Mma Does Not Protect Dispensaries

[peanutbutter]

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

 

"Use" vs "medical use"

 

There is the third kind that is mentioned in section eight: "medical purpose."

 

Medical purpose includes all the same things as "medical use" except they are done without ID cards.

[peanutbutter]

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

 

And if you do a "delivery" under the MMMA FOR MONEY, you are guilty of violating the UHC where the transfer of money is not an element of "delivery."

[Dr. Bob]

though i dont always agree with what you say doc, i do appreciate your consistency and honesty within your posts. thanks for all you do doc, you are a real asset to us patients in this fight... hey, whats the latest i can call your mother for the records we spoke of? i would hate to wake her with too late of call.

 

She is good til 10 I would think. They go to bed around 11.

 

Agreement is the sign of a dictatorship, discussion is the sign of a democracy. We all put forth ideas, discuss them, and come to reasonable conclusion. There are a number of folks in here that don't always agree with each other, that is a good discussion. I've learned many things from being corrected or listening to other viewpoints. It is all good.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

And if you do a "delivery" under the MMMA FOR MONEY, you are guilty of violating the UHC where the transfer of money is not an element of "delivery."

I'm not so worried about the 'getting paid in public' part of the law as some seem to be. I would be extremely happy with the transfer part being totally legal. Totally legal between any and all card holders.

 

This would cover the sickest and dying in their time of need.

 

Our law, the voters, and most all of the Michigan legislature agree about that. We can all get on the same page and make transfers, without money involved, as clear and totally legal. That would be a HUGE step forward for patients.

[CedarSpringsCG]

...

 

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

I believe the ruling was on multiple things. One was that was because the dispensary employees had access to all of the MMJ on site, that they were in fact in possession of all of it, around 16 lbs. and possession was not kept by the locker renter because they weren't the only ones with access. So there is one point.

 

Next is the transfers. They never said transfers were illegal. They were given the patient to patient transfer for money was not medical use, but rather a sale. It was not acquired originally for the medical use of a patient, because at the time it was acquired, the patient was not known. If a patient had come in, ordered 1 oz of this or that, then the dispensary went out and acquired it directly for them, that I would think falls into the medical use. But acquisition for acquisition's sake isn't medical use, and that was their ruling.

 

See they ruled that this dispensary was not engaging in medical use when it allowed patients to put meds in a locker, to be sold to people they don't know. That's when it is no longer in medical use, and therefore any transfer from that point is a sale. However, I think they are wrong and would have ruled differently, but I am not a judge. We can only hope the Supreme court sees it as I do.

 

4(e) states a registered CG may receive compensation for assisting a registered PT with 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 and will not constitute the sale of a controlled substance.

 

It does not say designated anywhere in 4(e). 4(b) gives the protections and limitations for the CG connected to the PT through registration, 4(e) on the other hand mentions no where "connected through the registry". So, it is not a sale according to 4(e). One may imply that since 4(e) provides protection, that it implies transfers are OK. However it doesnt' say they are, just that they can get paid for doing it without it being called sales of a Controlled substance.

 

Now, take dispensaries out of it. I am a CG, I have 2.5 oz for my PT... My PT only needs 1 oz until my next harvest to ensure consistent supply, so I have 1.5 oz overage. If another unregistered to me PT comes up and says, I am out, do you have any, well I am protected by having my PT, now I switch and immediately am assiting the other PT in medical use, therefore protected and can be compensated. But those meds were never in limbo, they were always designated specifically for one PT or another. They weren't just stock on a shelf.

 

4(i) states that NO PERSON (CG or not) shall be subject to arrest for assisting a Medical Marijuana Patient with using MMJ. However I think Karen messed up here, if it said medical use, then it would be a lot clearer. Then any medical trasnfer would be legal even from street dealers.

 

Is it maybe time we just re-write the whole act? Take out all of the "questionable" sections and clarify it? I mean I could take care of this in a few hours if I thought it could go somewhere. However I would probably end up putting something at the end saying like "NOW LEAVE US THE F^&* ALONE".

 

Cedar

[peanutbutter]

I'm not so worried about the 'getting paid in public' part of the law as some seem to be. I would be extremely happy with the transfer part being totally legal. Totally legal between any and all card holders.

 

This would cover the sickest and dying in their time of need.

