Question About Lara Q&A Page

[mibrains]

http://www.michigan....2140---,00.html

 

From LARA:

 

Question: I am too ill to grow my own medical marihuana. What can I do?

Answer: The MMMA provides for a system of designated caregivers. The caregiver can acquire 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana and grow up to 12 marihuana plants for a qualifying patient. The caregiver may assist up to 5 patients. The caregiver must sign a statement agreeing to provide marihuana only to the qualifying patients who have named the individual as their caregiver. The caregiver's name, address, birth date and social security number must be provided to the state at the time of a patient's registration. The department will issue a registry identification card to the caregiver who is named by a qualifying patient on his/her application. The department may not issue a registry identification card to a proposed caregiver who has previously been convicted of a felony drug offense. The department will verify through a background check with the Michigan State Police that the designated caregiver has no disqualifying felony drug conviction. A caregiver may receive reasonable compensation for services provided to assist with a qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana.

 

 

i was reading the q&a page at LARA tonight looking for something having to do with the change form...

 

but as i was reading this section..

the word acquire stuck out and started nagging at me....

 

i thought as a caregiver it was up to me to grow and then provide the cannabis....

the term acquire as written by LARA seems to have much different implications in this context...

 

it goes on to state that i have to sign a statement to only provide marihuana to the patients who have named me as their direct primary caregiver...

 

first question... has anyone seen this document we are supposed to sign.. a statement "agreeing to provide marihuana only to the qualifying patients who have named the individual as their caregiver" ?

 

second question.... how can i as a caregiver acquire 2.5oz of usable cannabis on behalf of my patient?

if i can only grow for my directly connected patients.. then why does the word acquire appear here in the Q&A?

are they suggesting i acquire it from myself? (insert sarcasm disclaimer here)

 

probably just a typo on LARAS behalf....using the word "acquire"

 

but it seems like they must have been thinking the act allowed some sort of transfers on behalf of the patient... not just to the patient.

otherwise it would simply be stated to grow and provide... wouldn't it?

 

i am most likely looking into this to deeply

 

where did they get the interpretation for the Q&A section?

who wrote it?

 

i realize it is just a information page and means almost literally nothing as far as legal precedence.....

it just caught my eye...

and i thought it was worthy of talking about..

 

with the Michigan Supreme Court P2P and CG2CG questions possibly up for consideration in our near future...

[mibrains]

i think that as a caregiver i should be able to acquire genetics and or usable cannabis that helps my patients better manage their symptoms from any registered patient or caregiver who has working knowledge of a strain that helps control and manage the symptoms of a condition that is similar to mine or one of my patients....

 

and it seems like whomever wrote the LARA q&a page kinda agrees..

 

 

Sec. 2. The people of the State of Michigan find and declare that:

(a) Modern medical research, including as found by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine in a March 1999 report, has discovered beneficial uses for marihuana in treating or alleviating the pain, nausea, and other symptoms associated with a variety of debilitating medical conditions.

 

 

so ultimately it is supposed to be about helping sick people

[CaveatLector]

I would say that whoever answered the questions on the Q&A page definitely were looking at the issues with a liberal mind. One of the main problems with the act was that there was no means to obtain cannabis or seeds on day 1. So, what to do? I think for the act to work then a cg needs to be able to "acquire" at least seeds. So can you criminalize a transfer to a cg? Well not the receiving end, in theory anyway. Does that also mean the giving end is protected? That remains to be seen.

 

With all of that said, people need to read the Q&A page for what it is worth. It isn't legal advice although it definitely has that aroma doesn't it? If you think that you can rely on it in court then think again. Tell a judge, "Well LARA interpreted the law thusly and therefore so should you." See what happens.

[mibrains]

also

the question i had on the change form is

 

when does it have force and effect? when it's executed? or after acceptance? is there any legal precedence for contract acceptance as it pertains to the change form? is it binding immediately upon execution?

 

the short answer i thought was 20 days like the application.. but.. a change form should be immediately defensible shouldn't it? if i drop one patient this morning (for the sake of the discussion lets say because they are self sustaining now and wants to grow their own)

i should be able to sign a new one in there stead immediately afterwards right? as soon as one slot is opened i should be able to fill it with a new patient right away correct?

 

or is the argument that i would have to wait 40 plus days (soon to be business days)... 20 for the first change and then 20 for the new change?

