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

[bobandtorey]

Prosecutor Jessica Cooper spoke at a conference to the Michigan Municipal League just months before the assault on Barb Agro’s home, Ms. Cooper’s strategy to those in attendance, “keep raiding growers, dispensaries, and patients, they’ll get the point.” Even suggesting that, “this action (of raiding) was the only route other States take with the medical marijuana issue.”

[bobandtorey]

 

 

It doesn't matter, at the initial exposure, what is written in the law.

What DOES matter is what they BELIEVE is written. THAT is what they act on.

 

Right now, they still believe they were committing a felony when they had 21 unrooted cuttings.

And I will add we're would we all be right now 4 years into our Law if every one just took the rubber hose (plea deals)

[Restorium2]

And I will add we're would we all be right now 4 years into our Law if every one just took the rubber hose (plea deals)

It's great to know that you could grow if you wanted to.

[jewelspirit]

So, the way I read this, regarding the above quoted part of the act, it states:

 

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."

 

OK: "A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana."

 

If a caregiver can't assist just any patient, wouldn't it have to read this way:

"A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting their registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana."?

 

Personally, I consider myself a compassionate caregiver, which, I believe binds me under the Hippocratic Oath, as updated for modern health care professionals in The Declaration of Geneva, which, as currently amended, reads:^[3]

• I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
  
• I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
  
• I WILL PRACTICE my profession with conscience and dignity;
  
• THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
  
• I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me;
  
• I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
  
• MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers;
  
• I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
  
• I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
  
• I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
  
• I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.
  

Therefore, adhering to the above Oath would require me to assist any registered patient with their medical use of marijuana if they are unable to procure their necessary medication without my professional assistance, don't you all agree?

 

I'd also like to note that we need more information, like, how do I find out which local areas have passed certain "ordinances" restricting my ability to provide for patients? And are restrictive local ordinances even legal anymore after that recent court opinion I heard about? And are their any lists or forum posts regatding generally known "caregiver friendly" as opposed to "caregiver UNfriendly" areas across the state? I'd like to know.

 

just my 2 nickels,

peace, jewels

Kent County

AT THE TIME OF BEING ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION (* or: At the time of agreeing to provide healthcare services to fellow human beings):

[CaveatLector]

So, the way I read this, regarding the above quoted part of the act, it states:

 

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."

 

OK: "A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana."

 

If a caregiver can't assist just any patient, wouldn't it have to read this way:

"A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting their registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana."?

 

 

You're parsing the act AND equivocating. You are using 4e to tell you who can assist a pt. That section doesn't tell you who you can assist, rather, it tells you that you can receive compensation for the assisting. To see who you can assist you should be looking at 4b.

 

(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 with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

You cannot simply pick and choose a part of the act and isolate it from other sections when you interpret its meaning. You have to read the act as a whole.

[phaquetoo]

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.

You guys are both right, Ive always understood in this kind of scenerio, that a pt can get it from any where they want, it is the person distributing it who needs to watch their back if they are not linked to the pt thru the registry!

 

It doesnt specificaly say where a pt or a c.g are supposed to get the seeds or clones or anyway to get a grow going. Ok here is the peoples aniative for them to vote on, who cares where or how they start getting the medication going! or where these pt's/c.g's can get their mm, did they just want us to go to the under ground to get what we needed and than become self reliant?

 

That works for me, becuase I have friends in low places but not the pt's who had no clue where to get mj becuase they have never done it till it became an option!

 

Peace

Jim

[phaquetoo]

That's nuts Bob. They don't even give convicted dispensary owners jail time. What did you actually do again?

 

 

Barbara Agro ultimately was convicted of one count of delivery/manufacture of marijuana and was sentenced to 90 days of probation, along with 20 hours of community service.

 

I wonder if Barb is growing again yet?

 

We have another person in 3ma that got hit for manufactoring or what ever, in fact he thought just like you on this one rest, he got hit 3 times and is in prison now, and cant comunicate with any one in his family! I respect his choice, It was his choice, but if I get hit, im getting my g.r out of that county, especialy after the 2nd time, but 3 times same leo!

