and "gray" to someone solely looking to arrest, prosecute and convict harmless, victimized citizens of "WE The [real, actual] People" of Michigan / America.

 

How, and who, does that really "help"?

 

FREE YOUR MIND.

 

And, The HEALING Will Follow

[kingofbuds]

i think this law has brought out the bad in people. i mean jeez there isnt one day that goes by that someone is asking a crazy question like. can we sell meds to people with out cards? or help my friend got busted he doesnt have his card, should he get one now? come on people lets not forget this law is to help people with the ailament. not profit, greed, scammers.

 

HELP THE SICK PEOPLE!!!!

[peanutbutter]

i think this law has brought out the bad in people. i mean jeez there isnt one day that goes by that someone is asking a crazy question like. can we sell meds to people with out cards? or help my friend got busted he doesnt have his card, should he get one now? come on people lets not forget this law is to help people with the ailament. not profit, greed, scammers.

 

HELP THE SICK PEOPLE!!!!

 

Yep .. crazy folks ..

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmrtVCohlaU

 

Our law was intended to protect every patient while we were still criminals. It was intended to "save" us.

[DenturesLost]

Using your liquor license example, the law clearly states who cannot be sold to, and therefore defines who can be sold to. One must be born on or before this date in 1989... attempting to purchase by or sell to somebody that does not fit that description is in violation of the law.

 

You are mischaracterizing my liquor license example. I am using the liquor license example as an example of someone who CANNOT sell liquor to ANYONE if the seller does not have a license. The analogy is drawn between the Illegal sale of liquor and the illegal sale of MJ. In both cases the seller must be "licensed" by the state to sell and if they are not then they are criminally liable.

[peanutbutter]

You are mischaracterizing my liquor license example. I am using the liquor license example as an example of someone who CANNOT sell liquor to ANYONE if the seller does not have a license. The analogy is drawn between the Illegal sale of liquor and the illegal sale of MJ. In both cases the seller must be "licensed" by the state to sell and if they are not then they are criminally liable.

 

I believe your point was that someone could make the purchase, without criminal intent, from someone the person thought was operating legally. Even if the person selling was violating the law.

[DenturesLost]

I believe your point was that someone could make the purchase, without criminal intent, from someone the person thought was operating legally. Even if the person selling was violating the law.

No. Under the current law a cg or pt could buy from someone who is selling illegally even if the buyer knows the seller is selling illegally.

 

If you buy off a street thug and you have your card you are presumably still making a legal transaction on your end. Somehow you are asserting that the street thug becomes automatically protected because your end of the transaction is legal.

 

I yo ubuy stolen goods from a garage sale but don't know they are stolen while the seller does know did you commit a crime? No. Did the seller? Yes. Your legal purchase doesn't protect the seller.

[peanutbutter]

No. Under the current law a cg or pt could buy from someone who is selling illegally even if the buyer knows the seller is selling illegally.

 

If you buy off a street thug and you have your card you are presumably still making a legal transaction on your end. Somehow you are asserting that the street thug becomes automatically protected because your end of the transaction is legal.

 

I yo ubuy stolen goods from a garage sale but don't know they are stolen while the seller does know did you commit a crime? No. Did the seller? Yes. Your legal purchase doesn't protect the seller.

 

Yep .. I stand corrected. I was wrong about what I thought your point was.

 

Yes .. I believe the action is legal for both parties.

 

A while ago, in this thread, I claimed that I believed both sides are protected. You claim that only the person doing the purchase is covered. Is that accurate?

 

I'm headed into Detroit for the show tonight.

 

See you on the other side.