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]

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

 

IN COURT, a defendant uses section eight to defend themselves.

 

Section eight does not limit the number of patients a caregiver can serve.

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

The 21 days is for registered patients/caregivers. After that time, their copy of their application becomes their ID card. See? All section four stuff. Although the 20 days is in another section, what you talked about is entirely REGISTERED persons or those that have applied.

 

ALL of those things are about being protected from arrested. NOT about a defense in court.

 

Not with what the Supreme Court explained.

[GregS]

Dbob wrote: "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?"

 

Please take the time to read section 8 without reference to section 4. Pretend for a moment that section 4 does not exist. At that point there are no quantitative or qualitative requirements except as described in section 8. The court ruled that the requirements of section 4 have nothing to do with section 8. An amount of cannabis necessary to provide a steady uninterrupted supply will be determined by the courts on a case by case basis. There is no requirement that a caregiver engage with only 5 patients because that is a section 4 issue. Likewise patients can rely on any primary caregiver they choose at any given time. Patients are not required to file a change in caregivers and no documentation is required, allowing said patient to designate a primary caregiver on the spot and immediately, even if only for one transaction. On a side note, the court did not need to address the "enclosed locked facility" issue, because that is, again, a section 4 requirement. As such one is not required when presenting a section 8 affirmative defense.

 

The MMA negates provisions the PHC and any other acts that do not square with it per section 7(e): "All other acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act do not apply to the medical use of marihuana as provided for by this act."

 

The first rule in legal maneuvering is to not tell anyone anything they do not need to know. Why would anyone else, most especially prosecutors, know how many patients a caregiver attends or how many caregivers a patient has had, unless some idiot talks out of school?

Edited June 22, 2012 by GregS

[+Malamute]

Section 8 has an amount limit of:

 

"...not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;"

 

That amount will vary from case to case. A common position to take and use as evidence to support your position that you had an amount that was "reasonably necessary" could be Sec. 4 of the same Act if you happened to have 2 ounces or something. It could be used to support your claim. The Federal program amounts is another reference point to use. Also, for what time frame is it reasonable to have a supply for? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? You can attempt to convince the Judge or Jury of your claim it was "reasonable". We will see how it goes int he courts. My guess is between 1 gram and 10 lbs.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The 21 days is for registered patients/caregivers. After that time, their copy of their application becomes their ID card. See? All section four stuff. Although the 20 days is in another section, what you talked about is entirely REGISTERED persons or those that have applied.

 

ALL of those things are about being protected from arrested. NOT about a defense in court.

 

Not with what the Supreme Court explained.

 

Thanks for your input. Perhaps if you re-read both posts you will understand what I am talking about. If you have two similar regulations they will most likely be interpreted the same way. In this case we are discussing the 21 day waiting period. Let's not confuse the point being made.

[GregS]

Who is listening to this guy?

[Dr. Bob]

As far as cropped's comments, I addressed those in a PM. I'll address his actual question here.

 

It is a very good question, why are folks prosecuted for plants that yield more than 2.5 ounces? What about the dry and cure weight vs the wet weight.

 

To qualify this, I'm not a grower or a lawyer, I'm just thinking out loud to try and justify this in my own head, and if there are experts out there that disagree, feel free- I LISTEN to experts and folks that actually know what they are talking about.

 

Here is what I've gathered from the discussion on the section 8 defense. You get arrested, you try and make your case to the jury. To make your case to the jury, you have to tell a good, believable story backed up by experts.

 

For example, if you call me in as an expert to justify your weight medically, the prosecutor is going to put me on the stand and say, "Dr. Townsend, the defendant had 4 pounds of marijuana, is that in any way medically necessary?". My first answer will be 'Ok the total weight is 4 pounds if you say so, I haven't measured it, but of that 4 pounds how much is usable? You DID trim it and reweigh the DRY FLOWERS only, right? And since you did that at the time of the raid, what was the original weight vs the weight now that it has completely dried? What was the moisture level now vs at the time of the raid?' Once establishing all that I would have to insist that an EXPERT GROWER come in and give an estimation of the moisture content that determines what is 'ready to use' vs 'in the process of curing'. Then and only then, with an accurate, measured weight of cured cannabis at the time of the raid, could I even begin to make an assessment of if it was a reasonable amount for the patient, based on size, condition, method of use, etc.

