Mma Does Not Protect Dispensaries

[Dr. Bob]

The problem is that too many of the dispensaries were just open spaces with some framing and occasional drywall. Rather unprofessional and the thought seemed to be 'let's slap something together and make some money'. Long term solutions require planing and organization. I too proposed this model some months ago, (legal business model for MMJ thread) so it was out there. Now those of us ready and organized to do it will be there for the patients.

 

My website will have details by Tuesday and contact information.

 

Dr. Bob

[Willy]

I already have a patient/cg in my 5.. this is a no brainer, and i never understood why others didn't see it and implement it immediately. Its the only way to comply with connected thru the registry system. I think that some cg's out there "think" plant count must be signed over, at least thats how it seems to be thought of, but as it has been said you don't need to be a grower,to be a cg. Hopefully we can get this going straight away. CG that are full have no room to connect with another cg till they have a patient leave. (issue ?). I guess that means only the new growers/cg can work this out. It might be prudent to start a section for cgs looking to sign another cg to start the chain. I don't see that we need any guidance on this, its obviously the solution to the problem. We can then work the p2p angle at our leisure to repair that damage.

The only issue i can see is that non patient cgs have to be the center of there own network, signing patients/cgs to expand that network.

 

SEE You In Lansing Sept 7th.

[SouthernSensimilla]

To boil it down: If and when the McQueen case goes to the Michigan Supreme court we can win a huge and decisive battle which will lock down our law, and allow local townships to rule on compassion club zoning. I do believe the law can be interpreted as vague however the Supreme Court CAN rule that assistance with the use of medical marijuana includes transfers outside of the Caregiver/ Patient relationship. Generally this would send the entire community back to pre August 23rd. There's an inherent problem in this though. There's no regulation and no way for the state to collect revenue from the transfers. Watch for the regulation and taxation to be a change if P2P is given the go ahead. I have no problem with this... tax us!!! Will give us a louder voice! Remember 1776?

 

Moving on...there's the possibility of amending the law. I can completely understand the previous business model CA was using, but there was no compassion in it. It's a business. I get it. We need new business models for operating the clubs. I'm all for enforcing non-profit organizational clubs because let's face it... there is no compassion when business owners see our meds as the same color green as money. I really do hope our big voiced advocates are already working on this as well... the time will come I assure you. It will be on us as voters to get out and vote on an proposed changes. Letting a non-medical marijuana user(s) dictate our law and regulate us with no perspective is asinine and naive beyond all comprehension. You use a soldier to fight, baker to bake, grower to grow, and a politician to wipe your with.

 

See you all September 7. Climb to Glory.

[fishermanmark]

the law says ptp is legal. why have everybody kick out 10 bucks each and become a caregiver? thats just more money that us poor people dont need to spend. i liked the dis. you could go there with no worrys of being robbed by some back alley crooks. i live in a area where theres not alot of people and the dis. was closer then the local compassion club, the difference in gas made the difference in price. i got my paperwork in late april started growing for myself ran into a few beginner problems like over watering, spidermites and so on, i still dont have any plants in flower as of yet just got it dialed in right but in the meantime what am i spossed to do about getting much needed meds? ill be at the next compassion meeting but ill be in fear of leo comming in and making a example of the whole group. yeah in the long run it is all about the money the courts arent making what they once did so finding loop-holes in the law and harassing sick people turns into easy money for the court systems. i never did trust them and now i trust em even less. and yeah mm is helping me im almost done taking my pain pills but if i cant get mm legaly then its back to square one, that'll make the pharmacy and pill makers happy, this sucks, make it legal take our moneys and then take it away.

[medicinejeff]

Long term solutions require planing and organization. I too proposed this model some months ago, (legal business model for MMJ thread) so it was out there. Now those of us ready and organized to do it will be there for the patients.

 

My website will have details by Tuesday and contact information.

 

Dr. Bob

 

You had me at "Solutions" Dr. Bob I for one will be looking forward to Tuesday.

