Transfers

[Deadwood]

Judge in Barry co. rulllled that patient to patient transfers were leagl under mmma and dismissed case.

[newbie313]

What was the case under

what did he say in the decision?

[Timmahh]

this was posted a few days back as well..

[The Digital Nomad]

its one judge. And its less than COA - that ruled P2P cannot include money. Patients can acquire, transfer, or deliver - without compensation.

 

Get it right.

 

DN

[jjbigs]

its one judge. And its less than COA - that ruled P2P cannot include money. Patients can acquire, transfer, or deliver - without compensation.

 

Get it right.

 

DN

dude your to smart to be a mod here, I want to write you in for a mi senate seat, but your gonna have to give up your mod possition first lol!

[maxmax]

its one judge. And its less than COA - that ruled P2P cannot include money. Patients can acquire, transfer, or deliver - without compensation.

 

Get it right.

 

DN

and you forgot to add dont get caught

[ilynnboy]

its one judge. And its less than COA - that ruled P2P cannot include money. Patients can acquire, transfer, or deliver - without compensation.

 

Get it right.

 

DN

 

While I agree that this decision doesn't hold far reaching influence.

I just bet that this defendant thinks this decision means the world to them.

 

So I say " Hooray " to the wise and just bench adjudication shown here.

We need to claim victory when we can, even if it is a fleeting victory.

[newbie313]

I agree

[mibrains]

its one judge. And its less than COA - that ruled P2P cannot include money. Patients can acquire, transfer, or deliver - without compensation.

 

Get it right.

 

DN

 

question..

because that's not at all how i understood the COA ruling in the CA case.

 

it states that transfers cannot happen without compensation. and therefore they are illegal...

by their argument it is effectively impossible to transfer cannabis without consideration so therefore transfers aren't allowed between patients..

however the act specifically allows caregivers the exeption for compensation...so they refused to include them in the scope of this case.

so i thought the coa ruling against CA simply meant that transfers cannot happen between patients because compensation has to be involved and therefore to do so would constitute a sale...

[Timmahh]

thats how i understand their ruling John. But, I Believe the Circut Court Judge (Amy?) got it right.

 

what the CoA did was circumvent part of the act, to reach the conclusion they did. they singled out a CG/Pt relationship, as the only functioning relationship that has the ability to get compensation. THIS IS NOT how the Act was Wrote, Voted On, and Passed.

 

 

They (BS and the CoA, his bedfellows i may add) know this as fact. Its plainly understandable how the Act currently reads.

 

the Cg/Pt section is for those patients that are too ill to grow, unable to grow their medicine for whatever reason. this allows them to sign a CG to do that work for them, and allows the CG (non Pt CG mainly) to be albe to accept payment, without violation of the PHC in the Delivery or Transfer of Cannabis (remember the PHC does nt mention SALE ANYWHERE in it pertaining to Schd 1 substances)... So by focusing thier attention on that point, actually by diverting attention to Anyone Not in a Cg/Pt relationship via the MMM Act, they succeeded temporarily in believing they have changed the Act, and the way it is being Viewed, and as long as We the People, follow their ill gotten logic, they have indeed done just that. They have made their Will and Opine, become the precedent that is being Noted OVER THE LAW ITSELF.

 

impo, That is Illegal, and a sincere sign of collusion behind the scenes to illegally (without 75% super majority vote in Mi Senate and House, which we all know they can not garner) force their opine over the Law that We the People Passed.

 

This is whats great about our site really.

 

DN and I are both Mods.

We share many of the same views and approaches. But we do not always see eye to eye.

 

I believe we do in this case, but DN is voicing the logical process to comply with the rulings as they are now, and I and voicing the logical process that the CoA willfully made this error in their ruling to force their, and Bill Schuittes illegal opinions upon us, in hopes that we ll comply and just take it laying down.

 

I No longer lay down for no man, woman or child. My daughter is an Adult, and I am not beholding to anything, or anyone. I dont want the risk, i dont like the risk, but if push come to shove, I would stand up firm and strong to the issues at hand, when/if they grace my door (ofcourse once the door was knocked off its hinges in an illegal raid).

 

2 views to the same situation. Once view sighting the clear and common sense approach of staying Safe, and one (mine) sighting the common sense approach to following the letter of a bad and illegal Law, does not make one legal or safe...

 

the only fix, is for the SSC (State Supreme Court) to overturn the CoA. If it upholds the CoA ruling, you ll see the rest of Michigan move past their last straw, like i have a few yrs ago.

[CedarSpringsCG]

If you guys are talking about the Compassionate Apothocary in Mt Pleasant ruling, I read it differently.

 

My opinion:

See, it wasn't that there was money involved, it was that there was a proxy, with money involved. They used a locker system, which required a "broker" to deal with it. So they ruled it wasn't the "owner" of the MMJ transferring, but rather someone else. So the "owner" of the MMJ wasn't transferring, someone else was who wasn't the seller's CG, which broke out of the MMMA.

