Patient To Patient Transfer-Legality

[Guest Happy Guy]

i find it hard to believe, highlander, that a caregiver that is not a patient is not afforded the same protections, how is it that a caregiver cannot be charged under csa for having thc in their system? they are not qualified to have it for medicinal purposes, but daily interaction with the plant itself, will cause someone to test positive for thc. a controlled substance.

 

are you suggesting that every caregiver is breaking the law if they are not a patient?

 

or trying to scare folks again?

I've been reading Highlander's posts for years now and he posts for informational purposes. I believe he is trying to help people.

 

Of course you can't smoke legally if you are not a patient. That is just common sense.

[Highlander]

Sounds like you wish to pick the words you like and forget those you don't.

 

So "in accordance with the act" applies only to those things you wish to? I don't think it's supposed to work that way.

 

You can't quote what you are trying to explain because what you are trying to explain don't exist within the law. Those things may become accepted by the courts, as time passes. But so far there is almost nothing to support what you say.

 

I'm not the one picking and choosing words. You are choosing to ignore some very important ones. The act says (paraphrasing) a 'registered qualifying patient shall not be subject to arrest for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with this act."

 

What does "In accordance with this act mean?" You seem to think it means nothing at all...that you can keep it in the clause or take it out and the section means the same thing in either case. Basic rules of statutory construction say you are wrong. The author put "in accordance with this act" as a qualifier to what "medical use" is protected. It is clear that the author chose to qualify that there exists medical use in accordance with the act and medical use that isn't in accordance with the act. So it is fact that there exists medical use that is NOT in accordance with the act.

 

You have developed the notion that "if it is definable as medical use, it is undeniably protected under the act." This isn't true, and it puts patients and caregivers in harm's way.

 

Since rules of staturory interpretation tell us that there is a difference between "medical use" and "medical use in accordance with the act," what do you believe this difference to be?

[Guest Happy Guy]

If you are 18 and in the woods where no one sees you or hears you and you swallow a mouthful of beer did you break the law? Yes. Can it be proven? Who knows.

 

If you want to talk about what is against the law we can do that but if you want to talk about what can be proven as against the law that is another story altogether. Whether it can be proven that the cg "used" mj as opposed to ended up with it internally as an incidental result of handling is not the topic of discussion. If you want it to be, then you should say that and we can address that issue. For now we are discussing whether the cg has the same protections as a pt in regard to "use" as it is described in the law. You are trying to confuse the issue to make it seem as though you are correct. They are 2 separate issues.

Since a friend of mine was put through the system in Gladwin County recently, I understand that it would be easy to tell the difference in a blood test level between someone who uses and someone who just touches plants. There may not be protocol yet, but there is definitely a potential for there to be way to show the difference with a blood test. It wouldn't be good to get overconfident about your rights as a caregiver and think you can consume legally because you have touched plants. That will be challenged I'm sure. Only patients will get away with a very high THC blood level if you get a smart prosecuter.

[CedarSpringsCG]

here is the current status of the case.

 

maybe seeing it in black and white will calm down your strident rhetoric. Remember to take a deep breath and show a bit of empathy for a fellow patient.

 

Put yourself in thatoneartists position and show a bit of support for someone in a horridly difficult situation. He did not cop a plea and go home, he fought this for all the patients in Michigan. He deserves at least tacit support, and not this mean spirited no knowledge of the facts attack. Likely his attorney wisely told him to shut up as this forum can and would be used against him in a court of law if he stayed active.

 

come on folks, we are all in this together, divide and conquer went out a long time ago.

Wow, I didn't follow this case, but it seems to me like the prosecutionwon, lost the appeal, then they are appealing the appeal, and over 1/2 the document proves they should have lost. Trying to use a technicality that the doctor didn't say he would receive benefit from it, but saying the doctor did before his arrest say that he would support the man using it?

 

I mean really?? How many doctors advise or support someone using a "drug" that isn't going to give them pallative benefits? Or at least that the doctor thinks might give pallative benefits? I would think that all he has to do is get the doctor back on stand to say, "When I said I would support Mr Kolanek's use of Medical Marijuana, I believed it would provide pallative benefits".

