P 2 P

[mibrains]

no - you can only transfer to your 5 patients.

yes - i want to be able to transfer to any registered patient.

[Restorium2]

no - you can only transfer to your 5 patients.

yes - i want to be able to transfer to any registered patient.

+1

[Juan Roberto]

[Kingdiamond]

no - you can only transfer to your 5 patients.

yes - i want to be able to transfer to any registered patient.

 

x2

[Highlander]

I hope the SC rules that transfers between any cardholder are legal. Not just p2p but CG2CG. I'm not very optimistic.

[peanutbutter]

I presume that the first question is "Do you expect the SC to rule p2p is legal?"

[Highlander]

I presume that the first question is "Do you expect the SC to rule p2p is legal?"

 

That is a more accurate question.

[TheHarvester]

Mibrains pretty much said it all.

[Chauncy Gardner]

I voted "yes". There is nothing unclear or debatable about this section of the law:

 

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

The writers of this law intended to make it legal for anyone to assist a qualifying patient in the medical use of marijuana.

 

(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.

 

We shall see what jurors think when medical defenses start being used in court.

[t-pain]

coa mcqueen opinion says transfers/deliveries are legal without renumeration. transfers are legal right now. why are so many on this forum misled?

 

i'm just talking about p2p, like the thread title, dont bring in your CG talk here. most CGs are patients anyways.

Edited December 5, 2012 by t-pain

[CaveatLector]

coa mcqueen opinion says transfers/deliveries are legal without renumeration. transfers are legal right now. why are so many on this forum misled?

 

i'm just talking about p2p, like the thread title, dont bring in your CG talk here. most CGs are patients anyways.

[cristinew]

Using is not use,,as defined in the act..

 

 

anyone to assist a qualifying patient in the medical use

 

 

so anyone can have internal possession?? that is part of use...

 

so anyone can have plants,,, that is part of use

 

so anyone can deliver that is part of use,,

 

 

now show me the protections from arrest for all of this,,

 

Now this is the law Anyone can assist a patient in Using but not in the Use

Edited December 5, 2012 by cristinew

[cristinew]

Voters Intent,,,, at the polls this is what the voters read at the polls,, Nowhere does it say dispensaries or cash or sales

 

 

A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO PERMIT THE USE AND CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR SPECIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS

 

The proposed law would:

• Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.
  
• Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.
  
• Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.
  
• Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.
  

 

Should this proposal be adopted?

Yes ¨

 

NO

[cristinew]

No intent at all at the polls for protections from arrest for P2P None

[cristinew]

And if you read the law,, and the SC will read the law,,, caregivers are only protected from arrest for assisting 5 patients with use,,

 

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card 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, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

How hard it that to understand?

 

If the law is so unclear to you ask the senate to fix it for you,,, it is clear to me

Edited December 5, 2012 by cristinew

[Chauncy Gardner]

Using is not use,,as defined in the act..

 

 

anyone to assist a qualifying patient in the medical use

 

 

so anyone can have internal possession?? that is part of use...

 

so anyone can have plants,,, that is part of use

 

so anyone can deliver that is part of use,,

 

 

now show me the protections from arrest for all of this,,

 

Now this is the law Anyone can assist a patient in Using but not in the Use

 

The key word in this section is "assist". Assisting a patient in the use of marijuana is not the same as the assistant themselves using the marijuana, unless the assistant successfully argues that they had to sample the medicine to see if it was OK for the patient. The person assisting in the use of marijuana would not be able to help with cultivation of the plants due to the "locked, enclosed facility accessible only by the patient or the patients caregiver" clause. Delivery of the marijuana by an assistant might be protected activity if the patient is disabled and unable to obtain the medicine by themselves. I believe that this would be a permissible defense.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Chauncy Gardner

[Chauncy Gardner]

(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.

 

A real world example of this:

 

My wife is a qualified patient - I am not. I am also not a caregiver. However, I am constantly in the vicinity of the medical use of marijuana. I assist my wife in the use of medical marijuana. If, God forbid, I was charged with being in the vicinity or assisting my wife in using, I would be very surprised if a jury of my peers would convict me given the above clause in the law.

[cristinew]

using or administering marihuana.

 

is not growing or selling sorry.

 

 

Assisting a patient in the use of marijuana is clearly stated that only 5 patients a caregiver can

Edited December 5, 2012 by cristinew

[Chauncy Gardner]

using or administering marihuana.

 

is not growing or selling sorry.

 

 

Assisting a patient in the use of marijuana is clearly stated that only 5 patients a caregiver can

 

You may be right here. I don't know whether or not different sections of the act were meant to be viewed as a stand alone statement or if they are meant to be viewed as part of the context of the whole act. When I first read the act, I viewed section (i) as being a stand alone statement. I can see how you view it as being part of the other sections. In your view then, the "person" being referred to in section (i) is either the primary caregiver or the patient. No one else is able to be in the presence of medical marijuana or to assist a patient in the use of medical marijuana. Whatever...

[peanutbutter]

The key word in this section is "assist". Assisting a patient in the use of marijuana is not the same as the assistant themselves using the marijuana, unless the assistant successfully argues that they had to sample the medicine to see if it was OK for the patient. The person assisting in the use of marijuana would not be able to help with cultivation of the plants due to the "locked, enclosed facility accessible only by the patient or the patients caregiver" clause. Delivery of the marijuana by an assistant might be protected activity if the patient is disabled and unable to obtain the medicine by themselves. I believe that this would be a permissible defense.

 

OK .. here's a new twist.

 

Is it possible to have a physically disabled caregiver?

[CaveatLector]

OK .. here's a new twist.

 

Is it possible to have a physically disabled caregiver?

Can the caregiver fulfill the obligations necessary to meet the pt's needs?

 

Isn't that like asking if there can be a physically disabled nurse? Clearly it would depend on his/her duties and job description.

[Juan Roberto]

BTW--out of just 25 votes so far, someone did indeed vote "no" on wanting P2P transfers. So, there goes that 100%!

[CaveatLector]

BTW--out of just 25 votes so far, someone did indeed vote "no" on wanting P2P transfers. So, there goes that 100%!

Must've been Restorium. He's an MSP informant and on a COA panel.

[wingnut]

Here is video by

 

Eric L. VanDussen My link

 

 

Marijuana Policy Project's Karen O'Keefe http://vimeo.com/51912895

Edited December 5, 2012 by wingnut

[Chauncy Gardner]

All of this banter about who can touch, look at, smell, or ingest pot may be a mute point in the not too distant future anyway. Here is the latest nationwide poll:

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...e-sex-marriage/

 

There is now, for the first time, a majority in favor of just legalizing the darn stuff and getting on with it - 51% favor 44%oppose.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Chauncy Gardner