Patient To Patient Transfers?

[Highlander]

This is a good time to play Family Feud.

 

Things I can own, you can own, but we can’t transfer for any compensation:

1. Liquor, wine, beer
   
2. Human remains
   
3. Prescription drugs whether or not we both have a prescription
   
4. Marihuana
   
5. A kidney
   
6. Cigarettes, cigars, tobacco
   
7. A car with a salvage title
   
8. Compressed natural gas
   
9. Any electrical equipment made before 1978 and containing PCBs
   
10. Used syringes
    

[Wild Bill]

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

 

Amen! How many times have you heard "caregivers" say, "I'm just trying to make a little money."

While this is normally an admirable goal, it is not helping the cause of medical cannabis by trying to twist the law to match your business plan.

 

I've heard more than one person say,(and genuinely believe) "Now I can grow as much as I want and anything I can't get rid of I can sell to dispensaries."

 

A wonderful dream, but not mentioned in our current law.

 

This is the same convoluted thinking used by LEO when they came up with all the "gray areas".

[Highlander]

This is a good time to play Family Feud.

 

Things I can own, you can own, but we can’t transfer for any compensation:

1. Liquor, wine, beer
   
2. Human remains
   
3. Prescription drugs whether or not we both have a prescription
   
4. Marihuana
   
5. A kidney
   
6. Cigarettes, cigars, tobacco
   
7. A car with a salvage title
   
8. Compressed natural gas
   
9. Any electrical equipment made before 1978 and containing PCBs
   
10. Used syringes
    

 

I forgot smelt. How could I forget smelt?

[CaveatLector]

There is more "work" needed to construct legal compensated transactions between patients and their registered caregivers, since you must glue together 4(b) and 4(e) to establish that protection, and even then it does not state what it means as explicitly as many seem to want p2p without compensation to read.

 

I contend that if a caregiver can unambiguously transfer to his five registered patients, then a patient can unambiguously transfer to any other registered patient as long as there is unambiguously no compensation involved. The transfer is protected by the same language from the same section.

I agree with you. The problem comes when you have a court interpreting the law. The court in McQueen forced a square peg into a round hole. It's reasoning involving sale is a tad disturbing. I don't know that we can count on the s ct to reverse that. Yes, they reversed the coa in K&K but that dealt with the affirmative defense and a fundamental constitutional issue.

 

I think the s ct was loathe to find that the people cannot exercise the AD in that it would take a huge bite out of fundamental rights. The sale issue is altogether different and I think the court will be more willing to let that fall by the wayside.

 

Furthermore, I think there is more "fudge" room for the court. If the court was able to draw a conclusion that sales were illegal then I think it will have no problem stating that p2p is illegal. I can see a line of reasoning wherein the court finds that "medical use" is a patient's individual right and that the term "transfer" within the definitions inures to the benefit of the patient and isn't a 2-way street. In other words, I can see a court saying that transfer necessarily means a patient can only be on the receiving end of such a transaction. An argument can be made that if the people wanted p2p then it would have been explicit rather than this serendipitous route that can be taken to arrive at legal p2p.

 

Personally I think there was no basis to find p2p with remuneration illegal. But it doesn't matter what I think as it is the law now.

[Hayduke]

Personally I think there was no basis to find p2p with remuneration illegal. But it doesn't matter what I think as it is the law now.

 

this sums up my opinion as well. Very well thought out post overall, thank you much....

[Restorium2]

In my opinion, it's not the renumeration that is the 'catching point' for P to P. It's the unlimited distribution stream that would result if there is no limit. The law says 5, it means 5. Otherwise, why even have a limit at all? Only an amendment will change the limit. The law, as it stands, has a limit.

[Hayduke]

good point Resto....

 

and in regard to changing or amending the law, I think you are spot on. In regard to whether the SC will take this position, well, I doubt it, they are more concerned with the law and the words, not the bigger picture implications...

[Restorium2]

good point Resto....

 

and in regard to changing or amending the law, I think you are spot on. In regard to whether the SC will take this position, well, I doubt it, they are more concerned with the law and the words, not the bigger picture implications...

The law has some words to the effect of limiting the distribution stream to 5. Words that would have to be set aside to agree to an unlimited stream, p to p. I agree, it's all about the law and it's wording, all of it's wording, used comprehensively together. Not a piecemeal patchwork.

