Can We Sell To Unregistered Patients

[DenturesLost]

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.

That is accurate. Generally speaking nothing in the law protects the seller.

[+420Atheist]

That is accurate. Generally speaking nothing in the law protects the seller.

 

Isn't it more accurate to say the seller is not protected if he does not have a card? That is what I agree with. A street seller without a card is not legally in possession of marijuana. Maybe the transaction is protected but any marijuana he has in his possession is illegal.

[+itssortalegal10]

All I know is this..When my grow becomes something worth anything and if I run into or hear from a patient in need I will help them..I am just a CG not a PT CG so w/e. I mean I am sorry but if someone needs meds and I have them to spare I will...The whole point to this is to be compassionate to a certain degree but then when it comes down to certain parts of the law where true compassion comes in to play the law all of a sudden gets fuzzy. Just my opinion though..

 

I saw the title Can We Sell To Unregistered Patients and was like um there is no such thing as an unregistered patient lol..Just legal users who need it for a real condition and dudes that smoke weed and haven't gotten a card yet lol..The creator of the thread meant unregistered as far as not listed as YOUR patient..

[Mr. Wilson]

I think Peanut Butter did an excellent job of explaining the confusion.

 

It should just be the standard answer that is auto posted every time someone wants to get into this stuff.

 

No need even debating issues where you don't even know how the law see's it and in some cases won't even tell you.

[+RevThad]

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 caught your meaning, and that is why I pointed it out in my very first statement, the assumption you included was that the seller wasn't registered. However, I assumed that the OP was asking about whether "we" (registered) could sell to an unregistered patient, or to a patient that wasn't registered to us...

 

So to sum it all up, a registered person could sell to anybody that is covered under the act, and an unregistered person that wants to sell is going to sell to somebody regardless of whether they (the buyers) are covered under the act.

 

No need for the extra trips into the so called "gray areas" that people want to construct. The law is pretty clear on the subject.

[peanutbutter]

That is accurate. Generally speaking nothing in the law protects the seller.

 

So the word "transfer" is in the law. It is one of the things that you can do that the law identifies as "medical use."

 

So you have concluded that it isn't legal for a patient or caregiver to transfer to someone?

 

You would say they can't and the law says they can .. who is right?

[peanutbutter]

Hopefully our next attorney general said something about the "free for all" if voters passed the proposed law, back in 2008.

[DenturesLost]

I caught your meaning, and that is why I pointed it out in my very first statement, the assumption you included was that the seller wasn't registered. However, I assumed that the OP was asking about whether "we" (registered) could sell to an unregistered patient, or to a patient that wasn't registered to us...

 

So to sum it all up, a registered person could sell to anybody that is covered under the act, and an unregistered person that wants to sell is going to sell to somebody regardless of whether they (the buyers) are covered under the act.

 

No need for the extra trips into the so called "gray areas" that people want to construct. The law is pretty clear on the subject.

That is what the OP asked. Apparently you didn't read the entire thread as the ongoing dicsussion was responding to PB's statement below:

 

peanutbutter, on 10 November 2010 - 08:34 AM, said:

 

There is a split within our community as to weather "acquisition" protects just the person doing the purchasing or both sides of the transaction. I hold that it is the action itself that is legal as long as the end beneficiary is a legal patient. Since it is a legal action, then the seller would be protected also.

[DenturesLost]

So the word "transfer" is in the law. It is one of the things that you can do that the law identifies as "medical use."

 

So you have concluded that it isn't legal for a patient or caregiver to transfer to someone?

 

You would say they can't and the law says they can .. who is right?

 

Are you following your own discussion? That wasn't my conclusion at all. Go back and reread.

[thatoneartist]

All I know is this..When my grow becomes something worth anything and if I run into or hear from a patient in need I will help them..I am just a CG not a PT CG so w/e. I mean I am sorry but if someone needs meds and I have them to spare I will...The whole point to this is to be compassionate to a certain degree but then when it comes down to certain parts of the law where true compassion comes in to play the law all of a sudden gets fuzzy. Just my opinion though..

 

I saw the title Can We Sell To Unregistered Patients and was like um there is no such thing as an unregistered patient lol..Just legal users who need it for a real condition and dudes that smoke weed and haven't gotten a card yet lol..The creator of the thread meant unregistered as far as not listed as YOUR patient..