 

Our law, the voters, and most all of the Michigan legislature agree about that. We can all get on the same page and make transfers, without money involved, as clear and totally legal. That would be a HUGE step forward for patients.

 

It is completely useless to pass any new law until the state is willing to obey the law.

 

The state has been in continuous violation of the MMMA from day one. The state has broken the law against every single patient. Every single one of us.

 

It's twenty days. OBEY THE LAW

Six months for new conditions. OBEY THE LAW

 

But the worst violation of the law involves how the courts are treating defendants. OBEY THE LAW

The question before voters in November of 2008 was

Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

 

Courts across the state are in violation of the direct orders of the voters of Michigan. OBEY THE LAW

 

The medical defense is supposed to be able to be presented in ANY PROSECUTION INVOLVING MARIJUANA. OBEY THE LAW

 

This defense is SUPPOSED to be able to be presented in court trials. Many courts in Michigan have refused to OBEY THE LAW AND VOTERS."

 

Before we attempt to believe and trust our state officials, OBEY THE LAW that has already been commanded of you by the voters.

[Dr. Bob]

Excellent and well reasoned post.

 

My thought on this, and it is only my opinion, is that rather than open the MMMA, which allows restrictions, how about passing with a simple majority some bills that augment it.

 

Ruling law- Public Health Code

Definition of Exceptions- MMMA

Clarifications:

 

We can loosen and define things, so long as we do NOT restrict things.

 

Dispensary Bill-

 

To ease access of patients to medication in line with the existing MMMA, can a bill be introduced to ADD dispensary licensure/taxation/regulation to the mix of self growing patients and the patient/caregiver system? So long as we don't take anything away from the MMMA, I think other, regular bills could acknowledge the MMMA and ADD things to it.

 

Medical Practice Standards-

 

It is correct to point out that only the MMMA uses the term 'bona fide' dr/pt relationship. To date it has been implied but the Act used the words. We need to define this term to make a known standard to settle the 'argument' between patients/physicians and prosecutors. Other than with skype, I know the potential for a prosecutor to question every certification I do exists. Then because there is no standard of what it entails, each case has to be argued individually. Having a fixed standard gives me something to base my exam and relationship on, it gives me the means to protect my patient by showing I followed it (objectively), and may hopefully short circuit a prosecution when the pre-charge review in the prosecutor's office shows clearly that all the steps were taken.

 

The correct place to define the 'bona fide' relationship is in the public health code. The logic used to put it in the MMMA is that once there, if it comes up elsewhere (pill doctors for example) the medical board can look to the MMMA to define what it is and hold bad doctors accountable. While with a map and a full tank of gas I think I can follow this logic, why complicate things? Just put it in the PHC so all doctors practice to the same standard. Not only does that directly cover everything, including certifications, it does not require cracking open the MMMA. My concern is that they are just using it as an excuse- 'well we got into the MMMA to get rid of the mills, lets change a few other things so the trip isn't wasted....'.

 

Photographs (HB4834)- This is ALREADY REQUIRED if approved BY RULE. There is no reason to open the MMMA for this, it is a red herring. All they need to do is start saying one is needed. The only reason this bill is in place is to open the Act and sneak in a clause found later in the bill to allow name and date of birth searches. Very sneaky.

 

The point of this is that many of the changes that we need to clarify the Act, stop unnecessary prosecutions, and define terms can be without actually opening the Act itself.

 

Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

It is completely useless to pass any new law until the state is willing to obey the law.

 

The state has been in continuous violation of the MMMA from day one. The state has broken the law against every single patient. Every single one of us.

 

Before we attempt to believe and trust our state officials, OBEY THE LAW that has already been commanded of you by the voters.

Why do you think the patients of Rhode Island amended their law?

 

Could it be so everyone involved would follow the law, and not guess at the meaning with their own twist, prosecutors included?

[peanutbutter]

Why do you think the patients of Rhode Island amended their law?

 

Could it be so everyone involved would follow the law, and not guess at the meaning with their own twist, prosecutors included?

 

You don't get it ..

 

The state refuses to obey the law.

 

They won't obey any new law better than they obey what law exists.

 

They break the law which results in us going to jail.

 

THIS MUST STOP NOW

[GregS]

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

 

Right on. So did they not then obviously igonore the provision that "A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances."

