Supreme Court Ruling - McQueen - Compassionate Apothacary

[bobandtorey]

Better get them DOG KENNELS READY

 

LOL

[bobandtorey]

Yea. No problem.

 

As Caveat pointed out in another thread, there is still a possibility of conspiracy involved. So when saying that statement, we need to subtext a small risk still involved even for the patient.

 

we need to subtext a small risk still involved even for the patient how so ? they have a card Sec 4 will work and conspiracy is hard to prove to a jury

oh Waite at least they can have a jury so it might be better to just have paper work

[Restorium2]

we need to subtext a small risk still involved even for the patient how so ? they have a card Sec 4 will work and conspiracy is hard to prove to a jury

oh Waite at least they can have a jury so it might be better to just have paper work

It's not hard to prove if you have them on camera buying 2.5 ounces every other day. I know that is an extreme example. Extremes will help you see the point. There is a good chance you could be put in front of the judge for buying if you are looking like a drug mule.

[bobandtorey]

It's not hard to prove if you have them on camera buying 2.5 ounces every other day. I know that is an extreme example. Extremes will help you see the point. There is a good chance you could be put in front of the judge for buying if you are looking like a drug mule.

 

they can't do that for looking like any one you are scaring people

[CaveatLector]

we need to subtext a small risk still involved even for the patient how so ? they have a card Sec 4 will work and conspiracy is hard to prove to a jury

oh Waite at least they can have a jury so it might be better to just have paper work

If a pt buys from their unconnected cg then, per McQueen, the cg has committed a crime. So all the prosecutor has to prove is that seller wasn't your connected cg, that he sold mj to you, that you bought it and took it while knowing that he wasn't your connected cg. Voila, conspiracy. Not so hard to prove unless you can claim amnesia vitiates your intent to buy from an unconnected cg.

[bobandtorey]

If a pt buys from their unconnected cg then, per McQueen, the cg has committed a crime. So all the prosecutor has to prove is that seller wasn't your connected cg, that he sold mj to you, that you bought it and took it while knowing that he wasn't your connected cg. Voila, conspiracy. Not so hard to prove unless you can claim amnesia vitiates your intent to buy from an unconnected cg.

 

i agree but he would have the AD Sec 8 would work and imho is why the AD is so important for us all

[Restorium2]

they can't do that for looking like any one you are scaring people

Huh? Sure they can. If I'm scaring you then you might want to adjust what you are doing Bob. If you are a patient seen buying from an illegal dealer they will try to decide if you are just using it medically or not. The quantities you are buying, and the frequency, will factor into their decision of whether they need to look further into your activity. It's a reality that every patient should keep in mind.

[CaveatLector]

i agree but he would have the AD Sec 8 would work and imho is why the AD is so important for us all

I thought you kept telling us that sec 8 won't work?? Haha, just kidding.

[CaveatLector]

What if the patient didn't know the person was a caregiver?

The pt's intent is what is key here. The pt would have a hard time showing that they didn't know that the seller wasn't their connected cg wouldn't you say? That's the issue. If they KNEW that the seller WASN'T their connected cg then they knew that the seller was selling illegally. The seller cannot sell illegally without the pt participating in the transaction. Therefore, but for the pt's participation in the transaction there would not have been an illegal transaction. Therefore, pt's purchase helped create the seller's crime and thus is evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime.

[ozzrokk]

Then it sounds like they removed the protection for the patients as well if they are not aquiring from their signed caregiver. Sure am glad the courts and legislators are HELPING patients with a law that was meant to protect patients.

[Restorium2]

Then it sounds like they removed the protection for the patients as well if they are not aquiring from their signed caregiver. Sure am glad the courts and legislators are HELPING patients with a law that was meant to protect patients.

Nope. But it has to be for medical use. You can't legally buy a bag you are going to sell to someone else. If you make it obvious you are buying more than you are medically using expect you could get some attention for doing it.

[ozzrokk]

Nope. But it has to be for medical use. You can't legally buy a bag you are going to sell to someone else. If you make it obvious you are buying more than you are medically using expect you could get some attention for doing it.

 

 

Ohh I agree but that was always the case as far as I can see.

 

Edited to add but when people start talking about you being involved with conspiracy for buying from someone who is not your cg that makes a different situation.

Edited February 13, 2013 by ozzrokk

[CaveatLector]

I read the McQueen ruling as explicitly allowing patients to acquire from anywhere. I just can't see that a patient would read that ruling and not come to the same conclusion. You think police might misread it?

I think you are highly unlikely to see a prosecutor go down that road. But it is an option.