 

So the key points are, we need a doctor that won't talk out of his tail without having accurate information (and knowing what to ask for) who can be 'certified' by the court as an expert (good credentials, experience in the field, no board action or problems with professional credentials). We need a court certified 'expert' grower- good language skills, documented experience, specific training in the field, just like the doctor.

 

You know the biggest thing we need? A sympathetic patient/defendant. Good medical basis for the certification, patient was obviously trying to comply with the act, and the 'overages' were reasonable. The latter goes back to my feeling that 'overages' are NOT accidental, they are planned. 1 patient growing 12 plants with 18 oz of bud per plant doesn't just 'happen' you have to kind of work for that and know what you are doing I suspect. You made a choice to do it. Contrast that with the novice grower growing 3 cycles of 4 plants each that accidently ends up with 3.5 ounces dry after his first harvest. Which one do you want to be, and which one do you think I can defend easier?

 

BTW, if you are a grad of the cannabis college, present yourself well in court, and think you can get certified as an expert in cannabis cultivation and curing, I would bet if you put out your willingness to help folks in here, people might just contact you for help. We need you in the community, because I suspect we are going to see a lot more physicians and cannabis experts getting called into court to protect patients.

 

Dr. Bob

[restlesslegs]

It would be much easier if an air of superiority was not always injected in the posts. Having and showing respect for the other members instead of belittling them would make the posts more credible. Instead the sarcasm that is put forth causes people to become defensive and the meaning is totally lost.

[Dr. Bob]

I am sure most members are getting what they need from Dr Bob's posts. Those that do not wish to risk arrest have a clear path, those that are ok with a riskier path at least know what they are getting into.

 

I think that is a pretty good assessment, a clear path vs 'informed consent' knowing the risks and where the attack will come from. At least you can prepare defenses.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

It would be much easier if an air of superiority was not always injected in the posts. Having and showing respect for the other members instead of belittling them would make the posts more credible. Instead the sarcasm that is put forth causes people to become defensive and the meaning is totally lost.

 

Point taken, I just get tired of saying the same thing again and again, and having the same folks try first this way, then that way to restate the original position they wanted to promote. Gets hard to maintain respect for those folks at time, but we can all be polite. It gets very frustrating with other experts, like the lawyers, come in with exactly the same position I had, and they CONTINUE to try and promote the same thing. Just like folks that say I have no credibility to have an opinion on anything in here because I'm not a patient or caregiver. Especially posting it on another site rather than come face to face and have it countered.

 

Dr. Bob, Dr. Bob, Dr. Bob

[restlesslegs]

Point taken, I just get tired of saying the same thing again and again, and having the same folks try first this way, then that way to restate the original position they wanted to promote. Gets hard to maintain respect for those folks at time, but we can all be polite. It gets very frustrating with other experts, like the lawyers, come in with exactly the same position I had, and they CONTINUE to try and promote the same thing. Just like folks that say I have no credibility to have an opinion on anything in here because I'm not a patient or caregiver. Especially posting it on another site rather than come face to face and have it countered.

 

Dr. Bob, Dr. Bob, Dr. Bob

 

If you think about this maybe you can understand my frustration. I am not on any "side", I am a caregiver but I am and was a patient first. I am not here to fight, to learn, to help if I can, to share and give support. I am very tired myself of the whole thing. I don't understand why we can't all get along after all what is it we are all here for? Shouldn't that be a common bond instead of all the constant bickering?

 

There are things all over the forums that are posted right now, I don't bring them here but I and others could do that but what is the sense of that? It would be nice if the MM community could call some sort of truce. I am not sure of what all happened between members here, I was not involved in that at all, I don't even know half the time what everyone is talking about when they bring those things up. I am just hoping that some respect can be shown so we can go forward. Too much time and energy is wasted on disagreeing.

[Dr. Bob]

How does typing post after post about the same thing result in learning? Just curious, I learned by listening until I knew enough to ask the right questions.

 

Just a question.

