Are Caregivers Allowed To Consume?

[SFC]

I wasn't picking on you PB, I did not single you out. People just need to realize what we think and even what the law says are subject to the courts interpretations. Don't run around waving the flag and you won't draw attention.

[Restorium2]

Bottom line is they have tests that can tell the difference between if you are a user or not. Their tests will show if you just touched it or toked it. Keep that in mind when you think about this topic.

[Dr. Bob]

Bottom line is they have tests that can tell the difference between if you are a user or not. Their tests will show if you just touched it or toked it. Keep that in mind when you think about this topic.

 

What????

 

You either have measurable THC or not, they have no way of telling if you smoked or touched it. Touching it alone will not give you measurable amounts, I don't believe. I am sure some is absorbed, but will it give significant blood concentrations???? Wear gloves if you are concerned.

[Restorium2]

What????

 

You either have measurable THC or not, they have no way of telling if you smoked or touched it. Touching it alone will not give you measurable amounts, I don't believe. I am sure some is absorbed, but will it give significant blood concentrations???? Wear gloves if you are concerned.

The levels tell the story. You will never get as much through touching as toking. If you do both then you know that theres such a huge difference in what gets into your blood stream. It's not even close. The tests are smarter than they even need to be to show the difference. It's not just a positive anymore. There are many specific factors they can look at with the test results. It's not like a preggy test.

[Dr. Bob]

Actually, when it comes to driving and most other things, it is exactly like a pregnancy test, you either have measurable amounts or you don't. They don't care how you got it in you, only that they can detect it.

[+Malamute]

Someone already posted this, but it is about as straightforward as it can be. NO. If a caregiver does not have a serious or debilitating condition, He/She cannot use marijuana.

 

 

Sec. 7 subsection (5) Use marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

Isn't this like the 50th time you have brought up this topic pb? Why not just bump one of your old topics?

 

You could attempt to present a Sec. 8 defense, but without having qualifying conditions that a doctor will back you up on....well,...

Edited August 4, 2012 by Malamute

[Restorium2]

Actually, when it comes to driving and most other things, it is exactly like a pregnancy test, you either have measurable amounts or you don't. They don't care how you got it in you, only that they can detect it.

You are right. You would have to make the case. It would be costly, and there's no guarantee you could use the measured amounts to win your case. You could prove it to anyone who understands the science.

[Dr. Bob]

 

Isn't this like the 50th time you have brought up this topic pb? Why not just bump one of your old topics?

 

You could attempt to present a Sec. 8 defense, but without having qualifying conditions that a doctor will back you up on....well,...

 

Because on the 51st time the truth may change. This is the basic strategy employed- keep asking the same question again and again, keep getting the same answer again and again, then ask it in front of a new readership a few weeks, with a little variation, and the confusion mounts again.

 

What is the next question? 'I can secure my grow with a sign right? No locks are REQUIRED by law right, so it doesn't actually have to be locked, right????'

[SFC]

and aren't you a patient anyway PB? We all are aware of why you cannot be a Cg, what is your angle here?

[Dr. Bob]

You are right. You would have to make the case. It would be costly, and there's no guarantee you could use the measured amounts to win your case. You could prove it to anyone who understands the science.

 

Ok, perhaps I am confused here.

 

I maintain that measurable thc, from whatever source, is the issue.

 

Let's take another look at a similar situation. I am pulled over in my car, and my blood alcohol level is 0.10. I am driving and I am drunk. Does it matter, really, if I drank beer or whiskey? Does it matter really, if I drank it, bathed in it, or had someone give it to me IV? You could claim circumstances, like if you had a gunshot wound and were fleeing the person that gave it to you and they were trying to finish you off, but really, does that sound realistic?

 

It is a pregnancy test, you have it or you don't. The test doesn't tell if you enjoyed yourself or not, whether you consented or did not, it just tells you if you are pregnant or are not.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[Restorium2]

Ok, perhaps I am confused here.

 

I maintain that measurable thc, from whatever source, is the issue.

 

Let's take another look at a similar situation. I am pulled over in my car, and my blood alcohol level is 0.10. I am driving and I am drunk. Does it matter, really, if I drank beer or whiskey? Does it matter really, if I drank it, bathed in it, or had someone give it to me IV? You could claim circumstances, like if you had a gunshot wound and were fleeing the person that gave it to you and they were trying to finish you off, but really, does that sound realistic?

 

It is a pregnancy test, you have it or you don't. The test doesn't tell if you enjoyed yourself or not, whether you consented or did not, it just tells you if you are pregnant or are not.

I'm thinking in terms of someone losing their job because of a positive test. That person could possibly make the case, with the comprehensive test results, that they were not using, just working with it. Same goes for a jury. I'm saying the tests are good enough to show the difference. But with any zero tolerance situation, it doesn't matter.

[Highlander]

also.

 

(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.

 

The MMMA says a CG can assist with medical use - not engage in medical use. So a CG isn't protected for internally posssessing - but he is protected for merely assisting a patient with internal possession - see the difference here? Are you suggesting that a CG sampling meds is merely in the vicinity of medical use? That is absurd. Gimme a break.

