Supreme Court Ruling - McQueen - Compassionate Apothacary

[GregS]

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

 

The ruling in King/Kolanek is that section 4 requirements are not necessary to establish a section 8 action.

 

I see no reason to believe that agreements cannot begin immediately, and that they will expire at the intention of one or both parties, and at any time. Reliance on section 8 can be maintained from a few minutes to years.

Edited February 13, 2013 by GregS

[CaveatLector]

Section 8 does not limit a caregiver to five patients.. The meatheads in law enforcement don't likely understand a 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?

You can name one anytime you want but that isn't the issue we are discussing. They may well qualify for protection under section 8 but the discussion here (at least from my side) is dealing with what you can expect from section 4 immunity.

[CaveatLector]

The ruling in King/Kolanek is that section 4 requirements are not necessary to establish a section 8 action.

I'm not suggesting that one must establish section 4 elements to qualify for section 8 defenses.

[Timmahh]

As a PT, one can Acquire up to 2.5 oz from their Assigned CG.

 

 

now As a Pt, that person has his limits of meds, but with that Pt also being a CG, they can then transfer to their assigned Pt/s up to 2.5 oz of meds...

 

All transfers are protected under a section 4, as all are done between a CG and assigned PT, and are done under the Limits as outlined by the MMM Act...

 

Seems someone was saying a YEAR AGO after the CoA ruling to do this by their book, then a CG/PT WALL Network needs to be constructed and implemented on a State Wide scale, in EVERY COUNTY. But that guy must of been some kind of Kook. Or perhaps in hindsight, one could say he was Prophetic.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Timmahh

[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 has no limits on the number of patients allowed. That is a section 4 issue.

[GregS]

You can name one anytime you want but that isn't the issue we are discussing. They may well qualify for protection under section 8 but the discussion here (at least from my side) is dealing with what you can expect from section 4 immunity.

 

Got it. But the Court, in limiting section 4 protections as restrictively as this will motivate some to instead use section 8 where and when convenient. That is a direct result of the decision, and an important one.

[GregS]

Got it. But the Court, in limiting section 4 protections as restrictively as this will motivate some to instead use section 8 where and when convenient. That is a direct result of the decision, and an important one.

 

This helps patients in a patient centric way.

[CaveatLector]

All transfers are protected under a section 4, as all are done between a CG and assigned PT, and are done under the Limits as outlined by the MMM Act...

 

That flatly false. A transfer must be made for the medical use of the pt. It must alleviate (etc) the pt's condition. A pt who is a middleman (pt and cg) who takes mj from his cg and transfer that mj to his pt is NOT transferring (receiving from his cg) to alleviate his own condition. Therefore the conduct isn't protected.

Edited February 13, 2013 by CaveatLector

[bobandtorey]

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.

 

He said a caregiver

[bobandtorey]

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?

 

Money is why imho

[+Malamute]

Just to point out, the conspiracy thing is ridiculously unlikely. I don;t see it ever happening to a patient unless they are well beyond the amounts or something in the Sec 4 protections.

 

But, it is good to know there is a legal theory that could POSSIBLY be applied.

 

An educated patient is the most important.

[CaveatLector]

He said a caregiver

No, you aren't following the discussion. He is referring to a middleman pt who is also a cg.

[bobandtorey]

You can name one anytime you want but that isn't the issue we are discussing. They may well qualify for protection under section 8 but the discussion here (at least from my side) is dealing with what you can expect from section 4 immunity.

IMHO none

[bobandtorey]

 

 

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

 

I see

[CaveatLector]

Just to point out, the conspiracy thing is ridiculously unlikely. I don;t see it ever happening to a patient unless they are well beyond the amounts or something in the Sec 4 protections.

 

But, it is good to know there is a legal theory that could POSSIBLY be applied.

 

An educated patient is the most important.

I agree. It is unlikely. But it's an issue. A possibility.

