Patient To Patient Transfers?

[CaveatLector]

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.

I would have to agree.

 

There are many people locked in debate and going to the coa and s ct over a plethora of issues that are not mm related. Each side thinks they are right and, when things turn on a very slight interpretation of a law, many end up disgruntled. However, law is still made and the losing side will usually feel that the s ct justices were wrong in their interpretation. Such is our system. The losers can walk away screaming that the law was mis-interpreted all they want but the bottom line is that caselaw is made and precedent set.

 

So goes it here, in what we argue. You may argue that p2p is written into the law all you want GregS but you don't have the final say, And, just as all of the people on the losing end in s ct cases, you will so want and wish that the law is how YOU see it to be. But, alas, it is not. So, we play with the hand we are dealt. If the courts say p2p is not legal then it isn't. Can we get the s ct to reverse that or can we get the legislature to explicitly write such a law? Who knows. But we have to deal with the here and now regardless of what we so wish the law to be.

[purple pimpernel]

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 .

 

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 .

 

 

you my friend have broken it down very succinctly !

 

 

without condescending remarks or a rebuttal to the nonsense her--

 

I absolutely believe wholeheartedly in what you have written!

This is the type of lucid answer I was looking for ..I feel the same and agree!!

 

the courts have not spoken on this yet---people do need to interpret things more liberally within our protections

 

this area is where the next test cases will come out of---IMO

 

the SC said they ..."must give the words of the mmma their ordinary and plain meaning as would have been understood by the electorate"...

Edited July 3, 2012 by purple pimpernel

[cristinew]

purple pimpernel would you so kindly be the next test case for us? because i am a poor patient that cannot make bond or hire an attorney

[Hayduke]

I agree with Croppled's dream. That is for sure.

 

But that is not how things work today in Lansing. The Republicans control every major, minor, and influential job. Maybe you need to wait until after the Democrats get a toe hold to lay out your plan at the legislative level.

 

Unfortunately what is going on in Lansing vis a vis medical marijuana, involves alot of playing defense, and trying to neuter bad language, and trying to stall the legislative efforts.

 

Has it worked?

 

To date, yes, it has.

[purple pimpernel]

purple pimpernel would you so kindly be the next test case for us? because i am a poor patient that cannot make bond or hire an attorney

 

test case for what??

 

 

 

I don't do anything wrong as far as break laws....I try and follow the law whenever possible except in situations where my moral judgment needs to be used....

if my dying friend who had X amount of time to live and didnt have a card or believe in it asked me for medicine....you bet I would try and help a dying person feel more comfortable in their pain and give them whatever I could...medicine too!

 

or if someone in my phamily or even your family if we were friends sistren ...were in a similar situation...you bet Iwould help them get medicine too my best ability...or anything else that might help them....so long as it didn't hurt anyone or break any laws......

 

Isn't this what 'compassion' means?? so if by me having compassion I am breaking the laws well---

 

people in the court system right now are preparing new strategy for cases based on some of the new ruling---

 

we will have to wait and see....but if I were in court and I had a case I would look for or seek out as many other people in my area that are having similar situations.....I would help go to their court cases and sit in and bring others and do my best to network and focus as much collective consciousness as possible to draw attention to areas where the people ignored there rights were I would ask for help in my area ...I would become 'pro-active " instead of a passive approach

so I look for people's cases I can attend and I hope I can help---JMO

 

Do you feel that any court has made p2p not legal? After reading again, it seems that the COA just ruled that sales are illegal in McQueen, and actually backhandedly recognized the protection of p2p without remuneration.

 

 

and truedat it does look like p-to-p transfers without $ are in there---- that's what I am talking about....hopefully I would think people are going to use medical use Claus as a way for the ordinary plain language as the SC ruled to stand on...hopefully....and I hope I never see another case where the people were in compliance as far as the law was concerned and take a plea---

I would expect to see more jury trials with lots of dismissals----63%

Edited July 3, 2012 by purple pimpernel

[Hayduke]

It is clear as mud about p2p without renumeration. it looks like it has not been challenged or ruled on. Does this mean victory? Hardly...

 

Does this mean inform people P2P is doable and right on?