 

I mean there isn't a form that a doctor has to read to his patient to support their use. Not once in my hundreds of vicodin perscription refill appointments did a doctor ever say to me, "This will provide a beneficial and pallative benefit for your pain". I asked for help with pain, they said "I'll write you a perscription for Vicodin, take it as directed, not just when it hurts".

 

I call total BS on this case. They should quit harassing this man.

 

Happy Guy - in response to the "I would only do it behind closed doors with friends", well yes it does seem to contradict my advice, but then again not really. I am not a risk taker, and whereas I feel this is allowed in the law, I am not a judge or attorney, and I don't think that the prosecuting attorneys are playing by the rules or the law. They are trying to use simple technicalities, and word play to arrest people. I mean sure, some criminals get acquitted by technicalities, but once again, our law should be a shield, not a sword when it comes to someone with a chronic debilitating condition.

 

Just because I would ensure I was safe from prosecution, doesn't change my view on the law.

 

Cedar

[peanutbutter]

"Protections"

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card 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, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

 

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card 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, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed

 

 

 

This is where the protections are different. Are you suggesting that protection for medical use is the same as the protection for assisting with medical use? I hope not. Clearly, the protections are different and to suggest otherwise only encourages more folks to run afoul of the system.

 

I was thinking about it. The split in the list takes place directly in the definition of "medical use."

It is the "test" within that section:

 

Section 3 (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.

 

It's not "medical use" if it's not to "alleviate a registered qualitying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

[Highlander]

I was thinking about it. The split in the list takes place directly in the definition of "medical use."

It is the "test" within that section:

 

 

 

It's not "medical use" if it's not to "alleviate a registered qualitying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition."

 

I don't think that's correct.

 

I agree that it isn't "medical use" of it's not to "alleviate...." But that is different from the core of this discussion. You pointed out a difference between "medical use" and non-medical use. There exists: "non medical use," "medical use," and "medical use in accordance with the act." These are distinct animals. You pointed out what defines "medical use" vs. non medical. I'm asking for the difference between "medical use" and "medical use in accordance with the act." There must be a difference, because the act uses both.

 

If the split took place within the definition of medical use, then we would not need to qualify "in accordance with the act."

 

If the action was not to alleviate a pt's condition, then it isn't medical use at all.

 

You are taking the position that "in accordance with this act" simply points back to the definition of "medical use," with the claim that if it meets the definition of medical use, then it is by definition in accordance with the act. This is inconsistent with statutory interpretation tools. If this were the case, then evey word that appears in the definitions section would have to be treated this same way where it occured in the act, i.e. "A registered qualifying patient in accordance with this act shall not be subject to...."

[Hempcheff]

I see, scrutiny for prosecution, avoidance for defense. sounds right up the prosecutions alley.....

 

 

just sayin

 

 

I don't think that's correct.

 

I agree that it isn't "medical use" of it's not to "alleviate...." But that is different from the core of this discussion. You pointed out a difference between "medical use" and non-medical use. There exists: "non medical use," "medical use," and "medical use in accordance with the act." These are distinct animals. You pointed out what defines "medical use" vs. non medical. I'm asking for the difference between "medical use" and "medical use in accordance with the act." There must be a difference, because the act uses both.

 

If the split took place within the definition of medical use, then we would not need to qualify "in accordance with the act."

 

If the action was not to alleviate a pt's condition, then it isn't medical use at all.

 

You are taking the position that "in accordance with this act" simply points back to the definition of "medical use," with the claim that if it meets the definition of medical use, then it is by definition in accordance with the act. This is inconsistent with statutory interpretation tools. If this were the case, then evey word that appears in the definitions section would have to be treated this same way where it occured in the act, i.e. "A registered qualifying patient in accordance with this act shall not be subject to...."

[Highlander]

I see, scrutiny for prosecution, avoidance for defense. sounds right up the prosecutions alley.....