[Scooter]

Dr. Bob has been on board with this since day one, and knows it works as well as I do. I have been using the chain model all along, and I have had no issues as I only transfer to my patients, who then transfer to their patients, and so on. As I am the main caregiver in my little chain, I am able to keep my patients and their patients supplied with medicine without any "down time". Theses chains can stretch a looong ways, friends. I'm certain that there are enough patients with enough patient/friends who could do this, starting on a local level. Please think about it and give it a try. It works. The hardest part is storage of the plants. I have a walk in humidor with plants stored in it. As they are in whole form they count towards my plant total, but not towards my usable amount.

[+Silverblue]

LISTEN UP FRIENDS, maybe scooter uses this model BUT he ALSO does transfers to those who are NOT his patients. Maybe NOW he will stick to the model he claims to use. Oooo I wish I hadn't been so dang tired the day that happened but I had the good sense to turn it down. Does anyone remember? If anything went wrong, he might be able to defend himself, but the patients he transferred to won't.

 

I thought he was gonna leave this site, does anyone remember? *sigh*.

 

Sb

[+Silverblue]

No third parties at all. Direct caregiver to designated patient with that patient being the caregiver to another patient. There is no obligation for a caregiver to grow, just provide, and the lawyers like the strategy. I am looking into things and will post a link, with your permission, soon. I am helping to organize it for my patients, but will have NO financial or management interest, and it is open to any patient. But I will hold the key position of monitoring quality and integrity-- I will stake my reputation that it will be done legally, privately, and designed specifically to assist patient access.

 

Dr. Bob

hi Doc, I hope your plan is sound; if it is, I hope it works very well and succeeds.

 

Sincerely, Sb

[Dr. Bob]

meeting with attorney Monday for the final checks, some good folks will be doing this. I have to concentrate on my practice and what to do if any other the other bills pass. I'm in this for the long run, not a quick buck.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

The daisy chain model was proposed, just as scooter says. I posted a link to a pdf document that had it all laid out. It is workable. That not many picked up on it is likely because it would require precise membership requirements that might have cracks through which the whole thing can fall if one key member becomes, for any reason, unable to participate, or who simply overlooks or decides not to keep their registration current.

 

I am surprised that no one is championing section 4(a) which permits any qualified patient to engage in "medical use" to include transfer. There is no requirement that money must not change hands. The originating caregiver from whom it would come is entitled to compensation, and patients who transfer any that they get from a caregiver to another patient are not prohibited from recouping their cost to procure it from their caregiver, or to recoup the cost if the transferring patient grows the stuff.

 

The court, in its decision, spent a lot of wind on what they refer to as "sales," insisting that they are not allowed. The law clearly stipulates that caregivers can recoup costs, and said compensation shall not be considered the sale of an illegal substance. They are pulling this stuff out of thin air, and calling it law, but it smells like something else entirely.

[t0rpid]

It could be done simpler. Make everyone a caregiver. Then everyone can transfer. It just takes every patient accepting one patient to be a caregiver for. Low profile. Same effect. Thanks, Bb

 

By doing that you lock out any convicted felon of a drug crime from transfer. Legislation more than likely will end up passing disallowing all felons from ever becoming caregivers.

 

And anybody who thinks for a moment that the MI Supreme Court will side with us on this appeals court ruling, you are sorely mistaken. A conservative majority is in power now and the rulings are all political, legislative style, not about fairly interpreting law anymore in a non-partisan manner. The republicans didn't run all those political ads telling people to vote for "Bob Young and Mary Beth Kelley" wasn't because they interpret law correctly better than the other candidates, it's because they have a conservative ideology, and since they are elected, they have to please the voters.

[Dr. Bob]

The daisy chain model was proposed, just as scooter says. I posted a link to a pdf document that had it all laid out. It is workable. That not many picked up on it is likely because it would require precise membership requirements that might have cracks through which the whole thing can fall if one key member becomes, for any reason, unable to participate, or who simply overlooks or decides not to keep their registration current.

