Can We Sell To Unregistered Patients

[Guest Happy Guy]

LOL Were you talking about all aspects of the law or just someone transfering to unregistered patients? Get registered and then you can do what you want.... until this stuff gets cleared up in court. You gotta do what you gotta do to be safe. Register.

[peanutbutter]

LOL Were you talking about all aspects of the law or just someone transfering to unregistered patients? Get registered and then you can do what you want.... until this stuff gets cleared up in court. You gotta do what you gotta do to be safe. Register.

 

Until it gets to the Supreme Court, we can say exactly the same kinds of things about any topic in the law at all.

 

All we can do now is to study the thing and estimate what is clearly allowed.

[Guest Happy Guy]

All righty then. Not much is clearly allowed for non registered types at this juncture. Nothing really. Remember, you said CLEARLY.

[DenturesLost]

All righty then. Not much is clearly allowed for non registered types at this juncture. Nothing really. Remember, you said CLEARLY.

Yes.

And "estimate what is clearly allowed" is kind of like saying I will GUESS what I know is CERTAIN.

As contradictory a statement as I have seen...

[DenturesLost]

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

Yes but that's a wee bit extreme isn't it? Killing someone would do the same, right?

If I am not mistaken HappyGuy was expressing concern for those who would be misled by reading your posts that tend to attribute absolute and correct positions as to subjects where there is no absolute and correct position as of yet. That's what you are not getting. Some people will get on this website and read your posts and then assume they are legal and no harm can come to them and then engage in the conduct you say is legal. Then what happens when they get knicked? "Oh well, sorry about that. You should've known I was advocating things as I WISH they were and not necessarily as they ACTUALLY are."

 

And the patient...,"But your honor, peanutbutter said it was legal..."

 

If you're looking to help people then don't do things that could put them in harm's way.

[peanutbutter]

Yes.

And "estimate what is clearly allowed" is kind of like saying I will GUESS what I know is CERTAIN.

As contradictory a statement as I have seen...

 

OK .. that's wrong .. so what is right?

[DenturesLost]

OK .. that's wrong .. so what is right?

The fact is if you have to "estimate" what you know then you shouldn't be holding it out as fact if it is something that could potentially get someone in trouble. It's fine to argue something and to have an opinion or point of view but as the previous poster pointed out, when it is something that you can't be sure on then that should be qualified in your argument. The example was using the word "would" rather than should or could. As the poster indicated "would' is a more certain term that denotes that an B WILL follow if A occurs. It should be framed such that B might follow if A occurs. Seems minor, yes. And to you and me or anyone else participating in an argument we get that the concept is not solidified but to someone who peeks in the door and reads some of your posts they could potentially get in trouble if they read absolute statements. Notice I used the word "could" there... I am not saying they WOULD be led astray but is it worth it to risk that?

[BudJones]

We can safely estimate all we want - along with the disclaimers "could" and "should".

 

However, "would" comes across as know and proven fact.

 

There are many readers here asking legal questions. As is the tendancy with most forums, "authority" status is often given to long time posters with high post counts. Along with that should come the responsibility to clearly identify that a response is either conjecture or based on real life facts and experience.

 

In that light, I wonder how many people that respond to these questions actually "practice what they preach"?

 

Maybe that would be a good prerequisite?

 

Let's keep patients and CGs out of harms way. A subject in a test case should be a volunteer.

[Otsego County Caregiver]

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.

 

What other sorts of "use" are legal besides "medical use"? "use" is clearly short for "medical use".

 

Otherwise they would have just left out "use" altogether and left it narrowed to "adminstering" which would indicate that the scenario you describe (roll a joint, make edibles, assist with a vaporizer, etc) were covered but not "medical use" as defined by the law.

[DenturesLost]

We can safely estimate all we want - along with the disclaimers "could" and "should".

 

However, "would" comes across as know and proven fact.