[t-pain]

transfers without renumeration are legal, have been legal , and will continue to be legal until the MMMA is changed.

 

see the COA opinion on mcqueen.

 

the cg form that specifies 5 patients is the 4th page here:

http://www.michigan....09_272862_7.pdf

 

btw LARA can reject patient/cg change forms, so you really do have to wait 25+ days. note: i think you can send in both change forms at once ...

Edited January 23, 2013 by t-pain

[mibrains]

btw LARA can reject patient/cg change forms,

they can only reject forms that are improperly filled out.. LARA cannot reject an application for any reason other than the information was not properly presented...

 

 

© The department shall verify the information contained in an application or renewal submitted pursuant to this section, and shall approve or deny an application or renewal within 15 days of receiving it. The department may deny an application or renewal only if the applicant did not provide the information required pursuant to this section, or if the department determines that the information provided was falsified. Rejection of an application or renewal is considered a final department action, subject to judicial review. Jurisdiction and venue for judicial review are vested in the circuit court for the county of Ingham.

 

 

transfers without renumeration are legal, have been legal , and will continue to be legal until the MMMA is changed.

see the COA opinion on McQueen.

 

Says who? The COA?

 

be careful to follow that logic

 

their failure to properly address transfer for compensation does not in any way say it is ok to "give cannabis away free"

they said "paying money for cannabis is equal to a sale...and a sale is equal to a transfer so.. since sales are illegal then all transfers are henceforth illegal"

that does not then imply than no compensation transfers are not a sale. it only says that compensated transfers defiantly are... (which is wrong)

 

nowhere in the act does it say anything about giving away cannabis for free..

 

a Transfer is a Transfer

 

compensation or not..

 

and Transfers are specifically permitted between registered participants.

 

the only question is whether or not a person must be directly registered to the patient or if the act protects all transfers between any registered patients.

compensation was wrongfully brought into the decision by the COA and most likely will be one of the primary things the SC works to clarify.

[mibrains]

the cg form that specifies 5 patients is the 4th page here:

http://www.michigan....09_272862_7.pdf

 

this is the crutch of my question..

it states clearly that i can have no more than five patients.. i get that part..

 

the LARA q&a page says i must sign a statement that says i will only transfer to my 5 patients.

 

The caregiver must sign a statement agreeing to provide marihuana only to the qualifying patients who have named the individual as their caregiver.

 

this statement is cut and paste from the LARA page..

 

hence my question i never ever signed anything that said i would "only transfer to my 5 patients."

[mibrains]

the cg form that specifies 5 patients is the 4th page here:

http://www.michigan....09_272862_7.pdf

 

this is the crutch of my question..

it states clearly that i can have no more than five patients.. i get that part..

 

the LARA q&a page says i must sign a statement that says i will only transfer to my 5 patients.

 

The caregiver must sign a statement agreeing to provide marihuana only to the qualifying patients who have named the individual as their caregiver.

 

this statement is cut and paste from the LARA page..

 

hence my question i never ever signed anything that said i would "only transfer to my 5 patients."

 

this is all it says.. "in the act"

 

 

k.- Any registered qualifying patient or registered primary caregiver who sells marihuana to someone who is not allowed to use marihuana for medical purposes under this act shall have his or her registry identification card revoked and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both, in addition to any other penalties for the distribution of marihuana.

 

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.

[mibrains]

i would also like to clarify..

in this discussion..

 

the Michigan Supreme Court clarified the issue that in order to assert the medical use of cannabis as a "defense in any prosecution" a patient must FIRST have acquired a valid doctors certification.

 

so to be able to legitimately claim medical use, you must first establish a doctor patient relationship and have the signed certification from that Doctor before you are eligible to assert the medical use of cannabis as a defense.

[t-pain]

some of your questions will hopefully be answered by the supreme court in mcqueen...

[t-pain]

that does not then imply than no compensation transfers are not a sale.

 

actually, they flat out say that in CoA on mcqueen

later inthis opinion, in which we define a “sale” as the

transfer of property or title for a price.

 

The “medical use” of marijuana, as defined by the MMMA, allows for the

“delivery” and “transfer” of marijuana, but not the “sale” of marijuana.

 

but yes, that whole CoA opinion will be thrown out. its terrible in every way.

