Jump to content

Michigan Supreme Court To Hear Oral Arguments 10/11 9:30Am


peanutbutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

This may be the most important case to be heard before the Michigan Supreme Court about medical marijuana.

 

This case should clear any fog about patient to patient transfers. Including when money is transferred between those parties.

 

Eight days from now.

 

The long debate should be over as a result of this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, lets make it interesting. Everyone make your prediction on how it is going to go down. We will see who is closest.

 

My prediction is Patient to Patient with renumeration will not be legal,

Patient to Patient without renumeration will be legal.

Caregiver to any patient for renumeration not be legal.

Caregiver to any patient without renumeration legal.This one is the only one I have doubts about.

Caregiver to patient connected thru registry for renumeration legal.

 

Then it will be open season on dispensaries. Maybe I will be wrong, but I doubt it.

Edited by SFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, lets make it interesting. Everyone make your prediction on how it is going to go down. We will see who is closest.

 

My prediction is Patient to Patient with renumeration will not be legal,

Patient to Patient without renumeration will be legal.

Caregiver to any patient for renumeration not be legal.

Caregiver to any patient without renumeration legal.This one is the only one I have doubts about.

Caregiver to patient connected thru registry for renumeration legal.

 

Then it will be open season on dispensaries. Maybe I will be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

I agree with the statement in bold. I believe that the SC will decline to rule on any other transfers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they do this, why did they pick it up to begin with? Is that not how current case law stands? Will they just restate the conclusion with a different rationale?

 

I think they will disagree with the bassackwards way the COA defined "sale." The COA didn't even use a dictionary definition of "sale." They constructed a definition for "sale" based on the appearance of "sale" as part of a definition of another word.

 

But then I think it will come down to two things:

 

A. "Medical Use" must be for the purpose of alleviating a patients condition or symptoms of a condition. Transfer for money involves another purpose.

 

B. If a transfer for a price aka sale aka donation - whatever - was part of "medical use" then there would be no need for paragraph 4e.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My prediction is Patient to Patient with renumeration will not be legal,

Patient to Patient without renumeration will be legal.

Caregiver to any patient with or without renumeration will be legal

 

Caregiver to patient connected thru registry for renumeration legal.

 

and yes because I believe that Caregiver to any patient for renumeration will be legal and dispensaries will be deemed legal and so will the model that lansing used. Time will soon tell!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point i don't even care anymore(i actually care alot), i just want the argument to be over. :-)

 

But, i have a feeling this ruling will be narrow and not answer all the questions we seek answers for.

 

So, i feel most will be left with blue balls and not get the satisfaction they seek.

 

:lol:

 

But basicly, we may have some answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point i don't even care anymore(i actually care alot), i just want the argument to be over. :-)

 

But, i have a feeling this ruling will be narrow and not answer all the questions we seek answers for.

 

So, i feel most will be left with blue balls and not get the satisfaction they seek.

 

:lol:

 

But basicly, we may have some answers.

 

THAT will def be a relief!!

 

I'm predicting that it will be determined that all transfers and deliveries are legal. Money or not.

 

Transfer and delivery are part of "medical use." The intent of the law is to enable patients to get relief. The only way this can possibly take place is with transfers and deliveries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no matter what they rule. they will still be 100 steps behind.

 

if they ban donations/money:

that doesnt effect a club you join with monthly club membership rental fees (and free medicine)

that doesnt effect a ticket you buy to get into a club (that has members with free medicine)

that doesnt effect buying a tshirt (that comes with free medicine)

what if you pay to see a doctor/nutritionist/consultant who gives you advice (and medicine)?

you arent buying marijuana, you are buying time with someone (who gives you marijuana).

 

theres no way they can fully ban money from changing hands.

 

what i wish will happen: the MSC rules in such a way to discourage law enforcement from jailing people.

 

what probably will happen: another bad half-ruling that screws up 4 years of crappy case law, but possibly clarifies one specific rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no matter what they rule. they will still be 100 steps behind.

 

if they ban donations/money:

that doesnt effect a club you join with monthly club membership rental fees (and free medicine)

that doesnt effect a ticket you buy to get into a club (that has members with free medicine)

that doesnt effect buying a tshirt (that comes with free medicine)

what if you pay to see a doctor/nutritionist/consultant who gives you advice (and medicine)?

you arent buying marijuana, you are buying time with someone (who gives you marijuana).

 

theres no way they can fully ban money from changing hands.

 

what i wish will happen: the MSC rules in such a way to discourage law enforcement from jailing people.

 

what probably will happen: another bad half-ruling that screws up 4 years of crappy case law, but possibly clarifies one specific rule.

 

They went the extra mile with section 8.

 

So limiting itself to one limited specific rule and no other guidance is unlikely.

