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

[GregS]

oops

Edited June 2, 2012 by GregS

[CaveatLector]

It has been off topic for basically 4 or 5 of the 6 pages here.

The idea I had when beginning this thread was to give people guidelines to follow to be sure that they can use the affirmative defense should it become necessary. It degraded into many tangential topics and debates. The idea was for it to be a resource. At this point it is more of a laborious read.

 

However, if someone objects then leave it open but I, for one, don't plan on participating in it anymore.

[GregS]

Good bye.

[trix]

Yanno, I have been reading this thread throughout your conversations. Without having to go back to page one, I don't even recall what your OP was.

 

Next to the title at the top of the page, being off topic is a solid conclusion to this thread for sure.

 

Trix

[+Malamute]

Topic:

Hitchhiker's Guide To Relying On The Aff. Defense In Section 8

 

Don't Panic!

 

 

But yea,... this topic got lost. How about some simple basic solid advice for the vast majority of regular patients and caregivers who simply want to remain within the law. Those few "activists" in the state that wish to go out and kick the tires of the limits of the laws, go do it. But don't encourage others to take those risks. Explain the risks and different interpretations and all the angles of said action and allow people to decide what they want to do themselves.

 

The discussions so often end up at "This is how it is!" and " No it is this way" and every other line of nonsense.

 

When i explain different levels of risk to people, i let them decide.

 

" If you want to make sure to be as safe as possible and do not wish to test limits, do it this way(vast vast majority of people). If you want to hear how i feel and what i personally would consider safe, i will tell you that with disclaimers that it is riskier than staying well within the law. Then i explain what some of the very very liberal interpretations are and how much risk and damages are possibly involved with those extreme ideas.

 

As long as you make it very clear what the options are, the reasons why they are safe or risky and to what degree, and admit that you , me or anyone else doesnt know 100% on most of these issues. They are being decided int he courts and likely altered in the legislature. The picture becomes clearer as we progress. But we have to protect the average typical patient who has never posted on a forum and simply comes by a forum to figure out "How to get a card?", "What do i need to do?" and how do i stay legal and not get arrested?". Basic discussion must center around protecting those people. There are only a few thousand of us "activists" in the state. There is 100,000 just plain old regular people utlizing this law that have no clue about any of these discussions/arguments we have amongst ourselves in the "activist" community and they just want to know the safe way to use this law.

 

So,.. Explain how to safely utilize the A.D. if for some reason you have to. It is better to depend on the safe protections of Sec. 4 and "hopefully" avoid any arrest procedures if you follow the law to a T. This still leaves you the ability to use the A.D. if necessary.

 

Make sure you disclaimer your opinions as merely unprofessional opinions when venturing out to the edges of the law. It will save some people a really bad experience when they thought they were safe because of what "So and So" said at the "3MA forum".

 

All angles can and should be discussed, just in a responsible manner that specifies the risks and dangers of each position.

 

Every single person that comes to these forums wishes for the most liberal interpretations of the law. ALL of us. It is a losing argument to say different.

 

But, giving advice/opinions how to keep people safe is fantastic and should be done more often. Discussing the limits of the law should be done in a manner that depicts it as pushing th elimits of the law. EVERYONE hopes that we are right and it is th emost liberal interpretation. But unfortunately not all rulings will be and definitely havent been.

 

Everyone hoped/hopes Pt/Pt with compensation was/is legal. It currently is not. Now just because we are appealing it to the supreme court, doesnt currently make it legal. We will continue to fight to get clear rulings that possibly that or many other issues are absolutely legal. Noone has stopped fighting to expand the interpretations of our law, and just because we/many tell people to be careful does not mean we are LEO or giving up our law by doing so. Some will fight by civil disobedience(possibly breaking the law), and others will fight by representing them in court and influencing the legislature and public opinion.

 

So,... just qualify what you say as opinion and clarify the risk that could possibly be involved. (arrest, jail, lawyers. appeals etc.)

[trix]

good post Mal, most people really don't know about the law, or even what has recently just taken place in the SC.

 

Its true though just as it states above my avatar "My words are my own opinion" cause untill that person is in court no one really knows what the outcome of that perticular case will be until the judge opens his.her mouth with a verdict. We can only give our own opinions and the few case laws that pertain to certain instances.

 

Things are looking like they are headed to a much clearer path for decisions in the furture (IMO), can't wait to sit in and hear a jury say not guitly!

 

Trix

[SFC]

Just last night I was introduced to a friends Cg. We struck up a conversation and to my absolute amazement he had no idea what his limits were or much of anything. My head almost exploded! This thread as OP intended is more important than many of us "regulars" ever realize.

[peanutbutter]

Risk/reward thinking is a good thing.

 

There are risks involved in staying with the letter only.

