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

[GregS]

drama queen (dra'-me-kween): n.

pl.: drama queens

 

An insufferable buffoon whose purpose is to engage in self aggrandizement at every opportunity.

Edited February 7, 2013 by GregS

[peanutbutter]

I think he likes clarity in the face of merit-less or obtuse arguments. Most of us understand that there is a difference between what we like and how it is.

 

Hey .. I like it also.

 

Worst case, the SC upholds that. I love the quote. I'm happy it showed up here.

 

Upholds it or not, the quote is still valid.

 

So it applies to excluded phrases left out of 4(e).

Edited February 7, 2013 by peanutbutter

[CaveatLector]

Sorry it took so long to respond, The reporter took a couple of hours.

Wow, you crack me up. Is there no end to the self-adulation? (Please excuse me if it takes a while for me to see a response to this because I have to hit the loo and it usually takes a while to make it over the stacks and stacks of money, and back.)

[CaveatLector]

Thanks for the obligatory warning that the courts are still obstructing the proper implementation of the law. Would you consider the acquisition, transport (in the trunk), and delivery of marijuana to a severely debilitated family member to be a level 2 or level 3 risk behavior?

Well, does level 3 mean definite slammer-time? If so then I'd call it a 2. If not then I'd say it all depends on the good graces of the cops and prosecutor. County-dependent if you will.

[GregS]

Wow, you crack me up. Is there no end to the self-adulation? (Please excuse me if it takes a while for me to see a response to this because I have to hit the loo and it usually takes a while to make it over the stacks and stacks of money, and back.)

 

And the rest of us must take time out to get seriously baked. Why don't you try back about June?

Edited February 7, 2013 by GregS

[CaveatLector]

And the rest of us must take time out for some serious medicating. Why don't you try back in around June.

Indeed.

 

As for the money stacks, IF ONLY! I was just poking fun.

[GregS]

Indeed.

 

As for the money stacks, IF ONLY! I was just poking fun.

 

Not me.

[peanutbutter]

Wow, you crack me up. Is there no end to the self-adulation? (Please excuse me if it takes a while for me to see a response to this because I have to hit the loo and it usually takes a while to make it over the stacks and stacks of money, and back.)

 

And I thought that was funny also.

 

Didn't seem to need a response. I got back to the screen and found three new pages to sort through.

[CaveatLector]

Definite slammer time is level 4. I would consider level 2 subject to arrest and subsequent dismissal (until the police, prosecutors, and courts get the hang of it), and level 3 needing to see a jury prior to acquittal.

I have personally seen many dismissals on on sec 4 grounds and a few on sec 8. A lot of this depends on the prosecutor and the court. Unfortunate but true. So I would categorize it as a 3 in many counties. A 2 in others. Wouldn't call it a 4 but who knows. The thing is that it is very fact dependent (section 8). You better have your ducks in a row. If you have your ducks in a row and have a solid sec 8 case then a 4 shouldn't be in the mix. But you know juries too though. You never know what they'll do.

 

I think some counties (prosectuor) would move to dismiss at dist. ct level. Others would hang on until circuit to see if you really can prove your case. In the larger counties you start dealing with cases being judge-dependent too. Hope you draw a liberal judge.

 

Put it this way, if it were me and my family member, I would seal up the product in a jar in the trunk and obey the traffic laws.

[peanutbutter]

And the rest of us must take time out to get seriously baked. Why don't you try back about June?

 

I figure a real close look at what the SC says .. until then we're just getting heads to spin. Mine, if no one elses.

[CaveatLector]

I figure a real close look at what the SC says .. until then we're just getting heads to spin. Mine, if no one elses.

I choose to see it as, until then we are trying to be sure people stay safe. If the court rules on this stuff at all, or provides hints as to where they will go with it, and if it goes the way I think it will then what of the people arrested and charged between now and the court's ruling? My thought process is to keep them safe and not plant the seed that somehow they are golden under these strange interpretations. I thought that is what you were all about too? See my signature . . . ?

[GregS]

I figure a real close look at what the SC says .. until then we're just getting heads to spin. Mine, if no one elses.

 

We'll miss ya. (sniff)

[+Malamute]

This is ridiculously divergent from the ballot language, as well.

 

The ballot language is not written by the same people that wrote the law/initiative.

 

It is written by the State and the group that submitted the initiative can influence to a degree that the language is correct. I believe there were originally two discrepencies that MPP wanted changed in the ballot language and only one was changed. You would have to ask Karen O'Keefe of MPP or the law firm Dykema Gossett.

 

So,... the ballot tot he initiative "can" be a little flawed sometimes.

[+Malamute]

Definite slammer time is level 4. I would consider level 2 subject to arrest and subsequent dismissal (until the police, prosecutors, and courts get the hang of it), and level 3 needing to see a jury prior to acquittal.

 

Since when have people gotten the notion that a jury is friendly?