Edited January 23, 2013 by t-pain

[mibrains]

17 Plaintiff and the Attorney General, as amicus curiae, ask us to hold that patient-to-patient

conveyances of marihuana that are without compensation are not permitted by the MMMA.

Their position is that the only conveyance of marihuana permitted by the MMMA is the

conveyance of marihuana from a primary caregiver to his or her patients. Because defendants’

operation of CA involves the selling of marihuana, and because the selling of marihuana is not

permitted by the MMMA, we need not, and do not, reach the issue whether the MMMA permits

uncompensated patient-to-patient conveyances of marihuana.

 

http://milawyersweekly.com/fulltext-opinions/wp-files/opinions/07-76386.pdf

[mibrains]

Also, in regard to § 4(e), the parties disagree whether a registered

primary caregiver may receive compensation for the costs associated with assisting any

registered qualifying patient in the “medical use” of marihuana or whether a registered primary

caregiver may only receive compensation for assisting the qualifying patients with whom he or

she is connected through the MDCH registry process. Because of our conclusion that the

“medical use” of marihuana does not include the “sale” of marihuana, we need not, and therefore

do not, resolve this dispute.

[mibrains]

Further, even if the “medical use” of marihuana included the “sale” of marihuana,

defendants are not entitled to immunity afforded under § 4 from arrest, prosecution, penalty in

any manner, or the denial of any right or privilege.

 

We note that sections 4(a) and 4(b) grant immunity to qualifying patients and primary

caregivers who have been issued and possess a registry identification card. And while

defendants are primary caregivers who have been issued and possess registry identification

cards, and McQueen is also a qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry

identification card, defendants do not claim they are entitled to immunity under either § 4(a) or

§ 4(b). Rather, they claim that they are entitled to immunity under § 4(i).

[mibrains]

my newly forming contention is..

 

the COA reiterated that the "sale" of cannabis is not legal in the McQueen decision.

 

and maybe..

those who have registered with LARA and have a card are able to transfer cannabis to those with a card because those transfers are not a "sale" and that by having a card you are protected under section 4a or 4b.. immunity from arrest or prosecution.

[mibrains]

actually, they flat out say that in CoA on mcqueen

 

 

but yes, that whole CoA opinion will be thrown out. its terrible in every way.

 

thank you

i had not read the decision since it came out..

 

i feel like maybe we all overlooked the significance of this part

"defendants do not claim they are entitled to immunity under either § 4(a) or

§ 4(b). Rather, they claim that they are entitled to immunity under § 4(i)."

 

they didn't claim a section 4a defense?

 

i reread the whole COA decision again tonight.. and i am exhausted (thank God) but.. it seems like i originally missed the statement i highlighted in red above.

going to sleep on it..

good night everyone.

[peanutbutter]

It's sad that LARA didn't mention that the patient has the ability to acquire up to 2.5 ounces. They only say that a patient must obtain their medicine from a caregiver that is registered to them.

 

Under that rule, a patient is REQUIRED to have a caregiver if they intend to actually acquire medicine.

[t-pain]

i feel like maybe we all overlooked the significance of this part

"defendants do not claim they are entitled to immunity under either § 4(a) or

§ 4(b). Rather, they claim that they are entitled to immunity under § 4(i)."

 

they didn't claim a section 4a defense?

 

lol, good point. since the mmj was locked up, did the patients only have the keys?

if so, then mcqueen wouldnt have had access and dominion and posession...

maybe he would have won on a sec4a

 

but really, the courts have been reading each part seperate, in a vacuum.

in reality we should get sec4, sec8 and all protections.

 

after a few people get sec8 defenses, they will attack that as hard as possible. get ready for some tough cases in the future.

[t-pain]

It's sad that LARA didn't mention that the patient has the ability to acquire up to 2.5 ounces. They only say that a patient must

 

why not call lara and ask them to fix it.

while you are at it, ask them to put up a note about plant amounts and minimum mandatory federal sentences re: 100+ plants.

[Restorium2]

why not call lara and ask them to fix it.

while you are at it, ask them to put up a note about plant amounts and minimum mandatory federal sentences re: 100+ plants.

Ask them about this too. It's might be new to help folks understand they can't dump at the dispensary;

 

The caregiver must sign a statement agreeing to provide marihuana only to the qualifying patients who have named the individual as their caregiver.

[mibrains]

It's sad that LARA didn't mention that the patient has the ability to acquire up to 2.5 ounces. They only say that a patient must obtain their medicine from a caregiver that is registered to them.