 

What about the risks involved in getting the ID card? You are signing a document that could be used against you in both state and federal court.

 

I can easily see someone saying "Sure I'll fill that out. Just as soon as you tell me how I can do so WITHOUT waiving my 5th amendment rights against self incrimination."

[bobandtorey]

good post Mal, most people really don't know about the law, or even what has recently just taken place in the SC.

 

Its true though just as it states above my avatar "My words are my own opinion" cause untill that person is in court no one really knows what the outcome of that perticular case will be until the judge opens his.her mouth with a verdict. We can only give our own opinions and the few case laws that pertain to certain instances.

 

Things are looking like they are headed to a much clearer path for decisions in the furture (IMO), can't wait to sit in and hear a jury say not guitly!

 

Trix

 

i agree people don't know how their life could be turned over and all the stress that comes from being in court like us for over 3 years now and even when the C.O.A said we could use are cards in court

what has changed? with this new ruling

can Oakland County just trow it out like they did with are case?

[GregS]

I wonder what testimony would satisfy a judge in determining that an individual is your patient, if both are not registered. Would an affidavit cover that? Is court testimony required? Is it the judge's call?

Edited June 2, 2012 by GregS

[+Malamute]

Maybe

Maybe

Yes

[GregS]

Got it. Thanks.

[Dr. Bob]

I agree, this thread was hijacked from the original topic. Rather than a thread on safety and potential pitfalls of the ruling, it has somehow become a free for all of fuzzy logic and loose associations.

 

Good certifications with a bonafide dr/pt relationship

1 patient, 12 plants, 1 caregiver, 5 patients.

 

Anything beyond that be prepared to defend not only the decision to go outside of the accepted limits but the certification as well. CL had an excellent discussion, which is about the only thing helpful in the last 6 pages. Follow any of the other 'advice' and 'opinion' in here and be prepared to fight your case from a cell. If you want to do that, knock yourself out. Personally, I don't wish to risk my freedom over a questionalble theory.

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

In People v Redden, ___ Mich App ____; ___ NW2d ___ (2010) (slip op at 8-10), the majority rejected the prosecution’s argument that the affirmative defense under section 8 was unavailable to the defendants because they did not possess valid registry identification cards at the time of the offense. The prosecution argued that section 7(a), incorporated by reference into section 8, required a defendant to have complied with section 4 in order to invoke section 8. The majority agreed with the defendants that “the MMMA provides two ways in which to show legal use of marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with the act. Individuals may either register and obtain a registry identification card under § 4 or remain unregistered and, if facing criminal prosecution, be forced to assert the affirmative defense in § 8.” Id. at 10. It declined to address the prosecution’s argument that a section 8 defense was not available because the marijuana was not kept in an “enclosed, locked facility” because defendants had not raised the issue on appeal and it had not been fully briefed by the parties. It noted, however, “that the language concerning an ‘enclosed, locked facility’ is set forth in the context of § 4, not in the context of § 8.” Redden, ___ Mich App at ____ (slip op at 11 n 8.)

 

what makes the new ruling any different from this one?

[+Annnie]

In People v Redden, ___ Mich App ____; ___ NW2d ___ (2010) (slip op at 8-10), the majority rejected the prosecution’s argument that the affirmative defense under section 8 was unavailable to the defendants because they did not possess valid registry identification cards at the time of the offense. The prosecution argued that section 7(a), incorporated by reference into section 8, required a defendant to have complied with section 4 in order to invoke section 8. The majority agreed with the defendants that “the MMMA provides two ways in which to show legal use of marijuana for medical purposes in accordance with the act. Individuals may either register and obtain a registry identification card under § 4 or remain unregistered and, if facing criminal prosecution, be forced to assert the affirmative defense in § 8.” Id. at 10. It declined to address the prosecution’s argument that a section 8 defense was not available because the marijuana was not kept in an “enclosed, locked facility” because defendants had not raised the issue on appeal and it had not been fully briefed by the parties. It noted, however, “that the language concerning an ‘enclosed, locked facility’ is set forth in the context of § 4, not in the context of § 8.” Redden, ___ Mich App at ____ (slip op at 11 n 8.)

 

what makes the new ruling any different from this one?

 

The press releases for one.. and the fact that its the top authority..

[CaveatLector]

I wonder what testimony would satisfy a judge in determining that an individual is your patient, if both are not registered. Would an affidavit cover that? Is court testimony required? Is it the judge's call?

Generally an affidavit will be hearsay and not allowed in as evidence of the assertions in the affidavit. You would need testimony so that the prosecutor can cross examine the patient and caregiver.

 

In an evidentiary hearing the judge is the fact finder. The judge will decide, based on all of the evidence, whether the individual is your patient. Testimony, in and of itself, may not be sufficient. Just depends on ALL of the evidence presented.

