Supreme Court Ruling - McQueen - Compassionate Apothacary

[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.

 

To the contrary, there are many of us who are both patients and caregivers at the same time. The limit of distribution to five patients is not a problem. Five patients with caregivers who each have five patients who are caregivers for five more patients is not illegal. It is not reasonable to expect that this system will be used to any vast and overarching degree, but people working in small, decentralized groups can easily manage accommodation for any of its participants.

[GregS]

BTW Zap. Will you now open up the boards for solicitation of patient needs and caregiver services?

Edited February 13, 2013 by GregS

[ozzrokk]

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.

 

 

Couple that with the protections the courts and leo thought the entire law would NOT provide. Is that still a most people?

[bobandtorey]

 

 

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.

I thought Sec 4 was if you have a card? But the Law says the 21 day thing is as good as a card

And Sec 8 says you can use it to any marihuana defends and it shall be we no the rest

[SFC]

Oz, my view of what was legal then and what is legal now hasn't really changed. Go back and look for yourself.

[SFC]

Bob, Know is not NO!

[bobandtorey]

Oz, my view of what was legal then and what is legal now hasn't really changed. Go back and look for yourself.

 

Go back were? To 08?

[ozzrokk]

Oz, my view of what was legal then and what is legal now hasn't really changed. Go back and look for yourself.

 

 

I am aware of that but I am saying that the courts have not allowed alot of people to assert their protections. Just because someone is arrested does not mean they are guilty. Some are some arent. When they get their true day in court that will be found out. But that gets hard when alot back then were not even allowed to use sec 8. Understand where I am coming from now?

[SFC]

Yes I do Oz, and I agree. There are a ton of people that were railroaded and that does suck. We all knew tho from day one this was going to be a battle of inches. Sadly the dispensary bunch took the ball and ran. We are now dealing with the fallout caused by that,.

[SFC]

And yea Bob. I think you meant Where, but anyway. Yes, 08.

[mibrains]

BTW Zap. Will you now open up the boards for solicitation of patient needs and caregiver services?

 

the board is open for this action Greg.

 

we lock them so people don't interact in public.

 

all communications between caregivers and patients are to remain private and done through the sites PM system for the protection and privacy of all parties involved.

[GregS]

the board is open for this action Greg.

 

we lock them so people don't interact in public.

 

all communications between caregivers and patients are to remain private and done through the sites PM system for the protection and privacy of all parties involved.

 

Is there any need to begin keeping a database of pts and cgs interested in options? Privacy may be a concern, but that can be worked around. It would be interesting to see what options that might open up. Largely unfamiliar with data base management, I would consider learning it for this purpose.

[bobandtorey]

 

 

Good one, Bob!

 

 

 Patients are still allowed to exchange marijuana between each other, so long as neither party gains monetary benefits.

And this was in the news just yesterday

[Herb Cannabis]

 Patients are still allowed to exchange marijuana between each other, so long as neither party gains monetary benefits.

And this was in the news just yesterday

 

Don't believe everything you see on the news, we just discussed this recently. I was under the impression that transfers were only legal between patient and registered caregiver. I don't know up from down anymore.

[bobandtorey]

I don't but the point here is some do and I wouldn't want them to think that a card will save them or a Sec 4 or Sec 8 or any part of any Sec

so good luck with your case hang in their

One of the Sections will help us both

Am still a Believer

[Timmahh]

the board is open for this action Greg.

 

we lock them so people don't interact in public.

 

all communications between caregivers and patients are to remain private and done through the sites PM system for the protection and privacy of all parties involved.

 

And my personal Recommendation was then (when I changed the Rules in the transfer area to reflect the above system) and is still, to use the site PM system for exchange of Personal Contact information ONLY, and to take all discussions OFF SITE thereafter.

 

 

It is my opinion, then and now, that there is now no need to leave a paper trail anywhere, for anything, whether that trail is actual paper, or digital paper. And after this Decision, that is now more recommended than ever.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Timmahh

[OG Fire Beaster]

Not to sidetrack but this seems like the relevant thread.

 

This is for the legal/grammar minded people.

 

If this is the definition of medical use:

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

4a states this:

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

 

If a Pt does not have to have a caregiver then there has to be some way that delivering marijuana is providing a direct benefit to the Pt. It is part of medical use. Is the court implying that only Pts with Cgs have the entire protection of 4a?

 

How can this ruling reconcile that?

 

A patient may acquire from any means(with money exchanging) and is protected by 4.