 

I am surprised that no one is championing section 4(a) which permits any qualified patient to engage in "medical use" to include transfer. There is no requirement that money must not change hands. The originating caregiver from whom it would come is entitled to compensation, and patients who transfer any that they get from a caregiver to another patient are not prohibited from recouping their cost to procure it from their caregiver, or to recoup the cost if the transferring patient grows the stuff.

 

The court, in its decision, spent a lot of wind on what they refer to as "sales," insisting that they are not allowed. The law clearly stipulates that caregivers can recoup costs, and said compensation shall not be considered the sale of an illegal substance. They are pulling this stuff out of thin air, and calling it law, but it smells like something else entirely.

 

The court clearly ruled that assisting with medical use only involved the preparation of the product for use, not sale, delivery or otherwise transfer of medication that the patient didn't already have in their possession. While it is not spelled out, the gist of the ruling is that the patient must have medication in their possession to have someone else 'assist' them and rejected this argument as justification for p2p. They made it clear that transferring medication to a patient was not 'assisting', it was transfer.

 

You could make an argument that would fly about assisting a patient by getting the bag of medication from the kitchen and bringing it to them in the living room. I would not bring it into their house from outside and give it to them, especially if they weren't in possession of it (ie it was theirs and they left it in the car).

 

If you want to clarify this, stop reading the law and start reading the ruling. The ruling is the way they interpret the law and that is what they use to arrest you and prosecutor will put you away with.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

The court clearly ruled that assisting with medical use only involved the preparation of the product for use, not sale, delivery or otherwise transfer of medication that the patient didn't already have in their possession. While it is not spelled out, the gist of the ruling is that the patient must have medication in their possession to have someone else 'assist' them and rejected this argument as justification for p2p. They made it clear that transferring medication to a patient was not 'assisting', it was transfer.

 

You could make an argument that would fly about assisting a patient by getting the bag of medication from the kitchen and bringing it to them in the living room. I would not bring it into their house from outside and give it to them, especially if they weren't in possession of it (ie it was theirs and they left it in the car).

 

If you want to clarify this, stop reading the law and start reading the ruling. The ruling is the way they interpret the law and that is what they use to arrest you and prosecutor will put you away with.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I think you reference section 4(i) because you repeated "assist" in your text. Please refer to section 4(a), and respond. Medical use, which is clearly stated in that section most certainly provides protection for all patients in medical use as defined. Those definitions most certainly include delivery and transfer, along with a laundry list of other protected activities.

[Petyr]

Would a caregiver being a patient for another caregiver effect their plant count? A caregiver with a full card plus themselves can grow 72 plants, if they become a patient to another caregiver do their 12 patient plants go to the new caregiver, dropping them down to 60 legal plants?

[Dr. Bob]

I think you reference section 4(i) because you repeated "assist" in your text. Please refer to section 4(a), and respond. Medical use, which is clearly stated in that section most certainly provides protection for all patients in medical use as defined. Those definitions most certainly include delivery and transfer, along with a laundry list of other protected activities.

 

Delivery of a controlled substance is not allowed under the public health code. The COA did not agree that transfer was part of medical use. The discussion and the end result remains the same.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, I think you COULD get away with getting a patient's meds in the kitchen and bringing them to him in the living room. Or if you are his caregiver bringing him meds. Don't use this section to try and justify 'supplying' a patient with meds he didn't already have. I really think you would lose that case.

[Dr. Bob]

Would a caregiver being a patient for another caregiver effect their plant count? A caregiver with a full card plus themselves can grow 72 plants, if they become a patient to another caregiver do their 12 patient plants go to the new caregiver, dropping them down to 60 legal plants?

 

That is correct, a caregiver that is already the patient of another caregiver can only grow 60 plants. His caregiver grows his personal plants.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Delivery of a controlled substance is not allowed under the public health code. The COA did not agree that transfer was part of medical use. The discussion and the end result remains the same.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

 

The COA does not agree, then, with the law as written??? It could not be spelled out any more clearly. Transfers are indeed defined as a protected activity as one of several activities defined as medical use among any and all qualified patients. We may have to speak to the legislature to somehow compel the courts to rule on the law as it is written and supported by the electorate. A small handful of reactionary renegade judges cannot be allowed to play these silly games without serious objection.

