Patient To Patient Transfers?

[Dilligaf]

We have never said they are flat out illegal. We have continuously said things like "may be illegal," and "is questionably legal."

 

Maybe you haven't but others definitely have, do you want links?

[+Malamute]

 

I mean if we as patients give up our right to share our medicine between ourselves....??...isnt that our basic right to be able to access and help each other without fear of arrest as written in the medical use section?

why is there no defense when it is of critical juncture

what is the agenda of some folks? or their vision for us all?

 

 

i am seeking answers to questions that remain to be answered

 

and I believe a lot are searching for the answer to the same questions

 

Noone has given up anything whatsoever. We are all just working on or watching the only path to your answers as it SLOWLY unfolds in the Court system. It takes time. Years. There are cases littering the system currently that may address almost all the main questions we have. Many of us work on, support or help advance these legal cases knowing we will only achieve our goals on interpretation in the courts .... or not. It would be folly to think the Supreme Court will rule with us on every issue. They will likely take a very straight forward and middle of the line interpretation. Sometimes that will help us, sometimes not so much.

 

But i can assure everyone, NOONE has given up anything. It just takes YEARS to get these rulings.

 

In the meantime, tell people to be careful and stay out of jail. People act as if using a Sec. 8 defense is a walk int he park. At minimum it is a royal and costly pain in the arse, at maximum, a few years in prison. So , i tend to tell people to not ACT within Sec. 8 defenses, Act within Sec. 4 protections and use the Sec. 8 defense as a safety valve "just in case".

 

My previous comments about Pt/Pt is all factual information. I stand by that post because i could not change the truth. :-)

 

And finally, it is a tricky little thing to write legislation and think of all scenarios and snags that exist from putting a certain word here or there or stating what you want in a clear manner. In the case of MPP, as they have moved along over the years their "model language" has improved and has resolved many issues that existed previously by using states as "test cases". We are a test case. A specific version of the MPP "model language". They are learning from our shortcomings and strengths and improving upon what they suggest as language to legislatures or for ballot proposals. Groups like Drug Policy Alliance do the same thing.

 

A couple issues they have now dealt with that are not in our law are, yes, pt/pt transfers and CG to "not connected through the registry" patients, medibles weights, sunset clause for felons to be caregivers, driving issue and actually being "impaired" and several other issues. You learn as you go. You improve as ya go. You learn from our problems in Michigan and try to improve it for the next state.

 

 

Anyhow...

 

be assured people are trying and fighting for expanded interpretations of rights and privileges every single day.

[+Malamute]

I just realized why people do not understand the "Clear and unambiguous" compliance with the law position for the highest level of protection for patients.

 

It comes from the Obama Justice department stating in a couple memo's that they will not prosecute patients or their direct caregiver if they are "clearly and unambiguously" following state law. So far this is true. Obama has not prosecuted any patients federally that were following their state laws "clearly and unambiguously".

 

I forget that people have not kept up with the last several years and didnt realize where that term or concept came from.

 

The DoJ memo is the Ogden memo:

 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/medical-marijuana.pdf

 

 

Subject: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

　

 

"As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on

individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core enforcement priorities."

 

And then it was backed up again by the Cole Memo:

 

http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/library/Cole-memo.pdf

[+Malamute]

And just to add, if you support Obama using his Prosecutorial powers discretion to not prosecute cannabis patients, realize he just used the exact same prosecutorial power discretion to stop deporting undocumented immigrants age 18-30 who have advanced education. Same thing. Same power. :-)

[Hayduke]

P2P is the written distribution model spelled out in the law. Period.

 

P2P for renumeration was clearly called illegal in McQueen. A transfer for money outside of a patient and caregiver connected by the registry was made illegal by the the McQueen decision as well. The court has not ruled on p2p for no consideration, and they did not rule on C2C either, as I recall. Unless the SC overrules this case, and no one has a crystal ball on this topic yet, that is the law my friend.

 

Step up and buy a ticket and try out your theory if you are so sure you are right. Talk is cheap as a sideline non lawyer reporter. Yawn.... this is a silly subject you beat on like an ugly step child.

 

GregS, you are wrong and on top of that you give the same wrong info regarding p2p constantly.

 

Prove it my man. Then you will have cred. Until that... well you just play out like part of the lunatic fringe.

[cristinew]

Greg will you pay my legal fees in clare county? for my arrest?

