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

[peanutbutter]

Only speculators have seen section 8 as more liberal with quantities and some sort of continuous supply clause.

 

Yeah .. like judges and lawyers.

[CaveatLector]

Why is the converse also true? Anyone can imagine many many things that are not mentioned in 4(b).

 

For instance, it is not explicitly stated that a caregiver may sleep in a bed. So is sleeping in a bed illegal for a caregiver?

 

If 4(b) were the entire set of protections afforded a caregiver, why have c, d, e etc?

 

BECAUSE it has c, d and e, 4(b) is NOT the entire set of protections within the law. Or within section 4. There are several protections listed. All of the protections are NOT limited to just 4(b).

Why? Because the CSA makes transfers illegal. Therefore, the only LEGAL transfers are the one specifically protected by the act. The act specifically protects cgs making transfers to connected pts.

 

Your, "sleeping in a bed" example is like your driving example years ago. You argued that since the act protects transportation of marijuana then a cg can drive, even without a license, since they are allowed to transport marijuana. Silly, silly, silly, nonsense peanut. Sleeping in a bed is NOT illegal at the outset. Transfers of marijuana ARE unless otherwise exempted from criminal liability by the MMA.

Edited February 7, 2013 by CaveatLector

[peanutbutter]

You cannot, with a straight face, contest that aspect. You cannot put forth a cogent argument whereby you explain that 4b only gives a cg protecton for assisting a connected pt but then 4e allows the cg to assist an unconnected pt in one single aspect of medical use--that being the transfer PLUS compensation.

 

4(b) and 4(e) are two different protections.

 

Neither one of which negates the other.

 

In addition, 4(b) does not provide for the arrest of caregivers that are not in compliance with 4(b). If 4(e) were intended to be limited by 4(b) then 4(e) would have been identified as 4(b,14) or something like that. OR 4(b) would have been listed within 4(e) Depending on which was supposed to dominate.

 

Neither dominates over the other. They are both protections.

[CaveatLector]

4(b) and 4(e) are two different protections.

 

Neither one of which negates the other.

 

In addition, 4(b) does not provide for the arrest of caregivers that are not in compliance with 4(b). If 4(e) were intended to be limited by 4(b) then 4(e) would have been identified as 4(b,14) or something like that. OR 4(b) would have been listed within 4(e) Depending on which was supposed to dominate.

 

Neither dominates over the other. They are both protections.

I appreciate your opinion but it flies in the face of statutory rules of construction and interpretation.

[peanutbutter]

Transfers of marijuana ARE unless otherwise exempted from criminal liability by the MMA.

 

4(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.

 

If you roll a joint for someone and then pass it to them, hasn't that been held to be delivery of a controlled substance?

[peanutbutter]

I appreciate your opinion but it flies in the face of statutory rules of construction and interpretation.

 

So we go round and round again ..

 

And it doesn't make any difference .. the opinion that matters is about to be released.

[CaveatLector]

4(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.

 

If you roll a joint for someone and then pass it to them, hasn't that been held to be delivery of a controlled substance?

Assisting with using or administering is NOT the same thing as the statutorily defined, "medical use." You cannot apply the medical use definition to that phrase. If they meant medical use they would have written, ". . . for assisting with medical use."

[CaveatLector]

So we go round and round again ..

 

And it doesn't make any difference .. the opinion that matters is about to be released.

You don't know that. The cg to unconnected pt is not an issue in front of the supremes.

[CaveatLector]

Assisting with using or administering is NOT the same thing as the statutorily defined, "medical use." You cannot apply the medical use definition to that phrase. If they meant medical use they would have written, ". . . for assisting with medical use."

To elaborate on this, think of it as your friend coming to your house, going into your cupboard, getting out your mj for you, then rolling a joint for you. Lighting it, holding it while you hit it. That is assisting with using or administering. You are protected for that.

 

Excuse the major grammatical faux pas in the forgoing sentence.

Edited February 7, 2013 by CaveatLector

[peanutbutter]

That is a good point. In the strictest sense, as we seem to be using right now, "a person" assisting a patient by rolling a joint, loading a vaporizer, making a capsule, is engaging in a bi-directional transfer.

 

Hummm .. nothing mentioned there about bi-directional ..

 

Nothing about money either. example: "Can you roll a joint for me, please? I'll pay you to do it." Does money make the transfer illegal?

[peanutbutter]

To elaborate on this, think of it as your friend coming to your house, going into your cupboard, getting out your mj for you, then rolling a joint for you. Lighting it, holding it while you hit it. That is assisting with using or administering. You are protected for that.

 

Ahh .. any other limits on that section you would like to invent?

[CaveatLector]

Hummm .. nothing mentioned there about bi-directional ..

 

Nothing about money either. example: "Can you roll a joint for me, please? I'll pay you to do it." Does money make the transfer illegal?

It isn't a transfer. If you grab your friend's hydrocodone bottle and hand him a pill are you transfering the pill? No. Not in the sense intended by criminal law. Clearly such a "transfer" would fall under the assisting with using or administering provision.

[Highlander]

Ahh .. any other limits on that section you would like to invent?

 

Do tell PB, what in your view is the difference between "assisting with administering or using" and "medical use?" Statutory interpretation 101 tells us they must have different meanings.