 

I do believe, and please correct if i am wrong, but juries tend to find mor epeople guilty and recommend harsher penalties than a Judge does on average?

 

I think it is a misconception that just because you see a jury it will be dismissed.

[Highlander]

Well, this subject of “what does ‘using and administering’ mean as opposed to “medical use” “ got me thinking most of the afternoon. Here’s my theory to run up the flagpole/throw at the wall.

 

There are four protected classes under section 4:

1. A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card;
   
2. A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card;
   
3. A physician;
   
4. A person.
   

 

And these are the explicit protections each class has in Section 4.

 

Patient:

“… not subject to arrest ….. for the medical use of marihuana…”

 

Caregiver:

“… not subject to arrest ….. for assisting a patient to whom he is connected through the registry with the medical use of marihuana…”

 

Physician:

“ …. not be subject to arrest for providing written certifications…”

 

Person:

“….shall not be denied custody or visitation of a minor for acting in accordance with this act…”

 

“ … shall not be subject to arrest …. for providing a registered qualifying patient or a registered primary caregiver with marihuana paraphernalia ….”

 

“ …. shall not be subject to arrest….solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana …. or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering ….”

 

 

 

"Medical use" lets a patient do all these great things with his MMJ:

acquisition,

possession,

cultivation,

manufacture,

use,

internal possession,

delivery,

transfer,

transportation

 

A CG can assist a patient with the following:

acquisition,

possession,

cultivation,

manufacture,

use,

internal possession,

delivery,

transfer,

transportation

 

A Person can assist a patient with the following:

Administration

Use

 

 

This leads to the big question: If the intent of the law is that a “person” can assist a patient with using or administering MMJ, does Section 4 protect a non-patient/non CG for going to the caregiver to pick up marijuana for his family member who is a legit patient?

 

Take Billy as an example. Billy isn’t a patient or CG. He’s just a good grandson. His grandma, who is a patient with MS, needs some MMJ and is too frail to go get it. For whatever reason, her CG can’t deliver it. So Billy gets in his car and drives to the CG’s house. Billy acquires some MMJ. Billy possesses the MMJ as he transports it in his car. He delivers the MMJ to his grandma’s house. He assists her with using the MMJ when he helps her bake some brownies, and he assists her with administering the MMJ when he rolls a joint and holds the lighter for her because she can’t do it herself.

 

The law allows a “person” to assist with administering or using. If the law intended for acquisition, etc. to be under the umbrella of “assisting with administering or using,” then there would be no point for the words “acquisition, possession, delivery, transportation, and transfer” in the definition of “medical use.” “Medical Use” would be defined as “use, manufacture, cultivation, internal possession”

 

There is no choice but to consider the inclusion of “acquisition, possession, delivery, transportation, transfer” in the list of things a patient can do and the exclusion of these same terms from what a “person” can do, as intentional.

 

Therefore, there is no protection in Section 4 for a “person” to acquire, possess, deliver, transport, or transfer marijuana under any circumstances.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Highlander

[GregS]

"This leads to the big question: If the intent of the law is that a “person” can assist a patient with using or administering MMJ, does Section 4 protect a non-patient/non CG for going to the caregiver to pick up marijuana for his family member who is a legit patient?"

 

I think not. Protected in assisting the pt w/ using and administering, but nowhere is there protection to transport, transfer, deliver, or acquire. I could not agree more.

Edited February 8, 2013 by GregS

[OG Fire Beaster]

So what is the difference between assisting w/using and assisting w/administering. They are listed as two distinct components of medical use. What would constitute assisting with using versus assisting with administering? The COA stated that it is a lessor protection then medical use in general. So what specific actions constitute these two distinct parts of the medical use definition? It seems absurd that we have to have a high level court ruling to be in compliance with these common English words.

 

So if a "person" rolls a joint for a Pt is that assisting with the using or the administering? It clearly cant be both due to them being listed as separate actions.

 

Is there not a law on the books that state a person can not be guilty of a crime if the crime has not been clearly defined?

[OG Fire Beaster]

I reread the definition.

 

So all of the allowed activities are related to the administration.

 

In the brownie/joint example above it seems arbitrary that helping bake med brownies is somehow different than holding the lighter. What is the difference between turning the knob on the oven and flicking the bic? either way the Pt has to do the eating or the inhaling.

 

It seems that the level of distinction that is being tossed around is counter intuitive to the intent of the act. It was supposed to be so people have access to meds to alleviate suffering. I know we are just theorizing and discussing but a people's initiative is supposed to be plain language as a lay person would understand it.

 

If this is what is to become of the act it seems like BobandTorrey may be correct. No one has any real protection as all it will take is a prosecutor to decide what the "new" definition of a word is that hasn't been to COA or SC yet. I never worried about any of this when it was all black market/gorilla growing.

 

A lot of deep analysis here though. You guys(people) are 1st rate. Keep it up.

