Are Caregivers Allowed To Consume?

[Hempcheff]

perhaps the straight forward question that the topic should have been is:

 

does a caregiver have protection against zero tolerance....

[Restorium2]

perhaps the straight forward question that the topic should have been is:

 

does a caregiver have protection against zero tolerance....

And the answer would be;

 

YES. But you would need comprehensive test results that showed the levels were less than that of a user. And your attorney would have to make that case. It would be a test case. It would be very costly and hard to win. I think it is possible to win that one. Possible.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Restorium2

[Highlander]

perhaps the straight forward question that the topic should have been is:

 

does a caregiver have protection against zero tolerance....

 

I dont care to debate all this with you. You want to compare credentials - that's just silly. We could do that, but it isn't necessary because my credentials don't make a difference between what is black and what is white. I'm no attorney but have studied statutory interpretation (including grammar at a hard core level) for nearly 20 years as I have had to do so to keep up with regulations and rules that change twice a year in my business. I don't need to try to impress anyone with my background. I'm simply pointing out where the black and white says you are wrong. One doesn't need a Juris Doctorate to see that Section 7 says that somone without a debilitating condtion can't consume MJ. That's black and white. But somehow you try to make it all better in Section 4 and allow a CG to use marijuana.

 

I'm sorry you're having legal issues and that these issues could impact a mom and her kids. That's just sad. The number one duty of a father is to take care of his kids and a husband to step in front of a speeding bus if needed to protect his wife. So I can appreciate that if you're faced with "the system" about to take away your husband and father duties, that things will be pretty stressful.

 

I try to steer people to a B&W simple and conservative view of the law, so there is no grey, and an ordinary husband/father won't have to wonder who will walk his kids to class, his daughter down the aisle, who will comfort his wife in his absence, etc. Those who have the most to lose need to exercise the most caution. Noone wants to be a test case, and a husband/father has some heightened duty not to become one.

 

You keep posting these far-fetched layperson opinions of the law, then you complain that you're in trouble. It seems to me that the husband/dad should set the outlandish legal interpretations aside and leave the test-cases to those who don't have children to care for.

[Dr. Bob]

Just out of curiosity, can ANYONE show a case where a non-using individual got a detectable THC level from handling plants (caregiving functions in general) or being in a room with another person, or even two, smoking marijuana? I'd really like to know.

 

I'd like to know to the point that I am willing to run my hands through plants, learn to trim, etc and/or be in a room with two smokers for an hour or two, then get my blood drawn. I will know then, as I'll start with an absolute zero level, that a non-user could possibly get a measurable level by external absorption (not talking oil or anything intentional).

 

Any takers? We might even make it intere$ting.

[Hempcheff]

I dont care to debate all this with you. You want to compare credentials - that's just silly. We could do that, but it isn't necessary because my credentials don't make a difference between what is black and what is white. I'm no attorney but have studied statutory interpretation (including grammar at a hard core level) for nearly 20 years as I have had to do so to keep up with regulations and rules that change twice a year in my business. I don't need to try to impress anyone with my background. I'm simply pointing out where the black and white says you are wrong. One doesn't need a Juris Doctorate to see that Section 7 says that somone without a debilitating condtion can't consume MJ. That's black and white. But somehow you try to make it all better in Section 4 and allow a CG to use marijuana.

 

I'm sorry you're having legal issues and that these issues could impact a mom and her kids. That's just sad. The number one duty of a father is to take care of his kids and a husband to step in front of a speeding bus if needed to protect his wife. So I can appreciate that if you're faced with "the system" about to take away your husband and father duties, that things will be pretty stressful.

 

I try to steer people to a B&W simple and conservative view of the law, so there is no grey, and an ordinary husband/father won't have to wonder who will walk his kids to class, his daughter down the aisle, who will comfort his wife in his absence, etc. Those who have the most to lose need to exercise the most caution. Noone wants to be a test case, and a husband/father has some heightened duty not to become one.