 

 

just sayin

 

Why is it that when someone points out a potential glitch in someone's interpretation of the law, someone else tries to say that the more conservative guy supports the prosecution? I support the MMMAct, and I support a solid interpretation that is in clear and unambiguous compliance with our state law. Isn't that what the feds told us would keep us safe? More people should listen to Dr. Bob's view on this sort of matter.

 

 

I believe that those supporting shakey, one-legged interpretations of our protections are setting up unsuspecting people to become test cases and are trying to destroy the Act from the inside by turning public opinion against us.

[Highlander]

Food for thought - Rhode Island passed a MMJ law too, also written by and pushed by the Marijuana Policy Project. One might make the point that this is RI law and not MI law so other state laws might come into play with regard to many of the provisions of both acts, but note that both acts contain a supremacy clause that sets them outside the sphere of other laws, so at their core, we really are comparing apples to apples. Take a look at the protections section. See paragraph m. This was an amendment added to support p2p transfers.

 

 

DEFINITIONS:

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

 

 

PROTECTIONS:

§ 21-28.6-4 Protections for the medical use of marijuana. – (a) A qualifying patient who has in his or her possession a registry identification card 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, for the medical use of marijuana; provided, that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marijuana that does not exceed twelve (12) mature marijuana plants and two and one-half (2.5) ounces of usable marijuana. Said plants shall be stored in an indoor facility.

 

(b) No school, employer or landlord may refuse to enroll, employ or lease to or otherwise penalize a person solely for his or her status as a cardholder.

 

© A primary caregiver, who has in his or her possession, a registry identification card 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, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marijuana; provided, that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marijuana which does not exceed twelve (12) mature marijuana plants and two and one-half (2.5) ounces of usable marijuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.

 

(d) Registered primary caregivers and registered qualifying patients shall be allowed to possess a reasonable amount of unusable marijuana, including up to twelve (12) seedlings, which shall not be counted toward the limits in this section.

 

(e) There shall exist a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marijuana if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) Is in possession of a registry identification card; and

 

(2) Is in possession of an amount of marijuana that does not exceed the amount permitted under this chapter. Such presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marijuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition.

 

(f) A primary caregiver may receive reimbursement for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana. Compensation shall not constitute sale of controlled substances.

 

(g) A practitioner 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 the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline or by any another business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau solely for providing written certifications or for otherwise stating that, in the practitioner's professional opinion, the potential benefits of the medical marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks for a patient.

 

(h) Any interest in or right to property that is possessed, owned, or used in connection with the medical use of marijuana, or acts incidental to such use, shall not be forfeited.

 

(i) No person shall be subject to arrest or prosecution for constructive possession, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, being an accessory, or any other offense for simply being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marijuana as permitted under this chapter or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marijuana.

 

(j) A practitioner nurse or pharmacist 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 discussing the benefits or health risks of medical marijuana or its interaction with other substances with a patient.

 

(k) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, issued under the laws of another state, U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia to permit the medical use of marijuana by a patient with a debilitating medical condition, or to permit a person to assist with the medical use of marijuana by a patient with a debilitating medical condition, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.

 

(l) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 21-28.6-3(6) or subsection 21-28.6-4©, no primary caregiver other than a compassion center shall possess an amount of marijuana in excess of twenty-four (24) marijuana plants and five (5) ounces of usable marijuana for qualifying patients to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process.

 

(m) A registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver may give marijuana to another registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver to whom they are not connected by the department's registration process, provided that no consideration is paid for the marijuana, and that the recipient does not exceed the limits specified in § 21-28.6-4.

 

(n) For the purposes of medical care, including organ transplants, a registered qualifying patient's authorized use of marijuana shall be considered the equivalent of the authorized use of any other medication used at the direction of a physician, and shall not constitute the use of an illicit substance.