 

I totaly respect some ones decision not to grow as they are still stuck in 09 or where ever, and they dont hold their own future as of yet in their own hands!

 

Peace

Jim

Edited February 6, 2013 by phaquetoo

[phaquetoo]

They can zone all day long, but that's just zoning for businesses that may someday be legal. In Milford, they want to limit them, while the cases are being made to totally shut them down. They want to manage WHERE the chit will hit the fan. Since you never know when it's going to hit, you just know it will. Kind of like cutting them off before you kill them. Like putting the ducks in the barrel. Detectives have to cover a much smaller area to watch them if you herd them into a corner.

 

I beleive tawas did a zoning on despenses and there was only one lot, comercial property that qualified in the zoning conditions they made, it is a way to stop them before they even think about it, and it is because of the way all of the dispenses popped up 1st time here! it always comes down to the almighty $$$$$$,,,,,Im not against any one earning a living in any way they choose, as long as they dont screw over the rest of us! Like they did! ( dispensarrys) and im not for em or against em, im for pts and c.gs, thats all I care about!

 

Peace

Jim

[mibrains]

the way i see this... currently

 

(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 with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

the COA in McQueen stated that CA was not allowed to charge money... that their defense based on 4i was not valid because when they received compensation it made it a sale. CA did not attempt to protect themselves with the argument that a patient can transfer to any patient under 4a. the COA plainly states this... and proceeded to refuse to address it. they instead said being in the vicinity was not medical use if you attach sales. the question about any p to any p or c was specifically not addressed.

 

fast forward.

 

the green decision.

the COA clearly said that a patient can transfer to any patient. the fact that money was not involved is not the determining factor... necessarily in every situation.

 

we now look at the plain meaning to 4e it says..

 

not that i can transfer for money..

not that i can transfer at all..

nothing about transfers specifically.

 

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."

 

as a caregiver if i receive compensation for assisting with the medical use of cannabis it is NOT a sale...

 

the green decision clarifies i can transfer to any patient.

 

4e clarifies i can get compensated and it isn't a sale..

 

no way around it that i can see....

 

other than of course the obvious problem that patient to patient must be done free still...

because 4e does not address patients.

but caregiver transfers to any patient seems to be available.

[mibrains]

I beleive tawas did a zoning on despenses and there was only one lot, comercial property that qualified in the zoning conditions they made, it is a way to stop them before they even think about it, and it is because of the way all of the dispenses popped up 1st time here! it always comes down to the almighty $$$$$$,,,,,Im not against any one earning a living in any way they choose, as long as they dont screw over the rest of us! Like they did! ( dispensarrys) and im not for em or against em, im for pts and c.gs, thats all I care about!

 

Peace

Jim

 

Oscoda and Tawas both passed restrictive zoning... however both are modeled after the "white paper" and are going to be deemed as unconstitutional. they lumped a patients ability to grow their own, a caregivers ability to grow for five people and dispensaries all together in one lump.. and they are each different substantially...

we are still not sure what to do about it.. but in Oscoda you cannot grow in residential zoning... they restricted caregivers to industrial and something else only... i have a copy of Oscodas somewhere around here...

 

not gonna be happening...

not constitutional to restrict zoning by profession. it must be done by generic markers.

 

for instance

your not allowed to say.... no builders can operate out of their home. they can only enforce noise, parking, visible trash, signs, traffic, all generic things associated with living...but they can not "zone out" any single profession constitutionally speaking..

 

it's called steering... and it's not allowed..

 

it's very growth restrictive.... not to be able to do whatever i want from home... i know.. this because on my street.. theres a chainsaw carver.

the neighbors complained about the noise..

the township tried to shut him down, however a warranty deed ensures a certain "bundle of rights" and those rights are not easy to sidestep.

the end result was so long as he did not violate the noise ordinance and visual restrictions.. he is allowed to operate... and still does to this day...

 

caregivers are the same thing... they can restrict excessive traffic... and all kinds of things.. but not my ability to operate a "home business" it is protected by law.

 

all that said...

 

it's gonna be a fight for any new people... thank god i lived in this house before it passed so i am grandfathered anyways... but.. what a bunch of hassles...