[GanjaWarrior]

I just realized why people do not understand the "Clear and unambiguous" compliance with the law position for the highest level of protection for patients.

 

It comes from the Obama Justice department stating in a couple memo's that they will not prosecute patients or their direct caregiver if they are "clearly and unambiguously" following state law. So far this is true. Obama has not prosecuted any patients federally that were following their state laws "clearly and unambiguously".

 

I forget that people have not kept up with the last several years and didnt realize where that term or concept came from.

 

The DoJ memo is the Ogden memo:

 

http://www.justice.g...l-marijuana.pdf

 

 

Subject: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

　

 

"As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on

individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department's core enforcement priorities."

 

And then it was backed up again by the Cole Memo:

 

http://www.mpp.org/a...y/Cole-memo.pdf

 

 

why mention that....i guess i dont see how it applies as its just a cover by the feds...even Ca Ag has called the feds out on this lie.... they are raiding people left and right that are one hundred percent legal by their state law....so why try to add that bs in to out discussion...why not discuss our laws and just accept that as long as obammer is in power we are targets...even if you follow ther state law to the letter...even if you followed it the way bill shootee reads it....obammer would still lock u up.

[GanjaWarrior]

And just to add, if you support Obama using his Prosecutorial powers discretion to not prosecute cannabis patients, realize he just used the exact same prosecutorial power discretion to stop deporting undocumented immigrants age 18-30 who have advanced education. Same thing. Same power. :-)

 

 

nope he didnt....he lies enough on his own....we dont need you to lie for him. he didnt use that power to protect us.... record number of arrest...look into before you mislead people into voting for the enemy of our movement.

[cristinew]

who should we vote for Ganja?

[Celliach]

yes, that type of transfer has been ruled illegal by the courts and we KNOW that. It's the other types of transfers that we don't know about.

 

but you already knew that. I think you're just trying to find something to start an argument over. Everybody else does too.

[SFC]

Ganja, you are soooo wrong. They (feds) are still raiding dispensaries, yes. Patients and those in compliance with the law (clearly) are being left alone, at least by the feds. Do you think the other choice (Romney) will be friendlier to our cause? You realize he doesn't even drink Beer, or coffee? Right?

[Celliach]

why mention that....i guess i dont see how it applies as its just a cover by the feds...even Ca Ag has called the feds out on this lie.... they are raiding people left and right that are one hundred percent legal by their state law....so why try to add that bs in to out discussion...why not discuss our laws and just accept that as long as obammer is in power we are targets...even if you follow ther state law to the letter...even if you followed it the way bill shootee reads it....obammer would still lock u up.

 

They are not raiding patients and caregivers that are not part of a commercial operation. Obama and his justice department have said they will not prosecute people who are only patients and caregivers, and they have held themselves to that promise. They have aggressivly gone after dispensaries and commercial grow operations which is what they said they would do all along.

 

No lie.

[Celliach]

nope he didnt....he lies enough on his own....we dont need you to lie for him. he didnt use that power to protect us.... record number of arrest...look into before you mislead people into voting for the enemy of our movement.

 

What was this post about? I'm not sure I understood the idea you were trying to convey.

[GregS]

Greg will you pay my legal fees in clare county? for my arrest?

 

 

Sorry sweetheart.But no.

 

You are a big girl and any decisions you make are your own. I insist that anyone who is engaged in medial use weigh the options and decide only according to their best judgment. None of what I have said is false, but has been derided by people who have no legitimate argument that it is or has been, and so have resorted to name calling and insults because they clearly have no sound arguments to rely on to counter my remarks.

 

P2P is protected activitiy under the law. The COA has it wrong, just as they were wrong when they tried to conflate the section 4 and 8 provisions together in Larry's case, and will be slapped again by the SC. If we take the coward's way out and fail to argue that is the case, the odds that the powers that be will find otherwise have a better chance to prevail. Hence we have posters here who are working to steer us clear from those protections that the law intends. To read their comments is to realize that they do not want the law implemented to its fullest, because the people who hold their leashes want precisely that.

Edited July 3, 2012 by GregS

[Celliach]

Greg,

 

If you are so convinced that your interpretation of the law is correct, would you be willing to preform a P2P transfer in front of a LEO?

[Celliach]

Sorry sweetheart.But no.

 

You are a big girl and any decisions you make are your own. I insist that anyone who is engaged in medial use weigh the options and decide only according to their best judgment. None of what I have said is false, but has been derided by people who have no legitimate argument that it is or has been, and so have resorted to name calling and insults because they clearly have no sound arguments to rely on to counter my remarks.