 

So think about that. RI's laws passed several years before ours, and the same p2p transfer debate raged there until the legislature saw fit to add a new protection for p2p transfers. Then, the MPP wrote our law in MI...so the MPP, author of the law, did not add the same p2p language amended in the RI law to our MI law, even though they knew the p2p debate would take place later. Why not? Maybe the law was designed to limit the distribution of marijuana, rather than expand it. One might note that RI later added another amendment to allow for dispensaries. Why would RI amend a law to allow for things already allowed? If if the Michigan law were intended to allow these activities, why was the law not modeled after the more expansive RI law?

 

The long and short if it is that the author of our law knew going into this that an amedment would be necessary to support organized distribution models, yet they chose to reamin silent on the matter when the MI law was drafted. Why?

 

Courts in Michigan are looking at the implementation of MMJ laws in other states as a clue into what the voters intended in general when accepting marijuana as medicine. It will be tough to convince a court that voters anticipated dispensaries to be protected in MI when a nearly identical law passsed in another state needed an amendment for the same. And curiously, the RI law allows p2p giveways - not p2p sales. One might conclude that the original passage of the RI law did not intend to protect patients who gave away, let alone sold MJ to other patients.

 

If you look deeper, you'll see another clue here. Some have argued that "connected through the dept.'s registration process" means that any two people who register are connected by virture of being in the same registry...that it isn't the forms naming pt and CG that establishes a connection, but he registry itself. When you then see that the author of both laws draws a distinction (paragram m) between registrants who are NOT connected through the process, it becomes pretty tough to make a case for "connected through the registration process" to mean that all who registered are conected.

[peanutbutter]

I don't think that's correct.

 

I agree that it isn't "medical use" of it's not to "alleviate...." But that is different from the core of this discussion. You pointed out a difference between "medical use" and non-medical use. There exists: "non medical use," "medical use," and "medical use in accordance with the act." These are distinct animals. You pointed out what defines "medical use" vs. non medical. I'm asking for the difference between "medical use" and "medical use in accordance with the act." There must be a difference, because the act uses both.

 

If the split took place within the definition of medical use, then we would not need to qualify "in accordance with the act."

 

If the action was not to alleviate a pt's condition, then it isn't medical use at all.

 

You are taking the position that "in accordance with this act" simply points back to the definition of "medical use," with the claim that if it meets the definition of medical use, then it is by definition in accordance with the act. This is inconsistent with statutory interpretation tools. If this were the case, then evey word that appears in the definitions section would have to be treated this same way where it occured in the act, i.e. "A registered qualifying patient in accordance with this act shall not be subject to...."

 

There is a vast difference between what would be viewed as "medical use" by the public in general and "medical use" that is discussed in the act.

 

The general view of "use" would probably not include transportation. As a for instance.

 

Thus "medical use" as defined by the act. "in accordance with this act."

[peanutbutter]

"medical use" has been defined in the act.

 

That means that the phrase "medical use" is NOT to be interpreted according to some dictionary. But rather should be interpreted according to the definition in the law itself.

 

Within the law "medical use" is all inclusive UNLESS one of the specifically listed exceptions is triggered. Such as rolling a blunt on a school bus. Or Smoking a joint in jail.

 

There are specific exceptions that are listed to "medical use."

 

The definition and the exclusions form "medical use in accordance with this act."

 

OK .. ready, aim, fire away ..

[peanutbutter]

Highlander ..

 

It's real nice what RI did.

 

But that's not the Michigan law.

[Highlander]

"medical use" has been defined in the act.

 

That means that the phrase "medical use" is NOT to be interpreted according to some dictionary. But rather should be interpreted according to the definition in the law itself.

 

Within the law "medical use" is all inclusive UNLESS one of the specifically listed exceptions is triggered. Such as rolling a blunt on a school bus. Or Smoking a joint in jail.

 

There are specific exceptions that are listed to "medical use."

 

The definition and the exclusions form "medical use in accordance with this act."

 

OK .. ready, aim, fire away ..

 

 

Are you suggesting that "medical use" as defined in the act is the same thing as "medical use in accordance with this act?"

