Evidence From The Statute For Dispenaries: Patients Can Obtain Marijuana From A Secondary Caregiver

[lawyercaregiver]

In reading our law I ran across yet another argument for dispensaries which hinges on the question:

 

Do patients HAVE to get their marijuana ONLY from the primary caregiver registered to them through the system?

 

The plain meaning of the law says; NO!

 

Consider the case of patients under age 18. The relevant portion of the statute is below. The summary is that the PARENT of a minor must agree to be the minor's primary caregiver!!!

 

Think about the logistics for a minute. A parent of an 8 year old boy with cancer, or brain seizures, or M.S. gets the certifications for their child.

 

THEN, if we follow Bill bad's interpretation of the law the parents ALSO have to be master growers! They will have to take the time to propagate, grow, and harvest for their sick child. Between chemotherapy visits, no doubt.

 

This interpretation on the effect of the Act is ridiculous. A law is interpreted to avoid an absurd result. Therefore, this section PLAINLY AND CLEARLY states that a parent- who is the primary caregiver for their child- will ALSO be able to obtain marijuana from other unspecified sources. That is, a SECONDARY CAREGIVER.

 

We might make the same argument with all patients but the AG will argue back that all patients have the right to CHOOSE their caregiver. Guess what Billy Bob? Minors under the Act cannot CHOOSE their Caregiver. The minors parent has to be the Caregiver.

 

Therefore, Bill bad's interpretation creates TWO types of patients. Adults who can grow their own or choose their own Caregiver/Grower AND Children who CANNOT CHOOSE their own Caregiver. This is clearly an absurd result and raises a LOT of Constitutional questions like Equal Protection etc.

 

Therefore, the ONLY reasonable interpretation is that the Act envisioned SECONDARY CAREGIVERS! If they want to provide a dispensary regulation system then bring it on . If not GFY.

 

 

 

33.26426 Administration and enforcement of rules by department.

 

 

(b) The department shall not issue a registry identification card to a qualifying patient who is under the age of 18 unless:

(1) The qualifying patient's physician has explained the potential risks and benefits of the medical use of marihuana to the qualifying patient and to his or her parent or legal guardian;

(2) The qualifying patient's parent or legal guardian submits a written certification from 2 physicians; and

(3) The qualifying patient's parent or legal guardian consents in writing to:

(A) Allow the qualifying patient's medical use of marihuana;

(B) Serve as the qualifying patient's primary caregiver; and

© Control the acquisition of the marihuana, the dosage, and the frequency of the medical use of marihuana by the qualifying patient.

(emphasis added).

[+Malamute]

Our law was based on the RI language where they allow 2 caregivers. Our law does not allow 2 caregivers and it was removed from our law. There are lingering reasons and wording around secondary caregivers that was not removed from ourlaw. We would need to add language back in to properly allow for secondary caregivers.

 

Minors under our law need 2 doctors signatures as well. Is that equal protection? Adults only need one! ;-)

 

This goes to: can a patient acquire from anyone? Can a cg acquire from anyone? ...and if a pt or cg can acquire under sec. 4 protections, is the supplier only able to seek protection under sec 8?

[+Malamute]

I forgot to add, can a minor patient acquire from anywhere?

[Highlander]

Why would the law explicitly provide for primary caregivers and these primary CGs to be compensated, but then we need to stumble around a crooked path in the dark to come to an interpretation that allows secondary CGs, which are never mentioned in the act?

 

How does the secondary CG get compensated? I see where a primary caregiver can. So the secondary CG must give meds for free to the child?

 

4(e) says, "(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."

 

Statutory Interpretation 101 tells us that the inclusion of "primary" is 4(e) is intentional and that similarly, the omission of "secondary" is also intentional, right?

 

The Act intentionally does not provide for a means for a "secondary CG" (whateve that means...since I don't see it defined in the act either) to be compensated.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Highlander

[bobandtorey]

Our law was based on the RI language where they allow 2 caregivers. Our law does not allow 2 caregivers and it was removed from our law. There are lingering reasons and wording around secondary caregivers that was not removed from ourlaw. We would need to add language back in to properly allow for secondary caregivers.

 

Minors under our law need 2 doctors signatures as well. Is that equal protection? Adults only need one! ;-)

 

This goes to: can a patient acquire from anyone? Now we no YESCan a cg acquire from anyone? ..YES.and if a pt or cg can acquire under sec. 4 protections, is the supplier only able to seek protection under sec 8?

[ozzrokk]

Well some will have you believe that the law was written so that someone will have to break the law in order for some to be legal and that is just utter BS..... and in this case they would say that is the case for a minor patient and their caregiver. I am sure that is not what was intended yet others say that is how it should be interpreted. I dont buy it at all.