 

heck no

 

As I said to GregS...step up and buy a ticket, front row center stage...

 

your freedom on the line...

 

wanna do it...?

 

go for it....

 

but don't expect money or help if you fall from grace. Poor John Wells has been waiting for a week... I gave, did you?

[+Malamute]

They specifically did not rule on pt/pt without compensation. It had nothing to do with the case.

 

 

 

 

Quoted from COA decision which is binding:

 

 

This case requires us to decide whether the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA), MCL 333.26421

et seq., permits the selling of marijuana1...

 

 

Specifically, the “medical use” of

 

marijuana, as defined by the MMMA, MCL 333.26423(e), does not include patient-to-patient

 

sales of marijuana, and no other provision of the MMMA can be read to permit such sales.

 

Therefore, defendants have no authority to actively engage in and carry out the selling of

 

marijuana between CA members.

 

 

The question becomes whether the medical use of marijuana permits the sale of

marijuana. We hold that it does not because the sale of marijuana is not equivalent to the

delivery or transfer of marijuana. The delivery or transfer of marijuana is only one component of

the sale of marijuana—the sale of marijuana consists of the delivery or transfer

plus the receipt

of compensation. The “medical use” of marijuana, as defined by the MMMA, allows for the

“delivery” and “transfer” of marijuana, but not the “sale” of marijuana.

 

 

---------------

 

Until this case is decided in the Supreme court, this is the law of michigan.

 

Hurry up and wait.

 

 

And of course, we ALL want pt/pt tranfers legal. Some of us just have the wherewithall to understand that a COA decision is the law unless overturned. Until that time, it is what it is.

[SFC]

I cannot hardly believe two patients that gave meds to each other would have much to worry about, that doesn't make it legal, just I don't think any LEO are out there looking for that. Lets face it though that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about Pt to Pt with renumeration. The most vocal supporters of it are not screaming from the mountain for the right to "give" away meds, oh no. They want to be paid.

 

I also enjoyed reading your post Croppled, it may not seem like it all the time but that is basically what all of us would like.

 

Here is another issue with unlimited pt to pt or cg to pt transfer. How does a caregiver then legally move the meds they are growing for that patient if that patient is not using the meds specifically grown for them?

[SFC]

I agree, I think most of us would agree, but until some donkey rectum prosecutor decides to drag someone over the coals for it we obviously cannot say definitively. Right?

[purple pimpernel]

I'll say it again...."never say the word--Pot-- and sales in the same sentence"

 

 

first thing they told me 13yrs ago when I got my first card--

surely don't keep receipts....let the dispensaries do that--

and never say--'prescription' or 'license'....it's a ---"recommendation" from your doctor....that's how it's worded..doctors recommendation

 

 

 

but how do you explain all the Clubs still around and operating?....I won't mention any specific cities but they are all over...

 

and lots of crappy meds for high $$

 

so these people are clearly operating outside of the law right now but I think they know something we don't or they wouldn't stick it out so long as far as legalities are concerned....but you can bet they're under the federal microscope as stepping out first and showing their faces...I say bring on the dispensaries...but allow room for alternatives...I know how the curve will go

[SFC]

No, everything is not ambiguous now. But thanks to a few donkey rectums many of the things we thought were unambiguous now are. Correct?

[Celliach]

I'll say it again...."never say the word--Pot-- and sales in the same sentence"

 

 

first thing they told me 13yrs ago when I got my first card--

surely don't keep receipts....let the dispensaries do that--

and never say--'prescription' or 'license'....it's a ---"recommendation" from your doctor....that's how it's worded..doctors recommendation

 

 

 

but how do you explain all the Clubs still around and operating?....I won't mention any specific cities but they are all over...

 

and lots of crappy meds for high $$

 

so these people are clearly operating outside of the law right now but I think they know something we don't or they wouldn't stick it out so long as far as legalities are concerned....but you can bet they're under the federal microscope as stepping out first and showing their faces...I say bring on the dispensaries...but allow room for alternatives...I know how the curve will go

 

Yes, they are most likely operating illegally. It's illegal to speed too but not everyone gets in trouble for doing it.

 

How do they get away with it? Not enough LEO manpower. They've been experiencing budget cuts too.