 

I don't think you are, since you point out that exclusions apply. For example, a registered patient smoking a joint on a school bus is engaging in medical use, right? He is using MJ for the purposes of alleviating his condition, so he meets the definition of "medical use." But his medical use is not in accordance with the act, right?

 

OK, I think we agree on that....that there exist actions definable as "medical use" that are not protected.

[Highlander]

Highlander ..

 

It's real nice what RI did.

 

But that's not the Michigan law.

 

No but Michigan courts have already reached into MMJ laws in other states to try to figure out what the general population of voters was thinking when they cast their ballots, so in that regard, the RI law is highly relevant.

 

Interpretation of a public initiative is very tricky since the courts can and will use what has happened in other states to evaluate how to rule at home.

 

There is too much disection about what the law actually says/means. We can't change the language of the law, so the courts will have the final say on what is written. Where we do have some room to impact these decisions is pointing out where we believe that the public anticipated (or didn't) wide distribution possabilities. This is a more fluid arguement process that has barely been explored. Because this is a public initiative, if the MMMAct does not specifically allow dispensaries but doesn't ban them either, and their truely is an opening to work them in the existing law, the best and only way is to attack from the "what were the voters thinking" standpoint.

 

Dispensaries (using that term for convenience as I understand your hesitation to lump such businesses together) will only be found legal if the courts can be convinced that when the public voted, they anticpated dispensaries (provided, of course, the dispensary concept makes it past the plain language interpretation and associated ruling).

 

This is where the work needs to be done. You have for a long time pointed out that our AG once said that dispensaries will pop up all over if the law were to pass. I think this arguement is good, but has only been taken half-way. It doesn't matter what unofficial rhetoric Bill S. spewed at the time of the vote, it matters what people believed. So the arguement here needs to be not that our current AG made an unofficial stance that dispensaries would be legal, but that his statements that dispensaries would pop up everywhere convinced the voters that if they voted "yes" for prop 1, dispensaries would be protected. Shining the light on public opinion in 11/2008 is really what matters. Any arguement about what we think the law says isn't going to convince anyone. It all comes down to the intent/understanding of the voters.

 

If you truely want to see dispensaries protected, then this is the only real way to go about it.

[peanutbutter]

No but Michigan courts have already reached into MMJ laws in other states to try to figure out what the general population of voters was thinking when they cast their ballots, so in that regard, the RI law is highly relevant.

 

Interpretation of a public initiative is very tricky since the courts can and will use what has happened in other states to evaluate how to rule at home.

 

There is too much disection about what the law actually says/means. We can't change the language of the law, so the courts will have the final say on what is written. Where we do have some room to impact these decisions is pointing out where we believe that the public anticipated (or didn't) wide distribution possabilities. This is a more fluid arguement process that has barely been explored. Because this is a public initiative, if the MMMAct does not specifically allow dispensaries but doesn't ban them either, and their truely is an opening to work them in the existing law, the best and only way is to attack from the "what were the voters thinking" standpoint.

 

Dispensaries (using that term for convenience as I understand your hesitation to lump such businesses together) will only be found legal if the courts can be convinced that when the public voted, they anticpated dispensaries (provided, of course, the dispensary concept makes it past the plain language interpretation and associated ruling).

 

This is where the work needs to be done. You have for a long time pointed out that our AG once said that dispensaries will pop up all over if the law were to pass. I think this arguement is good, but has only been taken half-way. It doesn't matter what unofficial rhetoric Bill S. spewed at the time of the vote, it matters what people believed. So the arguement here needs to be not that our current AG made an unofficial stance that dispensaries would be legal, but that his statements that dispensaries would pop up everywhere convinced the voters that if they voted "yes" for prop 1, dispensaries would be protected. Shining the light on public opinion in 11/2008 is really what matters. Any arguement about what we think the law says isn't going to convince anyone. It all comes down to the intent/understanding of the voters.

 

If you truely want to see dispensaries protected, then this is the only real way to go about it.

You win .. I quit.

 

congrats .. I don't understand a bloody thing about this law.

 

I'm so glad to know that it doesn't matter what the Michigan law says. That we must know the laws of every other state to plead a case in Michigan.