 

Also, brought up in the Supreme Court filing on it, selling MMJ isn't illegal. Transfer, Manufacture, possession, production, cultivation, delivery, etc is illegal. So Where in our laws does it say selling is illegal? So if selling isn't illegal, and transfer/delivery is protected, how is transfer for compensation illegal? The laws are against the "intent to distribute". Not to mention that the MMMA specifically says a CG can receive compensation for medical use (delivery/transfer), without it constituting the sale of a controlled substance. So if you're a CG, compensation is allowed as well.

 

Once again, just my opinion on it.

Cedar

[mibrains]

that's kinda what i thought as well.

 

that the COA applied to third party transactions....where possession becomes the issue, and who effects the transaction.

 

and i felt quite safe in the knowledge that the COA ruling didn't change anything for the significant majority of us...because we were all doing one on one transactions like at the market, a direct action so the coa doesn't apply....

until....

i realized...

and my concern now becomes..

 

to be afforded the blanket generic protections we all proclaim to use under the act such as 4e one must be a caregiver correct? 4e says caregiver may receive compensation....

so it begs the question...

 

how does one become a caregiver?

 

there is only one way... to register with the state and enter a relationship with a specific named patient.

so..

how do i use my status as a caregiver with patient "A" where i have entered into a contractual agreement to provide for their medical use of cannabis 24 hrs a day.... to legally explain how it is i came to help some random albeit legal patient..off the street but not connected to me....

 

where do i make the jump? from having a card with my name, and patient "A"s name permanently printed on it....

so where does having permission to work for "A" grant me authorization to allow for any medical use of cannabis to any other patient outside that specific relationship?

this kept me awake last night...i think it's a problematic position. and suddenly i am concerned enough where i must rethink my position.

again.

it's a constantly evolving process.....

 

 

 

 

[CedarSpringsCG]

Because as a cg for patient a, you are assisting patient a with medical use by delivering it to patient b, because medical use for patient a includes delivery. Now as a cg you can receive compensation, but it doesn't specify who has to compensate you, so patient b compensates you for assisting patient a with medical use(delIvery) to patient b... Logically sound in my head, even if the sentence ran on a bit...

 

Cedar

[AmishRnot4ganja]

One thing I don't see in this discussion is this:

 

If it is "legal" ( I can't be prosecuted) for me to posses cannabis and it is "legal" for any patient to posses cannabis, why is it illegal for either of us to posses the other persons cannabis? I mean, it is all the same substance, right? Why does it suddenly become an illegal substance when it changes hands? The mere act of transferring the cannabis changes it's legal status even though there has been no corresponding change to the substance's atomic makeup.

 

It defies common sense.

[newbie313]

Right??!?

[The Digital Nomad]

One thing I don't see in this discussion is this:

 

If it is "legal" ( I can't be prosecuted) for me to posses cannabis and it is "legal" for any patient to posses cannabis, why is it illegal for either of us to posses the other persons cannabis? I mean, it is all the same substance, right? Why does it suddenly become an illegal substance when it changes hands? The mere act of transferring the cannabis changes it's legal status even though there has been no corresponding change to the substance's atomic makeup.

 

It defies common sense.

 

The idea is this has to happen in private, not in a store front. The plan is this occurs between patients, and not a business setting up a cash register and flashing neon sign.

 

 

DN

[jjbigs]

question..

because that's not at all how i understood the COA ruling in the CA case.

 

it states that transfers cannot happen without compensation. and therefore they are illegal...

by their argument it is effectively impossible to transfer cannabis without consideration so therefore transfers aren't allowed between patients..

however the act specifically allows caregivers the exeption for compensation...so they refused to include them in the scope of this case.

so i thought the coa ruling against CA simply meant that transfers cannot happen between patients because compensation has to be involved and therefore to do so would constitute a sale...

 

John the main reason for the c.o.a ruling was to shut down dispenses and farm markets! period!

The law still says a pt can aquired mm and any one that helps in the aquasation of mm for medicinal purposes is not subject to arrest! we all get a little something different from this ruling, but bottom line is, the dispenses are shut down, some farm markets have been shut down, as you know! and p2p is illegal! but who is it that will get arrested in a p2p tansfer, Neither should be arrested but my money is on the one providing the mm will be subject to arrest! wow that dont even make sense to me!

 

thats how i understand their ruling John. But, I Believe the Circut Court Judge (Amy?) got it right.

 

what the CoA did was circumvent part of the act, to reach the conclusion they did. they singled out a CG/Pt relationship, as the only functioning relationship that has the ability to get compensation. THIS IS NOT how the Act was Wrote, Voted On, and Passed.

