I Am A Patient And My Own Caregiver. Can I Provide To Other Patients?

[engineered_excellence]

This thread is an effort to discover how we might better educate ourselves as Patients and Caregivers in this specific area of concern. At no time shall my view, as laid out in this thread, be construed as anything other than my opinion, and at no time shall it be construed as "legal advice" in any capacity.

 

There seems to be a considerable amount of debate as to whether Patient to Caregiver transfers are legal under the law. Please, this thread is not for responses that have, "the judge said so", or "leo says no", or "ask the people in jail" or the ever popular "that's your interpretation". More over, the responses im seeking are better populated in regards to direct influences as to why people have decided one way or the other .

 

For the sake of argument, limits, counts etc... are in agreement with requirements set forth in the law, and we are referring to useable marihuana. No other scenario exists for this to remain a pure and debatable topic.

 

I contend that they are legal under the plain language of the law, nothing plucked or cherry picked, in the same capacity that Patient to Patient transfers are legal, and i will break down my view that Patient to Caregiver transfers are permitted so there is no question as to my logic of how I came to this conclusion.

 

The law affords both patients and caregivers the innate ability to exercise both "Medical Use" and "Assisting with Medical Use".

 

"Medical Use" as defined by the law is as follows:

 

333.26423 Definitions.

 

3. Definitions.

 

Sec. 3. As used in this act:

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Can we agree that this is established? If so keep reading. If not, please refer to the opening statements of this thread.

 

A Qualified Registered Patient is allowed to do several things, the very least of which are:

 

1. A Qualified Registered Patient can acquire marihuana. (get)

2. A Qualified Registered Patient can possess marihuana. (have)

3. A Qualified Registered Patient can cultivate marihuana. (grow)

4. A Qualified Registered Patient can manufacture Marihuana. (process)

5. A Qualified Registered Patient can use marihuana. (medicate)

6. A Qualified Registered Patient can internally possess marihuana. (ingest)

7. A Qualified Registered Patient can deliver marihuana. (give)

8. A Qualified Registered Patient can transfer marihuana. (partake in the act of (1) getting and/or (7) giving)

9. A Qualified Registered Patient can transport marihuana. (move from one place to another)

 

I have highlighted the points from the definition of Medical Use that apply to the position that Patient to Patient transfers are legal.

 

Can we agree that this is established? If so keep reading. If not, please refer to the opening statements of this thread.

 

A Primary Caregiver is allowed to do several things also, the very least of which are:

 

1. A Primary Caregiver can acquire marihuana. (get)

2. A Primary Caregiver can possess marihuana. (have)

3. A Primary Caregiver can cultivate marihuana. (grow)

4. A Primary Caregiver can manufacture Marihuana. (process)

5. A Primary Caregiver can use marihuana. (assist patient with medicating)

6. A Primary Caregiver can internally possess marihuana. (ingest)(protection from prosecution or action due to second hand ingestion ie smoke, absorption from application or creation of oils, lotions, edibles, etc... for non-patient caregivers)

7. A Primary Caregiver can deliver marihuana. (give)

8. A Primary Caregiver can transfer marihuana. (partake in the act of (1) getting and/or (7) giving)

9. A Primary Caregiver can transport marihuana. (move from one place to another)

 

So as we applied those points highlighted to Patient to Patient transaction, so can we apply those highlighted to justify a Patient to Caregiver transaction:

 

A Primary Caregiver can in fact acquire marihuana that has been cultivated, manufactured, transported, and delivered by a Patient through a transfer at which point said Primary Caregiver can then transport, deliver, and, through another transfer, a Patient can acquire and possess said marihuana.

 

As I read the law as it is written, ANY cardholder transactions are permitted.

 

A Primary Caregiver or a Qualified Registered Patient can in fact acquire marihuana that has been cultivated, manufactured, transported, and delivered by A Primary Caregiver or a Qualified Registered Patient through a transfer at which point said Primary Caregiver or Qualified Registered Patient can then transport and deliver, and, through another transfer, A Primary Caregiver or Patient can acquire and possess said marihuana.

 

If someone at this point can cite the actual law or statute, or declaration or rule that changes the definition of these words depending on a persons role would be helpful, but i dont think any exist.

 

I have laid out the foundation for my opinion based on the words in the law. As a sidenote, I would like to see the actual words in the law that negate any of these points.