[purple pimpernel]

In my opinion, it's not the renumeration that is the 'catching point' for P to P. It's the unlimited distribution stream that would result if there is no limit. The law says 5, it means 5. Otherwise, why even have a limit at all? Only an amendment will change the limit. The law, as it stands, has a limit.

 

 

 

how is the bill 5580 gona effect that argument?

 

and what about all the clubs...centers...dispensaries...still operating all over....how does that argument really speak in regards to these places?

If you are a caregiver and have 5 patients...and they are all caregivers with 5patients and so on....then you can have renumeration?

is that right?

and that is the distribution format that is in play here with regards to clubs..etc...?

 

and what if I had a house and was a caregiver with 5patients and say my son was also ...or my wife...wouldn't that be in the same box as clubs ...dispensaries...we could all legally?.....or is that what the new bill addresses with regards to growing as I have heard posted in diff--forums.....the bills would dictate where caregiver grows would be sanctioned and as a caregiver you would have to apply thru proceess and then receive and be monitored thru authorization of these type of grows..?

 

is that some of the arguments going on?

there are people with CCs ...centers...FMs...dispensaries..whatever....that want to see a vetted type caregiver program thru their centers clubs..(provision centers now is how I read it) ...that would narrow the path caregivers could follow and only allow strict unambiguous compliance with the new rules...thru these and sanction and legitimize renumeration between caregivers....is this sound like it?

 

I am just curious to the different aspects of this argument about P-to-P ....and then it becomes only thru CG--

 

and why not all 'private' clubs closed to only members?

wouldnt that go for an alternative?

 

I doo believe there should be room for alternatives.....but is that what clubs ..etc...will become?...collectives?....co-operatives?...groups in each area that will have slightly different but same but will evolve to that?

 

so everyone should try and get their caregiver card right?

then we can all be connected thru the registry...and thus allowing..??.....well

 

 

and happy 4th everyone safe and hapy!

and don't forget to 'burn' a lot of fireworks for the 4th since it s legal now!

Edited July 4, 2012 by purple pimpernel

[Celliach]

First, a "compassion club" is not a place where transfers are allowed. There are dispensaries that call themselves compassion clubs, but they just hijacked the term. A "compassion club" is merely a patient information and support group. It is a place where a patient can meet a reputable caregiver, but that's it. The CC has nothing else to do with any arrangements made between caregivers and patients, and no transfers of medicine, of any type, should be allowed at a "compassion club." Now that's cleared up we can move on to other statements.

 

and what about all the clubs...centers...dispensaries...still operating all over....how does that argument really speak in regards to these places?

 

 

People speed everyday. Not everyone gets in trouble. Also, even though they haven't been shut down yet, doesn't mean they won't be shut down next month, next week, or even tomorrow. LEO does long investigations gathering enough evidence to gain a conviction before raiding one of these places. The state has made massive cuts to law enforcement the last few years laying off a lot of officers. (That's why drunk driving convictions have dropped too.) Add to that the number of criminal cases that take precedent over the local dispensaries and you can see why they aren't all being raided yesterday. You can also add to the list that many local governments are actually friendly to MMJ and aren't trying to prosecute commercial operations. To use the fact that there are people breaking the law already so it must be alright, isn't a very good argument, and a judge would laugh at it.

 

and what if I had a house and was a caregiver with 5patients and say my son was also ...or my wife...wouldn't that be in the same box as clubs ...dispensaries...we could all legally?.....or is that what the new bill addresses with regards to growing as I have heard posted in diff--forums.....the bills would dictate where caregiver grows would be sanctioned and as a caregiver you would have to apply thru proceess and then receive and be monitored thru authorization of these type of grows..?

 

5580 doesn't have anything to do with monitoring CGs and they're grows.

 

and why not all 'private' clubs closed to only members?

wouldnt that go for an alternative?

 

Please elaborate. What about them? What type of private club are you talking about? What do they do there?

 

so everyone should try and get their caregiver card right?

then we can all be connected thru the registry...and thus allowing..??.....well

 

What are you actually insinuating.....and should you be insinuating it on a public forum?

