Jump to content

Judge Says P2P Legal According To The Law


Recommended Posts

I still don't understand how you come to that conclusion.

 

DN

 

"Sales" is not a required element to show delivery of a controlled substance. Simply showing the delivery is the element needed for "delivery of a controlled substance."

 

Since it is not required, it has not been specifically outlawed.

 

The concept of "sales" as distinct from "delivery" does not exist in the PHC.

 

So they say that "sales" is not covered in the MMMA. That allows them to use the PHC to convict for a felony.

 

Yet that element does not exist in any of our laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I get it, under the CSA, - transfer or delivery - with or without compensation is illegal period.

 

Under the MMMAct, the Act was written to separate the CSA definitions by saying

1."The CG can be compensated, and it shall not constitute a sale"

2.Then the MMMAct says patients can transfer, deliver, and acquire a CSA 1 substance.

 

both of those statements in the MMMACt gave defense against the CSA rules. They do not void the complete CSA law, but provide a defense against the parts of the CSA that prohibit anyone from transfering or delivering a controlled substance, provided they follow the rules of the MMMAct.

 

1. The CG can assist 5 patients he is connected with via the registry (the CG attestation form)

2. The CG can be compensated for manufacturing or dispensing a CSA 1 drug, and it will not be considered a sale(or transfer, or delivery) under the CSA

3. Patients can acquire, deliver, and transfer a CSA 1 substance, marijuana. But the COA defined a transfer or delivery to be absent money or compensation. Money, made the transfer or delivery, a sale - an act (p2p) not protected under the MMMAct, and still illegal under the CSA (and PHC)

 

 

DN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it, under the CSA, - transfer or delivery - with or without compensation is illegal period.

 

Under the MMMAct, the Act was written to separate the CSA definitions by saying

1."The CG can be compensated, and it shall not constitute a sale"

2.Then the MMMAct says patients can transfer, deliver, and acquire a CSA 1 substance.

 

both of those statements in the MMMACt gave defense against the CSA rules. They do not void the complete CSA law, but provide a defense against the parts of the CSA that prohibit anyone from transfering or delivering a controlled substance, provided they follow the rules of the MMMAct.

 

1. The CG can assist 5 patients he is connected with via the registry (the CG attestation form)

2. The CG can be compensated for manufacturing or dispensing a CSA 1 drug, and it will not be considered a sale(or transfer, or delivery) under the CSA

3. Patients can acquire, deliver, and transfer a CSA 1 substance, marijuana. But the COA defined a transfer or delivery to be absent money or compensation. Money, made the transfer or delivery, a sale - an act (p2p) not protected under the MMMAct, and still illegal under the CSA (and PHC)

 

 

DN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Disagree, I really don't like these discussions but How does the MMMA act give "a defense against the CSA rules" as you stated. The act we are referring to and the specific provisions of the law you are referring to provide not a "defense" but an "immunity" to prosecution whatsoever for the actions which are prohibited by the CSA namely "transfer"

"delivery". Anybody who actually reads the act multiple times would be able to grasp the only reason why Caregivers are limited to five patients is to control the amount of cannabis a person can "grow" and the amounts any one person can "possess" The provisions in section 4 regarding "medical use" and the "compensation" both show that the act did not intend to limit transactions between registered users. However, it did intend to some degree limit the amount grown and possessed. And I love how everybody likes to bring up the Controlled Substances Act. Why is the supremecy clause of the MMMA being ignored. I guess because the CSA is Federal. But state courts have no excuse to practice Federal law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you guys need to talk to a good lawyer . Me? I got all the proof I need to understand the P2P law, I udnerstand how everything connects, the Federal laws, the PHC, and the MMMAct.

 

Do what you got to do for yourselves...

 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch_pharmacist_full_lic_app_pkt_97812_7.pdf

 

"A controlled substance license is required for every person who prescribes, manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substances in Michigan as described in Article 7 of the Public Health Act 368 of 1978, as amended. Information on obtaining a CSA license contact DEA 431 Howard St, Detroit.."

 

DN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you guys need to talk to a good lawyer . Me? I got all the proof I need to understand the P2P law, I udnerstand how everything connects, the Federal laws, the PHC, and the MMMAct.

 

Do what you got to do for yourselves...

 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch_pharmacist_full_lic_app_pkt_97812_7.pdf

 

"A controlled substance license is required for every person who prescribes, manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substances in Michigan as described in Article 7 of the Public Health Act 368 of 1978, as amended. Information on obtaining a CSA license contact DEA 431 Howard St, Detroit.."

 

DN

 

 

 

Again all the proof I need is written in the MMMA. So I suggest you read it rather than speak of what a "good attorney"

says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you guys need to talk to a good lawyer . Me? I got all the proof I need to understand the P2P law, I udnerstand how everything connects, the Federal laws, the PHC, and the MMMAct.