 

You really do need to quit giving your legal opinions. You are telling people:

 

"5. A Primary Caregiver can use marihuana. (assist patient with medicating)

6. A Primary Caregiver can internally possess marihuana. (ingest)(protection from prosecution or action due to second hand ingestion ie smoke, absorption from application or creation of oils, lotions, edibles, etc... for non-patient caregivers)"

 

Do you know how silly this sounds? Look at some of the posts above and you'll see that a non-patient is specifically prohibited from "using" marijuana but then you try to say that assisting a patient with MJ is the same as the CG using MJ so therefore a CG can use even though the act directly says you can't use unless you are a patient.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff? Tell us how you leap from a CG can "assist with internal possession" to a "CG is protected for internal possession"

 

Please stop. Just stop. I'm sorry if this sounds mean but you are obviously not qualified to be posting these opinions.

 

There is a pretty basic principal of statutory interpretation that you seem to miss frequently. A statute wont't use different words to mean the same things in different sections. The fact that a CG is protected for assisting with medical use but a patient is protected for medical use necessarily means that they have different levels of protection, yet your post says they are the same. See the problem?? You are saying that "protected for medical use" means the same thing as "protected for assisitng with medical use." You also seem to think that "protected for being in the vicinity of or assisting someone with using" means the same thing as "protected for being in the vicinity of or assisting someone with MEDICAL USE."

 

You're wrong, and for the sake of those who might believe you, please quit giving legal advice whether you disclaim it or not. You are wrong as frequently as you are right, and anybody who gives your opinion merit is in danger.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Highlander

[Highlander]

PB: "How does a caregiver, that has never consumed, aid the patient in selecting the right strain?"

 

 

He researches strains and effects and tries to grow strains to address the afflictions his patients have.

 

How could a CG without MS consume MJ and then be able to speak to how that MJ could assist a patient with MS? How can a CG who doesn't have glaucoma use the MJ he grows and then be able to determine how that MJ would benefit a patient with glaucoma?

 

You are suggesting that someone without a debilitating medical condition should be able to use MJ and report back how his experience would compare to someone who does have a debilitating condition. Do you realize how small-minded this sounds? And how such statements make all of us look like fools?

 

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Hempcheff - Please just stop. For the love of all we support, please stop with posts like this. You make us all look like intellectual midgets.

 

Do you realize how absurd this is?

Edited August 7, 2012 by Highlander

[Hempcheff]

The MMMA says a CG can assist with medical use - not engage in medical use. So a CG isn't protected for internally posssessing - but he is protected for merely assisting a patient with internal possession - see the difference here? Are you suggesting that a CG sampling meds is merely in the vicinity of medical use? That is absurd. Gimme a break.

 

You really do need to quit giving your legal opinions. You are telling people:

 

"5. A Primary Caregiver can use marihuana. (assist patient with medicating)

6. A Primary Caregiver can internally possess marihuana. (ingest)(protection from prosecution or action due to second hand ingestion ie smoke, absorption from application or creation of oils, lotions, edibles, etc... for non-patient caregivers)"

 

Do you know how silly this sounds? Look at some of the posts above and you'll see that a non-patient is specifically prohibited from "using" marijuana but then you try to say that assisting a patient with MJ is the same as the CG using MJ so therefore a CG can use even though the act directly says you can't use unless you are a patient.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff? Tell us how you leap from a CG can "assist with internal possession" to a "CG is protected for internal possession"

 

Please stop. Just stop. I'm sorry if this sounds mean but you are obviously not qualified to be posting these opinions.

 

There is a pretty basic principal of statutory interpretation that you seem to miss frequently. A statute wont't use different words to mean the same things in different sections. The fact that a CG is protected for assisting with medical use but a patient is protected for medical use necessarily means that they have different levels of protection, yet your post says they are the same. See the problem?? You are saying that "protected for medical use" means the same thing as "protected for assisitng with medical use." You also seem to think that "protected for being in the vicinity of or assisting someone with using" means the same thing as "protected for being in the vicinity of or assisting someone with MEDICAL USE."

 

You're wrong, and for the sake of those who might believe you, please quit giving legal advice whether you disclaim it or not. You are wrong as frequently as you are right, and anybody who gives your opinion merit is in danger.

lol

[Highlander]

I'm glad Hemcheff sees bad advice as a laughing matter.

 

Maybe you could explain how it is you arrived at the conclusion that a caregiver being protected for assisting with medical use means the same exact thing as being protected for medical use.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Highlander

[Hempcheff]

I'm glad Hemcheff sees bad advice as a laughing matter.

 

Maybe you could explain how it is you arrived at the conclusion that a caregiver being protected for assisting with medical use means the same exact thing as being protected for medical use.

 

no

[Highlander]

no

 

It is too bad you can’t look at your own opinions with a critical eye once in awhile.

 

It is obvious that you have never had any formal or even informal education/research in statutory interpretation, because the nonsense you posted here and in the past is in direct conflict with even the most basic principals of statutory interpretation.