 

 

thank you thats obvious what i meant

[peanutbutter]

Are you following your own discussion? That wasn't my conclusion at all. Go back and reread.

 

I believe you were saying that the seller side of the transaction was not protected. Correct?

 

Here's the next good one. "delivery"

 

I suspect that anyone that is caught with a small amount of marijuana could claim to be delivering the marijuana to a registered patient.

 

Even if the person isn't a registered person themselves.

 

This would be a medical defense that would be available to everyone.

[peanutbutter]

So is someone protected by our law while selling cannabis to a registered patient?

 

Yes.

 

I would suggest that "delivery" be understood as legalize. As in "delivery of a controlled substance."

 

Another way to understand the word "delivery" would be like the pizza guy does. We deliver.

 

Either way to understand the word "delivery" protects the seller in the transaction.

[DenturesLost]

I believe you were saying that the seller side of the transaction was not protected. Correct?

 

Here's the next good one. "delivery"

 

I suspect that anyone that is caught with a small amount of marijuana could claim to be delivering the marijuana to a registered patient.

 

Even if the person isn't a registered person themselves.

 

This would be a medical defense that would be available to everyone.

Generally speaking the seller is not protected. Could it be SQUEEZED into some defense? Maybe. If they are a registered patient are they protected? Probably. But GENERALLY speaking they are not protected.

 

You are basing your interpretation on what the seller COULD claim. What a defendant COULD claim as a defense is not the same thing as being protected. If I walk out of a store with a twinkie without paying for it I COULD claim I simply forgot I had it in my hand. That, in theory, could viatiate the intent to steal that would be necessary to prosecute me for retail fraud. However, just because I COULD claim it does not mean I am protected from prosecution because what I COULD claim is basically an affirmative defense that I have to prove. The prosecutor would already have a prima facie case--I walked out of the store without paying for something and generally that is not something someone does unless they have an intent to steal.

 

The fact is anyone with marijuana COULD claim it was for a patient but just because they can CLAIM that does not mean they are protected.

[peanutbutter]

Delivery is "medical use." As long as the person that will use it is a registered patient in the process of legally consuming.

 

If the patient is conforming, then the action that supplies the patient is conforming.

 

Both "transfer" and "delivery" support this argument.

[Guest Happy Guy]

I believe you were saying that the seller side of the transaction was not protected. Correct?Here's the next good one. "delivery" I suspect that anyone that is caught with a small amount of marijuana could claim to be delivering the marijuana to a registered patient.Even if the person isn't a registered person themselves.This would be a medical defense that would be available to everyone.

You explained why it will not be legal. The judges and prosecutors will never let this happen. They will never leave an open hole where anyone who has some cannabis is just getting ready to transfer to a patient, or is holding it for a patient. That is why I just shake my head when some of the theorists start saying what is legal. You have to try to see it from their side too to make a credible theory of how things will sort out in the courts.

[peanutbutter]

You explained why it will not be legal. The judges and prosecutors will never let this happen. They will never leave an open hole where anyone who has some cannabis is just getting ready to transfer to a patient, or is holding it for a patient. That is why I just shake my head when some of the theorists start saying what is legal. You have to try to see it from their side too to make a credible theory of how things will sort out in the courts.

 

It is not the place of the judge to ignore the law. They may not like the law, but that isn't supposed to change what is written.

 

The primary charge against the people in Oakland is "delivery of a controlled substance." They are accused of delivering cannabis to medical patients.

[+RevThad]

That is what the OP asked. Apparently you didn't read the entire thread as the ongoing dicsussion was responding to PB's statement below:

 

peanutbutter, on 10 November 2010 - 08:34 AM, said:

 

There is a split within our community as to weather "acquisition" protects just the person doing the purchasing or both sides of the transaction. I hold that it is the action itself that is legal as long as the end beneficiary is a legal patient. Since it is a legal action, then the seller would be protected also.

Actually, I have read the entire thread, a couple of times now (just to make sure I wasn't imagining things). Again it was you that introduced the concept of the seller not having a "license".

 

That's a very thin argument. The legal status of the caregiver (the one doing the acquiring) cannot just rub off on the seller.

It's perfectly legal for me to go buy a 5th of vodka at the corner market for any purpose. It isn't legal for the seller to sell that vodka unless the seller is licensed. In other words, one side of the transaction can be legal while the other is not.