[CedarSpringsCG]

No but Michigan courts have already reached into MMJ laws in other states to try to figure out what the general population of voters was thinking when they cast their ballots, so in that regard, the RI law is highly relevant.

 

Interpretation of a public initiative is very tricky since the courts can and will use what has happened in other states to evaluate how to rule at home.

Actually I believe MPP put that in specifically because of the hardships we are enduring in MI. It was meant to be this way, that any card holder can transfer to any cardholder. That's what was intended, and the MPP realized that it wasn't clear enough, however it is clear, but not in plain language. They are learning as they go as well.

 

 

There is too much disection about what the law actually says/means. We can't change the language of the law, so the courts will have the final say on what is written. Where we do have some room to impact these decisions is pointing out where we believe that the public anticipated (or didn't) wide distribution possabilities. This is a more fluid arguement process that has barely been explored. Because this is a public initiative, if the MMMAct does not specifically allow dispensaries but doesn't ban them either, and their truely is an opening to work them in the existing law, the best and only way is to attack from the "what were the voters thinking" standpoint.

 

Dispensaries (using that term for convenience as I understand your hesitation to lump such businesses together) will only be found legal if the courts can be convinced that when the public voted, they anticpated dispensaries (provided, of course, the dispensary concept makes it past the plain language interpretation and associated ruling).

 

This is where the work needs to be done. You have for a long time pointed out that our AG once said that dispensaries will pop up all over if the law were to pass. I think this arguement is good, but has only been taken half-way. It doesn't matter what unofficial rhetoric Bill S. spewed at the time of the vote, it matters what people believed. So the arguement here needs to be not that our current AG made an unofficial stance that dispensaries would be legal, but that his statements that dispensaries would pop up everywhere convinced the voters that if they voted "yes" for prop 1, dispensaries would be protected. Shining the light on public opinion in 11/2008 is really what matters. Any arguement about what we think the law says isn't going to convince anyone. It all comes down to the intent/understanding of the voters.

 

If you truely want to see dispensaries protected, then this is the only real way to go about it.

You can never prove what people thought 3 years ago, even if they don't mean to, their opinions will sway and they will poll towards what they want now. Might be good, might be bad for dispensaries, but I wouldn't believe it is what they believed back in 2008.

[Ms Chocolate]

If only three owners/employees are Patients themselves, and each are Caregivers for their max of five Patients, lets do the math. Each would be allowed their 2.5 ounces, plus 2.5 ounces for each of their Patients = 15 ounces X 3 owners/employees = 45 ounces. Known as 2.8 pounds, or 1,260 grams.

Following what you say, would not the caregiver be selling product that is suppose to be the patients? If the proceeds of the sell go to the dispensary, how did this sell benefit the patient whose meds was sold?

[Budz-4-U]

Following what you say, would not the caregiver be selling product that is suppose to be the patients? If the proceeds of the sell go to the dispensary, how did this sell benefit the patient whose meds was sold?

 

Maybe they helped pay the Caregivers electric bill for the month......for the Patient

Maybe they paid for another bale of ProMix-HP soil.......for the Patient

Maybe they paid for another three bottle set of Fox Farm nutes.......for the Patient

Maybe they paid for another ballast/hood/light, to produce better meds, for the patient.

Maybe they paid for some gas or other auto bills, so the Caregiver can run all over hell.......for the Patient

Maybe they paid for different clones, that the Patient wanted.......for the Patient.

Maybe they paid for the free meds the Patient received that month......for the Patient.

[Budz-4-U]

Maybe they pay for the Certification or re-certification, that the Caregiver pays......for the Patient..... and the gas for said

 

I hate it when, when you have to take care of your business, you get accused of unfairly profiting off the Patient.

 

What a crock of crap. Nobody that has been a caregiver would ever come up with that B.S.

 

Not saying Caregivers don't have some cash flow. But expenses take a huge chunk of that.

[Budz-4-U]

Maybe the Patient lives on $900 a month, and can't afford to buy much.

