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

[peanutbutter]

Well I guess we will soon find out won't we. I am fairly confident it is not going to be the free for all some would like it to be. The law didn't specify the stuff we would like anymore than it did the stuff they did either. I think we will get a fair shake from the supremes but again, limited. Plus if they go to far it will darn sure embolden the likes of Jones to go after us on their end that much harder. We are on a double edged sword.

 

This SC will rule on the text of the law instead of what it should read.

 

For better or worse. We already have the text.

Edited July 21, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Highlander]

I don't believe that the SC will/can make a ruling that would result in a scenario where we have virtually limitless exchanges between CGs and patients. In the McQueen ruling, the COA made a couple of reasonable decisions. One was that they recognized that for an action to be “medical use” it must be “for the purpose of alleviating a patient’s debilitating condition….” And since the matter at hand involved a bricks and mortar location with a business name/license and rent, and other bills to pay, etc. there was evidence of a business purpose.

 

Similar language exists in Section 8: “The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.”

 

The above is a very narrow statement. It allows a very narrow purpose and only ONE purpose for having cannabis. You’d better be a choir boy giving cannabis away if you want to funnel into this protection.

 

So let’s say we do get a choir boy through the SC on a pt to pt transfer without remuneration? Or say with compensation strictly for that patient’s cost to get the meds from his CG? That would be great.

 

But that ruling won’t apply to the guy sitting at Joe’s farmer’s market week after week. You won’t find a judge or jury in this state that …. I don’t think 12 people, period, who would agree that the guy selling meds week after week at a FM is doing so with only ONE purpose and that is to alleviate patient’s suffering.

 

And people please also remind yourselves that if you are involved in a Section 8 defense, the burden is on you to show that you’re complaint, which is kinda backwards of the way you’re used to thinking about the legal system.

 

Read this: “A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).” It doesn’t say that the PA has to show, like”normal.” So if you have 5 indigent patients, no job, and are living a comfortable lifestyle and get popped with 2 pounds of MMJ, YOU will have the explaining to do.

 

A judge or jury will be expecting you to prove to them that your conduct with MMJ was not for any other reason than to alleviate a patient’s medical condition. If they find any evidence that your conduct was for some other purpose, i.e. making profit, supporting a business, making money for joe cain, etc. then you should have all expectations that they will not acquit.

 

 

More simply put, under the law you get one reason for having/using cannabis. If a judge or jury finds that you had/used cannabis for two or more reasons, you lose.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Highlander

[peanutbutter]

I don't believe that the SC will/can make a ruling that would result in a scenario where we have virtually limitless exchanges between CGs and patients. In the McQueen ruling, the COA made a couple of reasonable decisions. One was that they recognized that for an action to be “medical use” it must be “for the purpose of alleviating a patient’s debilitating condition….” And since the matter at hand involved a bricks and mortar location with a business name/license and rent, and other bills to pay, etc. there was evidence of a business purpose.

 

Similar language exists in Section 8: “The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.”

 

The above is a very narrow statement. It allows a very narrow purpose and only ONE purpose for having cannabis. You’d better be a choir boy giving cannabis away if you want to funnel into this protection.

 

So let’s say we do get a choir boy through the SC on a pt to pt transfer without remuneration? Or say with compensation strictly for that patient’s cost to get the meds from his CG? That would be great.

 

But that ruling won’t apply to the guy sitting at Joe’s farmer’s market week after week. You won’t find a judge or jury in this state that …. I don’t think 12 people, period, who would agree that the guy selling meds week after week at a FM is doing so with only ONE purpose and that is to alleviate patient’s suffering.

 

And people please also remind yourselves that if you are involved in a Section 8 defense, the burden is on you to show that you’re complaint, which is kinda backwards of the way you’re used to thinking about the legal system.

 

Read this: “A person may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana in a motion to dismiss, and the charges shall be dismissed following an evidentiary hearing where the person shows the elements listed in subsection (a).” It doesn’t say that the PA has to show, like”normal.” So if you have 5 indigent patients, no job, and are living a comfortable lifestyle and get popped with 2 pounds of MMJ, YOU will have the explaining to do.

 

A judge or jury will be expecting you to prove to them that your conduct with MMJ was not for any other reason than to alleviate a patient’s medical condition. If they find any evidence that your conduct was for some other purpose, i.e. making profit, supporting a business, making money for joe cain, etc. then you should have all expectations that they will not acquit.

