Primary Implies Secondary Access

[J4T]

I have not seen the inclusion into the argument over language in the bill any emphasis on the word primary in front of caregiver. If you have a " primary " source for anything that implies a secondary source. Am I asleep at the switch or has this argument been made?

[Timmahh]

no, i believe it has not. To that end, i say it is additional ammo to bring up as things get deeper involved. impo, it only adds to the clarity issue, ie, it is actually NOT that ambiguous as implied.

[J4T]

It is sad that our atty general who spent time on the bench cannot see the clear conflict of interest he has regarding this law and should have long since recused himself from rendering opinions upon the law.

[Timmahh]

oh he sees it and is aware of it I'm sure. he is just un ethical enough not to give 2shits

[Northern Lab]

I wanted to mention another dimension of implication in the law. This is not an original thought and i take no credit for its originality.

 

There are three categories of 'cardholders' in the MMMP.

 

1. Patient, No Caregiver

2. Patient, With caregiver who holds plant rights

3. Patient, with caregiver who does not hold plant rights

 

Regarding the third category - a patient growing for him/herself but also has a caregiver - what is the function of the CG in this category?

 

To hold the lighter? No. The purpose of the CG in #3 is to acquire meds for the patient in the event of a shortage. Where is this CG to acquire meds? It could be from a grow that is assigned to other patients assigned to that caregiver. But what if that Cg has no meds, then what? Where do they obtain more meds? From other cardholders, of course. I really don't think anyone intended for patients to be trolling the streets for imported moldy schwag from Dirtbag Streetcorner.

 

#3 IMLO illustrates the intent of the drafters of the law was to have meds flowing from cardholder to cardholder as needed without restrictions.

[Medcare]

I wanted to mention another dimension of implication in the law. This is not an original thought and i take no credit for its originality.

 

There are three categories of 'cardholders' in the MMMP.

 

1. Patient, No Caregiver

2. Patient, With caregiver who holds plant rights

3. Patient, with caregiver who does not hold plant rights

 

Regarding the third category - a patient growing for him/herself but also has a caregiver - what is the function of the CG in this category?

 

To hold the lighter? No. The purpose of the CG in #3 is to acquire meds for the patient in the event of a shortage. Where is this CG to acquire meds? It could be from a grow that is assigned to other patients assigned to that caregiver. But what if that Cg has no meds, then what? Where do they obtain more meds? From other cardholders, of course. I really don't think anyone intended for patients to be trolling the streets for imported moldy schwag from Dirtbag Streetcorner.

 

#3 IMLO illustrates the intent of the drafters of the law was to have meds flowing from cardholder to cardholder as needed without restrictions.

 

That 3rd Patient does not have plant rights either unless he/she chooses to check that box on app. correct?

[Timmahh]

well Framed NL.

 

I make it a little differently. As a Pt with self growing rights, it is understood i may have overages come harvest. To stay in compliance of the weight limit of 2.5 oz, I would have to transfer those overages to another Pt, or a CG that has a need for them... I can accept compensation for said transfer. this is not a sale, but a transfer with compensation as allowed with in the Act.

 

I see #3 in a slightly larger roll. This may be a Current Caregiver not MMJ Related, and for whatever reason, is unable to care for the growing of the 12 plants, but may be perfectly capable of performing the rest of the help outlined in "Medical Use". Also, it allows #3, to Aquire meds, in the case the Pt is out of meds at any point.

 

This is why i contend the CoA purposely ruled as they did, with the intention of stripping the Act as much as they could.

[Northern Lab]

That 3rd Patient does not have plant rights either unless he/she chooses to check that box on app. correct?

 

There are three different options for a patient

 

1. No caregiver

2. Name a caregiver and assign CG plant rights

3. name a caregiver and assign PT plant rights

 

There is a box on the form that indicates who gets plant rights, IIRC. I cannot remember exactly how it is worded, sorry.

 

well Framed NL.

 

I make it a little differently. As a Pt with self growing rights, it is understood i may have overages come harvest. To stay in compliance of the weight limit of 2.5 oz, I would have to transfer those overages to another Pt, or a CG that has a need for them... I can accept compensation for said transfer. this is not a sale, but a transfer with compensation as allowed with in the Act.

 

I see #3 in a slightly larger roll. This may be a Current Caregiver not MMJ Related, and for whatever reason, is unable to care for the growing of the 12 plants, but may be perfectly capable of performing the rest of the help outlined in "Medical Use". Also, it allows #3, to Aquire meds, in the case the Pt is out of meds at any point.

 

This is why i contend the CoA purposely ruled as they did, with the intention of stripping the Act as much as they could.

 

good points. If you're growing for yourself and have more than you need, you *SHOULD* get Sec 8 protections for an 'uninterrupted supply' as long as it was deemed 'reasonable' by a court. To avoid any issues with having to prove any of that, there absolutely has to be a mechanism to dispose of them for someone else's medical use. It just doesn't make any sense to force patients to either waste good medicine or go through the expense of proving they need it in court.

 

But we all know sense and the judiciary are often on different planets.

[semicaregiver]

I have not seen the inclusion into the argument over language in the bill any emphasis on the word primary in front of caregiver. If you have a " primary " source for anything that implies a secondary source. Am I asleep at the switch or has this argument been made?

 

I had a conversation regarding this very question on Friday with Karen Okeefe who was the author of the MMMA. Our law was a cut and paste from previous laws in Hawaii and Rhode Island. The Hawaiian law had/has provisions for secondary caregivers. These were to be backup sources of medicine in the event the primary caregivers had problems producing medicine. The secondary caregivers did not get any add'l rights to plants, just a secondary outlet for their overages.