[Dilligaf]

 

How do they get away with it? Not enough LEO manpower. They've been experiencing budget cuts too.

 

Actually with forfeiture laws that gives them more of a reason to raid them, not less.

[SFC]

Yea, that is a good and valid question. I have often said I figured the drug units were waiting for them to build up some wealth before going after them, or string together enough people to really hit us hard, but that hasn't really happened. Maybe some of the drug units really just do not care or feel dispensaries are a public safety threat? Man power is not the reason in my opinion. There are not enough dispensaries that they couldn't easily pick off a couple a week if they chose too.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Doesn't the law state that NO ONE (patient or bystander) can be prosecuted for assisting a patient in the use of medical marijuana? Wouldn't this mean that if someone fills a vaporizer with meds, puts the mouthpiece in the patients mouth, and applies heat, they are immune from prosecution? "assisting in the use of medical marijuana" means the acqusition, transfer, etc. of medical marijuana. The language seems pretty clear and "unambiguous" in the law. I would bet that the Supreme Court would see it that way too.

Edited July 4, 2012 by amish4ganja

[+Malamute]

Correct. Absolutely, sadly correct.

 

But to the specific point at hand, if the protection for patients to transfer to one another without compensation has somehow been altered or made ambiguous by McQueen, then how can we call the protections in section 4(b) unambiguous, since they are worded identically?

 

While I realize this may seem like a bit of revisionism, it seems to me that McQueen killed sales more than it did p2p, and in the way they killed sales, they clarified that transfer and delivery without compensation are allowed.

'

 

Sec 4(a) and (b) are not worded identically. reread.

[+Malamute]

Doesn't the law state that NO ONE (patient or bystander) can be prosecuted for assisting a patient in the use of medical marijuana? Wouldn't this mean that if someone fills a vaporizer with meds, puts the mouthpiece in the patients mouth, and applies heat, they are immune from prosecution? "assisting in the use of medical marijuana" means the acqusition, transfer, etc. of medical marijuana. The language seems pretty clear and "unambiguous" in the law. I would bet that the Supreme Court would see it that way too.

 

(i) A person 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, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

 

Generally correctish in what you said, but not wholly.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Malamute

[AmishRnot4ganja]

It seems that all the questions about this law stem from the voter's intent. I think that most people who voted for this law had a terminal patient in mind when they voted to approve it. They, like most people with a heart, felt that nothing should be denied for a terminally ill person and that no one should be punished for assisting said patient in easing their transition to the afterlife. The problems have arisen when some in the medical community decided that they would take a liberal approach to defining who should qualify for medical marijuana and have approved virtually anyone who shows up with the cash for a certification. This could be an honest conviction on the part of the medical provider or simply a grab for $$$, and since this is partially a subjective decision on the part of the doctor, law enforcement isn't able to question the judgement of the physician. This leaves law enforcement only one avenue to stem the proliferation of marijuana: hassle the users. The problem with hassling users is that the law is quite clear on the rights of patients and those who choose to assist them. Law enforcement is going crazy over this law, and everyone knows that people who are not in their right mind do some crazy things. I think that the Supreme Court understands all this, but that their hands are tied because they have to interpret the law in a manner that reflects the clear language of the law as understood by the voter. The voters just never foresaw how the medical community would interpret the law. Law enforcement's beef is with the medical community, but since there is nothing they can do to the medical community, they have struck out in rage against the patient community. It seems that the Supreme Court has decided that it isn't fair, nor the intent of the voter, to punish patients for their doctor's perceived sins. And so we stumble on...

[+Malamute]

Edit: Reply to Zapato

 

 

You have your court arguments in place for the people arrested for such transactions.

 

Let us hope they are not convicted and we will have clearer understanding and guidelines soon.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Malamute

[CaveatLector]

Do you feel that any court has made p2p not legal? After reading again, it seems that the COA just ruled that sales are illegal in McQueen, and actually backhandedly recognized the protection of p2p without remuneration.

No, I'm not saying that.

 

I agree that you can arrive at p2p being "legal" by using the definition of medical use as the vehicle by which you draw that conclusion. However, a p2p transfer is not explicitly allowed. It is this implicit interpretation that suggests that a p2p transfer is more fortuitous than deliberate. So the question becomes one of intent of the drafters, or, in this case, the voters.