[Kingpinn]

OOOO Golly Gee . If they only had been a little more careful. What could have these criminals been thinking

[Kingpinn]

Guess they didnt read the new hand out called. Wait for it ( AS WE CHANGE YOUR MMJ LAW ). Like sands in an hour glass so are your rules in the Michigan Marijuana Act . Who's going to buckle ??

[Restorium2]

Right on. So did they not then obviously igonore the provision that "A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances."

Exactly. And we could get other transfers between card holders that are NOT directly connected through the registration process defined clearly legal BUT without enumeration, like Rhode Island did. Our law clearly supports both but restricts cash sales by a store/proxy. That's what the attorney I spoke with told me. The COA opinion was no surprise to him at all. Some attorneys ran right through the act before it was even passed and had a solid understanding of it. Some attorneys have a lot of experiences with past rulings and have them on the tip of their brain. Nothing much surprises them because of their vast experience with previous case law. And since 'the essense' of our law was already on the books years before it was here, there is a 'fast track' for an attorney, if they choose to use it.

[+EdwardGlen]

Exactly. And we could get other transfers between card holders that are NOT directly connected through the registration process defined clearly legal BUT without enumeration, like Rhode Island did. Our law clearly supports both but restricts cash sales by a store/proxy. That's what the attorney I spoke with told me. The COA opinion was no surprise to him at all. Some attorneys ran right through the act before it was even passed and had a solid understanding of it. Some attorneys have a lot of experiences with past rulings and have them on the tip of their brain. Nothing much surprises them because of their vast experience with previous case law. And since 'the essense' of our law was already on the books years before it was here, there is a 'fast track' for an attorney, if they choose to use it.

 

 

Ok...Have your attorney join MMMA and post his ideas. Better yet, have him/her join in and join up with the attorneys who are protecting/helping the MMMA.

[Restorium2]

Ok...Have your attorney join MMMA and post his ideas. Better yet, have him/her join in and join up with the attorneys who are protecting/helping the MMMA.

He was the first in. And the first to be ignored when he didn't say what you wanted him to say. Turns out he was right on track with all the advice I have heard him give. I posted it all here starting back in early '09. Most thought it was just something to argue against, not advice to follow. What makes anything different now? He said that people, including prosecutors, with their own personal agendas, would twist the wording all around to fit their position and the law wouldn't be agreed on until it was spelled out in language no one can twist. Like they did in Rhode Isalnd. I can spell it out for you again if you like. But the attacks start right away when you mention any kind of transfers without enumeration. The thing is, the legislature isn't against transfer without enumeration. It would be our chance at a super majority. Card holders connected through the registration process can charge for services, those unconnected can't, but all card holders can transfer.... once we get it spelled out anti-twist style.

[+EdwardGlen]

He was the first in. And the first to be ignored when he didn't say what you wanted him to say. Turns out he was right on track with all the advice I have heard him give. I posted it all here starting back in early '09. Most thought it was just something to argue against, not advice to follow. What makes anything different now? He said that people, including prosecutors, with their own personal agendas, would twist the wording all around to fit their position and the law wouldn't be agreed on until it was spelled out in language no one can twist. Like they did in Rhode Isalnd. I can spell it out for you again if you like. But the attacks start right away when you mention any kind of transfers without enumeration. The thing is, the legislature isn't against transfer without enumeration. It would be our chance at a super majority. Card holders connected through the registration process can charge for services, those unconnected can't, but all card holders can transfer.... once we get it spelled out anti-twist style.

 

Name the attorney...whats there to hide...

[mibrains]

He was the first in. And the first to be ignored when he didn't say what you wanted him to say. Turns out he was right on track with all the advice I have heard him give. I posted it all here starting back in early '09. Most thought it was just something to argue against, not advice to follow. What makes anything different now? He said that people, including prosecutors, with their own personal agendas, would twist the wording all around to fit their position and the law wouldn't be agreed on until it was spelled out in language no one can twist. Like they did in Rhode Isalnd. I can spell it out for you again if you like. But the attacks start right away when you mention any kind of transfers without enumeration. The thing is, the legislature isn't against transfer without enumeration. It would be our chance at a super majority. Card holders connected through the registration process can charge for services, those unconnected can't, but all card holders can transfer.... once we get it spelled out anti-twist style.

 

this philosophy is absolutely backwards from what is working for me.