[purple pimpernel]

insinuating?? ....no asking in a hyperbole way---isn't that how people would not have to worry about P-to-P as we would all be caregivers of each other---and circumstantially connected by the registry--that's how I could interpret it and I think that is how a lot of these clubs whatever see it ---a closed loop circle involving only CGs....??....insinuating that on a public forum? what does that mean I thought this I was a mmj forum to talk about all aspects..??..and what I was insinuating is happening all over --there are collectives allready in certain areas---

 

or is this a place where only unambiguous compliance is discussed? from a Leo or Legs perspective?

maybe I'm on the wrong forum trying to discuss these things---

 

but that is what comes to my mind---when I look at the arguments presented---

 

and if we were all connected thru the registry as caregivers---then it would be like collective energy towards the same goals---instead of just being patients ....maybe we have the wrong idea and everyone should at least get cards in pairs...and make each other their caregiver....as in husband/wife....father/daughter....

 

that is how I have seen other states evolve and started as groups all connected thru collective effort ---connected legally as in the letter of the law thru registries and health dept cards...sheriff cards ...etc

 

Michigan has the largest amount of mmj patients right now outside of california......almost 200,000 people have cards or caregiver status....and it has leveled off and even dropped since shuette fear campaign--

 

the CCs statement about being a information center..??....I believe it is just a way to vette caregivers....and a constrictive way...JMO

 

but I do believe at some point that thru the process we will all be connected thru registry...doc recommendation...caregiver status....

 

all though I must admit I am extremely concerned about the bona fide dr clause and I believe a lot of people will be eliminated from the program because of improper documentation or some of the restrictions they are trying to put in their towards qualifying conditions---

 

I also believe there will be more folks that won't renew their cards and I have spoken with a few

 

 

 

and what are you insinuating?

 

 

have a bang fourth!

Edited July 4, 2012 by purple pimpernel

[Celliach]

Well I've been helping run the DCCC since it's inception in Jan. 2009 and the only CG we have ever banned form the club was totally screwing patients over and wouldn't make good on it when we approached him about it. There's no vetting process at all. We keep a list of caregivers with a slot open and when a patient needs a caregiver we give them the whole list and suggest they call several people and do some comparative shopping before deciding on a CG.

 

That's the model we'd like the new 3MA CC network to be based on. If that's vetting CGs, maybe more of us should be doing it. At the DCCC we spend way more time helping new patients than we do helping CGs get patients.

 

All connected through the registry? That will never happen. I live as far from Lansing as the city of Philadelphia, up in the UP. How do you think I will be connected to people in south Detroit except by a "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" type of relationship?

 

I don't think people will get kicked out of the registry because of their doctor, However, the doctor's recommendations may not be recognized by the state if he/she was blatantly flaunting the law.

[JohnnyC]

Malamute are you a Leo or do you have any affiliation with any type of a Lea?

Edited July 4, 2012 by JohnnyC

[CaveatLector]

Malamute are you a Leo or do you have any affiliation with any type of a Lea?

Johnny, are you a commie or do you have an affiliation with the communist party? McCarthy wants to know.

[Spartyon]

Are seeds legal to exchange p2p with compensation? What is the mmma position?

[CaveatLector]

Are seeds legal to exchange p2p with compensation? What is the mmma position?

 

Seeds will likely fall into the same category as mm in regard to compensation. Using the reasoning from McQueen--seeds are illegal under the CSA. The MMA grants immunity for possession and maybe transfer but sale is not protected. I don't agree with McQueen but unless it is reversed I would see trial courts adopting that reasoning.

[Celliach]

Malamute are you a Leo or do you have any affiliation with any type of a Lea?

 

Wow! Are you serious?

 

Malamute has done more thankless work to further the rights of MMJ patients than anyone I know in the state of Michigan over the last two years.

 

That just goes to show you how out of touch you are with what's actually going on.

[Celliach]

Are seeds legal to exchange p2p with compensation? What is the mmma position?

I would have to say that seeds for compensation is not legal. I am not giving that opinion as an official stance of the 3MA however.

 

The law doesn't clearly make seeds legal, it's just has a provision for "incidental" seeds. Once you separate the seeds and package them to transfer them, I don't think they can be considered incidental anymore. At that point they probably would no longer fall under MMMA protections.

 

Giving them away may be totally different than receiving compensation too.