[peanutbutter]

4i could include purchasing medicine for somebody, I'd think, unless this "automatic caregiver" thing that Restorium proposes is actually real. In which case, the "a person" would need to use section 8 to defend themselves as an unregistered caregiver, I guess. That does not seem like a reasonable interpretation at first blush, however.

 

I'm setting here thinking ..

 

"Roll a joint for me, please" legal.

"My bag is in my bedroom, Please get it out and roll a joint for me." still legal.

"My bag is in my car. Please bring it in and roll a joint for me." hmmm .. if they get caught walking across the yard with said bag?

"My neighbor has my bag. Could you go get it for me?" ... hummm

"My neighbor has a bag for me. Here's the money." hummmm ..

[CaveatLector]

4i could include purchasing medicine for somebody, I'd think, unless this "automatic caregiver" thing that Restorium proposes is actually real. In which case, the "a person" would need to use section 8 to defend themselves as an unregistered caregiver, I guess. That does not seem like a reasonable interpretation at first blush, however.

Again, if 4i protects for what is essentially medical use then why would the author not just write, "medical use?"

 

(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.

 

Does that definition not cover, "assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana?" Of course it does. So if the authors intended "medical use" such that they meant to cover transfers then they would have written, "assisting a registered qualifying patient with the medical use of marihuana." That is clear. Very clear. As Highlander points out, this would be a REQUIREMENT under statutory rules of construction. There is no getting around that. The fact that the author did NOT write, "medical use" means that what they DID write does not mean the same as, "medical use."

[CaveatLector]

 

"My neighbor has a bag for me. Here's the money." hummmm ..

That's like saying that," Kroger has a gallon of milk for me. Here's the money."

 

Fact is it is NOT your milk until you make the sale transaction. Similarly, it is NOT your marijuana until it is purchased. Using semantics and calling it yours doesn't change that.

[peanutbutter]

That's like saying that," Kroger has a gallon of milk for me. Here's the money."

 

Fact is it is NOT your milk until you make the sale transaction. Similarly, it is NOT your marijuana until it is purchased. Using semantics and calling it yours doesn't change that.

 

LOL just like the COA .. "It's different if money is involved."

 

It's not written in the law .. so why? "Because I think it should be that way."

 

Ahh .. just twisted it another way. So that five pound bucket isn't mine because I didn't pay for it?

Edited February 7, 2013 by peanutbutter

[Herb Cannabis]

The ballot language? The preamble? Both of those are incredibly straightforward.

 

Would you provide me with a link to the ballot language? Thank you.

[CaveatLector]

LOL just like the COA .. "It's different if money is involved."

 

It's not written in the law .. so why? "Because I think it should be that way."

If money isn't involved then what is it? If it isn't a sale then is it a gift? If it's a gift then the law of gifting would decide whether, and when, the marijuana became yours. A gift isn't yours until it is delivered to you. That's the law. The donor needs to relinquish control. The donor hasn't relinquished control if they still are possessing it next door. That is just a fact. No way around that. Semantics won't help.

[CaveatLector]

[url=http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/Michigan_Ballot_Proposal_2008.pdf]http://www.procon.org/sourcefiles/Michigan_Ballot_Proposal_2008.pdf

name='Herb Cannabis' timestamp='1360258891' post='426933']

Would you provide me with a link to the ballot language? Thank you.

[CaveatLector]

LOL just like the COA .. "It's different if money is involved."

 

It's not written in the law .. so why? "Because I think it should be that way."

 

Ahh .. just twisted it another way. So that five pound bucket isn't mine because I didn't pay for it?

Take money out of the equation. You are the one who put it in there. Call it a gift. I already addressed that.

[peanutbutter]

If money isn't involved then what is it? If it isn't a sale then is it a gift? If it's a gift then the law of gifting would decide whether, and when, the marijuana became yours. A gift isn't yours until it is delivered to you. That's the law. The donor needs to relinquish control. The donor hasn't relinquished control if they still are possessing it next door. That is just a fact. No way around that. Semantics won't help.

 

Bull .. while rolling, the helper has physical control. Many people have been convicted of delivery simply for passing a joint.

 

So many that they decided to make a separate law for it. I think it's called delivery without remuneration.

Edited February 7, 2013 by peanutbutter

[peanutbutter]

Does the same hold true for "a person" asked to pick up medicine from a caregiver?

 

Seriously, the idea that a family member cannot pick up medicine for a severely debilitated patient is a nonsensical interpretation. It is basic assistance.

 

So who is allowed to deliver cannabis to a patient?

[CaveatLector]

Does the same hold true for "a person" asked to pick up medicine from a caregiver?

 

Seriously, the idea that a family member cannot pick up medicine for a severely debilitated patient is a nonsensical interpretation. It is basic assistance.

I would bet dollars to donuts that the court would say, "that is why the law created cgs, to do the things others cannot."

 

The bottom line is that, "assisting with using or administering" is NOT the same as "medical use." You cannot force it into that mold. You can define "using" as liberally as you want and then you end up including every element from the definition of medical use. So if it means medical use then the authors would have used that term. Since they didn't use the term then it is clear that there is a difference between the 2. So where do you draw the line? Getting meds from the car? The neighbor? Buying it? Growing it? That's the problem--trying to force using into the medical use mold.

Edited February 7, 2013 by CaveatLector

[CaveatLector]

So who is allowed to deliver cannabis to a patient?

First, before you equivocate, define deliver. Then we can talk about who can deliver.