 

I'm not sure you can imply such an implicit intent. If we're looking at the ballot language then I don't know how you necessarily arrive at such a conclusion. Using a plain language review of the act implies that a reader doesn't need to work to reach a conclusion. Using medical use as the vehicle to arrive at p2p requires "work." So do we want to interpret this statute with more of a legal mind and thereby allow p2p or do we use an average layperson mind--because I don't know that you end up at the same place by reading the plain language as would be interpreted by the average person.

 

Am I saying that p2p is not legal? No. It may well be, but that's not my call to make. What I will say is that there are arguments to make on both sides. When you can make an argument that something is legal--and also make an argument that it is illegal-- my advice is don't engage. With that said, my GUESS is that it will be found to be legal should it end up in the Supreme's laps. Parenthetically, that guess would have been the exact opposite if K&K had been decided differently (which I had fully expected).

[Dilligaf]

The plain language states medical use includes transfer. 2 patients transferring meds is medical use. No work, transfer is medical use.

[Chauncy Gardner]

It seems that all the questions about this law stem from the voter's intent. I think that most people who voted for this law had a terminal patient in mind when they voted to approve it. They, like most people with a heart, felt that nothing should be denied for a terminally ill person and that no one should be punished for assisting said patient in easing their transition to the afterlife. The problems have arisen when some in the medical community decided that they would take a liberal approach to defining who should qualify for medical marijuana and have approved virtually anyone who shows up with the cash for a certification. This could be an honest conviction on the part of the medical provider or simply a grab for $$$, and since this is partially a subjective decision on the part of the doctor, law enforcement isn't able to question the judgement of the physician. This leaves law enforcement only one avenue to stem the proliferation of marijuana: hassle the users. The problem with hassling users is that the law is quite clear on the rights of patients and those who choose to assist them. Law enforcement is going crazy over this law, and everyone knows that people who are not in their right mind do some crazy things. I think that the Supreme Court understands all this, but that their hands are tied because they have to interpret the law in a manner that reflects the clear language of the law as understood by the voter. The voters just never foresaw how the medical community would interpret the law. Law enforcement's beef is with the medical community, but since there is nothing they can do to the medical community, they have struck out in rage against the patient community. It seems that the Supreme Court has decided that it isn't fair, nor the intent of the voter, to punish patients for their doctor's perceived sins. And so we stumble on...

 

 

I don't think the law says anything about a person needing to be terminal. It describes conditions under which a person may qualify to be approved for the use of medical marijuana. Physicians determine whether or not a person meets the conditions. Some voters may have interpreted the law as meaning that a person needs to be "seriously ill" and seen that as meaning "terminal", but the law clearly doesn't say that. Courts can't make determinations based on what they think the voter had in mind. They have to interpret based on what a typical, clear headed person would logically conclude by reading the law's plain language.

 

The doctors aren't at fault for the current situation either. They are kind of stuck in a situation here also. The law tells them what conditions qualify for medical marijuana and they certify that the patient would get a benefit from using medical marijuana based on the patient's own statement saying that they feel marijuana would help. A physician's oath is to help people, but above all, to do no harm. The stuff isn't poisonous, so what harm would be done by allowing someone to use it? Apparently, none.

 

I agree with you about law enforcement striking out in a mentally ill rage against patients. What else can explain their behavior?

[MightyMightyMezz]

 

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.

 

 

You were referring to all transfers except for a caregiver to their registered patient, were you not?

 

 

P2P with renumeration is definitely illegal. You cannot transfer meds to anyone that is not your registered patient for anything. You cannot trade for smoothies, labor, or anything else!

 

 

[Dr. Bob]

The problem with most of these arguements about medical use and transfer is that both do not involve compensation unless it is between caregiver and designated patient, a specific situation where compensation is involved. The simple fact of it is that if compensation is involved, it is no longer simple transfer and medical use.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Unfortunately, there is a group in here that wants to say compensation is part of medical use (faith based logic) because they want to be compensated, and they will seize on any word, sentence, or 'opion' based on someone's reading of the law. I don't think we can get past that.

 

Dr. Bob