 

i provide medicine to my patients free of charge, and get my recouped expenses from the Non-registered to me people. why should i give the cannabis away for free to a stranger, and charge the people i am connected to, and work hardest for?

 

all my pt's are legally disabled. none of my patients have an income other than disability payments. they each deserve the oz they get from me, and i can't support any ideal that would take that away from them and give it to a stranger...

[Restorium2]

this philosophy is absolutely backwards from what is working for me.

 

i provide medicine to my patients free of charge, and get my recouped expenses from the Non-registered to me people. why should i give the cannabis away for free to a stranger, and charge the people i am connected to, and work hardest for?

 

all my pt's are legally disabled. none of my patients have an income other than disability payments. they each deserve the oz they get from me, and i can't support any ideal that would take that away from them and give it to a stranger...

Sure, that's the right thing to do. But you can't do it in public. It may seem absolutely backwards to you and me, but the law says this is what is legal. You can still do the right thing for your patients, just do it carefully and not at a STORE or in public po po view. Sad but true.

 

Even though it isn't exactly what we want; transfers for money between any and all card holders, we should get everything but the money part straightened out if we can. Then you are covered for everything right up to the cash changing hands. That's all our law allows and we need as much of our rights outlined in plain english so all the prosecutors can go suck and egg about transfers without cash flow.

 

The way it is right now, you can get away with something in one county and go to prison for doing the same thing in another. I'm not a big fan of that action. I would rather have it spelled out like Rhode Island did than have over zealous prosecutors and sellers making a mockery of our law to the point it is more bother than it is worth. If we keep letting the over zealous prosecutors pick the test cases to define our law we slowly lose our rights.

[mrd]

These are the facts The law as was written has holes you can drive a truck through. It lacks clarity in terms of what is allowed or disallowed. It has no teeth as to what happens to those who break the law as contained within the act. If there was a penalty of lets say 5k for every illegal action to be paid for by the individual who makes an illegal arrest and to their department then there would be reluctance. It needs to be rewritten. It does not cover lots of things. As I told bb once if we don;t change the law then those who oppose us will change it against our interests. Well there are 8 bills that are restrictive against this law in the wings. How many are out there that broaden in for the benefit of patients? It is not bullet proof. Hence the problems we have been seeing.

 

All us non lawyers can have an uneducated opinion but unless you improve the law based on reality, then things are likely to get worse.

[GregS]

Name the attorney...whats there to hide...

 

Given the dedication this person has shown toward the movement, that person deserves immense respect. It would be, I think, improper to state any name without consent. This individual is not to be taken lightly, and does much behind the scenes, which is the their preferred method.

[mibrains]

Sure, that's the right thing to do. But you can't do it in public. It may seem absolutely backwards to you and me, but the law says this is what is legal. You can still do the right thing for your patients, just do it carefully and not at a STORE or in public po po view. Sad but true.

 

Even though it isn't exactly what we want; transfers for money between any and all card holders, we should get everything but the money part straightened out if we can. Then you are covered for everything right up to the cash changing hands. That's all our law allows and we need as much of our rights outlined in plain english so all the prosecutors can go suck and egg about transfers without cash flow.

 

The way it is right now, you can get away with something in one county and go to prison for doing the same thing in another. I'm not a big fan of that action. I would rather have it spelled out like Rhode Island did than have over zealous prosecutors and sellers making a mockery of our law to the point it is more bother than it is worth. If we keep letting the over zealous prosecutors pick the test cases to define our law we slowly lose our rights.

 

i am not sure where your coming from on the "not do it in public" thing. i have been to the Jackson Farmers Market twice, and have every intention of going back there many many more times....

as far as i know they are then, and still are now legally compliant. 4e says i can charge reasonable compensation for my services, and that shall not constitute the sale of a narcotic... period...

 

the jury's will work out the details.

i am happy to stay way under my limits as far as weight, and plant counts, so the only issue i am having is this ridiculous statement from 3 judges who seem to think cannabis has the magical ability to appear out of thin air when a legal person needs it.

it doesn't... it has to acquired, grown, dried, and loved to become usable medicine, and that service isn't free or made to be exclusive.

so every patient is entitled to the defense. and mind u folks the MMMA is a defense, not a right.

until this all changes next month with the rescheduling of this plant.