 

Do what you got to do for yourselves...

 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch_pharmacist_full_lic_app_pkt_97812_7.pdf

 

"A controlled substance license is required for every person who prescribes, manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substances in Michigan as described in Article 7 of the Public Health Act 368 of 1978, as amended. Information on obtaining a CSA license contact DEA 431 Howard St, Detroit.."

 

DN

 

Interesting about all that ..

 

But what does it have to do with the MMMA?

 

Cannabis is a schedule 1 substance. From what you posted, no one is able to have it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took the words right out of my mouth, peanut butter. By digital nomad's logic, caregivers should be checking with the DEA before transferring to their patients. Perhaps it makes him feel comfortable to think he is somehow operating with some respect for federal law rather than just at the whim of the current US Attorney General.

 

I wonder how rescheduling cannabis changes this? For instance if it is on schedule II. Or is it different if it is schedule III?

 

I am sure it is motivated by compassion because some people have situations where arrest could put them at risk of injury , extreme suffering or death . Somehow they have to be warned to exercise caution in the current shaky legal environment for medical cannabis or just end up statistics. . Some do not have the luxury that others do who can physically tolerate adapting to others routines or outside their own environment with self created comforts essential yet not recognized by the judicial , legal or medical system . That doesn't mean there not necessary to survival . One cannot deny those involved in downloading transfers greatly increase their chances of arrest or conflict with Federal or State authorities . Each person has to evaluate their own risk profile and we need to allow for everyone to be comfortable and included . We have to have a environment of tolerance and inclusion in our community . That includes those taking on risk because people have to get starter supplies , emergency items or those they cannot create because of skill sets and knowledge from somewhere .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took the words right out of my mouth, peanut butter. By digital nomad's logic, caregivers should be checking with the DEA before transferring to their patients. Perhaps it makes him feel comfortable to think he is somehow operating with some respect for federal law rather than just at the whim of the current US Attorney General.

 

I wonder how rescheduling cannabis changes this? For instance if it is on schedule II. Or is it different if it is schedule III?

 

To make it a schedule 2 substance, they will have to define what conditions it would be allowed to be prescribed for.

 

Schedule 3 would be the highest they could set it and allow the doctors to decide when it's time for a bud. Then we would have to deal with manufacture and dispensing issues. Since THC is currently schedule 3, it doesn't make any sense to place cannabis higher than THC.

 

Those two options are based on the decision being based on politics and not science again.

 

Science would dictate that it be completely dropped from the CSA. It's an herb. It doesn't fit with chemicals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the thing is, you find a clause for a Service of Delivery in any other use, where a fee is not charged for the service of delivery itself, irrelevant of the items being delivered. you ll be hard pressed to find anything that is delivered for absolutely no cost to any party involved. Someone always pays for the service of delivery in any transaction, one party is covering the cost of delivery service...

so the Act defines "Use" for us.

some of the words in that definition are

 

delivery [dɪˈlɪvərɪ]

n pl -eries

1.

a. the act of delivering or distributing goods, mail, etc.

b. something that is delivered

c. (as modifier) a delivery service

2. (Medicine / Gynaecology & Obstetrics) the act of giving birth to a child she had an easy delivery

3. manner or style of utterance, esp in public speaking or recitation the chairman had a clear delivery

4. the act of giving or transferring or the state of being given or transferred

5. the act of rescuing or state of being rescued; liberation

6. (Individual Sports & Recreations / Ball Games, other than specified) Sport

a. the act or manner of bowling or throwing a ball

b. the ball so delivered a fast delivery

7. (Law) an actual or symbolic handing over of property, a deed, etc.

8. (Engineering / General Engineering) the discharge rate of a compressor or pump

9. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in South Africa) the supply of basic services to communities deprived under apartheid

 

Delivery, by the nature of the word itself, generally is considered a service of Hire as considered in its nature in the bolded definitions above. In each case, the act of delivery, would also imply the act of transfer of goods with a cost association to it. thus costs/expenses exist, and compensation is udnerstood as part of the service of delivery.

 

the bolded exception is number 5. which i noted due to its the Act of Delivery that will be happening next if this states government doesn't pull its head out of its donkey......

 

Acquire.

 

1. To gain possession of: acquire 100 shares of stock.

2. To get by one's own efforts: acquire proficiency in math.

3. To gain through experience; come by: acquired a growing dislike of television sitcoms.

4. To locate (a moving object) with a tracking system, such as radar.

 

much broader term. to acquire something, can be done many ways. buy, trade, steal, create, contract, grow, ect... while to Acquire would occasionally involve money passing from one party to another party, its not always the case. Just depends on the act going on to fit the definition.