 

Under that rule, a patient is REQUIRED to have a caregiver if they intend to actually acquire medicine.

 

LARA did mention it Gersh..

 

that's where this entire thread came from... they said a patient can acquire 2.5 oz. they never actually say you can only obtain cannabis from your directly registered caregiver... they actually just make the statement highlighted in red... about a caregiver signing a form that states that request.

[mibrains]

lol, good point. since the mmj was locked up, did the patients only have the keys?

if so, then mcqueen wouldnt have had access and dominion and posession...

maybe he would have won on a sec4a

 

but really, the courts have been reading each part seperate, in a vacuum.

in reality we should get sec4, sec8 and all protections.

 

after a few people get sec8 defenses, they will attack that as hard as possible. get ready for some tough cases in the future.

 

thank you for engaging me in this conversation.. i appreciate your input T-pain you have sent me reeling on a mental course that has helped me explore the significance of things... as well as enlightened me on a personal level as it pertains to my understanding of the way the COA is thinking....

 

i dont think it matters whether the lockers were locked or not..or who had access.. i think the more important issue here is that CA claimed they were protected from arrest because they were in the vicinity of the medical use of cannabis... not that they were protected from prosecution because the transfer of cannabis between registered people is not a sale.

[mibrains]

Ask them about this too. It's might be new to help folks understand they can't dump at the dispensary;

 

The caregiver must sign a statement agreeing to provide marihuana only to the qualifying patients who have named the individual as their caregiver.

 

but what about if maybe they can? and even should transfer solid genetics and usable cannabis to a central dispensing location... business models aside what if that transfer saves a life rest? what ultimately is the best thing for the patient? which dispensary model are you referring to? what about the transfer of cannabis between cancer patients who are trying to save lives? who has the best strain for that? how do i get it? what price do i need to pay to have it?

 

i am dealing daily with a debilitating pain..

where do i obtain the genetics to help me? what if i have a terminal disease? the last thing i would be worried about is the cost of dispensaries vrs caregivers, or the legal hammering of our rights..

 

i would want the best cannabis for my particular cancer or medical need.

 

no matter what cost.

 

no matter where i got it.

 

this is the true intent of the act. to protect those who are sick and will benefit from the use of cannabis.

[Restorium2]

but what about if maybe they can? and even should transfer solid genetics and usable cannabis to a central dispensing location... business models aside what if that transfer saves a life rest? what ultimately is the best thing for the patient? which dispensary model are you referring to? what about the transfer of cannabis between cancer patients who are trying to save lives? who has the best strain for that? how do i get it? what price do i need to pay to have it?

 

i am dealing daily with a debilitating pain..

where do i obtain the genetics to help me? what if i have a terminal disease? the last thing i would be worried about is the cost of dispensaries vrs caregivers, or the legal hammering of our rights..

 

i would want the best cannabis for my particular cancer or medical need.

 

no matter what cost.

 

no matter where i got it.

 

this is the true intent of the act. to protect those who are sick and will benefit from the use of cannabis.

Sure they 'can'. Why not? If they can afford/pass an inspection they are probably ok. If they can't they will go to jail like the guy I know. Others at the home could also go to jail. You better be squeaky clean and ready for inspection if you even walk through the door of a dispensary. So, yes, maybe, probably, you could possibly get away with it. But that's not how I give advice to my friends or here. That's the difference between the two paths of advice you see here. I recently watched as a family was torn apart by dispensary dumping and not being able to pass inspection. Know your risk. There is risk.

[mibrains]

agreed..

 

it is all about risk assessment... and where a person "fits in"

 

thank you rest for you interjection your statement is so very true..

 

the idea that we should be able to use cannabis freely, and the fact that the "system is setup to stop that" is where the waste hits the fan.

 

i hope one day yin meets yang and we have a peaceful solution.

 

people should be made aware that the legal system is not following the rules necessarily and that you might end up being run over if you engage in any activities that are not within the scope of the "mans" interpretation.

 

i follow the "mans rules" and act accordingly.. not from my heart.. i may speak from my heart.. i want to help. but i act conservatively.

 

i am not trying to suggest that people should go out and dump cannabis at their local dispensary yet. i am only suggesting that if i had terminal cancer i would go to the dispensary and buy everything i could.. at whatever cost in an attempt to save my life.