 

Still, I think I'll have a better idea when I watch the hearings.

 

I don't think they'll rule that transactions take place where one party is law abiding and the other a felon. But I expect they will discuss it.

 

I think they will affirm the ability of the patient to acquire. As an absolute.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats a safe bet teeth, dispensaries are not mentioned one time in the act at all, other than the FAQ area, when they say not much other than check with someone else....

 

I disagree about it being a safe bet.

 

A caregiver is legal. The caregiver lives in a house. The caregivers patients come to the caregivers home to obtain their medicine.

 

Is that home, where patients come to acquire cannabis, a dispensary?

 

IOW what is the difference between that building (the caregivers home) and another building where patients acquire their medicine?

 

Say that caregiver rents a building where their own patients come to acquire their medicine. As long as it that caregivers own patients, you would say it is legal.

 

Does putting a sign on the outside of the home or rented building make it illegal for the caregiver to deliver to his own patients? Of course not. Even if the sign says "dispensary."

 

So if the caregiver delivers to a patient that isn't registered to them. Does it matter if it is in their home or in the rented building? No, it doesn't matter.

 

And it doesn't matter if it is in their home or a rented building. It doesn't matter if there is a sign or not.

 

Many proposed laws that attempt to regulate a dispensary would call the home of a caregiver a dispensary. It is a building where patients acquire their medicine.

 

There is NOTHING in the law that defines what a dispensary is. There is NOTHING in any Michigan or federal law that says how to tell the difference between two buildings.

 

Can a dispensary exist in a residential home? Sure can. So what makes it a dispensary and not just a home? There is NOTHING in law that draws that line.

 

What's more, ten people here, that are rock solid sure they can tell the difference could have ten different ideas about exactly how to draw that line. ALL TEN would fail to list in the law what a dispensary is and how to tell the difference between a caregivers home and a dispensary. Not one single shred of law quoted for that line.

 

So there is nothing in the law stating exactly what a dispensary is.

 

"BUT WHATEVER A DISPENSARY IS, IT MUST BE ILLEGAL. WE CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT IT IS, BUT YOU'LL GET ARRESTED FOR IT."

 

Ummm .. yeah .. I'm sure that the Supreme Court will make that kind of statement. NOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any reason for any of us to make up stories around this anymore? This will be ruled on soon. Thank Jah.

 

Pb, there are multiple issues with your points and sticking points to all of them.

 

Zoning

Business licensing

CG to unconnected patients for money

Sales

 

We all know the questions revolving around it. Arguing your side again for th emillionth time doesnt matter.

 

You can be wrong. I can be wrong. Everyone that posted here could be wrong.

 

Some of the issues MAY be covered by Section 8, but that doesnt prevent arrest, lawyers, court rooms and seizures.

 

Should be interesting.

 

But the one thing i do know 100%; it doesnt matter what we say. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The courts already rule that patients can use medical use - the transfer, delivery and acquisition of medical marijuana - without renumeration. I am pretty sure it will stand.

The law was intended to be compassionate - so it still allows patients to help each other - without compensation.

The MMMAct protected the 'compensation' for CGs by explicit wording -

" (e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances.

 

that is how a CG bypasses the crime of 'selling a controlled substance'.

It is unfortunate the MMMAct did not include this wording for patients helping other patients. To protect us, the MMMAct should have also included "a patient may assist another patient and recieve compensation, this compensation shall not be considered a sale under the CSA"

 

The dispensary idea - of a CG helping patients with profit - the CG is only allowed to assist the 5 patients he is registered to. So a CG helping patients he/she is not registered to, or p2p there is shaky. You guys can debate all the tricks to dispense, but call it what it is.

 

Be careful what you wish for - like some people said - once the supreme court nails down the law - it might not be in your favor, and it can incite police to go on a bunch of raids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I wish people would stop claiming a law that doesn't exist.

 

It is legal for a patient to acquire ANYWHERE from ANYONE. So new people are safe. Even if they acquire from a dispensary.

 

SO NEW PEOPLE.. The Michigan Medical Marihuana Act allows you to acquire. Even from a dispensary.

 

The question being debated is weather or not it is legal to work in or run a dispensary. No one is going to become a consumer one day and decide that very day to open a dispensary. This is not a new person question or issue.

 

Does anyone believe the patient violates the law when they acquire from a dispensary?

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument against us is yes, a patient must either grow their own or have a caregiver do it for them to avoid arrest.

 

Doesnt matter what we think.

 

Regardless of whether i agree or not, those are the arguments.

 

As i said, these stories matter not. Many here have been proven wrong previously and much advice has been bad.

 

We will see what the final arbiters decide very soon on hopefully several of these topics.

 

To claim absolutism is a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...