[bobandtorey]

Well some will have you believe that the law was written so that someone will have to break the law in order for some to be legal and that is just utter BS..... and in this case they would say that is the case for a minor patient and their caregiver. I am sure that is not what was intended yet others say that is how it should be interpreted. I dont buy it at all.

I agree if you don't have a lot if $$ keep doing what you did before the Law passed

[Celliach]

Just curious, is there a reason you're trying to prove the legality of dispensaries?

[ozzrokk]

As a patient I believe that a patient should have as much access to their medicine as possible. And I really find it hard to believe that this law was written in a way as to only give a patient two options of access without someone else having to break the law.

 

Edited to add that I believe in the legality of much more than dispensaries. Dispensaries are just one of the ways. ONLY ONE OF THE WAYS a patient should have access to their medicine.

 

 

Fair enough?

 

Re edited to add that I now realize that celli might not have even been talking to me lol.... Sorry a little medicated right now it has been a painful morning...... but I still mean what I say....

Edited February 2, 2013 by ozzrokk

[Celliach]

The question was actually meant for the person starting the thread, but yeah, fair enough.

[GregS]

It is for these and other reasons that it has taken this long for the MSC to rule. Who knows what they deliberate about.

 

How best to expand the discussion with them from our end? It may be they need our help.

Edited February 2, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

And with all the Rulings we have seen people still think they have a chance

In court

Or think they can use their cards in court don't be fooled keep it down low

[+Malamute]

Peoples cards are working wonderfully all around the state.

 

Just because you got screewed, doesnt mean the other 130,000 patients dont have cards working for them.

 

You are now a very very small minority Bob. The world moved on without you.

 

I wish you the best.

[bobandtorey]

I must admit I have not quite moved on yet. We can't just forget about people like Bob that are still trying to make sure the law works. Section 8 is important, and needs to be there when patients and caregivers most need it.

 

Thanks for your support don't worry about him he can just move on

[bobandtorey]

Peoples cards are working wonderfully all around the state.

 

Just because you got screewed, doesnt mean the other 130,000 patients dont have cards working for them.

 

You are now a very very small minority Bob. The world moved on without you.

 

I wish you the best.

 

What about Larry K and Barb A and Archie K

I will find more and add their names

 

Do we just forget about them also?

am sure glad that we can count on your support?

 

I know that you may be a better poster on here then me

 

And you hurt our feeling if you we're a newB then we might of understood you remarks being just that

But we had trusted your Intelligence here and looked up to it

And now we feel their is more to know about your

Motive's and Commitments to help the Sick people of this Great State

 

Remember without the sick we have no law

 

Thank you

 

Peace From The Front

Bob and Torey

[bobandtorey]

I must admit I have not quite moved on yet. We can't just forget about people like Bob that are still trying to make sure the law works. Section 8 is important, and needs to be there when patients and caregivers most need it.

 

Section 8 is all anyone of us has if we lose that

We have lost it all

[+Malamute]

Section 4 worked fine for me.

 

Section 8 is working all across the State.

 

You keep saying it is not working and cards are not working and that is just a lie bob.

 

Spreading fear to people that their cards won;t work.

 

It is simply not true.

 

You didnt have a card Bob. Couldn't even of filed for a card yet, so yes, you only had section 8. That was a bad choice surrounding what happened to you. I feel horrible for you. I really do. I am a marijuana felon. I do understand. Sucks.

 

But, you hit every single thread and make it about you and your case and sometimes(most times) it just isn't. Then spread fear to other patients:

 

And with all the Rulings we have seen people still think they have a chance

In court

Or think they can use their cards in court...

 

ALOT of people are wining in court. Cards are working all over the State in court. Why are you still having problems? You did not have a card, nor pay an attorney, and advertised yourself as growing without a card publicly with your full name before cards were even issued. That was not very smart. It was a mistake. We all have made stupid mistakes. And it is sad yours has not been paid for yet. I feel for ya. But every thread is not always about you and/or about spreading fear to other patients for your own mistakes. The lovely Mrs. Agro. wonderful lady as you are a wonderful gentlemen. But, her son by running a dispensary and selling to any tom penis or harry with a card made a mistake. It unfortunately ended up involving Barb in a questionable commercial outlet which is the impetence of the problem. It was not that she a had a card,... it was the actions of a dispensary that caused the result. Thank jah we have some great attorneys who are able to "get her off" for extraneous reasons.

