Some Stuff On Sec. 8 But Also Some Other Stuff And Some Bickering, Off Topic Stuff And Some Name Calling-sprinkled With A Pinch Of Tangential Opinions

[cristinew]

Yes Bob i think you may be right on that one,,

[+washtenaut]

What are expectations of when the SC might announce another medical cannabis ruling?

[Dr. Bob]

i do not think the SC will let people sell meds for money at a dispensary and when the ruling does come down the courts will be full of people getting prosecuted

 

Unfortunately true. I personally favor a farmers market or 'grain elevator' type model, but since it does involve compensation it is not allowed right now. Perhaps the SC may come up with some sort of compensation or 'split the baby' solution but I am not counting on it. We have to have some way of getting medication to the patients that need it, right now it is done, quietly, and occasionally people are caught and prosecuted. The problem as I see it are the folks that want to open storefronts and do it in leo's face, then they may be obligated to do something when they might otherwise look the other way. I don't think the greed and shoddiness of all the corner 'dispensary compassion clubs' that opened after CA (what was it 47 in Lansing alone) that were not shall we say 'professional pharmacy type businesses' put a bad taste in the mouth of the public. Next time perhaps we can put a more professional face on it.

 

Then we have folks like Joe Cain and his minions. They open a farmers market claiming compassion. Now they are opening some sort of an annex in the middle of controversy in the Jackson Council. The problem with this is that the farmers are not going to be at this annex- but the meds will 'at the same prices as the market'. So basically, while Jackson is struggling with ordinances to get rid of the dispensaries, backed by Jackson law enforcement, they go and open an obvious storefront dispensary. Not very politically smart and I suspect it will convert a few 'fence sitters' on the issue to confirmed opponents. It is almost as if they are daring the cops to come bust them and give the entire Act yet another black eye.

 

I guess we will see how the continuing story of how Jackson Turns will play out. It is a pity a loose cannon determines the fate of the rest of us.

 

Dr. Bob

[GanjaWarrior]

Um, not a good idea. The TSA will be going through your carry-ons. They have the authority to seize contraband. Remember, the TSA is a federal agency....

 

hmmm i wonder how that works? I know of a person who has flown with meds once a month for a long time now close to a year.....

[michaelscott]

 

 

Unfortunately true. I personally favor a farmers market or 'grain elevator' type model, but since it does involve compensation it is not allowed right now. Perhaps the SC may come up with some sort of compensation or 'split the baby' solution but I am not counting on it. We have to have some way of getting medication to the patients that need it, right now it is done, quietly, and occasionally people are caught and prosecuted. The problem as I see it are the folks that want to open storefronts and do it in leo's face, then they may be obligated to do something when they might otherwise look the other way. I don't think the greed and shoddiness of all the corner 'dispensary compassion clubs' that opened after CA (what was it 47 in Lansing alone) that were not shall we say 'professional pharmacy type businesses' put a bad taste in the mouth of the public. Next time perhaps we can put a more professional face on it.

 

Then we have folks like Joe Cain and his minions. They open a farmers market claiming compassion. Now they are opening some sort of an annex in the middle of controversy in the Jackson Council. The problem with this is that the farmers are not going to be at this annex- but the meds will 'at the same prices as the market'. So basically, while Jackson is struggling with ordinances to get rid of the dispensaries, backed by Jackson law enforcement, they go and open an obvious storefront dispensary. Not very politically smart and I suspect it will convert a few 'fence sitters' on the issue to confirmed opponents. It is almost as if they are daring the cops to come bust them and give the entire Act yet another black eye.

 

I guess we will see how the continuing story of how Jackson Turns will play out. It is a pity a loose cannon determines the fate of the rest of us.

 

Dr. Bob

there are several dispensaries operating in jackson and have been for quite some time. So joe is the one pushing the issue by opening number 7. Why is he considered the only dispensari owner in jackson to be "screwing it up" for the rest of us. I was under the impression jackson decided to draft ordinances to include these dispensaries? I could be wrong, the medical marijuana site I used to get a majority of local news from has been lacking lately.

