ralphy Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) delete Edited January 20, 2011 by ralphy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hempcheff Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 WELCOME!!! That is a great question! but, Do you mean in a "Here, hold this bag of medicine while i tie my shoe please" or "Here is an ounce of overages that i have, please use it for the uninterrupted supply of medication for another patient" way? Many opinions are going to follow on this, the law protects both parties involved almost redundantly, yet there will be people that argue to the point of fanatacism that you just begging to go to jail if you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphy Posted January 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 "Here, hold this bag of medicine while i tie my shoe please" or "Here is an ounce of overages that i have, please use it for the uninterrupted supply of medication for another patient" way? That way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garyfisher Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 You didnt select one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtgeme Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 It's funny you bring this up today, I was just talking to another attorney about it yesterday. My answer is maybe. The sec 8 defense could be argued in favor of a P2C transfer. (element b if memory serves.). But does the statute allow for it, no. Is there a good faith argument to be made to defend it: yes. In my opinion the statute allows for P2P transfers. Others feel differently. The idea of a P2C transfer is weak but possible. If you were my client I would advise you not to transfer to a caregiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawyercaregiver Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 Yes the P2P issue has been discussed much and is still not fully decided (though I am encouraged by the growing consensus). I thought this question was a novel twist asking about Patient transfers back to the CG. If the CG is not a patient intending to rely on the Section 8 Affirmative Defense I would say this is absolutely NOT allowed. If he/she is then I agree with the other counselor who posted before me, although I am not sure what "others" feel differently (except of course the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawyercaregiver Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 And the State A.G. even though he said otherwise repeatedly during the MMMA campaign of 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobandtorey Posted January 15, 2011 Report Share Posted January 15, 2011 IMO i think we have to craw be for we can walk IMO we have not even make it legal to grow Marihuana inn this State Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.