 

There are many readers here asking legal questions. As is the tendancy with most forums, "authority" status is often given to long time posters with high post counts. Along with that should come the responsibility to clearly identify that a response is either conjecture or based on real life facts and experience.

 

In that light, I wonder how many people that respond to these questions actually "practice what they preach"?

 

Maybe that would be a good prerequisite?

 

Let's keep patients and CGs out of harms way. A subject in a test case should be a volunteer.

Couldnt have said it better...

[Otsego County Caregiver]

The fact is if you have to "estimate" what you know then you shouldn't be holding it out as fact if it is something that could potentially get someone in trouble. It's fine to argue something and to have an opinion or point of view but as the previous poster pointed out, when it is something that you can't be sure on then that should be qualified in your argument. The example was using the word "would" rather than should or could. As the poster indicated "would' is a more certain term that denotes that an B WILL follow if A occurs. It should be framed such that B might follow if A occurs. Seems minor, yes. And to you and me or anyone else participating in an argument we get that the concept is not solidified but to someone who peeks in the door and reads some of your posts they could potentially get in trouble if they read absolute statements. Notice I used the word "could" there... I am not saying they WOULD be led astray but is it worth it to risk that?

 

 

We can safely estimate all we want - along with the disclaimers "could" and "should".

 

However, "would" comes across as know and proven fact.

 

There are many readers here asking legal questions. As is the tendancy with most forums, "authority" status is often given to long time posters with high post counts. Along with that should come the responsibility to clearly identify that a response is either conjecture or based on real life facts and experience.

 

In that light, I wonder how many people that respond to these questions actually "practice what they preach"?

 

Maybe that would be a good prerequisite?

 

Let's keep patients and CGs out of harms way. A subject in a test case should be a volunteer.

 

 

IDK guys, anyone who comes to the internet for legal advice and doesn't have enough sense to consult a lawyer beforehand maybe shouldn't be messing with MM at all.

 

Just sayin'.

[BudJones]

IDK guys, anyone who comes to the internet for legal advice and doesn't have enough sense to consult a lawyer beforehand maybe shouldn't be messing with MM at all.

 

Just sayin'.

 

Oh - I agree, however . . .

 

Just sayin'

[BudJones]

Couldnt have said it better...

 

I believe you did . . .

[peanutbutter]

Gee .. it's sounding like it's immoral to discuss the law at all.

[bobandtorey]

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

 

 

Justice O'Connell stated their goal pretty clearly, when he suggested that nobody in the entire state use marijuana for any purpose until the Supreme Court rules on things. In his opinion, he and the Supremes are the only folks smart enough to read and understand the law.

[+RevThad]

We can safely estimate all we want - along with the disclaimers "could" and "should".

 

However, "would" comes across as know and proven fact.

 

There are many readers here asking legal questions. As is the tendancy with most forums, "authority" status is often given to long time posters with high post counts. Along with that should come the responsibility to clearly identify that a response is either conjecture or based on real life facts and experience.

 

In that light, I wonder how many people that respond to these questions actually "practice what they preach"?

 

Maybe that would be a good prerequisite?

 

Let's keep patients and CGs out of harms way. A subject in a test case should be a volunteer.

Good morning,

 

I do agree with your position on the semantical issues, and I personally do my best to try and include things that make sure that folks know I am a mere layman. However, there are also plenty of folks that post around here, that state the exact opposite of my opinions as fact. Simply read back through this thread for some examples of the absolute positions folks take.

 

On that note and since we are discussing the differences between "could, should, and would" let us look at a few other words that are actually included in the law. Words like "shall not" and "shall". Those are very definitive words and declare absolutes.

 

A few posts back there was a discussion of "intent", and the law actually covers this topic, including one of those declaratory words:

 

Section 333.26424 (d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana...