 

Dr. Bob Dr. Bob Dr. Bob

[AKenewell]

If you think about this maybe you can understand my frustration. I am not on any "side", I am a caregiver but I am and was a patient first. I am not here to fight, to learn, to help if I can, to share and give support. I am very tired myself of the whole thing. I don't understand why we can't all get along after all what is it we are all here for? Shouldn't that be a common bond instead of all the constant bickering?

 

There are things all It over the forums that are posted right now, I don't bring them here but I and others could do that but what is the sense of that? IT would be nice if the MM community could call some sort of truce. I am not sure of what all happened between members here, I was not involved in that at all, I don't even know half the time what everyone is talking about when they bring those things up. I am just hoping that some respect can be shown so we can go forward. Too much time and energy is wasted on disagreeing.

 

Are you trying to moderate here? I thought you did that at Joe's site? Are you now again suggesting we all call a truce with Joe..not going to happen..so you can forget it. You have read enough here on that topic..so stop playing the clueless card!

[AKenewell]

And one more thing restless the MM community has called a truce..now that Joe is no longer here to bring division..get it??

[restlesslegs]

So much for the Olive Branch. There you go again seeing "Joe Cain", not about forgiving him it is about the rest of everyone getting along. Enough your contempt is obvious and I will not play either of your childish games. You can not either of you see an honest hand out lets make peace to safe your souls.

[AKenewell]

So much for the Olive Branch. There you go again seeing "Joe Cain", not about forgiving him it is about the rest of everyone getting along. Enough your contempt is obvious and I will not play either of your childish games. You can not either of you see an honest hand out lets make peace to safe your souls.

 

Are you just not getting it??? For clarity.. THE REST OF EVERYONE..(your words) are getting along..because your buddy JOE is gone.

[cristinew]

And now back to this subject..

[bobandtorey]

Section 8 has an amount limit of:

 

"...not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;"

 

That amount will vary from case to case. A common position to take and use as evidence to support your position that you had an amount that was "reasonably necessary" could be Sec. 4 of the same Act if you happened to have 2 ounces or something. It could be used to support your claim. The Federal program amounts is another reference point to use. Also, for what time frame is it reasonable to have a supply for? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? You can attempt to convince the Judge or Jury of your claim it was "reasonable". We will see how it goes int he courts. My guess is between 1 gram and 10 lbs.

 

 

i know when we were in court over 3 years ago the judge asked the Lawyers about this they told the judge to use Sec 4 as a guid line and the judge said wait you want be to use Sec 8 and now you want me to use Sec 4

[Dr. Bob]

While that is a good idea Chad, I prefer a valium/prozac salt lick in the waiting room, low cost and everyone shares according to their needs. I think things might be better if Restless would head back to her site, we can stay here, and all will be well. Just something for the admins to consider.

 

Sent ya a pm on a technical issue.

 

Dr. Bob

[SFC]

I love the passive aggressive postings.

[+mayorherb]

I do not recall that I put anyone down, but rather described the nature of this discourse.

 

By all means. Everyone is capable of making their own decisions where, when, and how to approach the issue. I am not about to let the argument that we must stand down and continue to abide as if law enforcements' rogue misconduct is the compelling issue. They have unarguably defined themselves as azzhholes who are too lazy or stupid to see and understand the writing on the paper.

 

The fact remains that patients have not heretofore been allowed to be kept off the battlefield. We have been abused and butt raped, and have zero obligation to the government to contine taking it.

AMEN !!!

[Highlander]

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.

 

 

 

I think the answer is in the law,and that answer lies in the omission of the word "registered" to modify "primary caregiver" as it relates to supplying MMJ:

 

I do not believe that a bona fide CG must wait 21 days to provide a bona fide patient with mmj, and I’m putting forth my reasoning for others to consider:

 

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

 

(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, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

 

(3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.

 

© A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

Notice how Section 4 uses “registered” in some locations and not in others. In statutory interpretation, the use of a word/words in one location and not another must be construed as intentional. The question I pose is: Why does the Act allow a “primary caregiver” to possess 2.5 oz of marijuana for a “qualifying patient” but a CG can only have 12 plants for a REGISTERED qualifying patient…and only a REGISTERED CG can receive compensation from a REGISTERED qualifying patient.