 

Maybe the Caregiver and their family lives on $1,000 a month.

 

Maybe the Caregiver still wants to help the Patient.

 

Maybe then, the Caregiver covers his costs by selling some of what the Patient doesn't buy, to another Patient and/or a Dispensary.

 

 

"God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes

'Cause then you really might know what it's like to sing the blues

Then you really might know what it's like" - Everlast

 

[Highlander]

You win .. I quit.

 

congrats .. I don't understand a bloody thing about this law.

 

I'm so glad to know that it doesn't matter what the Michigan law says. That we must know the laws of every other state to plead a case in Michigan.

 

So you're mad at me for stating the pure fact that Michigan courts have already looked at MMJ laws in other states in order to gain insight into voter intent? Sorry if that bothers you, but that is the situation as it currently exists. One can deny it or react to it and adjust accordingly.

 

Why the grandstanding and hyperbole? - that we must know the laws of every other state in order to plead a case in MI? Gimme a break. If one is in obvious compliance with the black and white of the MMMAct, there is no looking to other states' laws to plead a case. The incidences of MI courts looking into other states' MMJ laws have been with cases in the grey. Dispensaries are in the grey, and therefore subject to whatever creative analysis is applied by the courts. That's just how it is.

[CedarSpringsCG]

And since our laws are similar, having one section clearly state that cardholder to cardholder transfers are protected acts might actually benefit a lot. Where I see judges looking at other states to help get insight on intent, I don't see them ruling soley on it.

 

A CA model dispensary is grey, or even illegal. But there are several models that are not. The comments from Ms Chocolate and Budz, if we take the assumption that p2p is legal, then a dispensary that rents out space to transfer MMJ from one patient to another, then the dispensary is simply just that, a location that rents out space. Charges as I said could be hourly, monthly, or percentages. But the thing you have to remember, IMHO dispensaries do not ever own or possess MMJ, the CG/PT that is selling it there does.

 

Not all dispensaries are like this, but the ones I buy from on occassion do.

 

When you ask how does it help the patient, it depends on which patient you are talking about. As a CG I can assist "A patient" with medical use. it does NOT have to be my patient. So I am helping a patient with use because I am delivering it to them. If I worked at a dispensary (I do not...) and I was selling to other patients, then I would be helping them by allowing them to acquire it.

 

How does a CG who sells to a dispensary help a patient. Well, the law doesn't say that your actions have to be directly helping the patient. So by proxy, you are transferring MMJ overages to a CG at a dispensary who then helps another PT by transferring it to them.

 

When a CG sells to a dispensary, there is an expectation that the overages sold will be transferred to a legal patient. So, by proxy you are helping that end patient with the medical use.

 

Since a CG can be compensated, the original CG gets compensated for the grow. Same reason the CG at the dispensary gets compensated. Part of the Disp CG's expenses are the charges the dispensary has for the rental of space to conduct business.

 

The original topic is about legality, not morality. The excuse that Dispensaries are only about the money has no bearing here, and that they aren't compassionate, still, no bearing.

Cedar

[peanutbutter]

So you're mad at me for stating the pure fact that Michigan courts have already looked at MMJ laws in other states in order to gain insight into voter intent? Sorry if that bothers you, but that is the situation as it currently exists. One can deny it or react to it and adjust accordingly.

 

Why the grandstanding and hyperbole? - that we must know the laws of every other state in order to plead a case in MI? Gimme a break. If one is in obvious compliance with the black and white of the MMMAct, there is no looking to other states' laws to plead a case. The incidences of MI courts looking into other states' MMJ laws have been with cases in the grey. Dispensaries are in the grey, and therefore subject to whatever creative analysis is applied by the courts. That's just how it is.

 

There is one stop in the understanding of this law that is being overlooked.

 

Legislative intent. There have been many people that have talked about the will of the voters and legislative intent.

 

Normally the debate about the law would have been recorded. That way it is possible to review the record and glean a better understanding of what the elected officials had in mind.