 

Also on the intent topic, for an idea of what the law does allow or prevent, one must look at the intent of the legislators or the ballot initiative. It is very clear when one looks at the language of the law and the ballot initiative to glean what the intent is. The law itself declares 3 things:

1. Marihuana has medicinal properties for treating certain conditions and symptoms
   
2. Changing state law will protect the vast majority of people that have a need from arrest
   
3. States are not required to follow federal law, and Michigan will not enforce federal law for the health and welfare of its citizens
   

The ballot initiative included language to protect both registered and unregistered patients and caregivers.

 

Here is the real question, and it is based on the repeated claims of the prohibitionists. Continually they claim there are "unintended consequences" and "giant loopholes" associated with the MMMAct. What are the unintended consequences and loopholes? IF they are not the things we, on the pro medical marijuana side, are claiming, then why does one of the biggest opponents to the MMMAct continue to fight to get the legislature to "tighten up the regulations"?

 

The prohibitionists like to try to argue both side of the fence, first they argue that the MMMAct is to broad and would implicitly allow pot shops to open up everywhere, and then they argue that the law is very limited in the types of transactions it would allow. If the law limits what types of transactions are allowed to a very narrow group, then there is no need for tightening regulations. If as the opponents claim dispensaries and other sources of medicine are illegal and not covered under the current MMMAct, then they only need a simple majority in the legislature to define dispensaries as being such, taking away any questions. However, they have not done so and even admit that the only chance they have of outlawing dispensaries currently is by getting the courts to do so.

 

Just some things to think about, and of course this is all based on my personal understanding of the law and the situation on the ground.

[BudJones]

Gee .. it's sounding like it's immoral to discuss the law at all.

 

Tissue? Buck up man - that's weak and non productive.

[BudJones]

Good morning,

 

I do agree with your position on the semantical issues, and I personally do my best to try and include things that make sure that folks know I am a mere layman. However, there are also plenty of folks that post around here, that state the exact opposite of my opinions as fact. Simply read back through this thread for some examples of the absolute positions folks take.

 

On that note and since we are discussing the differences between "could, should, and would" let us look at a few other words that are actually included in the law. Words like "shall not" and "shall". Those are very definitive words and declare absolutes.

 

A few posts back there was a discussion of "intent", and the law actually covers this topic, including one of those declaratory words:

 

Section 333.26424 (d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana...

 

Also on the intent topic, for an idea of what the law does allow or prevent, one must look at the intent of the legislators or the ballot initiative. It is very clear when one looks at the language of the law and the ballot initiative to glean what the intent is. The law itself declares 3 things:

1. Marihuana has medicinal properties for treating certain conditions and symptoms
   
2. Changing state law will protect the vast majority of people that have a need from arrest
   
3. States are not required to follow federal law, and Michigan will not enforce federal law for the health and welfare of its citizens
   

The ballot initiative included language to protect both registered and unregistered patients and caregivers.

 

Here is the real question, and it is based on the repeated claims of the prohibitionists. Continually they claim there are "unintended consequences" and "giant loopholes" associated with the MMMAct. What are the unintended consequences and loopholes? IF they are not the things we, on the pro medical marijuana side, are claiming, then why does one of the biggest opponents to the MMMAct continue to fight to get the legislature to "tighten up the regulations"?

 

The prohibitionists like to try to argue both side of the fence, first they argue that the MMMAct is to broad and would implicitly allow pot shops to open up everywhere, and then they argue that the law is very limited in the types of transactions it would allow. If the law limits what types of transactions are allowed to a very narrow group, then there is no need for tightening regulations. If as the opponents claim dispensaries and other sources of medicine are illegal and not covered under the current MMMAct, then they only need a simple majority in the legislature to define dispensaries as being such, taking away any questions. However, they have not done so and even admit that the only chance they have of outlawing dispensaries currently is by getting the courts to do so.

 

Just some things to think about, and of course this is all based on my personal understanding of the law and the situation on the ground.

 

Good point. Appears that there is no honor among our opposition. Or consistentcy either. It also appears that they will stop at nothing to discredit and disperse mis information. Not a lot of shoulds and coulds coming from the other side LOL!