 

If they insist on ignoring the law, we are obliged to take matters into our own hands. The Michigan government has departed from democratic principles not only in this, but also in taking away the right for local government institutions to govern as they have been elected to do in favor of putting emergency managers in place to withhold the most direct connection between the people and those who have been elected by them as the law requires. That is a different topic, admittedly, but points up the plutocratic, avaricious, and ugly face of the present government at work. It is attitudes like this that have turned us into a third-world country. Freedom under the law is dead.

[SouthernSensimilla]

The end. What are our thoughts? Can anyone see anything different happening other than a) Michigan Supreme Court rules that PTP falls under implied language within the law. b) Supreme Court rules against and we have the most lopsided MMJ law in the country (at least we have one though). If someone could throw out some plain language on the rules on amending the law, whether state wide vote or the AG rapes us or what have you. Thoughts? Ideas on how to combat each possible outcome? What other outcomes do we have? Yeah we have a new battle but the war is long term. As a community we need contingencies for each. How can we legally help ALL the patients? Planning for the future for each outcome should be paramount. We're still in shock from the attack, let's regroup and formulate collective plans. Our next shot across their bow is September 7th. Then what?

[Guest thequietone]

That is correct, a caregiver that is already the patient of another caregiver can only grow 60 plants. His caregiver grows his personal plants.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Sorry Dr. Bob, but you are wrong here. A patient can have a caregiver and still retain plant rights. So if he was a caregiver to five patients and retained plant rights he could have 72 plants. No where in the law does it say you have to give plant rights to your caregiver that's why there is a box that has to be checked designating who has plant rights.

 

Section C: PERSON ALLOWED TO POSSESS PATIENT’S MARIHUANA PLANTS: (REQUIRED)

SELECT ONE:  APPLICANT/PATIENT OR  PRIMARY CAREGIVER (Caregiver Attestation & photo ID Required)

If neither or both boxes are checked above, plant possession will default to the Applicant/Patient.

[SouthernSensimilla]

Sorry Dr. Bob, but you are wrong here. A patient can have a caregiver and still retain plant rights. So if he was a caregiver to five patients and retained plant rights he could have 72 plants. No where in the law does it say you have to give plant rights to your caregiver that's why there is a box that has to be checked designating who has plant rights.

 

Section C: PERSON ALLOWED TO POSSESS PATIENT’S MARIHUANA PLANTS: (REQUIRED)

SELECT ONE:  APPLICANT/PATIENT OR  PRIMARY CAREGIVER (Caregiver Attestation & photo ID Required)

If neither or both boxes are checked above, plant possession will default to the Applicant/Patient.

 

 

Once again, clear example of law reform. Legal arguments could be made for both views. Why leave this open to legal precedence? We need clear declaration, regulation and taxation that appeases the state government, and a clearly defined law that Michigan residents and medical marijuana patients can agree on. Or Michigan Supreme Court has an ounce of legal clarity. I'll take either.

[Dr. Bob]

The COA does not agree, then, with the law as written??? It could not be spelled out any more clearly. Transfers are indeed defined as a protected activity as one of several activities defined as medical use among any and all qualified patients. We may have to speak to the legislature to somehow compel the courts to rule on the law as it is written and supported by the electorate. A small handful of reactionary renegade judges cannot be allowed to play these silly games without serious objection.

 

If they insist on ignoring the law, we are obliged to take matters into our own hands. The Michigan government has departed from democratic principles not only in this, but also in taking away the right for local government institutions to govern as they have been elected to do in favor of putting emergency managers in place to withhold the most direct connection between the people and those who have been elected by them as the law requires. That is a different topic, admittedly, but points up the plutocratic, avaricious, and ugly face of the present government at work. It is attitudes like this that have turned us into a third-world country. Freedom under the law is dead.