 

 

More simply put, under the law you get one reason for having/using cannabis. If a judge or jury finds that you had/used cannabis for two or more reasons, you lose.

 

It can be perilous to predict exactly what the SC will say in the near future.

 

Many of us have ideas about that. Fact is, we just have to wait and see.

 

But "transfers" is clearly on the agenda to be ruled on. And soon.

[Highlander]

It can be perilous to predict exactly what the SC will say in the near future.

 

Many of us have ideas about that. Fact is, we just have to wait and see.

 

But "transfers" is clearly on the agenda to be ruled on. And soon.

 

Yes, "transfers" is on the agenda, but there are many types of transfers and only one of them is before the court. That's my whole point. A SC decision on transfers can't address all transfers because only one is before them.

 

SC could rule in "our" favor in McQueen, but that won't have any impact on 'CG to any patient.' As such, anyone involved in such a transfer even after a positive McQueen ruling is likely to have to run the section 8 route.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Highlander

[+washtenaut]

Hopefully some day soon, juries will get the chance to make these calls. When that day comes, it will be the beginning of the end of patient/caregiver prosecutions. People obviously abusing the law will still be convicted but folks trying to follow the law will be acquitted even if they have technical violations. We will see the same 63% that 'came out' through the ballot box again make their will known from the semi-anonymity of the jury room.

 

If I were defending a caregiver that was ever arrested for distributing cannabis at a farmer's market I would make a couple of points very clear to the jury:

 

1)A caregiver MUST ensure an uninterrupted supply for all of his/her patients. Patient needs can fluctuate greatly month to month. A caregiver MUST grow more than he/she expects his patients to use in order to provide assurance that he will have enough if a couple of patients request more than usual in a given month or if a plant or two fails to deliver. A responsible caregiver then, by definition, will have overages each and every month.

 

2)The black market prices for cannabis are much higher than $8-$12 per gram, or $200 per oz.(typical patient prices at FMs). Cannabis of this high quality would easily sell for $350-$450 per oz. on the street. If my client was in this strictly for the money and not interested in aiding in the medical use of cannabis, he/she would surely have opted to make twice the money by providing to non-patients on the black market. Seeing someone offering their overages to patients at a FM at vastly reduced prices would carry a good deal of weight in the jury room, imo.

[Highlander]

Hopefully some day soon, juries will get the chance to make these calls. When that day comes, it will be the beginning of the end of patient/caregiver prosecutions. People obviously abusing the law will still be convicted but folks trying to follow the law will be acquitted even if they have technical violations. We will see the same 63% that 'came out' through the ballot box again make their will known from the semi-anonymity of the jury room.

 

If I were defending a caregiver that was ever arrested for distributing cannabis at a farmer's market I would make a couple of points very clear to the jury:

 

1)A caregiver MUST ensure an uninterrupted supply for all of his/her patients. Patient needs can fluctuate greatly month to month. A caregiver MUST grow more than he/she expects his patients to use in order to provide assurance that he will have enough if a couple of patients request more than usual in a given month or if a plant or two fails to deliver. A responsible caregiver then, by definition, will have overages each and every month.

 

2)The black market prices for cannabis are much higher than $8-$12 per gram, or $200 per oz.(typical patient prices at FMs). Cannabis of this high quality would easily sell for $350-$450 per oz. on the street. If my client was in this strictly for the money and not interested in aiding in the medical use of cannabis, he/she would surely have opted to make twice the money by providing to non-patients on the black market. Seeing someone offering their overages to patients at a FM at vastly reduced prices would carry a good deal of weight in the jury room, imo.

 

I think you'd have a hard time withall this.

 

Why would a person voluntarily enter into an arrangement that they feel they cannot meet without exceeding limits and therefore run high risks? The law gives you limits, and you stick to them or deal with it. I don't like driving under 80 mph. tough.

 

How does your client know what black market prices are? And how would he go about selling on the black market? You say that is an option for him. Myself, I wouldn't even know how to go about that? Advertise on craigslist? Walk around and ask people if they want weed? Stand there and suggest to a jury that you'd know how to off weed on the black market, but you choose not to because you're such a nice guy. Gimme a break. You won't find 12 people who would believe that?