 

To which I responded that a registered patient or caregiver that was doing the selling would be "licensed" to sell to anybody covered under the MMMAct.

 

However, to look at your analogy a bit closer, assuming that the liquor store is licensed and a person enters who is legally over the age to consume liquor. Can the customer legally sell a fifth of vodka to the store? No, as the supply is tightly controlled and taxed by the state. While both parties (in the liquor example) are legally able to possess liquor, they are not both allowed to purchase from any source. The same type of regulation is not in place when it comes to medical marijuana.

 

Which brings us back to the questions nobody on the opposite side wishes to answer, and wished weren't asked. Where is a qualified visiting patient supposed to acquire their meds while visiting our state? Would somebody that sells to a qualifying patient be protected under Section 333.26424 (i)?

 

For those reading along Section 333.26424 (i) reads :

 

(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.

[DenturesLost]

Actually, I have read the entire thread, a couple of times now (just to make sure I wasn't imagining things). Again it was you that introduced the concept of the seller not having a "license".

 

 

 

To which I responded that a registered patient or caregiver that was doing the selling would be "licensed" to sell to anybody covered under the MMMAct.

 

However, to look at your analogy a bit closer, assuming that the liquor store is licensed and a person enters who is legally over the age to consume liquor. Can the customer legally sell a fifth of vodka to the store? No, as the supply is tightly controlled and taxed by the state. While both parties (in the liquor example) are legally able to possess liquor, they are not both allowed to purchase from any source. The same type of regulation is not in place when it comes to medical marijuana.

 

Which brings us back to the questions nobody on the opposite side wishes to answer, and wished weren't asked. Where is a qualified visiting patient supposed to acquire their meds while visiting our state? Would somebody that sells to a qualifying patient be protected under Section 333.26424 (i)?

 

For those reading along Section 333.26424 (i) reads :

 

(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.

 

The concept of a license was as an analogy to a registered pt. selling to another registered pt. You are mixing up my argument. I don't think you are following the analogy. That or you are reading more into it than I meant. The idea was to simplify the idea of an illegal sale not necessarily making the purchase illegal. We could get into a huge discussion about liquor laws but that isn't the point. Regardless, it doesn't matter. The point was that I was responding to PB's argument NOT the OP's question.

 

 

(i) refers to "using or adminstering." In my mind that means rolling a joint for someone or packing their vaporizer, etc. It doesn't say "for assisting a registered qualifying patient with the medical use or adminsitration of mj." You are equating "using" with "medical use." I don't think you can necessarily make that leap.

[peanutbutter]

The concept of a license was as an analogy to a registered pt. selling to another registered pt. You are mixing up my argument. I don't think you are following the analogy. That or you are reading more into it than I meant. The idea was to simplify the idea of an illegal sale not necessarily making the purchase illegal. We could get into a huge discussion about liquor laws but that isn't the point. Regardless, it doesn't matter. The point was that I was responding to PB's argument NOT the OP's question.

 

 

(i) refers to "using or adminstering." In my mind that means rolling a joint for someone or packing their vaporizer, etc. It doesn't say "for assisting a registered qualifying patient with the medical use or adminsitration of mj." You are equating "using" with "medical use." I don't think you can necessarily make that leap.

 

I was just looking at the two locations that "delivery" exists. (within the context of allowed acts)

 

Section eight allows "delivery" but as a qualifier mentions both the patient and "primary caregiver."

With the expansion provided by the ID card, section 3 then applies.

Section 3 only looks at the patient as the qualifier. Not both. A patient that is qualified and compliant with the law. That is the only "test" in section three. A compliant patient.

 

When the patient has the ID card and is compliant in every way, "delivery" is "medical use." I'm sure you would agree that this isn't allowing the patient to deliver to someone else. So it would be delivery to a compliant patient for the benefit of the patient.

[DenturesLost]

I was just looking at the two locations that "delivery" exists. (within the context of allowed acts)

 

Section eight allows "delivery" but as a qualifier mentions both the patient and "primary caregiver."

With the expansion provided by the ID card, section 3 then applies.

Section 3 only looks at the patient as the qualifier. Not both. A patient that is qualified and compliant with the law. That is the only "test" in section three. A compliant patient.