 

However, I will say that in 2009 people nonchalantly rested on sec 8 as their protection if they were over counts, etc. I think it was seen as unlikely at that point that section 8 defenses would be denied like they were. I guess my point is that you are operating under a risk in this situation. Small risk but risk nonetheless.

[phaquetoo]

Oh no .. I dreamed this before ..

 

gotta up the med doses..

 

good job, dont quit quitting!

 

Peace

Jim

[Highlander]

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?

 

They added "own" for clarification so people wouldn't have to rely on grammar skills.

 

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

 

Using proper grammar, "the patient" is the same patient in both instances. You can't use "Patient A" in one spot and then "patient b" in the other. There is only one patient grammatically possible.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Highlander

[phaquetoo]

alot of good and funny stuff in here today, one attny starts saying pts cant get it anywhere or its gonna be a conspiracy to help aid in the sales to the next pt!

 

Man why does it realy have to go that far? ok if that is the way you have always thought the law was more power to you, the s.c ruling didnt create that add on!

 

me as a pt/cg, I get 2.5 from my c.g, I cant let my pt have hers out of that? all i got to say is bull schit!

 

Peace

Jim

Edited February 13, 2013 by phaquetoo

[Herb Cannabis]

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.

 

What if the caregiver is an unregistered caregiver under section 8? Do you really believe that this was the intent of the people when they approved our law? I don't.

 

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.

 

The law reads, "Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens. Righttttt!

[ozzrokk]

What if the caregiver is an unregistered caregiver under section 8? Do you really believe that this was the intent of the people when they approved our law? I don't.

 

 

 

The law reads, "Michigan joins in this effort for the health and welfare of its citizens. Righttttt!

 

 

But is it really being interpreted that way and implemented that way? I would say in some areas yes.... But in some areas no....What say you.

[Herb Cannabis]

But is it really being interpreted that way and implemented that way? I would say in some areas yes.... But in some areas no....What say you.

 

I say that those are just empty words written on a piece of paper. The old bas turds sitting up in lansing making the rules will have to die out before this is truly a good law.

[CaveatLector]

What if the caregiver is an unregistered caregiver under section 8? Do you really believe that this was the intent of the people when they approved our law? I don't.

 

 

I'm not arguing intent of the people I am arguing where we are given the law as it currently stands. It isn't about what I want. As for section 8, I'm not addressing that, I addressing what protections exist under section4.

[Highlander]

alot of good and funny stuff in here today, one attny starts saying pts cant get it anywhere or its gonna be a conspiracy to help aid in the sales to the next pt!

 

Man why does it realy have to go that far? ok if that is the way you have always thought the law was more power to you, the s.c ruling didnt create that add on!

 

me as a pt/cg, I get 2.5 from my c.g, I cant let my pt have hers out of that? all i got to say is bull schit!

 

Peace

Jim

 

I don't think you have it quite right. What is being said is that if a patient buys from a CG who isn't "his" CG, then the CG is committing an unprotected action. And because the selling CG could not commit the act without involvement from the buying patient, the patient is a co-conspirator.

 

It is like buying a TV you know is stolen. You don't get in trouble because you might transfer the TV to someone else, you get in trouble because you participated/allowed the seller to do something illegal (sell a stolen TV) The TV thief can get busted for stealing the TV, but the second crime, selling stolen property, relies on someone else participating.

[GregS]

alot of good and funny stuff in here today, one attny starts saying pts cant get it anywhere or its gonna be a conspiracy to help aid in the sales to the next pt!

 

Man why does it realy have to go that far? ok if that is the way you have always thought the law was more power to you, the s.c ruling didnt create that add on!

 

me as a pt/cg, I get 2.5 from my c.g, I cant let my pt have hers out of that? all i got to say is bull schit!

 

Peace

Jim

 

You do not have to say bull schit. It is best to say nothing.

[SFC]

Jim, is keeping it real. I agree he will not be following the letter of the law but I also do not believe he has anything to fear. Common sense goes a long way my friends. By and large most of the people that have ended up in court have often times not used common sense or got a little to comfortable with what they thought the card signified. Reality bites.