[Dr. Bob]

i am not sure where your coming from on the "not do it in public" thing. i have been to the Jackson Farmers Market twice, and have every intention of going back there many many more times....

as far as i know they are then, and still are now legally compliant. 4e says i can charge reasonable compensation for my services, and that shall not constitute the sale of a narcotic... period...

 

the jury's will work out the details.

i am happy to stay way under my limits as far as weight, and plant counts, so the only issue i am having is this ridiculous statement from 3 judges who seem to think cannabis has the magical ability to appear out of thin air when a legal person needs it.

it doesn't... it has to acquired, grown, dried, and loved to become usable medicine, and that service isn't free or made to be exclusive.

so every patient is entitled to the defense. and mind u folks the MMMA is a defense, not a right.

until this all changes next month with the rescheduling of this plant.

 

I am not sure you are safe unless the patient is associated with you via the registry. My advice is not to transfer to anyone other than your own patients. I just have a sense of disaster about farmers markets and any other form of transfer outside of caregiver/designated patient.

 

As for rescheduling, I am not sure that is a good idea. Other than removing it from the schedule completely, I believe we may have problems if it is rescheduled to 2-5. My reasoning behind this is that a schedule 2 must be prescribed by a physician, filled at a pharmacy according to the dosing instructions and amounts. You cannot transfer a schedule 2 narcotic to another person, registry related or not without a potential fight in court. Nor can you grow vicodin in your basement.

 

Rescheduling only serves one purpose, to provide evidence for the eventual rescheduling and/or removal of marijuana from the CSA on the Federal level. That is the up side of the situation.

 

Dr. Bob

[CedarSpringsCG]

Yeah, I also bleieve the law says "A" Cg can be compensated by "A" pt for his services. And that does not constitute a sale.

 

That is what the law says, in plain english. Other sections specifically spell out a CG connected to a PT through the registry, yet the compensation part does not.

 

On rescheduling, I would like it added as an exception, just as Alcohol and Tobacco is. Not rescheduled, just exempted. Why should it be any different than Alcohol, which can be used in arson, is tied to thousands of deaths each year including overdose, destroys your liver, etc, etc. Not only does it have very little healthy effects, it has many detrimental effects.

 

Cannabis has little detrimental effects, especially when eaten, not smoked, and can't be used to kill someone.

[Dr. Bob]

Yeah, I also bleieve the law says "A" Cg can be compensated by "A" pt for his services. And that does not constitute a sale.

 

That is what the law says, in plain english. Other sections specifically spell out a CG connected to a PT through the registry, yet the compensation part does not.

 

On rescheduling, I would like it added as an exception, just as Alcohol and Tobacco is. Not rescheduled, just exempted. Why should it be any different than Alcohol, which can be used in arson, is tied to thousands of deaths each year including overdose, destroys your liver, etc, etc. Not only does it have very little healthy effects, it has many detrimental effects.

 

Cannabis has little detrimental effects, especially when eaten, not smoked, and can't be used to kill someone.

 

Please don't misunderstand. There is one section that says A caregiver and A patient. Look at the tone of the ruling and be prepared to defend your position. There is a difference between being SAFE and being JUSTIFIED. You can make the argument or avoid the problem.

 

Dr. Bob

[GrowGoddess]

I respect you opinion and it IS the safe thing to do. However, the intent of the law was safe, uninterrupted supply. we were done a disservice Wednesday when the will of the people was denied. It takes an expert grower to maintain an uninterrupted supply AND never be over on weight, isn't easy and its IMPOSSIBLE for a newbie. if you can't get rid of your overages at harvest, or purchase others when short before harvesting or during curing you now go without or break the law.

 

this is civil unrest not ignorance of the decision

 

I agree that we were done a disservice. However, I disagree with the remainder of your statement. It seems that most so called caregivers think that they are going to make a million bucks or something for just a little bit of work. (Unless you were running a dispensary or something and you were making the bucks off of the hard work of others). It does not work that way. If you work hard, you get paid. I don't find any problem providing a consistant supply to all of my patients, and also do not have any issues with overages.

 

I do agree that it would be difficult for a newbie, but not impossible. It does not take an expert grower, it takes a grower with some experience. How is someone even going to get experience if they don't even try to begin with?

 

As for overages, I can easily convert a pound of overage into two ounces of oil in a few hours.

 

I am for patients having the most possible options. I have nothing against that at all. What is so bad about caregivers having to do a good job?