Why is a Pt not able to engage in a delivery followed by a transfer. They are both a part of medical use. The plain meaning of delivery is clearly the precursor to a transfer. You have to deliver to someone other than your self or you would just be acquiring and transporting.

 

Also the word transfer is a verb that is being performed by the subject of the sentence. It seems that 4a clearly allows a Pt with no caregiver to transfer(to someone else), deliver(to someone else), acquire(from somebody else), transport(carry about their person), Possess(be in control of), and all the rest. Why are transfer and Acquire being treated as the same action? These are all separate things that a Pt may do that provide direct benefit to them per the definition.

 

Am I just having a hard time with English?

Edited February 14, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster

[Highlander]

Not to sidetrack but this seems like the relevant thread.

 

This is for the legal/grammar minded people.

 

If this is the definition of medical use:

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

4a states this:

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

 

If a Pt does not have to have a caregiver then there has to be some way that delivering marijuana is providing a direct benefit to the Pt. It is part of medical use. Is the court implying that only Pts with Cgs have the entire protection of 4a?

 

How can this ruling reconcile that?

 

A patient may acquire from any means(with money exchanging) and is protected by 4.

Why is a Pt not able to engage in a delivery followed by a transfer. They are both a part of medical use. The plain meaning of delivery is clearly the precursor to a transfer. You have to deliver to someone other than your self or you would just be acquiring and transporting.

 

Also the word transfer is a verb that is being performed by the subject of the sentence. It seems that 4a clearly allows a Pt with no caregiver to transfer(to someone else), deliver(to someone else), acquire(from somebody else), transport(carry about their person), Possess(be in control of), and all the rest. Why are transfer and Acquire being treated as the same action? These are all separate things that a Pt may do that provide direct benefit to them per the definition.

 

Am I just having a hard time with English?

 

You're taking the protections offered for medical use (or assisting with medical use) in Section 4 and trying to say that because the protection exists, there must be a way to do each of the things itemized in "medical use." The law allows protects you to do these things. It doesn't say that the law guarantees that these things are available for you to do.

 

Take internal possession. You are protected for ingesting for the purposes of alleviating your condition. Not just ingesting for the sake of ingesting - but for the purpose of alleviating a condition.

 

I know some patients who get zero effect/benefit from ingesting. These patients can't, by the letter of the law, ingest MMJ, because ingesting must be for the purpose of alleviating a condition, and they know that their condition won't be helped. This is another case where the law extends a protection to someone, but that someone may not be able to take advantage of the protection.

 

Also note that some of the allowable items under medical use can't both be done - certainly at the same time. Again, the law protects you for the medical use, but it doesn't say all medical uses are available to you all the time.

[Chauncy Gardner]

Not to sidetrack but this seems like the relevant thread.

 

This is for the legal/grammar minded people.

 

If this is the definition of medical use:

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

4a states this:

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

 

If a Pt does not have to have a caregiver then there has to be some way that delivering marijuana is providing a direct benefit to the Pt. It is part of medical use. Is the court implying that only Pts with Cgs have the entire protection of 4a?

 

How can this ruling reconcile that?

 

A patient may acquire from any means(with money exchanging) and is protected by 4.

Why is a Pt not able to engage in a delivery followed by a transfer. They are both a part of medical use. The plain meaning of delivery is clearly the precursor to a transfer. You have to deliver to someone other than your self or you would just be acquiring and transporting.

 

Also the word transfer is a verb that is being performed by the subject of the sentence. It seems that 4a clearly allows a Pt with no caregiver to transfer(to someone else), deliver(to someone else), acquire(from somebody else), transport(carry about their person), Possess(be in control of), and all the rest. Why are transfer and Acquire being treated as the same action? These are all separate things that a Pt may do that provide direct benefit to them per the definition.

 

Am I just having a hard time with English?

 

 

 

No. The Supreme Court is having a hard time with English. Like you, I read this section as meaning that transfer and delivery are protected actions under the definition of medical use. The law states that no one can be prosecuted for aiding someone in the medical use of marijuana. If the simple and necessary act of obtaining and transferring marijuana for a patient isn't protected as medical use, then nothing is.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Chauncy Gardner

[phaquetoo]

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.

the pt has the law with them from who ever they get mm from, a c.g is not covered if they are not registered to said pt, a pt cant supply another pt, unless the one pt is the others c.g, period, it is in pretty plain english, im not a great speller but I can read!

Peace

bro

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.

