Hello And Welcome Back!

[Hempcheff]

Didnt they rule that P2P for compensation was illegal, but the transfer from one patient to another is legal?

 

Unfortunately the COA has ruled that p2p is IS illegal. While this ruling may be changed by a higher court, it is currently THE LAW.....period. You can be arrested and thrown in jail....period. Make no mistake about it.

 

Unfortunately the courts are not interpreting the laws the way we want them to.

 

 

 

[CaveatLector]

Didnt they rule that P2P for compensation was illegal, but the transfer from one patient to another is legal?

Without consulting the opinion (it's been a while since I read it)I believe they ruled p2p with remuneration is illegal. They explicitly refused to rule on p2p without remuneration because that issue was not before them. They cannot rule on an issue unless there exists case and controversy. They cannot make declaratory rulings.

 

With that said, I think it is safe to say that the reasoning they used can probably also be applied to p2p without remuneration, thereby constructively, if not actually, indicating its illegality as well. Again, this opinion is based on my reading of the coa opinion from months ago so I could be slightly off.

[mibrains]

the way i remember it...

they said...

its all an issue of possession.

 

they ruled that you can't do a transfer without compensation, and that equals a sale, therefore delivery is a sale therefore delivery or "transfer" between pt's is not protected....

in this particular incidence i might add...

which is to say it is as it applies to a third party possessing the cannabis and completing the delivery with a charge or referral fee...and that cannot be completed under those direct circumstances...

 

it said to transfer is a sale because money was involved

 

and sale is illegal?

 

i don't remember ever seeing the word sale or compesation in the PHC as it applies to delivery.

it is always a charge of delivery or manufacture because they could not ever charge you with sale..it's not in the PHC to my knowledge.

or people would have been giving it away for free..and charging for whatever.....

which is why all the arguments we hear about giving a free oz in exchange for a consoltation fee may not hold water to well in front of a judge...

 

you cannot give it away for free any more than you can sell it in my honest opinion is what they were saying.

 

i mean that's not what i believe is the case as the law is written and intended, but i believe that's the interpretation they have been shoving down our throats.

 

to be honest with you... the whole thing is very difficult.

 

-a patient gets their certification signed.

-they wait the required time to process their application and are now ready to grow their medicine.

*where do they get a seed?

*or a clone?

* or usable cannabis to figure out what works, it is a plant ya know?

 

the only answer is...from someone who is allowed to have it.

 

now that begs a questions right...

 

do you have to connect to that someone, whoever they are? and sign them as your caregiver? just so you can get started?

 

how about down the road when someone discovers a awesome strain for crones symptoms... (and i personally would most likely benefit from it) and i want to try it...

i want to grow it for myself?

i want to try a dried sample first?

do i have to sign them as a caregiver? wait the appropriate time? then effect the transfer? then sign myself back to my own plants?

 

really...these are the questions we all hope the Supreme court will answer...

 

this is the premiss behind the defense i used when justifying my attendance at the markets..

 

in the mean time i have now and always do continue to say..if your going to play in the game you had better know and understand the rules.

 

it seems to me like today the courts are being overrun with the attempt to show numbers in a election year.....

 

what do we do?

 

i say we wait for the SC to define transfers. and to thereby explain the above mentioned very real, and daily paradox that has been created by the coa interpretation.

 

the issue with compassionate apothecary was then, and still is now about who had possession of the cannabis at the time a delivery was effected, and did they have the right to effect that transfer for compensation without the actual caregiver or "owner" present.

 

i apologize....

 

i am rusty on the case and i should read it... life has been difficult this winter...so we shall see....

 

i hope all the drama goes away and the SC rules we can help anyone who has a card.

and is registered as a patient in our great state.

like it must be....

so it is...

in the mean time...

 

THEY HAVE GUNS

 

they win

 

God bless

 

 

 

 

 

[GregS]

There is nothing that prohibits sales. The judiciary is way out of line.

 

That the Supreme Court has agreed to hear McQueen, I expect they intend to soften the Appellate Court's fantastical tirade. If they agreed, they would more likely refuse the case and let the Appellate Court's decision to stand as settled law.

[SFC]

Until they do Greg it is law of the land.

[peanutbutter]

Until they do Greg it is law of the land.

 

Please .. exactly which law makes sales illegal?

 

Delivery has been made illegal. They passed a law against it.

Yet within that law "sales" is never mentioned.

 

They have never passed a law against sales. Only delivery.

 

And delivery of cannabis is "medical use" which the voters said is OK. legal ..

 

Is "delivery" medical use? The law says so.

[Restorium2]

What makes sales illegal?

 

The judiciary being out of line does, if that's an answer you like better. Either way, the courts are saying so, that's what matters to people who want to stay out of harms way.

[peanutbutter]

What makes sales illegal?

 

The judiciary being out of line does, if that's an answer you like better. Either way, the courts are saying so, that's what matters to people who want to stay out of harms way.

 

Yes .. I understand. If they make new law in court then there is a law.

 

Until then there isn't.

 

Usually votes are required to make a new law.

[Restorium2]

Yes .. I understand. If they make new law in court then there is a law.

 

Until then there isn't.

 

Usually votes are required to make a new law.

To state the obvious again;

 

The courts are deciding the law as they have the right too. Take it or leave it, that's how it works. If you don't like it, the answer is not putting people in harms way, it's getting judges elected that would favor your point of view.

[peanutbutter]

To state the obvious again;

 

The courts are deciding the law as they have the right too. Take it or leave it, that's how it works. If you don't like it, the answer is not putting people in harms way, it's getting judges elected that would favor your point of view.

 

In the absolute sense, no one in Michigan is legal.

 

Nothing has been established in the Supreme Court at all.

 

So take it or leave it. We already have a law and we can attempt to predict how that law will be enacted.