 

 

They (BS and the CoA, his bedfellows i may add) know this as fact. Its plainly understandable how the Act currently reads.

 

the Cg/Pt section is for those patients that are too ill to grow, unable to grow their medicine for whatever reason. this allows them to sign a CG to do that work for them, and allows the CG (non Pt CG mainly) to be albe to accept payment, without violation of the PHC in the Delivery or Transfer of Cannabis (remember the PHC does nt mention SALE ANYWHERE in it pertaining to Schd 1 substances)... So by focusing thier attention on that point, actually by diverting attention to Anyone Not in a Cg/Pt relationship via the MMM Act, they succeeded temporarily in believing they have changed the Act, and the way it is being Viewed, and as long as We the People, follow their ill gotten logic, they have indeed done just that. They have made their Will and Opine, become the precedent that is being Noted OVER THE LAW ITSELF.

 

impo, That is Illegal, and a sincere sign of collusion behind the scenes to illegally (without 75% super majority vote in Mi Senate and House, which we all know they can not garner) force their opine over the Law that We the People Passed.

 

This is whats great about our site really.

 

DN and I are both Mods.

We share many of the same views and approaches. But we do not always see eye to eye.

 

I believe we do in this case, but DN is voicing the logical process to comply with the rulings as they are now, and I and voicing the logical process that the CoA willfully made this error in their ruling to force their, and Bill Schuittes illegal opinions upon us, in hopes that we ll comply and just take it laying down.

 

I No longer lay down for no man, woman or child. My daughter is an Adult, and I am not beholding to anything, or anyone. I dont want the risk, i dont like the risk, but if push come to shove, I would stand up firm and strong to the issues at hand, when/if they grace my door (ofcourse once the door was knocked off its hinges in an illegal raid).

 

2 views to the same situation. Once view sighting the clear and common sense approach of staying Safe, and one (mine) sighting the common sense approach to following the letter of a bad and illegal Law, does not make one legal or safe...

 

the only fix, is for the SSC (State Supreme Court) to overturn the CoA. If it upholds the CoA ruling, you ll see the rest of Michigan move past their last straw, like i have a few yrs ago.

 

Timmah I have to respectfuly disagree with "what the CoA did was circumvent part of the act, to reach the conclusion they did. they singled out a CG/Pt relationship, as the only functioning relationship that has the ability to get compensation. THIS IS NOT how the Act was Wrote, Voted On, and Passed." I beleive that is excactly what people voted for is the pt/cg system, and it seems that most who stay within their state registered pts and c.g's that are linked thru the registry, and who dont break any other laws, these folks are not jamming up the court system! JMO

 

If you guys are talking about the Compassionate Apothocary in Mt Pleasant ruling, I read it differently.

 

My opinion:

See, it wasn't that there was money involved, it was that there was a proxy, with money involved. They used a locker system, which required a "broker" to deal with it. So they ruled it wasn't the "owner" of the MMJ transferring, but rather someone else. So the "owner" of the MMJ wasn't transferring, someone else was who wasn't the seller's CG, which broke out of the MMMA.

 

Also, brought up in the Supreme Court filing on it, selling MMJ isn't illegal. Transfer, Manufacture, possession, production, cultivation, delivery, etc is illegal. So Where in our laws does it say selling is illegal? So if selling isn't illegal, and transfer/delivery is protected, how is transfer for compensation illegal? The laws are against the "intent to distribute". Not to mention that the MMMA specifically says a CG can receive compensation for medical use (delivery/transfer), without it constituting the sale of a controlled substance. So if you're a CG, compensation is allowed as well.

Once again, just my opinion on it.

Cedar

 

The part in red is very confusing to be an opinion! lmao Pt's and c.g's have plant count and usable weight specified in the law! It says nothing about selling being legal any where in the law. Please re read if that is what you got from it. a c.g may be compensated for time and cost! compensated, not is allowed to sell mm,

 

that's kinda what i thought as well.

 

that the COA applied to third party transactions....where possession becomes the issue, and who effects the transaction.

 

and i felt quite safe in the knowledge that the COA ruling didn't change anything for the significant majority of us...because we were all doing one on one transactions like at the market, a direct action so the coa doesn't apply....

until....

i realized...

and my concern now becomes..

 

to be afforded the blanket generic protections we all proclaim to use under the act such as 4e one must be a caregiver correct? 4e says caregiver may receive compensation....

so it begs the question...

 

how does one become a caregiver?

 

there is only one way... to register with the state and enter a relationship with a specific named patient.

so..

how do i use my status as a caregiver with patient "A" where i have entered into a contractual agreement to provide for their medical use of cannabis 24 hrs a day.... to legally explain how it is i came to help some random albeit legal patient..off the street but not connected to me....