 

It doesn't matter if he is isn't ONLY in it for the money. The law says he can ONLY be in it for the benefit of patients. That's it - the one purpose a caregiver can be involved with cannabis. You cut yourself off at the knees by suggesting he's in it for any money at all.

 

This is how the COA viewed this matter - not a ruling, mind you, but a good crystal ball for us:

 

 

We note that, although not raised below or on appeal, there is evidence from which one could

conclude that defendants’ operation of CA is for a purpose other than alleviating patients’

debilitating medical conditions. Defendants organized CA as a limited liability company and

implemented a business plan whereby they operate CA by obtaining possession of and selling

marijuana. Although defendants make members’ excess marijuana available to other patients

who may not have the ability to grow marijuana themselves, the evidence shows that this occurs

through defendants’ operation of CA as a business. The operation of CA is indistinguishable

from the operation of a neighborhood pharmacy. The purpose of both CA and a neighborhood

pharmacy is to provide medications to alleviate the medical needs of customers. However, a

pharmacy could not continue to operate without charging for its services. Likewise, defendants

must and do charge for the services offered by CA. And just as is the case with a neighborhood

pharmacy, CA could not continue to operate without charging for its services. This evidence of a

business purpose indicates that defendants’ purpose for operating CA is pecuniary

 

There is no way that your regular table renter at a FM will make it through this opinion.

 

I'll admit I had to look up "pecuniary" in the dictionary. It means "measured in money or of/related to money"

 

or in layman's terms

 

"It's about the money"

 

It does not matter how nice a guy your defendant is. If he's selling at a FM table week in and week out, any jury will see it as "about the money"

Edited July 21, 2012 by Highlander

[peanutbutter]

Yes, "transfers" is on the agenda, but there are many types of transfers and only one of them is before the court. That's my whole point. A SC decision on transfers can't address all transfers because only one is before them.

 

SC could rule in "our" favor in McQueen, but that won't have any impact on 'CG to any patient.' As such, anyone involved in such a transfer even after a positive McQueen ruling is likely to have to run the section 8 route.

 

Again .. predicting what the SC will or won't do .. I HOPE they cover more.

 

If the go with p2p, that would cover most situations.

[+washtenaut]

I think you'd have a hard time withall this.

 

Why would a person voluntarily enter into an arrangement that they feel they cannot meet without exceeding limits and therefore run high risks? The law gives you limits, and you stick to them or deal with it. I don't like driving under 80 mph. tough.

 

How does your client know what black market prices are? And how would he go about selling on the black market? You say that is an option for him. Myself, I wouldn't even know how to go about that? Advertise on craigslist? Walk around and ask people if they want weed? Stand there and suggest to a jury that you'd know how to off weed on the black market, but you choose not to because you're such a nice guy. Gimme a break. You won't find 12 people who would believe that?

 

It doesn't matter if he is isn't ONLY in it for the money. The law says he can ONLY be in it for the benefit of patients. That's it - the one purpose a caregiver can be involved with cannabis. You cut yourself off at the knees by suggesting he's in it for any money at all.

 

This is how the COA viewed this matter - not a ruling, mind you, but a good crystal ball for us:

 

 

We note that, although not raised below or on appeal, there is evidence from which one could

conclude that defendants’ operation of CA is for a purpose other than alleviating patients’

debilitating medical conditions. Defendants organized CA as a limited liability company and

implemented a business plan whereby they operate CA by obtaining possession of and selling

marijuana. Although defendants make members’ excess marijuana available to other patients

who may not have the ability to grow marijuana themselves, the evidence shows that this occurs

through defendants’ operation of CA as a business. The operation of CA is indistinguishable

from the operation of a neighborhood pharmacy. The purpose of both CA and a neighborhood

pharmacy is to provide medications to alleviate the medical needs of customers. However, a

pharmacy could not continue to operate without charging for its services. Likewise, defendants

must and do charge for the services offered by CA. And just as is the case with a neighborhood

pharmacy, CA could not continue to operate without charging for its services. This evidence of a

business purpose indicates that defendants’ purpose for operating CA is pecuniary

 

There is no way that your regular table renter at a FM will make it through this opinion.