[Dr. Bob]

CL, assuming for a moment the combination of unregistered patient/unregistered caregiver was even remotely acceptable, Would you not have to not only prove an association between the caregiver and patient in question but....

• The caregiver was qualified (criminal background check, drivers license) to be a caregiver?
  
• That the patient was one of only 5 max patients that caregiver could have (unless you assume it is a free for all, and each caregiver could have any number of patients)
  
• That the caregiver was the one and only one for that patient (unless you assume it is a free for all, and each patient can have unlimited caregivers)
  
• You would have to address the conflict between caregivers selling to any patient, and dispensaries/farmers markets. How are they different? If one is legal and the other not, why?
  
• If the current registry limits on 5 patients per caregiver and 1 caregiver per patient no longer applies, why doesn't it and has it been ruled on yet?
  
• Does compensation matter?
  

Just some of the many questions folks 'going bare' need to be prepared to answer I would think, but I am wondering what someone with the proper training thinks. I personally don't think this is a tenable position, but to each their own- it is their skins at risk.

 

 

 

Dr. Bob

[peanutbutter]

CL, assuming for a moment the combination of unregistered patient/unregistered caregiver was even remotely acceptable, Would you not have to not only prove an association between the caregiver and patient in question but....

• The caregiver was qualified (criminal background check, drivers license) to be a caregiver?
  
• That the patient was one of only 5 max patients that caregiver could have (unless you assume it is a free for all, and each caregiver could have any number of patients)
  
• That the caregiver was the one and only one for that patient (unless you assume it is a free for all, and each patient can have unlimited caregivers)
  
• You would have to address the conflict between caregivers selling to any patient, and dispensaries/farmers markets. How are they different? If one is legal and the other not, why?
  
• If the current registry limits on 5 patients per caregiver and 1 caregiver per patient no longer applies, why doesn't it and has it been ruled on yet?
  
• Does compensation matter?
  

Just some of the many questions folks 'going bare' need to be prepared to answer I would think, but I am wondering what someone with the proper training thinks. I personally don't think this is a tenable position, but to each their own- it is their skins at risk.

 

 

 

Dr. Bob

 

The AD doesn't limit it to five.

The Supreme Court and Bill Schuette says unregistered patients are covered under our law. Next step is to realize these patients can have a caregiver. Someone that supplies cannabis to that patient.

 

Can you change your caregiver? Sure .. no problem.

If you don't have to register that change, how long does the change require to be effective? There was no answer provided in the law.

 

2.5 ounces and 12 plants are located in section 4. Just like that locked enclosure.

 

And no .. the unregistered caregiver has never been ruled on.

[Croppled1]

 

 

2.5 oz. unless you want to take your chances in court.

 

As a Doctor who knows what plants weigh and patients require don't you believe this limit needs to be done away with by the legislators since their changing things . Truely it is nearly impossible to comply with and harvest at the right times . I always feel like poeple forget how sick some are and how injured patients can become without a appropriate detoxification facility in the State that utilizes very slow step down meds compouned from what the patient is on in cases of severe complications like many have . It is so sad to see even the addicts dieing from tough love abusive care when their suffering and that patients are treated like they are is just trajic and barberic . I can't believe patients must still live in fear for participating 4 years after the program started and everyone is still confused about the rules argueing .The worst part of this is how it is a last ditch effort of patients to find comfort but now nobody is working for solutions which drove them to risk arrest and discrimination needing it often because of other treatments or surgeries that need correcting . So many patients also need better real care .

Edited June 21, 2012 by Croppled1

[Dr. Bob]

Still waiting for an actual answer to the question- logically constructed, not opinion and beliefs. For example, this law states this, therefore this logically is the result. Shall I restate the question? Basicially I am asking if the limits of patients to caregivers or caregivers to patients have somehow changed to unlimited, and if not how are we going to answer the other questions a prosecutor will ask, such as how do we know this unregistered caregiver is only servicing up to the max of 5 patients?

 

Would appreciate CL or one of the lawyers addressing it.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

As a Doctor who knows what plants weigh and patients require don't you believe this limit needs to be done away with by the legislators since their changing things . Truely it is nearly impossible to comply with and harvest at the right times . I always feel like poeple forget how sick some are and how injured patients can become without a appropriate detoxification facility in the State that utilizes very slow step down meds compouned from what the patient is on in cases of severe complications like many have . It is so sad to see even the addicts dieing from tough love abusive care when their suffering and that patients are treated like they are is just trajic and barberic . I can't believe patients must still live in fear for participating 4 years after the program started and everyone is still confused about the rules argueing .The worst part of this is how it is a last ditch effort of patients to find comfort but now nobody is working for solutions which drove them to risk arrest and discrimination needing it often because of other treatments or surgeries that need correcting . So many patients also need better real care .