[Highlander]

the way i see this... currently

 

(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 with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

 

the COA in McQueen stated that CA was not allowed to charge money... that their defense based on 4i was not valid because when they received compensation it made it a sale. CA did not attempt to protect themselves with the argument that a patient can transfer to any patient under 4a. the COA plainly states this... and proceeded to refuse to address it. they instead said being in the vicinity was not medical use if you attach sales. the question about any p to any p or c was specifically not addressed.

 

fast forward.

 

the green decision.

the COA clearly said that a patient can transfer to any patient. the fact that money was not involved is not the determining factor... necessarily in every situation.

 

we now look at the plain meaning to 4e it says..

 

not that i can transfer for money..

not that i can transfer at all..

nothing about transfers specifically.

 

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."

 

as a caregiver if i receive compensation for assisting with the medical use of cannabis it is NOT a sale...

 

the green decision clarifies i can transfer to any patient.

 

4e clarifies i can get compensated and it isn't a sale..

 

no way around it that i can see....

 

other than of course the obvious problem that patient to patient must be done free still...

because 4e does not address patients.

but caregiver transfers to any patient seems to be available.

 

We don't have anything that specifically allows CG transfers to any patient (money or not). Green was only about p2p.

[mibrains]

excellent point...

 

[mibrains]

and they further exclude the caregiver from protections in this section of the decision...

time to read it yet again...

 

The circuit court rejected the prosecution’s argument that transfers could only occur in the context of a

patient-caregiver relationship. In making this determination, the circuit court noted that patients

were not required to select a primary caregiver, a conclusion underscored by the fact that

children are required, under § 6 of the MMMA, to have a primary caregiver. As such, there did

not need to be a patient-caregiver relationship to justify the transfer of marijuana under the

MMMA.

[CaveatLector]

The trouble with cg to any pt is the pesky language in 4b.

 

. . . assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, . . .

 

P2p is allowed based on the definition of medical use. You cannot go the same route with a cg because 4b explicitly limits a cg.

 

The way I see it this language limits the cg to his/her registered pts. So how can a dispensary operate? Well, you could go the p2p route but the language in the act only explicitly allows for cg compensation. So, open as many dispensaries as you want (or farmer markets) as long as you give product away free or charge?

 

Certainly reasonable minds could differ on this statutory interpretation. But it seems like this may be where we are headed.

[mibrains]

right...

 

and if you do select a primary caregiver... they pretty much appear to be locked into you specifically.

 

FLIP

 

man i swear this stuff moves through my head different every time i read it...

 

i wonder...

 

can a caregiver transfer to any patient without money?

 

probably not..

most likely it would be held to the same standard as with money.

 

so the patient has to compensate the caregiver and then give it to the other patient for free.... basically...or grow it themselves.. of course..

[mibrains]

next question...

 

not to befuddle this thread..

 

as a patient and a caregiver... can i give it to any patient free? or will my status as a caregiver somehow trump that...

 

i think i can still give cannabis to any patient.. but i am asking everything i can think of in case someone else is wondering the same thing..

[Highlander]

next question...

 

not to befuddle this thread..

 

as a patient and a caregiver... can i give it to any patient free? or will my status as a caregiver somehow trump that...

 

i think i can still give cannabis to any patient.. but i am asking everything i can think of in case someone else is wondering the same thing..

 

I think the act provides for a person who is both a patient and a CG to act as one or the other. For example, as a registered patient, I can smoke MMJ. But this protection isn't extended to me as a CG. But as a patient I can still engage in medical use. The fact that I'm also a CG doesn't prevent me from doing patient stuff. So I don't see how the scenario you bring up could be any different. Invoking the protection of a patient does not create of temporary stripping of the protections as a CG and vice-versa.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Highlander

[CaveatLector]

I think the act provides for a person who is both a patient and a CG to act as one or the other. For example, as a registered patient, I can smoke MMJ. But this protection isn't extended to me as a CG. But as a patient I can still engage in medical use. The fact that I'm also a CG doesn't prevent me from doing patient stuff. So I don't see how the scenario you bring up could be any different. Invoking the protection of a patient does not create of temporary stripping of the protections as a CG and vice-versa.