 

You keep posting these far-fetched layperson opinions of the law, then you complain that you're in trouble. It seems to me that the husband/dad should set the outlandish legal interpretations aside and leave the test-cases to those who don't have children to care for.

lol, ignorant assumption, my legal matter is a civil issue, not a criminal one, thanks for the ....slander maybe, nah, just a waste of time

[Highlander]

lol, ignorant assumption, my legal matter is a civil issue, not a criminal one, thanks for the ....slander maybe, nah, just a waste of time

 

OK good your situation is a civil matter - I'm glad. My concerns there are relieved.

 

Do you want to discuss another subject, or can we get back to this floating definition of "use/using" between Section 4 and Section 7.

 

You said section 4 allows a CG to "use" MJ

 

Section 7 says someone without a debilitating condition can't "use" MJ.

 

Let's talk about that.

 

How is your CG protected for "using" mj?

[Highlander]

I would like to add that I recently discussed matters from an admittedly 8^th-grade level of understanding of medical ethics and was open to/adopted the differing views given.

 

When I post outlandish legal theories (see: CG doesn’t have to wait 20 days to provide MJ) I suggest that they are out of the mainstream, open to interpretation, and I ask for input from those more qualified to know.

 

See? I know the limits of my own expertise. I know a lot of stuff, but the most important thing that I know is that there is a lot more stuff I don’t know. You could probably post some awesome cannabis recipes and I’d eat that information up because the only thing I ever learned to cook was Fruit Loops and only if there was whole milk available.

[pic book]

Of course a CG may consume, if they are a patient. If just a CG? No.

[peanutbutter]

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,...

 

Thank you. You actually presented what a legal basis, for saying a caregiver can't, that would probably be used in a court.

 

The SC had asked, over and over again, of the rep from the AG office, that very question. Where is the legal procedure listed to determine HOW to cherry pick the lists. I was asking the same question that the SC judges were asking. So those that think it is a foolish kind of question to ask, I suggest you tell the Michigan Supreme Court just how stupid they are for asking the same kind of question.

 

As for the last fifty threads .. could you please list one?

 

SCF I guess you are trying to imply that the subject is none of my business. I'm already a patient and I'm not a caregiver.

 

Which parts of the law are none of your business?

Edited August 10, 2012 by peanutbutter

[Highlander]

Thank you. You actually presented what a legal basis, for saying a caregiver can't, that would probably be used in a court.

 

The SC had asked, over and over again, of the rep from the AG office, that very question. Where is the legal procedure listed to determine HOW to cherry pick the lists. I was asking the same question that the SC judges were asking. So those that think it is a foolish kind of question to ask, I suggest you tell the Michigan Supreme Court just how stupid they are for asking the same kind of question.

 

As for the last fifty threads .. could you please list one?

 

SCF I guess you are trying to imply that the subject is none of my business. I'm already a patient and I'm not a caregiver.

 

Which parts of the law are none of your business?

 

Wasn't the SC asking which parts of Section 4 the PA wanted to attach to section 8?

 

I don't recall the SC asking this question, and I don't see the question at hand as cherry-picking. A patient is protected for all of the items in the list, and a CG is protected for assisting will all the items in the list.

[peanutbutter]

Wasn't the SC asking which parts of Section 4 the PA wanted to attach to section 8?

 

I don't recall the SC asking this question, and I don't see the question at hand as cherry-picking. A patient is protected for all of the items in the list, and a CG is protected for assisting will all the items in the list.

 

Correct in that they were not asking about the lists of verbs listed as medical use in section three.

 

Instead they were asking about which elements of four were required for section eight to apply. A "list" of elements.

They wanted to know the proper way to apply the list AS DEFINED WITHIN LAW.

 

The office of the AG tried to use logic instead of law to arrive at their conclusions. That WAS NOT good enough for the SC. They demanded to see the law instead of some flow chart.

 

Obviously the SC doesn't ask either one of us what is important in their decision making process. I did note that they wanted to see black and white text. Not another opinion.