 

transfer

 

1. To convey or cause to pass from one place, person, or thing to another.

2. Law To make over the possession or legal title of; convey.

3. To convey (a design, for example) from one surface to another, as by impression.

v.intr.

1. To move oneself from one location or job to another.

2. To withdraw from one educational institution or course of study and enroll in another.

3. To change from one public conveyance to another: transferred to another bus.

n. (trnsfr)

1. also trans·fer·al (trns-fûrl) The conveyance or removal of something from one place, person, or thing to another.

2. One who transfers or is transferred, as to a new school.

3. A design conveyed by contact from one surface to another.

4.

a. A ticket entitling a passenger to change from one public conveyance to another as part of one trip.

b. A place where such a change is made.

5. also transferal Law A conveyance of title or property from one person to another.

 

 

is another broad term dealing with moving items from one place to another, or passing possession and/or ownership of off....

but as you can see, all of the definitions of the term "transfer", which are related to the definition we have of Transfer in the "USE" definition in the MMM ACT, all have an implication of cost being associated to the act of the transfer. such as number 1, 2 in a noun, and number 5 as a verb....

 

at any rate, transfer in this scenario, as being defined as part of "Use" in the MMM Act, implies a direct association of including a cost for said transfer... All 3 words as they are defined, and understood in the Act, all involve 2 parties.

 

one part is providing the supply, and the other the demand part of the act of "USE". so both are responsible for thier part. the tranfer and/or delivery of from party one, for compensation for the meds (Tranfers) and acceptance of them (Aquire) of which both imply reimbursement..

 

then delivery if applicable in the perticular situation at hand. ie. I may go to your establishment to Deliver, or you may come to my establishment to Aquire.

 

at any rate, both have a cost associated to them, thus that cost would be recognized to be included in the Definition of the word "Use" as defined in the Act..

 

the reason SALE is not mentioned in the Non CG areas of the act, is stated below.

 

CGs who are not pts, would be breaking the PHC (as not being the actual person recommended to "USE" medical marihuana), for accepting compensation as they themselves are not in the Medical USE of Cannabis per the Act. Or for paying compensation in the definition of "Acquire" should they need to source medicine for their Assigned and Connected Pts.

 

thus any compensation they would of received without the term "Sale" being specifically outlined, as omitted as being a sale, in the CG area, would of been considered a Sale per the PHC. The "Sale" definition of the CG is to create the protection they would need against the PCH in terms of Schedule 1 drugs and transfering them or aquireing them for their Pts, but not themselves as NON Patients... So without the wording that specifically mentions Sale in the CG area, a non PT CG would be breaking the PHC, thus guilty with out protections of the Act being added in.

 

But in the end its a Mute point, as noted above as well, MariJuana is not a Schedule 1 drug here in Michigan any longer. this only adds to support the fact the CoA ruling was purposely done while wearing legal binders to impose the illegal Opine of Mr. Shcuitte upon the Citizens in the State.

 

IMO, the reason it is specidfied a CG may legallaly accept or give compensation is to address those parties that act as a CG only, but not as a PT. as a CG only, they incur costs associated, just like a self growing Pt like myself does. differance is, that CG is going to dedicate themselves to 1 to 5 specific patients. For those not also a Pt, the compensation clause was added to allow them to recoup the cost of the CG Service for Time and Cost associated with that service. This protects them from being said to be "SELLING MARIHUNA" and breaching the Public Codes, while not being an actual patient, and ingesting the medicine. That is the only reason the mentioning of the SALE of marihuana was invovled, simply to protect a CG who was NOT a Using Patient.

 

otherwise, if they are a Pt already, as well as a CG for others they are commiting to pay individual attention too, they can already accept compensation thru the words delivery and transfer, and the word acquire only solidifies boths parties legal ability to transfer and/or deliver with compensation.

 

 

 

Now as a Non CG Pt, This party can also be compensated, via the costs associated with the medical use, including Transfer (moving medicine to other parties), Aquire ( the right to accept the transfer, or seek a transfer of medicine without worry of prosecution, and with the expectation of reimbursement for said transferred or acquired medicine), or Delivery (which as i noted above, it nearly always considered a service industry, thus compensation for the act of delivery itself is common everyday events..

 

So as a Pt with no CG designation, one can be compensated for the transfer of, delivery of, or acquisition of cannibis for medical use.

 

when the CoA made their ruling, they concentrated on a CT/PT status only, willfully disregarding the majority of registrants which were Pts with no CG designation. They did that on purpose, as it was the only way to show justification for their unjust ruling on the matter. Had they also considered in their ruling strict Pt status on its own merits, they would of been left with no option but to rule Pt to Pts transfers for compensation are 100% allowed within the scope of the MMMA of 08, thus Dispensaries are fully operating with in the legal confines of the Act itself.