Consider this wrinkle. Someone assisting in medical use becomes, by operation of law, a primary caregiver. Why? Because they fit the definition. That being:

 

(g) "Primary caregiver" means 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.

 

Restorium brought up this point some time ago. To further elaborate on it, in light of the recent Green decision, is there ever really a true p2p transfer? If you become a cg at the moment of assisting then should you not be treated as a cg under the law? If you're treated as a cg then it would seem you are still subject to the limitations of 4b. So to argue for p2p one would have to argue that you are not limited by the 4b limitations even though you are, by operation of law, a cg. I think the law clearly allows for duality of status (one can be a pt and a cg) but the question becomes whether you enjoy simultaneous protections under the different statuses.

 

I wonder if Green will be appealed.

[mibrains]

thanks a lot cav

 

LOL

 

FLIP

 

j/k

[CaveatLector]

I'm not saying it would go that way. Just playing devil's advocate.

[peanutbutter]

It's all a guess ..

 

The Supreme Court is about to rule.

 

When they do, the more details you list as absolutes, the more you'll get wrong. Everyone posting on the topic will have parts wrong.

 

I bet they even toss things in nobody here has even begun to consider.

[mibrains]

oh i want a piece of that bet...

 

agreed...

 

but there's no such thing as an absolute certainty.

 

ever..

 

except we were all born..

and we shall all die.

at some point...

 

i for one like the fact that some of the pain and suffering i feel is able to be controlled in the mean time with an all natural organically grown plant..

 

Thank God.

 

we post ideas and we profess our thoughts on subjects.. (argue) (debate) (express) (learn)

 

together... as a community.

 

we learn.. and we stretch and we grow.

 

hopefully we all grow...

 

as people and in our gardens.

[CaveatLector]

It's all a guess ..

 

The Supreme Court is about to rule.

 

When they do, the more details you list as absolutes, the more you'll get wrong. Everyone posting on the topic will have parts wrong.

 

I bet they even toss things in nobody here has even begun to consider.

So we cannot toss this around because the supremes are going to address parts? I prefer to kick issues around. At what point should we ignore them? Maybe we shouldn't address ANY issues since the supreme court may rule on them eventually. Maybe we should all just shut up.

 

I don't mind being "wrong." Reasonable minds can differ. Beyond that, much of the material being addressed here won't likely be addressed by the supremes unless they overreach. Some of this is not before them and shouldn't be touched.

Edited February 7, 2013 by CaveatLector

[bobandtorey]

next question...

 

not to befuddle this thread..

 

as a patient and a caregiver... can i give it to any patient free? or will my status as a caregiver somehow trump that...

 

i think i can still give cannabis to any patient.. but i am asking everything i can think of in case someone else is wondering the same thing..

 

I agree as long as no $$ in any of the Transactions IMHO your good

 

But I also think that the city's are allowing them to open and Leo knows we're they our so you would think they would raid them not just take them to court for Public nuisance charges

[peanutbutter]

So we cannot toss this around because the supremes are going to address parts? I prefer to kick issues around. At what point should we ignore them? Maybe we shouldn't address ANY issues since the supreme court may rule on them eventually. Maybe we should all just shut up.

 

I don't mind being "wrong." Reasonable minds can differ. Beyond that, much of the material being addressed here won't likely be addressed by the supremes unless they overreach. Some of this is not before them and shouldn't be touched.

 

I might expect a long section of guidelines in the footnotes. Like they did in Kalonic (sp?)

 

They have the opportunity to clean a lot of ground with dicta .. true, not binding, But a pretty good idea how the court would rule in the future.

 

In 4(a) and (b) the authors clearly were able to use that phrase you would like to insert into 4(e). The authors decided not to include that stuff about a patient linked to then in the registry in 4(e).

I don't think their memories failed them between paragraphs. (yep .. context)

 

I think they will try to be liberal, that is favoring the more liberal interpretation. More toward freedoms than restrictions.

 

From the questions asked by Justice Young, if it were up to him, we would have zero problems.

 

Watch .. Hathaway was the swing vote.