 

Such is not the case with the MMMA. There is no record of debate of elected officials because the law is directly from the voters themselves. Not the elected lawmakers.

 

The only intent that can be examined is the exact wording on the ballot. On the ballot, voters were directly asked if unregistered caregivers could present the medical defense.

 

The logic that transactions can only take place between a registered caregiver and their own patients that are registered to them in the registry is an obvious error which ignores the clear voter intent, AS ISSUED BY THE VOTERS OF MICHIGAN.

 

Please consider exactly what an unregistered caregiver is.

[Hempcheff]

PB, again you have shown that the answer is entirely too simple.

 

The ability to delve into this law, so quick to show us how they want to use it against us, without regards to the intent, which is clearly laid out in the ballot language, seems almost too easy for some in many of these replies.

 

Seems in the case of this law, the old adage applies reciprocally, many cant see the trees, from the forest

 

 

There is one stop in the understanding of this law that is being overlooked.

 

Legislative intent. There have been many people that have talked about the will of the voters and legislative intent.

 

Normally the debate about the law would have been recorded. That way it is possible to review the record and glean a better understanding of what the elected officials had in mind.

 

Such is not the case with the MMMA. There is no record of debate of elected officials because the law is directly from the voters themselves. Not the elected lawmakers.

 

The only intent that can be examined is the exact wording on the ballot. On the ballot, voters were directly asked if unregistered caregivers could present the medical defense.

 

The logic that transactions can only take place between a registered caregiver and their own patients that are registered to them in the registry is an obvious error which ignores the clear voter intent, AS ISSUED BY THE VOTERS OF MICHIGAN.

 

Please consider exactly what an unregistered caregiver is.

[Highlander]

 

The only intent that can be examined is the exact wording on the ballot. On the ballot, voters were directly asked if unregistered caregivers could present the medical defense.

 

 

And the sticking point we hit here is that a defense is different from a protection. Protections are laid out in Section 3 and provide for a collection of circumstances under which a pt or CG shall not suffer arrest or penalty for medical use/assisting with medical use. There is a presumption of medical use.

 

When we are talking about defenses, we are talking about a collection of circumstances where the pt or CG now has the burden of proof to establish that the activity was medical use and that there isn't an unreasonable supply of marijuana. Section 8 defense = arrest, seizure, one's day in court, etc.

 

Protection = presumption of medical use - burden of proof is on the PA to show a crime occured.

 

Defense = no presumption of medical use, burden of proof is on pt or CG must prove medical use in court

 

Relying on a "defense" for dispensaries, rather than a "protection" means that such places will be subject to law enforcement activities at any time. There is nothing to stop LEO from raiding such a facility every other week if they want to...and the folks caught up in the mess will need to establish a MMJ defense.

 

I am neither supporting nor denouncing dispensaries when I say that relying on Section 8 to keep such an operation a going concern is not a realistic business model.

 

If we want dispensaries and unregistered CGs to have PROTECTIONS from arrest, we need new legislation. Case law won't do it. Case law might (should/will) establish or reaffirm that there exist defenses for unregistered CGs. It won't stop LEO from being able to arrest these unregistered CGs and force them to into a Section 8 defense. They still won't have PROTECTIONS as provided in the Act. Think about that. An unregistered CG might prevail with a section 8 defense, but that "win" will do nothing to stop LEO from raiding/arresting him again if he continues to conduct unregistered caregivng, because, again, the Act doesn't grant him the protection and presumption of medical use.

 

If we really want to see new legislation to protect unregistered caregivers with the same protection as registerd pt/CG relationships, then I believe the best way to do this is to establish a business model that is specific and clearly defensible and bulletproof under Section 8. Then one finds a legislator and explains to him that it sux for a pt/CG to still be subject to arrest when there exists a rock-solid case for his defense under Section 8, and get said legislator to sponsor a bill (not an amendment to the MMMAct) that provides said specific PROTECTIONS for unregistered CGs.

 

The current MMMAct does not and will not protect unregistered CGs from arrest and launching a stressful and expensive medical use defense.