[phaquetoo]

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 ^.

 

some things realy do need to be thought about after reading it, if we were to just react before thinking first, you get my first reply, if I was to read more,(you did help me by pointing that out though) I would not come to the same conclusion, I think that is what a lot of people do, most def including myself and my c.g, now I get a great deal from my c.g it all started while the despenses were all up and running and alot of people realy beleived that p2p was legal, now I knew in my own mind it was not ( I do beleive a pt can get it from anywhere, it is the person getting it to pt who needs to worry if they are not connected thru the registry) but I took the deal, I had and still have a realy good c.g, only prob now is he is still trying to go at it big time and he dont have a legal way to get his investment back! he treats all of his pts realy well, Im not the only one that gets the deal i get! I was getting a full out grown plant about every 6 wks, he just cut it and brought it to me the day he cut it, for me to hang and trim and cure, now I get clones or a plant or 2 that are already vegged, Ive been kinda having problems with the plants coming to me ready for budd!

 

It seems after the 4th wk in budd, I start having issues, the same issues every time, the first 3 we transplanted from rock wool into dwc (mistake lol) and the next one he gave me a mother that he had for at least a yr, realy a pretty plant, it was in promix, by wk 4 in budd i started to have the same issues as the dwc plants that died had, fortunatly I was able to flush it out real well and get it back to well lets say good enough ( i know if he would have budded it in his room he would have got double of what i got) but im happy with what i did get, Now i just recieved 3 nice clones from him, he said he had one ready for budd if I wanted to come get it just call within the week, after transplanting the clones and topping them, I figured I might just do better than previously if I do it from clone and not let him do the veg process for me! Plants like consistancy and My room is nothing like his, I dont have r.o water, I dont have a.c, we moved them plants out of there envirement and into another and they didnt do as well as they could have, (speculation so far on my part) im hoping doing it from clone i get better results, we shall see, so far after almost 2 wks since transplant and being in my room they are doing realy well, im changing over to budd 4 wks from the day I transplanted them, well maybe 5 wks, Im also thinkin of watering my promix pots about a week before i put clones or seedlings in it next time, the pro mix seems to realy jump around on the ppm and ph level alot in that 1st week! but im not gonna beat myself up about it any more, just gonna do my thing and hope for the best, at least if I have an issue I know i can most likely take care of it in the promix, the dwc was just to much for me, im not looking to be a big grower or a micro bioligist lol, Im just looking to grow me some mm grade meds and take care of me and mine!

 

Peace

Jim

[simplyM]

Jim (phaquetoo) if you have designated a CG, you are not allowed to have plants ! He is putting you at risk ! as a patient you may only have up to 2.5oz of usable meds=dried/cured.

[CaveatLector]

Jim (phaquetoo) if you have designated a CG, you are not allowed to have plants ! He is putting you at risk ! as a patient you may only have up to 2.5oz of usable meds=dried/cured.

Not quite. You can have a cg and still keep your plant rights.

[simplyM]

no ,I don't believe that is correct. If you are a patient & a CG you have the right to your patients plants. but by designating a CG on the application you give the rights to your plants to your CG. You must select ONE of the boxes on the app!

[mibrains]

cav is correct, as a patient u absolutely can have a caregiver and retain possession of your plants...

 

a person can just as easily hire a caregiver to come assist at their home as they can hire them to perform the entire grow at the cg location..... each individual must find a system and arrangement that works for both parties... best case... grow your own.

[GanjaWarrior]

its is true....i myself have a cg and my grow rights.

[simplyM]

^ so your telling me your just a patient & can grow your 12 plants(It says on your card - Authorized to Possess Plants: YES) & you have a CG that is registered thru you(tied to you thru the registry system) & he can grow 12 for you! I DON'T THINK SO !

[michaelscott]

^ so your telling me your just a patient & can grow your 12 plants(It says on your card - Authorized to Possess Plants: YES) & you have a CG that is registered thru you(tied to you thru the registry system) & he can grow 12 for you! I DON'T THINK SO !