 

I'll admit I had to look up "pecuniary" in the dictionary. It means "measured in money or of/related to money"

 

or in layman's terms

 

"It's about the money"

 

It does not matter how nice a guy your defendant is. If he's selling at a FM table week in and week out, any jury will see it as "about the money"

 

First off, you are right that some caregivers are in this for the money.

 

Second, are you saying that the CGs that sell at the farmer's market do so because they are unaware that they could get higher returns on the street? I'd venture to guess that to the man/woman, they know there is another avenue out there. If you want to tell a jury how they know, there are plenty of ways to do it. Here's one a lawyer could use - Most every patient purchased cannabis before the 2008 law. Any one of them could have provided information on prices and people that sell on the black market.

 

Third, it is awfully difficult to grow exact amounts while ensuring an uninterrupted supply. If you can predict how much dry weight a new plant will yield, you are a unique talent. Most of us need to make an educated guess. Again, someone not caring about the confines of the law might just decide to hang onto an extra pound or sell on the black market. The point could be made that the caregiver at the FM is trying his best to comply with the law while being a responsible caregiver. Would that fly with you on the jury? Probably not. With me on the jury, I would accept that possibility.

 

The stated goal of Rep Callton's distribution bill is to allow caregivers an outlet for their product, outside of the black market. Even the Reps realize that one cannot be a caregiver without exceeding patient requirements from time to time.

[ozzrokk]

You know Highlander you keep talking about what the appeals court has said in the past.

 

You do realize that they have gotten almost every ruling on this subject wrong right? You can say well thats my opinion but it sure appears that has been the opinion of the Supreme Court as well.

[Highlander]

You know Highlander you keep talking about what the appeals court has said in the past.

 

You do realize that they have gotten almost every ruling on this subject wrong right? You can say well thats my opinion but it sure appears that has been the opinion of the Supreme Court as well.

 

I talk about what the COA has said in the past because most of what the COA said in the past is still binding case law.

 

It doesn't matter what they got right and what they got wrong. It matters what they said because it either makes case law as soon as they rule, or the ruling gives hints to the PAs as to what sorts of cases they will rule on in what way. Like it or not, a COA ruling is law if and until it is reversed by the SC. The COA's rulings and non-binding opinions are very relevant.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Highlander

[Highlander]

Again .. predicting what the SC will or won't do .. I HOPE they cover more.

 

If the go with p2p, that would cover most situations.

 

So you think the best approach is to sit on our hands and not even think about cases until the SC decides them - and then decide how to react, retool, regroup. That's plain silly.

 

Smart people try to predict a number of the most likely outcomes and plan for each.

[Highlander]

First off, you are right that some caregivers are in this for the money.

 

Second, are you saying that the CGs that sell at the farmer's market do so because they are unaware that they could get higher returns on the street?

 

No. I'm saying that some/many CGs don't know any black market buyers to sell overages to. I'm one of these CGs. Some/most CGs don't want to know any black market buyers. I'm one of those too.

 

Making a serious statement that a CG would weigh the choice between selling on the black market and selling at a FM does the movement no good at all. Comparing the black market prices to MMJ does us no good either. "Compensation for cost" for MMJ has no relationship to "market value" for black market MMJ.

[SFC]

Washtenaut I consider you a pretty wise fellow, you know exactly what Highlander is saying. And PB, you tell us not to guess what the SC is going to say and yet that is exactly what you do in darn near every post. Hey, I hope the SC reaches above and beyond our wildest dreams but in the real world I doubt that is going to happen.

[peanutbutter]

So you think the best approach is to sit on our hands and not even think about cases until the SC decides them - and then decide how to react, retool, regroup. That's plain silly.

 

Smart people try to predict a number of the most likely outcomes and plan for each.

 

I can't force them to hurry up. I have no choice but to wait to know for sure exactly what they will say.

 

Is your crystal ball perfect? Of course not.

 

Aside from waiting, exactly how do you KNOW what they will say? You don't. Neither do I.

 

So far, the SC has said that the COA reasoning has faulty foundations. I think they are probably right there.

[peanutbutter]

Hey!! any bets?

 

I bet 2 against and the rest for p2p transfers with or without compensation.