 

P2P is protected activitiy under the law. If we take the coward's way out and fail to argue that is the case, the odds that the powers that be will find otherwise have a better chance to prevail. Hence we have posters here who are working to steer us clear from those protections that the law intends. To read their comments is to realize that they do not want the law implemented to its fullest, because the people who hold their leashes want precisely that.

 

I do have a sound argument. The COA found P2P to be illegal. Period. what do you not understand about that?

[GregS]

I do have a sound argument. The COA found P2P to be illegal. Period. what do you not understand about that?

 

I edited part of the earlier post as you were posting this.

 

The COA has it wrong, just as they were wrong when they tried to conflate the section 4 and 8 provisions together in Larry's case, and they will be slapped again by the SC, possibly in McQueen. As long as the SC maintains its integrity and intent to read the law in simple and unambiguous terms, they must find that Section 4(a) clearly requires that xfers between and among patients is the defacto means of distribution laid out in the law. Their intention to reason and rule on the clear language of the law is found in the addendum to K&K.That document is a rebuke to the COA and all of the other reactionaries who are and have been desperately trying to confound the law with illegitimate imaginings.

Edited July 3, 2012 by GregS

[GregS]

I am on vacation. Will check. back later

[Celliach]

I edited part of the earlier post as you were posting this.

 

The COA has it wrong, just as they were wrong when they tried to conflate the section 4 and 8 provisions together in Larry's case, and they will be slapped again by the SC. As long as the SC maintains its integrity and intent to read the law in simple and unambiguous terms, they must find that Section 4(a) clearly requires that xfers between and among patients is the defacto means of distribution laid out in the law. Their intention to reason and rule on the clear language of the law is found in the addendum to K&K.That document is a rebuke to the COA and all of the other reactionaries who are and have been desperately trying to confound the law with illegitimate imaginings.

 

Blah, Blah, Blah! You can say the court is wrong all you want but people will still be put in jail for doing it. That's your problem greg, you think it's alright for people to stand up and go to jail for your ideals, which are currently wrong according to the court.

 

Your opinion on this is just that, an opinion, and an uneducated one at that. You're not a judge. You're not a lawyer. Yet you insist people take your legal advice. How many people do you want to end up in court for following your advice?

 

I noticed you never answered my question about you doing a transfer in front of LEO.

[SFC]

No, he won't. Nor will he spend any time in Lansing or even on a local level trying to convince the people that can make a difference. No, on the contrary he will yap and yap on here that the COA got it wrong, MPP got it wrong, and if I was a betting man I would say the supremes are probably going to get Pt to Pt wrong too.

 

What I cannot understand Greg is why you are so adamant? Oh, maybe because the same scheme compassionate Apothecary used is the same scheme you were trying to convince everyone was legal circa 2009? Your desperation bleeds thru in your posts Greg.

[cristinew]

Sorry sweetheart.But no.

 

You are a big girl and any decisions you make are your own

 

 

BUT GREG YOU SAID IS WAS LEGAL,,

[GregS]

Sorry sweetheart.But no.

 

You are a big girl and any decisions you make are your own

 

 

BUT GREG YOU SAID IS WAS LEGAL,,

 

What did I say was legal? If you mean being protected by section 8 in its more liberal protections and that it does protect from conviction, but not from arrest and due process, I am okay with that. I have never argued, for instance, that section 4 protections do not protect from arrest. Several people here have been insistent that we only use section 4, and should not consider the wider implications of the affirmative defense. It is that which the SC clarified in King. Any patient or caregiver who would not consider and speak in favor of the specifics in 4(a), to especially include the reference to protected transfer among and between patientsn, is essentially handing the argument over to the anti's.

 

As for xferring in front of LEO., we are all in agreement, are we not, that they have continually failed to meet their end of the bargain? Because they are too simple to understand or too ramped up on 'roids we see them doing schit to us that is unwarranted. When they demonstrate respect for the law as I expect the SC to demand from them, if even between the lines, then maybe the reluctant and afraid faction that is here will be more comfortable in their medical use, and not continue to expect irrational police intrusion.