[GanjaWarrior]

Bobs wrong again.... so bobs ok to make money, but a caregiver can only charge cost....well whats cost? using "dr" bobs idea...hospital is all for compassion, no profits....how does the doctor ( not this one talking but at the hosp like a real doctor) make 150k a year....oh bunny muffin i know... you can still be paid for your work and still be compassionate. Now when bob says compensation isnt not allowed where does he get that? as a caregiver you can recoup your cost, be compensated for your time....i guess i never know where bob gets these goofy ideas maybe he could link to the law where it says a caregiver can not be compensated for growing. i cant find it anywhere?

[GregS]

I think the SC will see, again in the plain language of the law, that patients are permitted to transfer among each other, to include for a price, and that non-patient caregivers will be required to work only with those patients who have designated them.

[Ms Chocolate]

When speaking about plant material and the money they might receive, I think the line is drawn between goods and services.

When a person exchange plant material for cash, and this cash is from a person with whom there IS a signed and registered connection, this is a permitted service for with compensation is allowed.

When a person exchange plant material for cash, and this cash is from a person with whom there NO signed and registered connection, this is the sale of a good, which NOT allowed.

In the beginning, I followed that small transfers between PATIENTS was allowed under Section 4, but this has been stuck down (no more puff, puff, pass). Still, I can see PATIENTS transfers under Section 8.

[cristinew]

I think the SC will see, again in the plain language of the law, that patients are permitted to transfer among each other, to include for a price, and that non-patient caregivers will be required to work only with those patients who have designated them.

 

that would be nice but i dont think that will happen

[GanjaWarrior]

i think its very important that we listen to the court...we must view the law with the plain language the voters did... remember "a" caregiver isnt the same restrictive word as "the" "his" hers"....you must get it from "A" caregiver.....

[cristinew]

.you must get it from "A" caregiver..... na i will grow my own,,

 

2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient,

 

for the qualifying patient, ,,, that damm restrictive word " the " again hey?

Edited June 29, 2012 by cristinew

[cristinew]

plain language again ,,,,,,,,,,, for the qualifying patient,

Edited June 29, 2012 by cristinew

[Dr. Bob]

Bobs wrong again.... so bobs ok to make money, but a caregiver can only charge cost....well whats cost? using "dr" bobs idea...hospital is all for compassion, no profits....how does the doctor ( not this one talking but at the hosp like a real doctor) make 150k a year....oh bunny muffin i know... you can still be paid for your work and still be compassionate. Now when bob says compensation isnt not allowed where does he get that? as a caregiver you can recoup your cost, be compensated for your time....i guess i never know where bob gets these goofy ideas maybe he could link to the law where it says a caregiver can not be compensated for growing. i cant find it anywhere?

 

I'm wrong? Did I not say 'costs'? Is caregiver time not costs? That said, being a caregiver and 'costing' those services out must have a basis in similar occupations- greenhouse workers for example don't make $200 an hour, even if a caregiver feels they should be able to charge that. What I specifically said was costs vs street or market value. It is a hobby where you can recover your costs, not a commercial business. Medicine, which is what I do, is a commercial business. A legal commercial business, so ar hospital services, etc. Being a caregiver is not a commercial endvor.

 

So actually I am not wrong, and it is clearly listed in the Act as I stated it. I am not going down the road of the and a, that has been settled and I am not reopening it. What is NOT listed is ANY patient, which is what you seem to be trying to promote. That is NOT in the law.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

plain language again ,,,,,,,,,,, for the qualifying patient,

 

Exactly, plain language. It does not say ANY. That is pretty plain.

[Dr. Bob]

A caregiver has much more knowledge than the average greenhouse worker due to their study of how their strains treat debilitating medical conditions, in addition to their direct treatment of patients, careful driving (there is lots of delivery), and scientific knowledge like solvent polarity and boiling point, transformation of cannabinoids, decarboxylization, etc.

 

Not a great comparison, not at all. When you think about what caregivers really do, one that does it well is a highly skilled and dedicated individual. Why do you get to determine how much they charge, and why compare it to a manual laborer in a commercial operation?

 

Because there are income guidelines. How much is my time worth, how much is your time worth? To us, an infinate amount as it is a portion of our life. But to the IRS, the courts, we have to be able to quatify it. Take a greenhouse worker, making 15 an hour (just tossing numbers out). I can see a caregiver getting three times that or $45 an hour, and I think that will be easy to justify if questioned. But 10, 15 times that? Little tougher.