[CaveatLector]

It all depends on how they decide to interpret. I could easily see them deciding that certain elements within the definition of medical use run with the patient and others with the caregiver. In other words, that a patient can only be on the receiving side of a transfer. Why? Because if they are on the giving end then they become a caregiver and a cg isn't allowed to engage in medical use they are only allowed to assist in medical use. To assume that a patient is somehow able to engage in medical use FOR another patient doesn't make sense because the right of medical use is the patient's right. I don't believe the SC will decide that one can simulatneously act a a patient and a caregiver, thereby invoking coverages of both. That doesn't make sense. If you are invoking the right of medical use to cya it seems a bit odd that one could engage in medical use for the benefit of another. I'm not saying you cannot be a pt AND cg, rather I'm saying that you cannot step into the shoes of a pt and use pt status while acting as a cg.

 

Will they go that way? Who knows. With that said I do understand the reasoning behindallowing p2p. However, I think there are strong arguments against it as well.

 

With THAT said, the SC made a good decision in K&K. However, consider for a moment that K&K went to the SC with rulings that diametrically opposed the actual ballot language (eg: the will of the people). No such ballot language existed to allow for p2p.

[+Malamute]

I have a feeling the S.C. will rule with what i have said all along.

 

But why debate it anymore. Just go by the current law(COA ruling) and we can either expand or restrict our activities when the S.C. ruling comes out.

 

[CaveatLector]

I have a feeling the S.C. will rule with what i have said all along.

 

But why debate it anymore. Just go by the current law(COA ruling) and we can either expand or restrict our activities when the S.C. ruling comes out.

 

Yes, debate is not very helpful here and frankly I'm not going to try to throw a guess out there. I am just stating a POSSIBLE outcome.

[Highlander]

 

Is your crystal ball perfect? Of course not.

 

 

No, but my crystal balls are perfect. And they tell me that the SC will rule or not rule on the following:

 

pt2pt with no remuneration

pt2pt with remuneration

cg2cg no remuneration

cg2cg with remuneration

cg2anypt with no remuneration

cg2anypt with remuneration

 

And if they rule, they will rule either for or against.

 

Then I think for a long time and ask myself, If one or more or each of the above are declared legal or illegal, how would that affect me? And if I could be affected in that way, what can I do about it now to prepare?

 

I guess you'll get the ruling and then ask yourself, now what?"

 

That's great. I guess we just plan differently.

[peanutbutter]

I went and watched the oral arguments for K&K. I went because I wanted to try to understand the reasoning they used.

 

These folks want to avoid legislating from the bench. They do their best to avoid their own biases in their judgement.

 

That is the very best I could hope for from them.

 

If that is the case, then the words transfer and delivery are in both section four and 8. It has been determined already, in K&K, that you don't have to be registered to invoke section 8.

[peanutbutter]

It is also possible they could explore the unregistered caregiver.

 

Section eight protects both patients and caregivers, and doesn't require the persons to be registered.

 

The unregistered caregiver is also mentioned in the ballot language.

Edited July 22, 2012 by peanutbutter

[pic book]

So Cav.. My question is.. Since my cards were issued before my rayPed er Raid, Will those be honored by the judge or will the Drs still need to testify? My certifying Dr is my Dr.. Meaning i see him for all my issues..

 

Don't see a report on your July 12?

[peanutbutter]

I hear from a lot of cancer patients.

 

Some are in pain.

 

Such a patients gets their doctors letter. How long should such a person refrain from beginning the RSO program? 21 days?

 

Right .. lets not bother with chemo for you for a while and see what happens.

 

That is exactly what some people are using this extract of cannabis for. It is their chemo.

Edited July 22, 2012 by peanutbutter

[SFC]

In a way I hope they do not jump out of their path and start deciding things not in front of them. If they go too far out you can believe the legislature will become emboldened to reign us back in. This is all very precarious and every decision carries with it unknown consequences.

[peanutbutter]

And here we are ..

 

We discuss possible outcomes. Everyone has their reasons to expect one or another outcome.

 

But we just have to wait to see.

 

On 1/5/2009 the MDCH established the seventy two plant count. In a public hearing. That would be the maximum under section four when the caregiver has five patients and the caregiver is a patient also.

 

It is POSSIBLE that the SC could reverse that and count the caregiver as one of the five allowed UNDER SECTION FOUR.

I don't believe that outcome is PROBABLE as the MDCH was given authority to make rules.

 

BTW .. Thanks to Matt Able for asking the question at the hearing. Awesome.

Edited July 22, 2012 by peanutbutter