 

When the patient has the ID card and is compliant in every way, "delivery" is "medical use." I'm sure you would agree that this isn't allowing the patient to deliver to someone else. So it would be delivery to a compliant patient for the benefit of the patient.

Again, the intent element. Intent would need to be a tansfer for medical use. You are forcing that intent on the seller. Or, at the very least implying it on behalf of the seller. You are making the assumption that the seller knew the buyer was a registered pt AND that the pt was going to use the mj to alleviate..blah blah blah. And you know what, that's fine if that is what you are arguing--that the seller knew he was selling to a registered pt. But you cannot argue that a seller is covered just because the buyer is a registered pt regardless of the intent of the seller. You are changing the hypothetical midstream. Basically equivocating on the hypothetical. So, pick a position so your argument isn't fallacious.

 

The fact is IF the seller can get off at all it will be due to intent to sell for med. use of a registered pt. But that isn't what you were arguing earlier. You argued that a seller was protected regardless of the seller's intent as long as the buyer was a registered pt. Your argument would let the seller off even if the seller didn't know the pt was, in fact, a pt. In other words if a registered pt bought from a street thug but never even told the street thug he was a pt your argument would have let the seller go. That, of course, doesn't make sense because in that scenario the mj is not being sold for anything other than profit.

 

Similarly, even if the street thug knew the buyer was a pt does NOT mean the intent was to transfer for medical use. What if the street thug sold to ANYONE that came up to him regardless of why they wanted the mj? That would tend to show that he wasn't selling for med. use.

 

edit: You know we've sort of hijacked this thread. Maybe we ought start a new thread if this is going to go any further. Can a mod move parts of this discussion to a new thread or is that not possible?

[peanutbutter]

Again, the intent element. Intent would need to be a tansfer for medical use. You are forcing that intent on the seller. Or, at the very least implying it on behalf of the seller. You are making the assumption that the seller knew the buyer was a registered pt AND that the pt was going to use the mj to alleviate..blah blah blah. And you know what, that's fine if that is what you are arguing--that the seller knew he was selling to a registered pt. But you cannot argue that a seller is covered just because the buyer is a registered pt regardless of the intent of the seller. You are changing the hypothetical midstream. Basically equivocating on the hypothetical. So, pick a position so your argument isn't fallacious.

 

The fact is IF the seller can get off at all it will be due to intent to sell for med. use of a registered pt. But that isn't what you were arguing earlier. You argued that a seller was protected regardless of the seller's intent as long as the buyer was a registered pt. Your argument would let the seller off even if the seller didn't know the pt was, in fact, a pt. In other words if a registered pt bought from a street thug but never even told the street thug he was a pt your argument would have let the seller go. That, of course, doesn't make sense because in that scenario the mj is not being sold for anything other than profit.

 

Similarly, even if the street thug knew the buyer was a pt does NOT mean the intent was to transfer for medical use. What if the street thug sold to ANYONE that came up to him regardless of why they wanted the mj? That would tend to show that he wasn't selling for med. use.

 

edit: You know we've sort of hijacked this thread. Maybe we ought start a new thread if this is going to go any further. Can a mod move parts of this discussion to a new thread or is that not possible?

 

Concede the intent.

 

Yes I would agree that the seller may have to know the intent of the patient and that the patient was a registered patient.

 

That would cover "delivery" inside a dispensary. Where the patients were known to be registered.

[BudJones]

Concede the intent.

 

Yes I would agree that the seller may have to know the intent of the patient and that the patient was a registered patient.

 

That would cover "delivery" inside a dispensary. Where the patients were known to be registered.

 

 

Perhaps "could" or "should" would be the better word to use here?

 

To me, "could and "should" reflect an opinion.

 

"Would", on the other hand, reflects a concrete statement of facts.

 

IMO simple little change like that could keep some readers out of harms way.

[peanutbutter]

Perhaps "could" or "should" would be the better word to use here?

 

To me, "could and "should" reflect an opinion.

 

"Would", on the other hand, reflects a concrete statement of facts.

 

IMO simple little change like that could keep some readers out of harms way.

 

Telling everyone not to use cannabis at all will do the same.

[Guest Happy Guy]

It's could or should until it gets decided in court someday.

[peanutbutter]

It's could or should until it gets decided in court someday.

 

Until then, don't medicate at all. We might find out it was all a pipe dream.