[SFC]

As for xferring in front of LEO., we are all in agreement, are we not, that they have continually failed to meet their end of the bargain? Because they are too simple to understand or too ramped up on 'roids we see them doing schit to us that is unwarranted. When they demonstrate respect for the law as I expect the SC to demand from them, if even between the lines, then maybe the reluctant and afraid faction that is here will be more comfortable in their medical use, and not continue to expect irrational police intrusion.

 

Wow!

[Hayduke]

P2P is the written distribution model spelled out in the law. Period.

 

What did I say was legal?

 

So GregS, without using your vast retinue of words, spell out what you say is legal. On one post you say P2P is the written distribution model spelled out by the law. Period...

 

to me this is not clear... are you suggesting the law is not being followed and the courts rulings are illegitimate?

 

So dude what exactly do you say is legal?

 

Please write in simple terms, I must be one of the fools because I can never get past the utter bs you put into your posts. Accusations of personal attacks and all, from who? Because I feel calling you out to give a clearer explanation is anything but a personal attack. In fact it merely calls on you to actually support your point with facts, not feelings or opinions based upon a non lawyers point of view. In fact your insults are laughable as you try so hard to discredit "personally" anyone who dares call you out.

 

I will say right here guy, I am calling you out as a pompous warrior as defined by Carlos Castenada. You talk and type a big time understanding of the law, that is not reflected in your pompous conclusions... that inevitably put unknowing patients who would follow your personal opinion and/or advice in harms way if they follow your succinct understanding of the law. You insult SFC and CPU in kind by suggesting you are more knowledgable about lobbying and what it takes to get the job, yet you never leave your home, never set foot in Lansing, and in fact have no support group, like CPU, to give you good legal or political strategy. You think we sold out? Well bucko, better to be in the game than being a mere spectator. I respect your efforts at trying to shape things, but sorry it just will never play out that way.... Simply put, your are out of your league.

 

As for predictions, let's test your vision quest.... how many games will the Lions win this year? Who will be elected President?

 

Dream on..... that your personal vision will be the new rule. How can you say that without any hearing or decision? What, do you channel the SC? If so why are you not on the court? 'cause they could sure use someone who could see the future...

 

Let it be said quite clearly, it is my opinion based upon much legal consultation and lobbying work, that P2P for compensation is totally illegal in Michigan today. If and when the SC rules on McQueen, we could have a sea change. And in fact it could be worse as well as better. Why don't you be honest and give a clear honest disclaimer that you know no more than any other yokel (like me) on this site?

[Croppled1]

I have read the arguements for 4 years now things never change . When I look at the program what I do know is for it to work for everyone any qualified party transfers need to be recognized as legal . I beg those able to go to Lansing to remember what it is like and to try to be aware of the needs of those who cannot . Many people who write on these boards cannot accomplish even simple tasks others take for granted .

 

Since going to the first law symposiums I have never heard a attorney recommend PTP or going outside a direct caregiver to patient relationship even CTC . This is why all dispensaries and FM's now only allow caregivers to transfer . I have been told it is very important when two patients trust eachother under the current law that patients growing their own plants also pair up and name eachother caregivers that do not hold plants giving both patients caregiver protections for aquiring and transfering . I have never done this myself but I would discuss it with a attorney if I felt I had to make transfers . I would be concerned this may trigger automatic thinking one was engaged in self employment hurting the disabled . But some are throwing this line of thinking around saying caregivers can aquire and this could protect both the downloader and the receiver in that case . Obviously transfers are a legal necessity of a fully functioning act in reality and it is sad nobody has created order by recognizing and implementing it as law . There has to be a cash market and more then one source of supply for patients who require cannabis as a medicinal item . I think many have been educated to understand and recognize that fact there is only resistance from caregivers overly interested in profit( who would actually benefit from cash markets ) and prohibitionists at this point .

 

You can produce supply within the law for transfers if everyone recognized them as legal ( they are not now outside a direct caregiver relationship ) if you have a perpetual garden .

 

I do not believe those operating in grey areas hurt or create risk for anyone but themselves and looking back Rosa Parks stretched legal limits when she didn't give up here seat in Selma Alabama . However those testing the limits of the MMMAct do so at risk of severe felony penalties that quite frankly need addressing having been mostely increased to unreasonable limits during the past few decades in Michigan . I cannot find anger as some do here at the thought of people placing themselves at such risk but I do not believe it is a risk which is reasonable to take . I pray for resolution on transfers and the driving situation soon before too many patients and or caregivers are injured and these current policies impose severe spillover costs for program participants .

Edited July 3, 2012 by Croppled1