 

Lets say the cost of the chemicals and soil are $4 a gram. Sale price at a commercial dispensary may be $20, does that mean the labor to grow is worth $16 a gram? Can you see the problem in trying to justify it is not a commercial enterprise, which is not allowed? I see three things that can make up the transfer price of meds, cost to grow, labor, and service (which is a small portion, maybe on the order of $2 a gram)- the entire point being made is that $12 a gram meds are a lot easier to justify compared to $20 a gram meds on something that MUST be sold essentially at wholesale under the Act.

 

Or do you wish to argue that a profit margin and a commercial operation is allowed by the Act, the Holder memo, etc?

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Perhaps by picking up on a poorly phrased sentence in a post Chad, you have the wrong impression. Hopefully I've expanded and made what that statement refer to a little clearer.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Well then I will accept your criticism. My concern was safety and being able to justify the cost if questioned by a prosecutor. I do see your point. I hope you see the point I am making, that you may have to justify how the compensation fit within the guidelines of the Act. Commercial business and profit are not part of costs.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 29, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

True, why explore ways to show more involved ways to show non-compliance when they could get a motion to deny mention of a medical defense on something as simple and common as an unlocked front door? As far as income, the IRS doesn't recognize marijuana businesses, and collects taxes off gross so the more the merrier as far as they are concerned.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

One good point this makes though is the proper way to accept correction by those who know more about a subject than the poster. You listen, understand, and if needed modify your position. You don't keep carrying on the same incorrect line of reasoning. Hopefully folks will adopt the example I set when I am corrected.

 

Dr. Bob

[SFC]

Excellent that you guys were able to see each others reasoning. Zap is right on the red herring of trying to set a "price" for services. For instance I charge Way more per hour for my actual profession than I do for my patients as a caregiver. Other than my father passing away on me (my first patient) my three others have never left my service so I think it is safe to assume they are happy with my services and quality of meds.

 

And getting back to Gregs post, that is likely why most caregivers went out of their way to get a patient card. I am sure many of them would not have bothered getting a patient card if there were more protections for caregivers in place. I know I would not have, personally.

[SFC]

And truthfully the black market price will have a role in all of our thinking until prohibition is over. Anybody that says different is probably blowing smoke up your behind.

[Dr. Bob]

It should only have a role if selling into the black market is an option for that caregiver. It really should not be an option, but the similar treatment of selling to non-connected cardholders and non-cardholders by some rogue jurisdictions has muddied the waters immensely.

 

You must admit if it were clearly legal to sell to any cardholder it would largely disconnect us from black-market pricing.

 

I am in agreement with this as well.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Excellent that you guys were able to see each others reasoning. Zap is right on the red herring of trying to set a "price" for services. For instance I charge Way more per hour for my actual profession than I do for my patients as a caregiver. Other than my father passing away on me (my first patient) my three others have never left my service so I think it is safe to assume they are happy with my services and quality of meds.

 

 

That is why it is called a debate, not a gang bang full of egos. Debates are based on logical arguments and facts, with some interpretation, but they are two way discussions.

[SFC]

I do agree with you, but even in the event we can transfer to any cardholder I think it will be a stretch to not acknowledge that elephant in the room. Especially true if you are the one holding the supply. I am not condoning black market prices at all. I woud be curious how many caregivers have actually taken the time to find out exactly how much it costs them per gram to produce their meds. Or even an educated guess how much? I would bet most Cg's take black market prices and then slash them down from there. Nothing wrong with that, it is surely a simpler approach, but most any other legitimate business generally "Does" know exactly how much everything related to their business costs. At least they do if they plan on staying in business.

[Dr. Bob]

SFC, that is kind of what I was getting at. Rather than looking a the 'market' look at the cost. Again, just trying to short circuit prosecutors. And at no time did I suggest coming up with firm prices, just an approach to calculating justifiable compensation, whatever that might be. It should be based on costs and reasonable labor charges. One can be documented, another estimated in a way juries can understand. As Zap points out there are many factors, but the more YOU can hammer down to paper when it comes to what YOU charge, the less leeway prosecutors have to try and pick it away and try and show you were exceeding the Act.

 

Dr. Bob