I beleive you know where im coming from, I believe i was the first person on this site to say loose lips sink ships, and free the weed, i dont do the free the weed any longer lmao, but I still play johny apple seed when my friends give me there bag seed lol!

Peace gorila man! bawahahaha, I couldnt resist, (no disrespect)

 Patients are still allowed to exchange marijuana between each other, so long as neither party gains monetary benefits.

And this was in the news just yesterday

no a pt can get if from another pt, but the delivering pt is breaking the law!

Not to sidetrack but this seems like the relevant thread.

 

This is for the legal/grammar minded people.

 

If this is the definition of medical use:

 

(e) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana to treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

 

4a states this:

 

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the qualifying patient possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana, and, if the qualifying patient has not specified that a primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility. Any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots shall also be allowed under state law and shall not be included in this amount.

 

If a Pt does not have to have a caregiver then there has to be some way that delivering marijuana is providing a direct benefit to the Pt. It is part of medical use. Is the court implying that only Pts with Cgs have the entire protection of 4a?

 

How can this ruling reconcile that?

 

A patient may acquire from any means(with money exchanging) and is protected by 4.

Why is a Pt not able to engage in a delivery followed by a transfer. They are both a part of medical use. The plain meaning of delivery is clearly the precursor to a transfer. You have to deliver to someone other than your self or you would just be acquiring and transporting.

 

Also the word transfer is a verb that is being performed by the subject of the sentence. It seems that 4a clearly allows a Pt with no caregiver to transfer(to someone else), deliver(to someone else), acquire(from somebody else), transport(carry about their person), Possess(be in control of), and all the rest. Why are transfer and Acquire being treated as the same action? These are all separate things that a Pt may do that provide direct benefit to them per the definition.

 

Am I just having a hard time with English?

the law is pretty clear, in fact the original law we voted for didnt say p2p was legal or cg to any p was legal,

 

Like ive said so many times if it isnt in the law people think its legal, if it is not in the law i believe it is ilegal!

 

Peace

Jim

 

Now a side note, whether you like disenses or farm markets all pts should have a good c.g, you never know when something will go bad, stuff happens in peoples lives and some c.g's i know wont let any one in there room, so if their card is full and they want to go on a lil vacation, it is out or they have to have some one check on their plants, me its no more than a day or two, but ive woke up in the morning and had a bulb burned out, had a water leak, had fans go, and bugs, I bet their are alot of c.g's who still get their meds to pts even if it was taken over by mites! (bad c.g's who are money hungry) I dont sell what I grow or what anyone else grows!

 

Im so far from perfect, the main thing is you dont poop where you eat, you need to make sure your home is covered, and under limits all around, and you should not have any problems, unless you make a sale to some one your not registered to! how hard is that to read?

[Celliach]

BTW Zap. Will you now open up the boards for solicitation of patient needs and caregiver services?

 

They are already open but the threads are locked to keep all communication in private.

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

Swampy was consuming an ounce per day. Before starting with RSO.

 

So those people exist.

[Restorium2]

Swampy was consuming an ounce per day. Before starting with RSO.

 

So those people exist.

Right. I gave him a few ounces. Drove right over to his house and gave it to him in private. Never for a second did I feel like I was going to get busted for it. Why can't we just do it that way? Why does everything have to be right out in public? It's not so hard to mind your own business and do these things in private. It's just about impossible to get in trouble for it that way. The only reason we are even debating this is because dispensaries want to use it to make money. Otherwise, there's no problem with patient to patient transfers IN PRIVATE. No one even cares if you did it just to help someone. Do it at a store for money and law enforcement is up in arms. Why do we even want to do that? It's nuts.

[SFC]

^^ exactly^^

[peanutbutter]

Right. I gave him a few ounces. Drove right over to his house and gave it to him in private. Never for a second did I feel like I was going to get busted for it. Why can't we just do it that way? Why does everything have to be right out in public? It's not so hard to mind your own business and do these things in private. It's just about impossible to get in trouble for it that way. The only reason we are even debating this is because dispensaries want to use it to make money. Otherwise, there's no problem with patient to patient transfers IN PRIVATE. No one even cares if you did it just to help someone. Do it at a store for money and law enforcement is up in arms. Why do we even want to do that? It's nuts.

 

Hello .. the Supreme Court just ruled that the money part doesn't matter.

 

I know it matters to you, but it doesn't to the legal system.

Edited February 18, 2013 by peanutbutter