Jump to content

Supreme Court Ruling - McQueen - Compassionate Apothacary


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

then how does a CG aquire meds?

 

they grow it as stated in the law

 

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

Edited by cristinew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new business model that is likely to emerge is one that tracks registration among a membership that ensures that members are either both a patient and a caregiver or, if ineligible to act as a caregiver, a patient. Full rights and protection to engage in all aspects of medical use, and to provide for compesation for costs, are granted to those who are both, provided that a chain of custody that only permits transfers from patient members' designated caregivers to themselves is maintained. Those patients are, in turn, designated caregivers for another patient, up to five, who is a caregiver for another one to five patients, &c. Those who do not qualfy to be a caregiver but are nonetheless patients,can be permitted to acquire from thier primary caregiver, but not to tranfer to anyone.

 

Those who are not elibible to be patients but act as caregivers are permitted to sell to their patients, who are caregivers to others.

 

Daisy chain is the term that immediately comes to mind.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kill yourself Pb...... Nah, I am just kidding. But you are one negative Mf'r man.

 

Thanks for reminding us of your 4 year old case Bob, we almost forgot.

 

Gotta adjust the meds.

 

If dodo is about to hit the fan, people need to know that ASAP.

 

The headlines say "dispensaries." Reality is that this hits everyone.

 

Shields up ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

folks..

 

i appreciate everyone's input..

 

i seriously do.

 

lets keep this conversation on track and not sling ANY personal attacks around please.

 

we are all a bit emotional right now...

 

Breath...

 

we still have the right to grow and use cannabis for personal medicine. and in fact the SC reiterated that on the top of page 17.

 

Section 4 creates a personal right and

protection for a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana, but that right is

limited to medical use that has the purpose of alleviating that patient’s own debilitating

medical condition or symptoms.

 

 

so long as you are sure any actions you partake in are for the Sole purpose of alleviating your medical condition and nothing else...

then there is nothing to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

folks..

 

i appreciate everyone's input..

 

i seriously do.

 

lets keep this conversation on track and not sling ANY personal attacks around please.

 

we are all a bit emotional right now...

 

Breath...

 

we still have the right to grow and use cannabis for personal medicine. and in fact the SC reiterated that on the top of page 17.

 

Section 4 creates a personal right and

protection for a registered qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana, but that right is

limited to medical use that has the purpose of alleviating that patient’s own debilitating

medical condition or symptoms.

 

 

so long as you are sure any actions you partake in are for the Sole purpose of alleviating your medical condition and nothing else...

then there is nothing to worry about.

 

Or the condition of a patient you are the CG for as registered through LARA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not a right. Free speech is a right. The legislature, on a whim, cannot eliminate free speech. There is no right to use cannabis.

 

We got here because folks tried to add meaning to a single word here and there ('a' vs 'their' vs 'any'). Let's not make the same mistake again.

 

Dr. Bob

 

It's the letter (A)and the word (The)Oakland Couty took that to the COA with our case I think long ago

But it got lost somewhere up their

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any member of a chain can rent storage space anywhere to store their bowling ball.

 

The glitch is that the SC says that the transfer of MJ from CG to pt "for the purposes of alleviating the patient's debilitating condition." In the daisy chain model, the CG transfers meds to his patient for a different purpose. The purpose isn't to alleviate the patient's condition. It is to alleviate some other patient's condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new business model that is likely to emerge is one that tracks registration among a membership that ensures that members are either both a patient and a caregiver or, if ineligible to act as a caregiver, a patient. Full rights and protection to engage in all aspects of medical use, and to provide for compesation for costs, are granted to those who are both, provided that a chain of custody that only permits transfers from patient members' designated caregivers to themselves. Those patients are, in turn, designated caregivers for another patient, up to five, who is a caregiver for another one to five patients, &c. Those who do not qualfy to be a caregiver but are nonetheless patients,can be permitted to acquire from thier primary caregiver, but not to tranfer to anyone.

 

Those who are not elibible to be patients but act as caregivers are permitted to sell to their patients, who are caregivers to others.

 

Daisy chain is the term that immediately comes to mind.

 

Always seemed, to me, to be to complex to be accepted. Like the argument would get pretty much ignored. Not taken seriously.

 

Could work out to be if no one ever had more than 15 oz. at any time. possible outcome of presenting the argument, I figure.

 

Transactions might be limited to 2.5 each.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The glitch is that the SC says that the transfer of MJ from CG to pt "for the purposes of alleviating the patient's debilitating condition." In the daisy chain model, the CG transfers meds to his patient for a different purpose. The purpose isn't to alleviate the patient's condition. It is to alleviate some other patient's condition.

The glitch is that the SC says that the transfer of MJ from CG to pt "for the purposes of alleviating the patient's debilitating condition." In the daisy chain model, the CG transfers meds to his patient for a different purpose. The purpose isn't to alleviate the patient's condition. It is to alleviate some other patient's condition.

 

And that is established in court how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(d) The department shall issue a registry identification card to the primary caregiver, if any, who is named in a qualifying patient's approved application; provided that each qualifying patient can have no more than 1 primary caregiver, and a primary caregiver may assist no more than 5 qualifying patients with their medical use of marihuana.

 

that has always been clear to me

Edited by cristinew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for my ignorance, but is there a SC decision that says caregivers can only transfer to their registered patients, or is it only a COA case? And what is the name of the case that controls?

 

McQueen. Released today.

 

In a transfer between patients only one person is protected. The receiver. And then only if it is completely intended for their own consumption.

 

Money exchange is irrelevant. Either a giver or seller, they are violating the law. Even if it is to another registered patient.

 

It seems that every kind of transaction is illegal with the very limited exception of a caregiver giving or selling marijuana to a patient that has been registered to them.

 

PDf of the ruling: http://courts.michigan.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/12-13-Term-Opinions/143824%20Opinion.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McQueen. Released today.

 

In a transfer between patients only one person is protected. The receiver. And then only if it is completely intended for their own consumption.

 

Money exchange is irrelevant. Either a giver or seller, they are violating the law. Even if it is to another registered patient.

 

It seems that every kind of transaction is illegal with the very limited exception of a caregiver giving or selling marijuana to a patient that has been registered to them.

 

PDf of the ruling: http://courts.michig...4%20Opinion.pdf

 

You are making schit up again p'nut. Please, and I have not read the opinion entirely thoroughly, where is intent addressed as you indicate? And would you please calrify your remarks concerning sales?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that is established in court how?

 

"Because the MMMA’s immunity provision clearly contemplates that a registered

qualifying patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his

own debilitating medical condition.....and not another patient’s condition or symptoms,"

 

"To be eligible for § 4 immunity, a registered primary caregiver must be

engaging in marijuana-related conduct for the purpose of alleviating the debilitating

medical condition, or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, of a

registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the registration

process of the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH)."

 

So we have the supplier/CG. Call him CG1.

 

He transfers to a patient (p1) registered to him through LARA.

 

P1 is also a CG (CG2). P1 takes the meds he got from his CG (CG1) and transfers them to his own patient registered to him through LARA. Call him P2.

 

When CG1 makes the transfer to P1/CG2, the purpose of the transfer is not to alleviate P1's condition. It is for the purpose of alleviating P2's condition.

 

This is inconsistent with what the SC just said is OK.

 

Of course, this is a "loose lips sink ships" kinda thing. But it isn't a legal model for transfers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...