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

[Restorium2]

Can someone explain please:

Why the language of our law requires the designation of a "primary" caregiver,  if it were not intended to differentiate (or rank) one caregiver over another ( i.e. secondary, tertiary, quaternary, quinary, senary, septenary, octonary, nonary or denary caregivers)?

Are we being presumptuous to reason that if the intent was to designate a "sole" caregiver, it would have been indicated  by using the proper term?

 

Just Wondering.

 

[Merriam Webster/ "Sole"-adj/ belonging exclusively or otherwise limited to one usually specified individual, unit, or group ]

[Merriam Webster/ "Primary"-adj/ first in order of time or development, (of first rank, importance, or value) ]

 

 

The word 'primary' was left over after they changed the wording to reflect that they wanted to remove the option of having more than one caregiver. They just didn't bother to take out the word because it was not necessary.

[Hayduke]

Karen O'Keefe, who pieced the original MMMA bill told me that it came from putting multiple bills together, and the "primary" word came from Hawaii.  She said leaving it in was an oversight, and in retrospect it should have been removed, as it obviously has caused some confusion.

 

That was told to me over lunch in July 2011....

[Restorium2]

MPP was coming off a loss in another state, and was wrangling for some wording that would get passed here. That's why they made sure dispensaries were completely left out of the Michigan law. They made it so we could say that there wouldn't be legal dispensaries here when we pushed the Michigan proposal. MPP thought the general Michigan public wouldn't want to deal with pot stores and they would be a burden to get the law passed.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Restorium2

[GanjaWarrior]

The word 'primary' was left over after they changed the wording to reflect that they wanted to remove the option of having more than one caregiver. They just didn't bother to take out the word because it was not necessary.

that was all on the ballot right? so when people reviewed the law everyone was aware of what you just said prior to voting?

[Restorium2]

that was all on the ballot right? so when people reviewed the law everyone was aware of what you just said prior to voting?

Just the one word that didn't carry any weight when all the rest of the wording was removed. It didn't say anything at all by itself. It's just interesting trivia, not anything substantial.

[Restorium2]

More related trivia;

 

 

South Dakota has the dubious distinction of being the only state where voters rejected an initiative to allow the use of medical marijuana. Amidst concerted opposition from South Dakota law enforcement and the Bush administration Office of National Drug Control Policy, which sent officials to the state to campaign against the measure, voters defeated a 2006 initiative by a margin of 52% to 48%.

[CaveatLector]

that was all on the ballot right? so when people reviewed the law everyone was aware of what you just said prior to voting?

The term, "primary caregiver" wasn't on the ballot.

 

Furthermore, you cannot parse the term.  It is defined in the act and you cannot pull it apart and define parts of the term indpendent of the act. 

 

Consider the term, "enclosed locked facility."  It is also defined in the act.  It means:

 

© "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

The definition makes it clear that the facility need not be, "locked" in that it gives an alternative to locks.  You cannot argue that the term MUST require that the facility be locked because the term itself includes the term, "locked."  Why?  Because the term has an operational definition and that definition is included in the act.  Similarly, the definition of, "primary caregiver" is a defined term in the act.  If they called it a, "young caregiver" and then went on to define the term as:  a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs.-- you cannot go bck and argue that the caregiver also must be, "young."   Why?  Because the entire term has been defined by the act.

[GanjaWarrior]

The term, "primary caregiver" wasn't on the ballot.

 

Furthermore, you cannot parse the term.  It is defined in the act and you cannot pull it apart and define parts of the term indpendent of the act. 

 

Consider the term, "enclosed locked facility."  It is also defined in the act.  It means:

 

© "Enclosed, locked facility" means a closet, room, or other enclosed area equipped with locks or other security devices that permit access only by a registered primary caregiver or registered qualifying patient.

 

The definition makes it clear that the facility need not be, "locked" in that it gives an alternative to locks.  You cannot argue that the term MUST require that the facility be locked because the term itself includes the term, "locked."  Why?  Because the term has an operational definition and that definition is included in the act.  Similarly, the definition of, "primary caregiver" is a defined term in the act.  If they called it a, "young caregiver" and then went on to define the term as:  a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs.-- you cannot go bck and argue that the caregiver also must be, "young."   Why?  Because the entire term has been defined by the act.

 

 

that maybe the most long winded answer.... i really asked if that wording was viewable to voters. thats all i asked, no idea what nonsense your talking about. Im not looking to split or redefine any words. i just asked if voters saw that wording. been a long time i dont recall what we had access to. im just wondering if if prior to the vote , voters had access to this wording.

[CaveatLector]

that maybe the most long winded answer....

I didn't know I was required to conform to your answer standards.  I know reading/writing isn't your strong suit so I understand your trepidation at the prospect of reading a well-thought-out paragraph of text.  But I suggest you check your narcissism at the door and understand that the post may actually have been written, in part, to explain the issue to OTHERS and not just you.

[GregS]

mmm. Lemon Haze

[GanjaWarrior]

I didn't know I was required to conform to your answer standards.  I know reading/writing isn't your strong suit so I understand your trepidation at the prospect of reading a well-thought-out paragraph of text.  But I suggest you check your narcissism at the door and understand that the post may actually have been written, in part, to explain the issue to OTHERS and not just you.

often when in a discussion one must answer the question asked. that's kind of the whole point. Maybe you could leave the pompous donkey bit at the door and we could all get a long better?

[CaveatLector]

often when in a discussion one must answer the question asked. that's kind of the whole point. Maybe you could leave the pompous donkey bit at the door and we could all get a long better?

Pompous?  Really?  Who is the one whom was whining over the length of my answer?  You have got to be kidding me.  Forest?  Where?  I can't see them for all the trees in the way.

 

Secondly, Your question was answered.  Then a separate paragrah was written to address Lauren's question.  Is that okay with you?  Maybe admin could design a system whereby you review my posts before they show up?

[GanjaWarrior]

Pompous?  Really?  Who is the one whom was whining over the length of my answer?  You have got to be kidding me.  Forest?  Where?  I can't see them for all the trees in the way.

 

Secondly, Your question was answered.  Then a separate paragrah was written to address Lauren's question.  Is that okay with you?  Maybe admin could design a system whereby you review my posts before they show up?

yes really.

 

On the 2nd thing, um, maybe you could just quote the thing your responding to. now it makes sense you were answering two questions but only quoting one. i got  ya now....maybe just mention who your talking to and i wont have to respond as if your saying all that too me.

[GanjaWarrior]

Yes, the text of the Act was available during the election of 2008, along with the ballot language.

thank you zap.

 

on a side note.... i apologize to cav... rough day was really just looking for an answer.

[TotalConcentration]

you shouldn't be forced to apologize gw , he really was being a pompous donkey rectum, then proceeded to turn it up a notch all in the name of being helpful, that is the worst kind of person 

[Highlander]

Sounds like you disagree with the message.

 

Please feel free to submit one or two sound counter-arguments......all in the name of being helpful.

 

If you have a concern with how a previous poster addressed an issue, maybe you can follow through with at least one sound argument???  Just one?  Start with your best.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Highlander

[GregS]

Sounds like you disagree with the message.

 

Please feel free to submit one or two sound counter-arguments......all in the name of being helpful.

 

If you have a concern with how a previous poster addressed an issue, maybe you can follow through with at least one sound argument???  Just one?  Start with your best.

 

(smiles)