 

Again the absolute, undeniable proof this is fact, is BS has to use a Civil Law, to stop what is supposed to be criminal activity. If it is so Criminal and outside the legal protections of the MMMA 08 Act, then why are these cases not in criminal court dockets, opposed to civil court dockets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, the reason it is specidfied a CG may legallaly accept compensation is to address those parties that act as a CG only, but not as a PT. as a CG only, they incur costs associated, just alike a self growing Pt like myself does. differance is, that CG is going to dedicate themselves to 1 to 5 specific patients. For those not also a Pt, the compensation clause was added to allow them to recoup the cost of the CG Service for Time and Cost associated with that service. This protects them from being said to be "SELLING MARIHUNA" and breaching the Public Codes, while not being an actual patient, and ingesting the medicine. That is the only reason the mentioning of the SALE of marihuana was invovled, simply to protect a CG who was NOT a Using Patient.

 

otherwise, if they are a Pt already, as well as a CG for others they are commiting to pay individual attention too, they can already accept compensation thru the words delivery and transfer, and the word acquire only solidifies boths parties legal ability to transfer and/or deliver with compensation.

 

I've been trying to figure this out for a while. It now makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

What happened with that case? I thought it was criminal, not civil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I Disagree, I really don't like these discussions but How does the MMMA act give "a defense against the CSA rules" as you stated. The act we are referring to and the specific provisions of the law you are referring to provide not a "defense" but an "immunity" to prosecution whatsoever for the actions which are prohibited by the CSA namely "transfer"

"delivery". Anybody who actually reads the act multiple times would be able to grasp the only reason why Caregivers are limited to five patients is to control the amount of cannabis a person can "grow" and the amounts any one person can "possess" The provisions in section 4 regarding "medical use" and the "compensation" both show that the act did not intend to limit transactions between registered users. However, it did intend to some degree limit the amount grown and possessed. And I love how everybody likes to bring up the Controlled Substances Act. Why is the supremecy clause of the MMMA being ignored. I guess because the CSA is Federal. But state courts have no excuse to practice Federal law.

 

i wouldnt say thats the only reason a CG can only have 5, but in the effect of a CG that is a PT as well. yes

 

but for the CG that is only a CG, not also a Pt, it is so they can have the ability to give personal attention.

many of those that are truely in NEED of a CG, have physical, perhaps mental limitations that my prohibit their abiltiy to grow. as well as limitation due to residence, ect.......

the limit of 5, does certainly keep the number well under the majic fed number of 99. which was a big part of it. but i also think another huge part had to do with as a dedicated CG, you ll have your hands full just helping those 5 patients... so a limit was imposed so they dont have the abilty to over grow, but have more personal details to deal with upon each pt. Personally i believe the CG status is for anyone that can not grow, redardless of reason why they can not grow. whether thats physical issues, resident/living situation, health limitations ect....

 

for anyone else, as a Pt, even if you dont grow, you can "aquire" via a "transfer" or "delivery" from any other Pt or CG that does grow... and Compensation is very much a recognized part of the "delivery", "transfer" and acquisition", as ingestion of the medication is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the “medical use” of marihuana is protected from prosecution or penalty. And because “medical use” is statutorily defined to include the “transfer” and “delivery” of marihuana, the felony charge for delivering marihuana could not stand.

 

Plain And Simple.. this is the reason BS wants to change the Law..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free to post the direct link to a document that says marijuana is not schedule 1 anymore

 

Thanks!

 

DN

 

http://marijuanapatients.org/Legal/oakland-county-michigan-reclassifies-marijuana-from-a-schedule-1-narcotic.html

 

http://neilrockindpcblog.com/2011/11/05/the-ruling-repealing-marijuana-as-a-schedule-1-controlled-substance/

 

Here's the first 2 I found in a quick Google search. In Oakland County even.

 

Mike

 

Here's an interesting argument by Matt Abel since DN likes to quote him so much http://norml.org/pdf_files/brief_bank/Michigan_v_Burnell.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Dilligaf!! Copied, pasted, printed and handing over to my friends attorney for reference! In Oakland County!!!! Medcnman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

those are arguments, they haven't changed anything as far as the federal CSA and who states apply it has it?

"4. Defendant requests that this court find that the federal classification scheme placing

marijuana in Schedule 1 (having no medicinal value) is invalid, and that the prohibition is

unconstitutional as a denial of substantive due process." How did the court rule on it (probably not their jurisdiction to rule on a federal law..)

 

Go ahead, tell new patients and CGs your opinion and argument for p2p - when they get arrested for it - I hope you will pay their court costs. I said my piece on this.

 

DN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...