 

I understand that McQueen suggests that a pt can acquire from anywhere. That means they are protected for the acquisition. The acquisition isn't the problem here, it's the seller's crime. You, in theory, can be protected for the transfer on your end but on the hook on the seller's end. A little something called conspiracy to commit a legal act in an illegal manner. I agree completely that telling us that you can acquire from anywhere creates a legal conundrum. However, it exists. You, as a pt, maybe couldn't be charged with manuf/delivery per the supreme court ruling. But if the seller CAN be charged and you helped him commit that crime then you, in theory, can be charged with conspiracy to manuf/deliv.

 

If someone were thusly prosecuted I would see it going up to the supremes and the supremes probably throwing out the conviction. Keep in mind that I am not saying this should be a huge concern for anyone. Just that it exists as a possibility. Who knows the actual level of risk but I would GUESS that it is near zero. It is also entirely possible that the supremes would rule that 7e would toss this.

 

I'm not trying to harp on this point or make a big deal out of it--just point out that it could be an issue.

[CaveatLector]

If I recall correctly the idea that a pt can acquire from anywhere was merely a footnote and not part of the ruling. Correct me if I'm wrong. So it gives us an idea the way the court would go if it got to them. But that's all.

 

However, also keep in mind that if this issue were brought to the court and argued on both sides it is entirely possible that the court could rule against acquiring from any source.

[t-pain]

why did the court ignore 'delivery'?

if transfer and delivery are the same, why are they both on there?

 

section 3 defines medical use as delivery to treat a patients condition.

 

why is the court more interested in sending people to jail than to find justice for all?

Edited February 13, 2013 by t-pain

[t-pain]

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.

 

where did 'own' show up? its not in the law.

 

this entire ruling came down to "a" and "the".

 

and yes, i'd like to discuss this instead of someone replying "but its decided so stfu".

did they legislate from the bench by adding a word to a law?

Edited February 13, 2013 by t-pain

[Northern Lab]

why did the court ignore 'delivery'?

if transfer and delivery are the same, why are they both on there?

 

section 3 defines medical use as delivery to treat a patients condition.

 

why is the court more interested in sending people to jail than to find justice for all?

 

Ideology is my guess.

[Restorium2]

Cavanagh explains what he considers the flawed reasoning pretty well in his dissenting opinion. They could have interpreted 4(d)(2) in a patient-centric way, but the majority chose instead to use strict reasoning that helps nobody, really.

It helps law enforcement in a law enforcement-centric way. You need to expand your point of view. Work backwards from the result to who it helps, or who got what they wanted.

[Restorium2]

And so soon after People Vs Green ....

[GregS]

The pt's intent is what is key here. The pt would have a hard time showing that they didn't know that the seller wasn't their connected cg wouldn't you say? That's the issue. If they KNEW that the seller WASN'T their connected cg then they knew that the seller was selling illegally. The seller cannot sell illegally without the pt participating in the transaction. Therefore, but for the pt's participation in the transaction there would not have been an illegal transaction. Therefore, pt's purchase helped create the seller's crime and thus is evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime.

 

When it comes down to it, the transferror and the transferee know, or if not are looking for trouble, that the transferror is the patient's primary caregiver, either with or without registry connection. How difficult can it be to designate a unregistered caregiver? How much time after said designation does the relationship have effect that permits c2p xfer? When does that relationship expire?

 

Have a caregiver, be a caregiver.

Edited February 13, 2013 by GregS

[CaveatLector]

When it comes down to it, the transferror and the transferee know, or if not are looking for trouble, that the transferror is the patient's primary caregiver, either with or without registry connection. How difficult can it be to designate a unregistered caregiver? How much time after said designation does the relationship have effect that permits c2p xfer? When does that relationship expire?

 

Have a caregiver, be a caregiver.

Maybe. But the court told us that unconnected cgs are not protected.

[GregS]

Maybe. But the court told us that unconnected cgs are not protected.

 

Does that include those who choose to run with section 8 protections? Can you answer the questions?

Edited February 13, 2013 by GregS

[Restorium2]

Have a caregiver, be a caregiver.

 

You can only wear one hat at a time. Pick your relationship to the baggie, buyer or seller. You can't have it every which way. The law limits the distribution to 5. If you come up with an idea always check and see if it fits the 5 rule.

[CaveatLector]

Does that include those who choose to run with section 8 protections? Can you answer the questions?

I don't believe it does. But I'm talking about sec 4 immunity not what you can swing through sec 8.

[GregS]

Have a caregiver, be a caregiver.

 

You can only wear one hat at a time. Pick your relationship to the baggie, buyer or seller. You can't have it every which way. The law limits the distribution to 5. If you come up with an idea always check and see if it fits the 5 rule.

 

Section 8 does not limit a caregiver to five patients.. The meatheads in law enforcement don't likely understand this complicated mental leap, and that is to be considered,

 

But how difficult is it to name an unregistered caregiver and when does the agreement expire?

Edited February 13, 2013 by GregS