 

where do i make the jump? from having a card with my name, and patient "A"s name permanently printed on it....

so where does having permission to work for "A" grant me authorization to allow for any medical use of cannabis to any other patient outside that specific relationship?

this kept me awake last night...i think it's a problematic position. and suddenly i am concerned enough where i must rethink my position.

again.

it's a constantly evolving process.....

 

 

 

 

 

I see your realy thinking about what is right and what is wrong here

You know in your heart what the right answer is! If you are a c.g and have pt's and you only help your state connected pt's to you, not joe blow or pt with grow rites! you will not have a problem my friend! Stay within your limits and do your best not to ever be over your plant count or usable weight! Take care of your pt's bro, and if one of your pts has a pt friend or relative, well shhhhhhhhhhh! I think shhhhhhh is better than a false claim of legaly complient dont you?

 

Because as a cg for patient a, you are assisting patient a with medical use by delivering it to patient b, because medical use for patient a includes delivery. Now as a cg you can receive compensation, but it doesn't specify who has to compensate you, so patient b compensates you for assisting patient a with medical use(delIvery) to patient b... Logically sound in my head, even if the sentence ran on a bit...

 

Cedar

wow another view and prospective!

 

One thing I don't see in this discussion is this:

 

If it is "legal" ( I can't be prosecuted) for me to posses cannabis and it is "legal" for any patient to posses cannabis, why is it illegal for either of us to posses the other persons cannabis? I mean, it is all the same substance, right? Why does it suddenly become an illegal substance when it changes hands? The mere act of transferring the cannabis changes it's legal status even though there has been no corresponding change to the substance's atomic makeup.

 

It defies common sense.

 

It is legal for you to possess upto 2.5 ounces of cured mm and upto 12 plants, if you have possesion rights for your own plants, if you stay in that guide line and dont attract attn, you will not have any problems, grow on my friend!

 

 

The idea is this has to happen in private, not in a store front. The plan is this occurs between patients, and not a business setting up a cash register and flashing neon sign.

 

 

DN

[kruztydj]

From what I read from the ruling they did not address the cg to ANY patients issue and skirted right around it so this is still not been ruled on from what I'm reading. Please correct me if I'm wrong cuz I've read that ruling 20 times and when I read it again last night got the same thing. caregiver to any registered patient was not addressed in this ruling..

[jjbigs]

From what I read from the ruling they did not address the cg to ANY patients issue and skirted right around it so this is still not been ruled on from what I'm reading. Please correct me if I'm wrong cuz I've read that ruling 20 times and when I read it again last night got the same thing. caregiver to any registered patient was not addressed in this ruling..

your right it was not in the ruling. and for good reason, we voted for mm and the pt/c.g system,

they did not want to tinkle off everyone by bringing anything to do with c.g/pt relationship, there main goal was to close down disenses, dispenses were acting as p2p was legal! So they had to rule p2p ilegal to shut down for profit dispenses, JMO

[Croppled1]

Criminality and regulation is hurting patients by tieing up the energy needed to devote to finding solutions . This is a ruling that creates hope .

 

I see the prohibitionists as expressing never ending complaints about why we can't do this but patients out of time suffering have no choice ; another component those that oppose medical use refuse to recognize along with medical benefit existing . I understand we have to have rules but no patient is helped by being punished , in fact some have been killed for merely trying to find comfort from mental or physical suffering and or being afraid to access care or unable to obtain necessary medication because of it .

 

I know were discussing this to find the boundaries we can live under safely avoiding arrest but I hope we all know the real line is always what is best for the patient and medical use needs to be decriminalized within the qualified patient / caregiver community . That is the only way non medical criminality will ever be enforceable and even if that is ever adopted as long as their is criminality for the rest of the populous there will always be arguments regarding whether someone afraid to come forward to be officially designated as a qualified participant is in fact one . Many people are sick trying to hold onto jobs that will not allow use and this does help many enough to mask symptoms that would otherwise remove people from being able to work . I was appalled when drug testing started and friends who addictionologists would call functioning addicts fell apart due to symptoms not being masked any longer as they quit use only to fall victim to their malady's . I knew people whom died so nobody can tell me their is no medicinal effect . These individuals were considered some of the best employees prior to testing also .

 

I hope I am able to vote for a legalization plan in 2012 and overtime through education more and more people also come to understand 5 nanogram driving limits being put in place across the country are the same as zero tolerance . There are many false positives under the current 50 nanogram pre employment screens and the majority of medical patients would test above 50 . I have been led to believe many would be in 3 digit territory .

[kruztydj]

Yeah hopefully when we vote to make it completely legal they'll finally leave us Patients alone. Kind of like what was supposed to happen when we voted medical use in. Tho I think I've seen more folks hurt now as folks wanted to trust the Gov't would have let them be sick in peace. That sadly has not happened as the sick are easy targets to rob and terrorize. Which has in turn made us spend our time trying to protect the sick instead of helping them find relief.