 

Well done Hempcheff. When you lay it out like this, it all makes perfect sense. This post should be published in all of the newspapers and media outlets that have been feeding off of the "MMJ Law is too vague and open for interpretation" headlines. I don't know how many quotes I read from Township Supervisors, Board Members and City Council members that say exactly this, it's like an automated response from these people. They are like deer in headlights and need some direction, which unfortunately the state is not providing.

[errl]

On 5/11/2011 at 2:45 AM, Hempcheff said:

 

 

 

This thread is an effort to discover how we might better educate ourselves as Patients and Caregivers in this specific area of concern. At no time shall my view, as laid out in this thread, be construed as anything other than my opinion, and at no time shall it be construed as "legal advice" in any capacity.

 

There seems to be a considerable amount of debate as to whether Patient to Caregiver transfers are legal under the law. Please, this thread is not for responses that have, "the judge said so", or "leo says no", or "ask the people in jail" or the ever popular "that's your interpretation". More over, the responses im seeking are better populated in regards to direct influences as to why people have decided one way or the other .

 

For the sake of argument, limits, counts etc... are in agreement with requirements set forth in the law, and we are referring to useable marihuana. No other scenario exists for this to remain a pure and debatable topic.

 

I contend that they are legal under the plain language of the law, nothing plucked or cherry picked, in the same capacity that Patient to Patient transfers are legal, and i will break down my view that Patient to Caregiver transfers are permitted so there is no question as to my logic of how I came to this conclusion.

 

The law affords both patients and caregivers the innate ability to exercise both "Medical Use" and "Assisting with Medical Use".

 

"Medical Use" as defined by the law is as follows:

 

333.26423 Definitions.

 

3. Definitions.

 

Sec. 3. As used in this act:

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

Can we agree that this is established? If so keep reading. If not, please refer to the opening statements of this thread.

 

A Qualified Registered Patient is allowed to do several things, the very least of which are:

 

1. A Qualified Registered Patient can acquire marihuana. (get)

2. A Qualified Registered Patient can possess marihuana. (have)

3. A Qualified Registered Patient can cultivate marihuana. (grow)

4. A Qualified Registered Patient can manufacture Marihuana. (process)

5. A Qualified Registered Patient can use marihuana. (medicate)

6. A Qualified Registered Patient can internally possess marihuana. (ingest)

7. A Qualified Registered Patient can deliver marihuana. (give)

8. A Qualified Registered Patient can transfer marihuana. (partake in the act of (1) getting and/or (7) giving)

9. A Qualified Registered Patient can transport marihuana. (move from one place to another)

 

I have highlighted the points from the definition of Medical Use that apply to the position that Patient to Patient transfers are legal.

 

Can we agree that this is established? If so keep reading. If not, please refer to the opening statements of this thread.

 

A Primary Caregiver is allowed to do several things also, the very least of which are:

 

1. A Primary Caregiver can acquire marihuana. (get)

2. A Primary Caregiver can possess marihuana. (have)

3. A Primary Caregiver can cultivate marihuana. (grow)

4. A Primary Caregiver can manufacture Marihuana. (process)

5. A Primary Caregiver can use marihuana. (assist patient with medicating)

6. A Primary Caregiver can internally possess marihuana. (ingest)(protection from prosecution or action due to second hand ingestion ie smoke, absorption from application or creation of oils, lotions, edibles, etc... for non-patient caregivers)

7. A Primary Caregiver can deliver marihuana. (give)

8. A Primary Caregiver can transfer marihuana. (partake in the act of (1) getting and/or (7) giving)

9. A Primary Caregiver can transport marihuana. (move from one place to another)

 

So as we applied those points highlighted to Patient to Patient transaction, so can we apply those highlighted to justify a Patient to Caregiver transaction:

 

A Primary Caregiver can in fact acquire marihuana that has been cultivated, manufactured, transported, and delivered by a Patient through a transfer at which point said Primary Caregiver can then transport, deliver, and, through another transfer, a Patient can acquire and possess said marihuana.

 

As I read the law as it is written, ANY cardholder transactions are permitted.

