Supreme Court Ruling - McQueen - Compassionate Apothacary

[Dr. Bob]

Ahhh .. but it's now a RIGHT

 

 

 

Thus saith the Supreme Court.

 

PB, right now is a good time to read and not type. It isn't a right. We need clarity not speculation or someone is going to go to jail because they decide to listen to their favorite internet 'opion'.

 

Nothing personal, but right now what we don't need is a bunch of folks trying to salvage their commercial businesses with yet another spin.

 

Dr. Bob

[Highlander]

How can you medically benefit yourself by ridding yourself of meds?

 

What about "delivery?" How does the person directly benefit by delivering meds?

 

They don't. The patients benefits when the CG delivers the meds. The CG doesn't have to benefit because he is only assisting with medical use.

[t-pain]

the dissent lays it out

Thus, under the majority’s holding, a qualified patient’s right to receive

marijuana is effectively extinguished because a patient-to-patient transfer of marijuana

can never occur lawfully for both qualifying patients.

[SFC]

This ruling is an opportunity for patients and Cg's that want to be the best at growing quality meds. Learn the craft , get patients. The dispensaries encouraged noobs and marginal growers, that is gone.

[michaelscott]

Does this mean that patients can not try free sample meds to see of they want to sign that caregiver or is that allowed?

[GregS]

At first blush, a couple of things come to mind. One being daisy chain registration and another that Section 8 has more to offer in ultimate protection than Section 4. The crux of the issue is in keeping things between a qualified patient and their own designated primary caregiver..

 

The majority opinion is skewed, and the dissent speaks to some real and, imo, accurate issues. Nonetheless it is the law of the land.

[mibrains]

PB, right now is a good time to read and not type. It isn't a right. We need clarity not speculation or someone is going to go to jail because they decide to listen to their favorite internet 'opion'.

 

Nothing personal, but right now what we don't need is a bunch of folks trying to salvage their commercial businesses with yet another spin.

 

Dr. Bob

 

doc

PB is right..

the SC declared that it is a right.

its in the opinion...

the SC said it.

clear language.

lets follow our own advice here...

[peanutbutter]

They don't. The patients benefits when the CG delivers the meds. The CG doesn't have to benefit because he is only assisting with medical use.

 

But didn't they say that the person conducting the action needed to be the one that benefited?

 

I figured the cash issue was DOA but they might find other ways to get there. And they seem to have gotten there. How did the new justice vote and how would the old one have voted?

 

Did they split the list of nine into who the nine apply to? If they did, it would be nice to see exactly how they split the list.

Which element of medical use applies to which people?

 

But .. the Supreme Court has now ruled the MMMA contains RIGHTS.

[GregS]

Does this mean that patients can not try free sample meds to see of they want to sign that caregiver or is that allowed?

 

Only if said caregiver is designated through the registry per section 4, OR is designated without registry, with reliance on Section 8.

[peanutbutter]

This ruling is an opportunity for patients and Cg's that want to be the best at growing quality meds. Learn the craft , get patients. The dispensaries encouraged noobs and marginal growers, that is gone.

 

It will take less time to get 5580 passed.

[SFC]

Mike, that is a reasonable question. I don't have a safe answer for you.

[peanutbutter]

Only if said caregiver is designated through the registry per section 4, OR is designated without registry, with reliance on Section 8.

 

Folks .. it's now a felony again to pass a joint.

[SFC]

Yea, good luck with 5580 PB. I don't see it happening with this congress. Also be careful what you wish for. Any version of 5580 that did pass would most likely gift wrap for only powerful entities. Wake up!

[Highlander]

Folks .. it's now a felony again to pass a joint.

 

High Court misdemeanor. Distribution without remuneration isn't a felony.

[Kingpinn]

Better get them DOG KENNELS READY

[GregS]

Membership with properly connected registrants in a plan to ensure that all transfers are indeed primary caregiver to patient is entirely workable.

[t-pain]

This Court first interpreted the MMMA in People v Kolanek and explained:

The MMMA does not create a general right for individuals to use

and possess marijuana in Michigan.

 

 

Section 4 creates a personal right and

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

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

medical condition or symptoms.

 

so does this reverse kolanek? now that its a 'right', the MMMA can be applied retroactively?

[SFC]

More Pb fe

Folks .. it's now a felony again to pass a joint.

 

More fear mongering. Did you ever smoke a joint before this law PB?

[peanutbutter]

High Court misdemeanor. Distribution without remuneration isn't a felony.

 

I stand corrected. I should have used the word crime.

 

Passing a joint between registered patients is now a crime.

[Dr. Bob]

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

[t-pain]

i'm confused why young sided with the majority.

in oral arguments iirc he said if transfers were not protected, then there was the chicken-egg problem.

 

so CG can only transfer to 5 patients

and CG cant transfer to other CG.

and patients cant transfer to anyone,

 

then how does a CG aquire meds?

[GregS]

i'm confused why young sided with the majority.

in oral arguments iirc he said if transfers were not protected, then there was the chicken-egg problem.

 

so CG can only transfer to 5 patients

and CG cant transfer to other CG.

and patients cant transfer to anyone,

 

then how does a CG aquire meds?

 

By being a patient and getting them from his caregiver.

[t-pain]

what about patient zero gregS?

[peanutbutter]

i'm confused why young sided with the majority.

in oral arguments iirc he said if transfers were not protected, then there was the chicken-egg problem.

 

so CG can only transfer to 5 patients

and CG cant transfer to other CG.

and patients cant transfer to anyone,

 

then how does a CG aquire meds?

 

From a criminal.

[peanutbutter]

It is not a right.

 

I think that when Dr Bob and the SC disagree, I'll believe the SC.