 

Apparently, because that is what they said. Now we have to deal with it.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

Apparently, because that is what they said. Now we have to deal with it.

 

Dr. Bob

The COA was more openly against SALES not transfers. Transfers by proxy for money was the problem.

[Dr. Bob]

Sorry Dr. Bob, but you are wrong here. A patient can have a caregiver and still retain plant rights. So if he was a caregiver to five patients and retained plant rights he could have 72 plants. No where in the law does it say you have to give plant rights to your caregiver that's why there is a box that has to be checked designating who has plant rights.

 

Section C: PERSON ALLOWED TO POSSESS PATIENT’S MARIHUANA PLANTS: (REQUIRED)

SELECT ONE:  APPLICANT/PATIENT OR  PRIMARY CAREGIVER (Caregiver Attestation & photo ID Required)

If neither or both boxes are checked above, plant possession will default to the Applicant/Patient.

 

You are correct Mike. By having a caregiver, the implication is that the caregiver is growing (and possessing the plants) for the patient. If that same patient is caregiver and growing for 5, that makes 60 because HIS caregiver has his 12 plants. There are times that a patient with a caregiver may possess his own plants, by indicating his wishes on the application, in which case they can have the full 72. I don't believe the question specified who had his plants, and I assumed they were with the caregiver as is the usual case.

 

Thanks for clarifying and I stand corrected.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

The COA was more openly against SALES not transfers. Transfers by proxy for money was the problem.

 

This requires a little higher reasoning to understand the full implication from the ruling. Per the COA, the ruling law is the Public Health Code. Under that ALL possession and transfer of a schedule 1 narcotic are illegal. Yes Mike there are exceptions for research, etc, but in general this is the concept for the rest of us. The MMMA was viewed as the EXCEPTIONS to the rule.

 

This is where I differ from some others in here. I maintain that if something is illegal, unless it is specified as an exception, it is illegal. The question before the court was if P2P SALES were legal under the MMMA, and that is the specific question they answered. They rejected that medical use or assistance involved sales, and declared p2p sales illegal. The same argument could be used for any transfer, free, for compensation etc, and if those questions are specifically asked, the answer based on the reasoning they did would likely be the same. So likely I would not bet my freedom that I can give you free cannabis and charge you to chop it up and put it in the bag. You do what you wish, but that is my reasoning.

 

This is further confirmed by noting that one form of transfer, caregiver to designated patient, was clearly within the Act, and any compensation was not considered a sale. Sometimes the tone of the reasoning speaks louder than the words used answer to the actual question.

 

Dr. Bob

[motownbass]

Dispensaries are being raided and closed as a public nuisance, but some towns are still not closing them. Seems that if public nuisance was the only way AG Schuette was able to get it done, maybe there is some protection under the law.

 

No one has yet shown where Prop 1 states cannabis dispensaries are illegal, and no one will, because it's not addressed.

 

Let the people of each town decide whether or not they think a cannabis dispensary is a public nuisance if there is one in their town. Again, the people had no say in the matter. It was decided for them.

 

 

Peace.

 

I am a patient that grows. I had read the law from the beginning, and it does state that dispensaries are not allowed, and no one is allowed to "sell" marihuana for any cash "transfers" They meant to just transfer without makin any money from it. This has been one of the grey areas that has been since the beginning. But alot of folks just took it into their own hands and "bend" the words from the law. And then about a month ago I was reading many advertisements in "Metro Times" about a first time fee, or a eighth ounce free the first time, and all the names of meds with costs and whether they deliver or not. That is very illegal, or otherwise, I would have done it by now.

 

I am totally for this movement, but if people keep screwing it up for us "real" patients, we will all lose in the end. I am not sure if many know this, but dispensaries have always been illegal in California. So why do people think it's legal here? I guess if you have the money, and just want to stand up against the federal government, then go ahead. It is still illegal by federal law! Whether a patient, or a caregiver!

 

Until they pass the laws federally, I think there are too many that will get busted. This is only to "loose lips sink ships" and if your gutsy then go ahead!