 

A Primary Caregiver or a Qualified Registered Patient can in fact acquire marihuana that has been cultivated, manufactured, transported, and delivered by A Primary Caregiver or a Qualified Registered Patient through a transfer at which point said Primary Caregiver or Qualified Registered Patient can then transport and deliver, and, through another transfer, A Primary Caregiver or Patient can acquire and possess said marihuana.

 

If someone at this point can cite the actual law or statute, or declaration or rule that changes the definition of these words depending on a persons role would be helpful, but i dont think any exist.

 

I have laid out the foundation for my opinion based on the words in the law. As a sidenote, I would like to see the actual words in the law that negate any of these points.

 

 

 

What about section 4, (n) & (o), seems it says P2P transfers (with or without remission) are not allowed outside the dispensary or registered patient to your own self. 

Thoughts?

(I see your point about the aforementioned articles, this is similar to what is going on in AZ with Concentrates, poorly written laws) 

(n) A qualifying patient shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product or marihuana to any individual.
 

(o) A primary caregiver shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product to any individual who is not a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process.

[Restorium2]

I get a laugh out of all the poorly written claims by folks that are a wishin' and a hopin'.

It was obvious from the start that if you had to qualify with the State, register with your patients, that no 'other' transfers were legal.

We grow up playing board games with rules. We all have that basic training. Why would you get to put 10 houses on a property that you don't even have a monopoly on when you can only put 5 on one you do?

People need to use their heads. It's very basic stuff if you subtract the fog in your mind. 

[Restorium2]

One remarkable thing I have learned is that a foggy mind can be a legal defense. So stay legal when you can, and when you can't then stay foggy my friends! Make sure you have totally forgotten any real legal advice or common sense.

[mishigami bear]

We can also get deep into the weeds trying to interpret the "covered/locked" provisions of the law, especially as it applies to outdoor grows. Is there an actual mesh size requirement for fencing?

Edited July 21, 2018 by mishigami bear

[Michael Komorn]

On 7/21/2018 at 12:28 PM, mishigami bear said:

We can also get deep into the weeds trying to interpret the "covered/locked" provisions of the law, especially as it applies to outdoor grows. Is there an actual mesh size requirement for fencing?

Quote

chain-link fencing, wooden slats, or a similar material that prevents access by the general public

If the material keeps out the general public.

If the material prevents police or general public from lifting it up and reaching under/over.

Is there a mesh size requirement? it has to be smaller than a human hand, or, far enough away from the plants, that no one can reach inside and grab. For example if you used cattle wire, which allows humans to reach through, the plants have to be outside of the reach.

 

It is all about "access".

[Mayhem1134]

How would an enclosed area with a zipper fit into this scenario? Does the zipper have to be locked like a locker?

[Michael Komorn]

Yes if using a grow tent or pop up greenhouse, a pad lock would be useful on the zippers.

 

But you should have a material "similar" to chain link fence, wooden slats (fence) etc. Strong.

[mishigami bear]

I purchased a 10' x 10' dog Kennel (6' high with open top) from Lowes, that is basically chain link fence material. I can padlock the door mechanism.

I have a bunch of bamboo on my property, and was thinking about using it for the open top. I can cut them to any size and secure it to the fencing with wire ties.

My big concern is anchoring the structure properly to the ground. It needs to be secure from high winds and needs to be compliant with the law.

[Michael Komorn]

Yes, sink some struts into the ground and weld/tie the dog kennel to the struts and then fill back with dirt and or some bags of concrete, so no one can pull it up.

[blackhorse]

I used T post to anchor the bottom of the fence, then wire tied the chain link to the T post. My post are spaced 8' apart and someone (two) lifted up the chainlink and crawled under the wire to cut down plants and drag out under the wire. This happened last year. Secure the area and put up camera's to protect your grow.

[Restorium2]

On ‎7‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 2:40 PM, errl said:

 

What about section 4, (n) & (o), seems it says P2P transfers (with or without remission) are not allowed outside the dispensary or registered patient to your own self. 

Thoughts?

(I see your point about the aforementioned articles, this is similar to what is going on in AZ with Concentrates, poorly written laws) 

(n) A qualifying patient shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product or marihuana to any individual.
 

(o) A primary caregiver shall not transfer a marihuana-infused product to any individual who is not a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department’s registration process.

When legalization passes in the fall ANYONE can give/transfer without renumeration up to 2.5 ounces to any other adult.