 

These are not the majority of the states patients by any close accounting. less than 1/10th of 1% of patients have had any problems whatsoever. There are thousands of occurences in this state where cards are and have worked exactly as they are meant to. There are many cases being won or dismissed through Sec 8 and other means all over the state. From Houghton Michigan to Detroit Michigan people are having their charges dismissed via sec 8 or other means.

 

I do not understand why your case is/has been taking so long. Maybe because you havent paid an attorney? Is the state delaying this? I do not know. But hopefully you win.

 

But being busted for marijuana is anything but unique. 800,000 people a year get busted. It sucks. Fight your way through it and move on. Celebrity can be self intoxicating and its fading absence lonely.

 

I am with ya Bob. I really am. But i was worn thin.

[+Malamute]

To be fair, what I hear Bob say frequently is that the card won't work in court, which is quite true, really.

 

That is simply not true...really.

 

For a small small group of people, they are having problems. But the card is working okie dokie for the vast majority.... in court. This isnt 2009 anymore.

 

Of course we need to support those that have previously fallen prey. But do you have a real answer as to why Bobs case has taken so long? It is obviously more than just grinding gears.

 

But to say cards arent working in court is simply not true and Bob never had a card so his case does not address whether having a card in court means anything.

[t-pain]

i think zapato means that in a lot of court cases, the cards were ignored and frequently surpressed by the prosecutor.

 

obviously some people have gotten away with the cards and thus never get to court.

the ones that get to court, previous to king/kolanek, had a bad chance at getting to use the card in court.

 

the real question is, where are the lawsuits from people who were covered by 4, claiming wrongful arrest and such?

there should be quite a few wrongful arrest lawsuits by now.

[Herb Cannabis]

i think zapato means that in a lot of court cases, the cards were ignored and frequently surpressed by the prosecutor.

 

obviously some people have gotten away with the cards and thus never get to court.

the ones that get to court, previous to king/kolanek, had a bad chance at getting to use the card in court.

 

the real question is, where are the lawsuits from people who were covered by 4, claiming wrongful arrest and such?

there should be quite a few wrongful arrest lawsuits by now.

 

Not only should we pursue lawsuits for wrongful arrest, we should also be suing for the medicine and hardware they illegally took from us as well.I believe that those lawsuits will be few and far in between due to the fact that most of us have no money to hire lawyers with. Hopefully once these suites do begin to be filed and won, more lawyers will be willing to take these cases. It is only a matter of time.

 

Let me qualify this post with the fact that I am not a lawyer and probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about, it is merely my opinion.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Herb Cannabis

[knucklehead bob]

Peoples cards are working wonderfully all around the state.

 

Just because you got screewed, doesnt mean the other 130,000 patients dont have cards working for them.

 

You are now a very very small minority Bob. The world moved on without you.

 

I wish you the best.

So . . . everything is just hunky dory in your cannabis world , it's just to bleeping bad for Bob and Torey ? ! ? ! ? Edited February 4, 2013 by knucklehead bob

[knucklehead bob]

But i was worn thin.

Not as worn as the person you are criticizing !

[mibrains]

i don't think that's what hes saying knuck..

 

i think mal is trying to say it isn't working that way for people now.

 

the system is cleaning up and getting better for patients.

 

bob is still trapped under the weight of the old ways... and places...

[peanutbutter]

In reading our law I ran across yet another argument for dispensaries which hinges on the question:

 

Do patients HAVE to get their marijuana ONLY from the primary caregiver registered to them through the system?

The plain meaning of the law says; NO!

 

It's plain that they removed "secondary" from the law as it was being written.

 

What is equally plain is that a patient is not required to have a caregiver. That would be about 60% of patients with cards.

 

With the exception of patients less than 18 years old. THEY MUST have a caregiver and that caregiver must be their parent.

 

You are allowed to be a patient without having a caregiver. THEN, among other things, you are allowed to acquire, transfer and deliver usable marijuana. Those items don't go away simply because you didn't choose a caregiver.

[Restorium2]

It's plain that they removed "secondary" from the law as it was being written.

 

What is equally plain is that a patient is not required to have a caregiver. That would be about 60% of patients with cards.

 

With the exception of patients less than 18 years old. THEY MUST have a caregiver and that caregiver must be their parent.

 

You are allowed to be a patient without having a caregiver. THEN, among other things, you are allowed to acquire, transfer and deliver usable marijuana. Those items don't go away simply because you didn't choose a caregiver.

Also, it doesn't automatically become legal for some storefront to pop up and become a marijuana supplier just because someone didn't choose to have a caregiver. If that were true then it would make every street dealer in Michigan automatically legal. Sounds good to us, but it sounds like a nightmare to law enforcement, Law enforcement has the ear of the legislature and they will get most of what they want as long as it fits in the framework of our law.