Thats not what they are saying. You never create an additional 12 plants, you grow your 12 and your caregiver can offer expertise and meds grown from his other patients or his 12

[ozzrokk]

Simply M you can be a patient and grown your own 12 plants and you can have a caregiver at the same time Just your caregiver cannot grow your plants when you designate yourself to grow your plants. ONLY 12 You or the Caregiver only.but yes it can and is done........

[simplyM]

Then you people are using the wrong terminology! Your CareGiver is registered/tied to you. Either you grow your own or you designate a CG. Its one or the other. Someone you 'hire' for assistance is not your CG! He may be a CG/patient but if he is not YOURS - He can not supply you with meds & he is not allowed in your grow room! If you were 'visited' & he was in your room you could both be arrested. Thats what this whole 'locked secured room' is all about.

[CaveatLector]

Then you people are using the wrong terminology! Your CareGiver is registered/tied to you. Either you grow your own or you designate a CG. Its one or the other. Someone you 'hire' for assistance is not your CG! He may be a CG/patient but if he is not YOURS - He can not supply you with meds & he is not allowed in your grow room! If you were 'visited' & he was in your room you could both be arrested. Thats what this whole 'locked secured room' is all about.

You are confused my friend. Go up to the patients tab above. Click on that, then click on "administrative rules." Read the rules, you'll see...

[simplyM]

thx Cav! & the rest of the posters! I did that. & learned something today ! haha good night

Edited August 14, 2012 by simplyM

[peanutbutter]

Then you people are using the wrong terminology! Your CareGiver is registered/tied to you. Either you grow your own or you designate a CG. Its one or the other. Someone you 'hire' for assistance is not your CG! He may be a CG/patient but if he is not YOURS - He can not supply you with meds & he is not allowed in your grow room! If you were 'visited' & he was in your room you could both be arrested. Thats what this whole 'locked secured room' is all about.

 

That is what Bill Schuette and several other power people want everyone to believe. That "both be arrested."

The "locked secured room" only applies to the protections of section four. That is, it is supposed to keep you from being arrested.

For a defense in court, it doesn't apply.

 

Now there ARE hearings that take place to determine if prosecution is even able to be conducted. This happens when the protections of section four are ignored. This then becomes a determination of weather section four was violated during the arrest. If so, the case can't proceed. At least that is the way it is supposed to work.

 

So say it is determined the case is eligible for prosecution. At that point section four means nothing. Everything is supposed to rest on section eight.

 

And the height of the fence, is there a roof, who has the key, how many people had access .. NONE OF THAT matters for section eight.

 

There is a very limited list of things that are required for section eight. Those things have been very distinctly listed by the Supreme Court. The enclosure is not on that list.

[phaquetoo]

Jim (phaquetoo) if you have designated a CG, you are not allowed to have plants ! He is putting you at risk ! as a patient you may only have up to 2.5oz of usable meds=dried/cured.

 

I appreciate your concern! but you are wrong on this one, I have a c.g he posseses my 12 plants, I am a c.g to a pt I possess their plant rights, it is legal and im doing nothing against the mmma rules or the law! If you realy beleive that please show me in the law where it says I cant have a c.g and be a c.g for some one else?

 

Im a pt/c.g or a c.g/pt which ever way you want to put it, Im pretty sure lara would not send me a pt card that says No on possesion and a c.g card that says yes for possesion and my pt on the back of my c.g card!

 

If most new people would start out as a pt with a c.g and that c.g teaches them to grow, they can become a c.g, now if something happens and I cant supply my pt with meds, I can get meds from my c.g to supply me and my pt or vise versa!

 

as a pt I can only possess 2,5 oz's for me, and as a c.g I can posses 2.5 for my pt and my pt can possess 2,5 and I can have upto 12 plants as a c.g, my card says I can(my cg card)

 

Peace

Jim