[J4T]

I had a conversation regarding this very question on Friday with Karen Okeefe who was the author of the MMMA. Our law was a cut and paste from previous laws in Hawaii and Rhode Island. The Hawaiian law had/has provisions for secondary caregivers. These were to be backup sources of medicine in the event the primary caregivers had problems producing medicine. The secondary caregivers did not get any add'l rights to plants, just a secondary outlet for their overages.

[J4T]

I guess if the primary title is in reference to secondary care givers in HI law then we should either be entitled to employ specific secondary caregivers (any carded caregiver IMO) or a another type of safety net (dispensary / farmers markets) needs to be immeadiately defined because I do not care how green your thumb is you will one day have an issue that causes a shortage. I am lookin at a 2 hr drive to feel secure in acquiring meds in Jackson to make up a shortfall as my patient with MS has needed nearly triple the Meds for nearly the last month after fairly regular needs prior half year. It should not be this difficult to help people when you are supposed to have the tools to get the job done.

[semicaregiver]

The concept of adding the language necessary to create a secondary caregiver status has been floated, but soundly rejected by the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association. The concept of a Farmer's Market has been embraced instead. I do not know where you are located, but there are a number of Farmer's Markets operating in other parts of the State. I do not know of all of them, but I understand there is one in Ann Arbor and one in Roseville.

[J4T]

Any of those markets in the southwest mi / grand rapids area?

[jamrock]

also look at 4j.

 

A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.

 

So you have a pateint that is unregistered with the state, but has protection obtaining meds.

 

But according to Schuette, a pt can only obtain meds from a cg they are registered with.

 

If would be impossible for an out of state pt, to register with a "primary" caregiver here

 

If the law were not blantly inteded to allow any pt to get meds from ANY cg this whole section would be left out.

 

It doesn't seem any more black and white to me.

[+JuztBudz]

I use the following formula...

3. name a caregiver and assign PT plant rights

 

As the plant holding patient, with a caregiver, it gives me the opportunity to: go on an extended vacation and allows my caregiver to tend to my plants legally while I'm gone. I take time to go south during the winter months and have a friend assigned as my caregiver, taking care of my babies. May not hafta go anywhere what with the warm winter we are having, but, if I wanted to, I could go. There are many who can't leave for a day, let alone a month. Peace ... j.b.

[kruztydj]

We really have 2 parts to our law and we voted in 2 separate laws when we voted in the Act. Section 4 is for a registered patient and has limits of 12 plants/2.5 oz. Section 8 Is for patients being registered or not but having the ability to show proof of medical need and this sections lands you in court. But at the hearing, you show proof your case is dropped. this section has no limits,nor caregiver but only whats needed for a uninterrupted supply. Section 4 gets ya no court just show card,,, have a nice day. But to keep and have the card you must follow the act with it's limits and guidelines.

 

Section 8 Has no limits

 

Section 8 you need no card as to use this section you need only to show Doctors proof.

 

Section 8 has no plant count or limit on amount. If you make say oil and need 50lbs of prime bud to cook down to get a gallon of oil then so be it. If the Doctor says you need to eat 10 suckers a day with 2 grams of oil each then so be it. Not what the court says, it's what the doctor and you say.

 

Mr Bill wants to tie section 8 into section 4 by means of 7a which says you have to follow all the sections of the Act. Problem is if ya did, as 1 main section is you have to be registered, then there would be NO section 8. So,, ya can't cherry pick 3 out of the 4 parts of the Act and leave out the section on you have to have a card first to tie them all together thru section 7a, which is you have to follow the limits,, which proves section 8 is in fact it's own LAW which

 

HAS NO LIMITS

[Hempcheff]

People seem to forget there is another class of patient in addition to those three that throw a whole wrench in the ag's works. That is the visiting out of state patient that has no ties to michigan but is granted the protections as a visiting patient. Is the out of state visiting patient offered more protections than a resident? It would seem so, as they would not physically be possibe to sign a cargiver and acquire medicine in the span of a 3 day trip to michigan....

 

I wanted to mention another dimension of implication in the law. This is not an original thought and i take no credit for its originality.

 

There are three categories of 'cardholders' in the MMMP.

 

1. Patient, No Caregiver

2. Patient, With caregiver who holds plant rights

3. Patient, with caregiver who does not hold plant rights

 

Regarding the third category - a patient growing for him/herself but also has a caregiver - what is the function of the CG in this category?

 

To hold the lighter? No. The purpose of the CG in #3 is to acquire meds for the patient in the event of a shortage. Where is this CG to acquire meds? It could be from a grow that is assigned to other patients assigned to that caregiver. But what if that Cg has no meds, then what? Where do they obtain more meds? From other cardholders, of course. I really don't think anyone intended for patients to be trolling the streets for imported moldy schwag from Dirtbag Streetcorner.

 

#3 IMLO illustrates the intent of the drafters of the law was to have meds flowing from cardholder to cardholder as needed without restrictions.

 

 

 

[Hempcheff]

People seem to forget there is another class of patient in addition to those three that throw a whole wrench in the ag's works. That is the visiting out of state patient that has no ties to michigan but is granted the protections as a visiting patient. Is the out of state visiting patient offered more protections than a resident? It would seem so, as they would not physically be possibe to sign a cargiver and acquire medicine in the span of a 3 day trip to michigan....

 

 

 

 

"Visiting qualifying patient" means a patient who is not a resident of this state or who has been a resident of this state for less than 30 days.

 

(j) A registry identification card, or its equivalent, that is issued under the laws of another state, district, territory, commonwealth, or insular possession of the United States that allows the medical use of marihuana by a visiting qualifying patient, or to allow a person to assist with a visiting qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana, shall have the same force and effect as a registry identification card issued by the department.