[Hayduke]

This thread has gone sideways. Malamute is a close friend of mine. He is not a Leo, and it is pretty darn rude of you to suggest this. I guess with 27 posts and a location like Kush Clouds, that is the kind of dumb stuff that gets ask. With that attitude you best put on a rain suit Johnny C, because ya'll are gonna take some criticism.

 

What have you done to make the medical marijuana world better? Fill me in on your resume?

 

I understand unambiguous compliance. We have suggested as much over at CPU for a couple years. To expect a copywritten position from 3MA is ridiculous, the landscape changes pretty frequently for anything to be put into rubber stamp territory. The best you can hope for is truthful and candid responses based upon their best guess. To expect them to do more is placing unreal expectations into the mix.

[Celliach]

Malamute is a close friend of mine. He is not a Leo, and it is pretty darn rude of you to suggest this.

 

Yes, as a friend of Mal's for over 20 years I found it quite insulting also.

[Chauncy Gardner]

Dude, you crack me up. The smelt comment produced a belly laugh.

 

Anyway, these things can't be transferred with compensation. Can they be transferred without compensation?

[Chauncy Gardner]

insinuating?? ....no asking in a hyperbole way---isn't that how people would not have to worry about P-to-P as we would all be caregivers of each other---and circumstantially connected by the registry--that's how I could interpret it and I think that is how a lot of these clubs whatever see it ---a closed loop circle involving only CGs....??....insinuating that on a public forum? what does that mean I thought this I was a mmj forum to talk about all aspects..??..and what I was insinuating is happening all over --there are collectives allready in certain areas---

 

or is this a place where only unambiguous compliance is discussed? from a Leo or Legs perspective?

maybe I'm on the wrong forum trying to discuss these things---

 

but that is what comes to my mind---when I look at the arguments presented---

 

and if we were all connected thru the registry as caregivers---then it would be like collective energy towards the same goals---instead of just being patients ....maybe we have the wrong idea and everyone should at least get cards in pairs...and make each other their caregiver....as in husband/wife....father/daughter....

 

that is how I have seen other states evolve and started as groups all connected thru collective effort ---connected legally as in the letter of the law thru registries and health dept cards...sheriff cards ...etc

 

Michigan has the largest amount of mmj patients right now outside of california......almost 200,000 people have cards or caregiver status....and it has leveled off and even dropped since shuette fear campaign--

 

the CCs statement about being a information center..??....I believe it is just a way to vette caregivers....and a constrictive way...JMO

 

but I do believe at some point that thru the process we will all be connected thru registry...doc recommendation...caregiver status....

 

all though I must admit I am extremely concerned about the bona fide dr clause and I believe a lot of people will be eliminated from the program because of improper documentation or some of the restrictions they are trying to put in their towards qualifying conditions---

 

I also believe there will be more folks that won't renew their cards and I have spoken with a few

 

 

 

and what are you insinuating?

 

 

have a bang fourth!

 

It struck me while reading this that the situation of all of us being connected through the registry may be the nightmare law enforcement is trying (or should I say madly scrambling) to avoid.

[Kingdiamond]

Malamute are you a Leo or do you have any affiliation with any type of a Lea?

 

Not a chance hes been with this website even before i joined in 09 and he is definitly not a law enforcement officer.

[AKenewell]

 

Malamute are you a Leo or do you have any affiliation with any type of a Lea?

 

Mal is also a friend of mine…and NO he is not. I also find it rude you would suggest this.

[Chauncy Gardner]

 

I forgot smelt. How could I forget smelt?

This is a good time to play Family Feud.

 

Things I can own, you can own, but we can’t transfer for any compensation:

1. Liquor, wine, beer
   
2. Human remains
   
3. Prescription drugs whether or not we both have a prescription
   
4. Marihuana
   
5. A kidney
   
6. Cigarettes, cigars, tobacco
   
7. A car with a salvage title
   
8. Compressed natural gas
   
9. Any electrical equipment made before 1978 and containing PCBs
   
10. Used syringes
    

 

 

 

 

I neglected to quote Highlander when I responded to his post.

 

Anyway, this is a very funny post. It seems like it sums all this cockamamie legal stuff up for me.

 

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Government sure wove a tangled web when it outlawed marijuana.