 

The use of “registered” in one location and not another is intentional. If the drafter of the Act had intended for a primary CG to wait for some period of time before supply a bona fide patient with MMJ, then the word, "REGISTERED," would have to have been included before every instance of "primary caregiver" and "qualifying patient" in section 4. The only reasonable conclusion here is that the drafter of the act specifically intended for a registered caregiver to be protected for more activities than a not-yet-registered CG.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Highlander

[MiDelServ]

AMEN !!!

 

 

Well stated, Both of you.

[MiDelServ]

I think the answer is in the law,and that answer lies in the omission of the word "registered" to modify "primary caregiver" as it relates to supplying MMJ:

 

I do not believe that a bona fide CG must wait 21 days to provide a bona fide patient with mmj, and I’m putting forth my reasoning for others to consider:

 

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

 

(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, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

 

(3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.

 

© A person shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act, unless the person's behavior is such that it creates an unreasonable danger to the minor that can be clearly articulated and substantiated.

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

 

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

 

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

Notice how Section 4 uses “registered” in some locations and not in others. In statutory interpretation, the use of a word/words in one location and not another must be construed as intentional. The question I pose is: Why does the Act allow a “primary caregiver” to possess 2.5 oz of marijuana for a “qualifying patient” but a CG can only have 12 plants for a REGISTERED qualifying patient…and only a REGISTERED CG can receive compensation from a REGISTERED qualifying patient.

 

The use of “registered” in one location and not another is intentional. If the drafter of the Act had intended for a primary CG to wait for some period of time before supply a bona fide patient with MMJ, then the word, "REGISTERED," would have to have been included before every instance of "primary caregiver" and "qualifying patient" in section 4. The only reasonable conclusion here is that the drafter of the act specifically intended for a registered caregiver to be protected for more activities than a not-yet-registered CG.

 

Thank you! Nicely stated. I believe the Supreme Court just handed down a Ruling end of May, that infact, codifies the Intent of the People Must be Upheld, and given the Broad understanding of the words of the medical marihuana law. That ruling was very decisive in what they said in the very rare appendixed brief in the end of it.

I figured this site would of been aware of this monumental ruling and the understanding the State must take when interpreting this Act. Broad and As the General Citizen would interprit it, not how a Legal Professional, Insurance Professional, Medical Professional would, but as John Q Public would understand it.

 

Seems very strange to me that a medical marihuana site would rather bow down to invalid interpretations, instead of holding strong to what was given to the CItizens of the State, by the Citizens of the State. My goodness, so many sheeple anymore.

 

It's really quite sad that So many have forgotten what our grandfathers, fathers, brothers and our sons, and now even our daughters die for every day they fight in a Military Exercise, while their homeland is being stripped of the rights they are fighting and dying to protect. While they protect our freedoms (even if we were falsely lead to the fight) away from home, is it OUR Duty, to protect their freedoms while they are away.

 

Seems like most here just dont care about their civic duties while they cheer for our dying loved ones.

KInd of shamefull not to atleast try.

 

Dont you think?

MDS

[GregS]

Thank you! Nicely stated. I believe the Supreme Court just handed down a Ruling end of May, that infact, codifies the Intent of the People Must be Upheld, and given the Broad understanding of the words of the medical marihuana law. That ruling was very decisive in what they said in the very rare appendixed brief in the end of it.

I figured this site would of been aware of this monumental ruling and the understanding the State must take when interpreting this Act. Broad and As the General Citizen would interprit it, not how a Legal Professional, Insurance Professional, Medical Professional would, but as John Q Public would understand it.

 

Seems very strange to me that a medical marihuana site would rather bow down to invalid interpretations, instead of holding strong to what was given to the CItizens of the State, by the Citizens of the State. My goodness, so many sheeple anymore.

 

It's really quite sad that So many have forgotten what our grandfathers, fathers, brothers and our sons, and now even our daughters die for every day they fight in a Military Exercise, while their homeland is being stripped of the rights they are fighting and dying to protect. While they protect our freedoms (even if we were falsely lead to the fight) away from home, is it OUR Duty, to protect their freedoms while they are away.

 

Seems like most here just dont care about their civic duties while they cheer for our dying loved ones.

KInd of shamefull not to atleast try.

 

Dont you think?

MDS

 

It is already old news here.

 

The the rulings and options have been picked over and stated and restated. A search of the forums of the last several weeks offers what you complain is not here.