 

Now that my mind is blown think I'll go do it again!

[Highlander]

I reread the definition.

 

So all of the allowed activities are related to the administration.

 

In the brownie/joint example above it seems arbitrary that helping bake med brownies is somehow different than holding the lighter. What is the difference between turning the knob on the oven and flicking the bic? either way the Pt has to do the eating or the inhaling.

 

It seems that the level of distinction that is being tossed around is counter intuitive to the intent of the act. It was supposed to be so people have access to meds to alleviate suffering. I know we are just theorizing and discussing but a people's initiative is supposed to be plain language as a lay person would understand it.

 

If this is what is to become of the act it seems like BobandTorrey may be correct. No one has any real protection as all it will take is a prosecutor to decide what the "new" definition of a word is that hasn't been to COA or SC yet. I never worried about any of this when it was all black market/gorilla growing.

 

A lot of deep analysis here though. You guys(people) are 1st rate. Keep it up.

 

Now that my mind is blown think I'll go do it again!

 

We could get into the grammar part of if…

 

”assisting with using or administering” necessarily means that that “using and administering” are kinda the same, to use technical terms.

 

If you read it from a super-common view, then you’d read that you can assist with either using OR administering, but not both…because it doesn’t say “using AND administering”

 

A comma sets apart two distinctly different terms. So if “using” and “administering” were two completely different activities, then it would read “using, or administering.” The absence of the comma means that “using” and “administering” are similar.

 

Funny that “use” or “using” or whatever is in “medical use” but “administering” is not. And funny how the COA didn’t give a clue as to what they thought “using and administering” means. They just said it means something more narrow than “medical use.”

 

Because “use” lives amongst the other “medical use” actions, we can only conclude that “use” does not include any of them. A statue can’t be redundant. So whatever “use” means, it cannot include any of the following: acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, internal possession, delivery, transfer,

Transportation. So a “person” cannot assist with acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, internal possession, delivery, transfer, Transportation.

 

So what does that leave for “use” to mean? Preparation, ingestion, administration, … I could think of a few more. And what does “administration” mean? Who knows? But we know it means something like “use,” and common definitions give us a pretty good idea that in involves the assistance of a person taking medicine.

 

To conclude that a “person” can acquire and transport MMJ for a patient requires that “use” has a different meaning in Section 2 than it does in Section 4. That can’t be.

[bobandtorey]

 

"Basic assistance" is not in the law. The "assistance" must be provided in the "using or administering." The fact that the law uses those words (present tense) and together tells me that the intent is to allow a person to help with immediate use. Similar to giving a diabetic an injection. There are not many provisions in this law that I would bet the farm on but this is one I would. Using and administering is something LESS than medical use.

 

tells me that the intent is to allow a person to help with immediate use. Similar to giving a diabetic an injection

I agree and that's why you are legal the day you get your Rec.

 

And also is one of the parts that Leo does not like because he would have to take you to court only to find out your legal

[OG Fire Beaster]

Just to add to my confusion a little bit.

 

Possession would surely have to include internal possession?

How can you deliver without transporting?

[Highlander]

I don't agree with this premise. I think you are wrong from the jump.

 

Assuming so, how do you get from "assisting with administering" to "assisting with acquisition, transport, transfer...?"

[Highlander]

Just to add to my confusion a little bit.

 

Possession would surely have to include internal possession?

How can you deliver without transporting?

 

Wouldn't you think that possession and internal possession are two different things...and for a reason/reasons?

 

The law says I can't possess MMJ at a school. That means I can't take my baggie to my kids' school. If possession includes internal possession then you couldn't set foot on school ground with any presence of MMJ in your system.

[Highlander]

I don't agree with this premise. I think you are wrong from the jump.

 

With all due respect, it doesn't matter if you don't agree because the COA already ruled on this, and the matter isn't in front of the SC. So this is the way it is for the foreseeable future.

 

Because the word “administering” is grouped with the word “using,” the two words must

be given related meaning. See Manuel v Gill, 481 Mich 637, 650; 753 NW2d 48 (2008) (stating

that words grouped in a list must be given related meaning)

[Highlander]

In the end it is going to be difficult if not impossible to protect this person from arrest given the language of section 4 and the fact that there is not a card anywhere around. I would hope that the situation is made as easy as possible to rectify by the courts, and that they do not use unregistered caregivers as test cases.

 

Maybe we run the angle of the delivery service with a non-carded driver and a lock box in the trunk? If that fits within the new transportation bill, as it seems to, then a lot of the problems arising out of this matter (how to get meds to patients) vanish. Imagine a service that is strictly delivery. A guy drives to the CG, CG puts MMJ in the lockbox in the trunk, driver drives to patient, patient retrieves his MMJ. A guy driving a Geo Metro and claiming 55 cents/mile tax deduction and running a delivery service could price his service for less than it costs the CG to make the delivery himself. win - win win.