 

You’ll probably take all this as insult and ignore it, but I’m not posting for your benefit, I’m posting for the benefit of the people who read you say “A caregiver is allowed to consume marijuana,” so they can see for themselves that such a conclusion is not a grey area and black and white wrong.

The way I see it, if someone pops into this forum and reads something like “A CG can use MJ too” then he will either A.) Act on bad information or B.) Seeing no disagreement, think we are all fools. I’m trying to correct these two issues.

 

Here’s a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

 

I’d like to point out to your readers that some time ago you came to the conclusion that a circuit court set legal precedent that “drying plants don’t count” After the court tossed the wet plants out because the PA didn’t separate out the stuff that didn’t count (roots, stalks, dirt). I pointed out this obvious error, and I never did get the impression that you understood that legal precedent isn’t made in circuit court and I never saw you respond in such a way that you believed your original position was wrong.

 

So after you’ve read up a bit on statutory interpretation, maybe you’d be open to discussing your legal theories a bit more. Why don’t you give it a couple days, and once you see that “A CG is protected for assisting with medical use” means something different than “A CG is protected for medical use” then we can talk some more.

 

But if you keep the notion that .....

 

"5. A Primary Caregiver can use marihuana. (assist patient with medicating)

 

6. A Primary Caregiver can internally possess marihuana. (ingest)(protection from prosecution or action due to second hand ingestion ie smoke, absorption from application or creation of oils, lotions, edibles, etc... for non-patient caregivers)"

 

Even though Section 7 disallows anyone to USE “ marihuana if that person does not have a serious or debilitating medical condition.”

 

I know it is the middle of summer, but it is a rainy day so it’s a good day to do a little homework and then come back and tell us how the definition of the word “use” magically changes between Section 7 and Section 4 – such that the CG can USE in Section 4 but not in Section 7.

That’s a good start for your first lesson in statutory interpretation.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Highlander

[phaquetoo]

Well .. which items in the list of "medical use" are they allowed?

 

They can grow, for sure. They can acquire, for sure.

 

If there is an item in the "medical use" description, that doesn't apply to the caregiver, which one(s)? And in the law, why?

 

I would have to say internal possession means the pt not the c.g can have it in their system! (im not an attny so dont take my advise ask an mm attny)

 

Peace

Jim

Edited August 9, 2012 by phaquetoo

[Restorium2]

I would have to say internal possession means the c.g can have it in their system! (im not an attny so dont take my advise ask an mm attny)

 

Peace

Jim

Yet you know that isn't going to be legal. I mean come on. Do you really think that just because you are a patient's caregiver you can legally partake to? We all really know the answer to that. So why all the dancing around? The question asked by this thread is so easy to answer, it's a flat two letter word, no. You have to have a valid medical reason, not a valid caregiver card.

[Hempcheff]

hey, thats great that you can copy and paste,

 

by the way highlander, my name is bob, im a patient and a caregiver, i cook for a living and im married with 3 kids, i like sandy beaches and fishing.

 

we have been through this before, attacking me for my simple laymans reading of the law, but you have yet to provide any reason for anyone to think that your not just another me, with the opposite arguement, and you obviously dont have any real concern for patients and caregivers, only to keep the perpetual fear rolling...

 

provide me with some credentials, proof that your a laywer or judge, and that you have the authority to interperate the law for us and be right every time, and ill never reply to another of your posts again

 

otherwise, back off

 

you see highlander, im actually putting my money where my mouth is and standing up for the rights of patients and caregivers in court, this month, and my read of the law has been correct so far according to my council, (http://www.cannabiscounsel.com/) so lets see how it works out.

 

have a good one

[Hempcheff]

besides the prosecution will argue zero tolerance right? the amount will not matter, only yes its there or no its not, and the card protects the caregiver

[Hempcheff]

keep bashing me though, its cool

[Restorium2]

besides the prosecution will argue zero tolerance right? the amount will not matter, only yes its there or no its not, and the card protects the caregiver

Here's a thought;

 

If the judges ended up saying that our medical law lets someone WITHOUT a valid medical condition consume cannabis, then the powers that be(legislature) would fix that in a heartbeat. It's just not going to fly. It's a medical law that lets patients consume. Period. No one else.

[phaquetoo]

Yet you know that isn't going to be legal. I mean come on. Do you really think that just because you are a patient's caregiver you can legally partake to? We all really know the answer to that. So why all the dancing around? The question asked by this thread is so easy to answer, it's a flat two letter word, no. You have to have a valid medical reason, not a valid caregiver card.

 

yup your right! im gonna delete my last response, because of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation that does make it a whole lot easier to understand!

 

Peace

Jim

[Restorium2]

yup your right! im gonna delete my last response, because of this http://en.wikipedia...._interpretation that does make it a whole lot easier to understand!

 

Peace

Jim

Yeah Jim. But us guys, just between us guys, we knew the courts wouldn't let a caregiver smoke. And we didn't need to look in the dictionary now did we? LOL All we need to do is think about it for a second. And not wishful thinking either. If you know who you are up against, you know waz ^.