 

Unfortunately, at the end of the day, things will slowly be defined through the courts. And the lawyers say YAY!

[+420Atheist]

IDK guys, anyone who comes to the internet for legal advice and doesn't have enough sense to consult a lawyer beforehand maybe shouldn't be messing with MM at all.

 

Just sayin'.

 

On the other hand I would argue that the brain trust here has analyzed and discussed the arguments on both sides more than any single lawyer. Our biggest fault is our inability to discuss these things dispassionately using critical thinking and reasoned logic. I'm not saying everyone has an inability to do this but those who can't tend to move the discussions to unproductive areas.

[DenturesLost]

Gee .. it's sounding like it's immoral to discuss the law at all.

That IS weak. That's like arguing with someone and they throw their hands up in disgust and say "I guess I'm so stupid I can't even tie my shoelaces then huh?" It's pushing to the far extreme in an effort to garner the pity support. A "poor me" attitude.

 

No one said it is immoral. The point is that speaking in absolutes to that extreme is likely to get people in trouble.

 

And for those arguing that anyone who relies on a BB post to get their info deserves the consequences....really? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that what the BB is about? To disseminate info so people have something to rely on--be it how to grow, etc. And in the end let's say someone is "stupid" enough to rely on PB's statements. Does that mean they deserve what they get?

[DenturesLost]

Good morning,

 

I do agree with your position on the semantical issues, and I personally do my best to try and include things that make sure that folks know I am a mere layman. However, there are also plenty of folks that post around here, that state the exact opposite of my opinions as fact. Simply read back through this thread for some examples of the absolute positions folks take.

 

I agree but it is one thing to take an absolute position that is on the safe side and altogether another thing to take an absolute position that could land someone in jail. And as a previous poster pointed out, PB is a mod and has a ton of posts under his name. That, in and of itself, would tend to make many people accept his position as gospel.

[chi_guy]

I'm not sure what topic this thread is turning into. But selling to unregistered patient is not protected if you are not a registered patient or registered caregiver yourself. You may argue the Affirmative Defense but you must state that you were acting as the patient's primary caregiver during the transaction.

[pic book]

PB QUOTE: 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

 

No split, unless you are including the prosecutors as part of our community. No sense pointing fingers and causing further division describing a split that is not there. It doesn't matter what we think anyway. We just need to wait for the courts to answer on this. I'm sure everyone in 'our community' is on the same side of this. Some are just more cautious with giving advice as to what is safe.

 

 

A split, or difference of opinion does exist, and not just of opinion but of behavior. What we (the pro-mmj community) think matters a great deal, as our behavior causes the public to think well or ill of us, our issue, our position. If we have plants in an open back yard, with 9 patients and 5 pounds dry on hand as a caregiver and we go down, it's a black mark that proceeded from our thinking that we are above the law and really too special to conform to its limits. Public support for our advocacy is extremely valuable. Neither opinion nor behavior based upon it, is static. Many people today thinking, behaving one way may be doing differently tomorrow. Exigency and oportunity and especially those events closest to home affect us all. We act based on our thinking so what we think matters greatly.

[phaquetoo]

It is legal for me to purchase moonshine?

 

In your example, you may purchase the fifth of vodka. If it is a legal purchase then the sale was legal. Correct?

 

 

ok now im real confused!

 

did you say you legaly can buy moonshine?

 

Please let me know where, I want some! I keep blowing up my still!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

(p.b how many court cases have you personaly had to go thru?)

[phaquetoo]

It is legal for me to purchase moonshine?

 

In your example, you may purchase the fifth of vodka. If it is a legal purchase then the sale was legal. Correct?

 

OOPS! told ya i was confused, ouch burnt my hand on the vape!

 

ok now im real confused!

 

did you say you legaly can buy moonshine?

 

Please let me know where, I want some! I keep blowing up my still!

 

Peace

FTW

Jim

 

(p.b how many court cases have you personaly had to go thru?)