 

Well once again you take something out of context. 2.5 ounces is presumed adequate by law for a registered patient. Had you paid attention to what was written, rather than just seized on something to make a comment on, you would notice that I said 2.5 oz (which is presumed to be for medical use) and if you want more be prepared to justify it in court if you have a problem. You don't generally have to justify 2.5 oz or less because that is written right in the law.

 

So thank you for your comment, perhaps if you took things as written it might add to the conversation.

 

Dr. Bob

 

BTW, I'd like you to justify what you said by pulling up ANY quote from me that gave a maximum a patient needed, or for that matter a weight of any plant. Otherwise, keep your opinions of things I have or haven't said to yourself as they are, for the most part, very inaccurate and filtered through your own belief system.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

Still waiting for an actual answer to the question- logically constructed, not opinion and beliefs. For example, this law states this, therefore this logically is the result. Shall I restate the question? Basicially I am asking if the limits of patients to caregivers or caregivers to patients have somehow changed to unlimited, and if not how are we going to answer the other questions a prosecutor will ask, such as how do we know this unregistered caregiver is only servicing up to the max of 5 patients?

 

Would appreciate CL or one of the lawyers addressing it.

 

Dr. Bob

I'll go through this thread when I have the time as it will require a serious chunk of time and text based on what I think is necessary to answer.

[Dr. Bob]

Thanks, we need something thought through. I just asked the question. Will await your response and thanks for taking the time to address the issue properly.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

The AD doesn't limit it to five.

The Supreme Court and Bill Schuette says unregistered patients are covered under our law. Next step is to realize these patients can have a caregiver. Someone that supplies cannabis to that patient.

 

Can you change your caregiver? Sure .. no problem.

If you don't have to register that change, how long does the change require to be effective? There was no answer provided in the law.

 

2.5 ounces and 12 plants are located in section 4. Just like that locked enclosure.

 

And no .. the unregistered caregiver has never been ruled on.

 

following your logic, if you don't register you can have unlimited patients, unlimited caregivers, unlimited medication, and you can grow it all in an unsecured location.

 

Sorry, don't buy it. Thanks for responding.

 

Dr. Bob

 

PS, unless otherwise mentioned in the MMMA, anything to do with cannabis is illegal under the PHC, so that really makes no sense. If something is addressed in one law, but not given an exception in a second, the first law remains the answer. As for the changing of caregivers, I too at one time thought if it wasn't specified it was immediate. I was corrected by attorneys and now understand if there are two very similar procedures (registration of patients and registration of change in caregiver status) they are both expected to be similar, so 21 days is implied to change a caregiver and that is the standard the courts are expected to look at.

[Croppled1]

 

 

Well once again you take something out of context. 2.5 ounces is presumed adequate by law for a registered patient. Had you paid attention to what was written, rather than just seized on something to make a comment on, you would notice that I said 2.5 oz (which is presumed to be for medical use) and if you want more be prepared to justify it in court if you have a problem. You don't generally have to justify 2.5 oz or less because that is written right in the law.

 

So thank you for your comment, perhaps if you took things as written it might add to the conversation.

 

Dr. Bob

 

BTW, I'd like you to justify what you said by pulling up ANY quote from me that gave a maximum a patient needed, or for that matter a weight of any plant. Otherwise, keep your opinions of things I have or haven't said to yourself as they are, for the most part, very inaccurate and filtered through your own belief system.

 

Why do you always attack me . Being disabled and dehabillitated I am probally often confused and making some errors but I deserve some respect as a suffering patient .

I just asked a question on hypothetically do you support dropping weight limits ( storage ) at grow locations as long as everything is from ones own grow ? Why did I ask because we need Doctors support for commonn sense policy and I wondered what you thought as plants can weigh much more then 2.5 ozs . the Federal Govt give there own cannabis patients still alive 9 0z a month , and a 90 day supply is standard now under medicare . People have been arrested and plants are being dried and cured now by the DEA stored for court . So how can caregivers and patients ever be protected under the current way the act is written ?

 

Well once again you take something out of context. 2.5 ounces is presumed adequate by law for a registered patient. Had you paid attention to what was written, rather than just seized on something to make a comment on, you would notice that I said 2.5 oz (which is presumed to be for medical use) and if you want more be prepared to justify it in court if you have a problem. You don't generally have to justify 2.5 oz or less because that is written right in the law.

 

So thank you for your comment, perhaps if you took things as written it might add to the conversation.

 

Dr. Bob

 

BTW, I'd like you to justify what you said by pulling up ANY quote from me that gave a maximum a patient needed, or for that matter a weight of any plant. Otherwise, keep your opinions of things I have or haven't said to yourself as they are, for the most part, very inaccurate and filtered through your own belief system.