Supreme Court Ruling - McQueen - Compassionate Apothacary

[bobandtorey]

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.

No worries I will remind you as much as I can on a daily bases

You see you still are missing the point it's not about Bob or Torey it's about the Sec 8 as it has been for 4YEARS

 

That's is all we had and have and that's why it means so much to all of the sick

 

I just don't think you have understood how the Law 1 of 2008 works because you don't understand it as much as I do

 

I read what the Lawyers write and all the courts opinions and rulings and I see the word Limited Protection inn all of them

 

you don't read them and that's fine most don't but I do because it has (our) (are) name in it and something in them that may be of some help to not just Bob but to all Patients

 

Peace From The Front

Bob

[GregS]

"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.

 

I think your last statement may be most pertinent.

 

Suppose that I, as a caregiver sell mm to a patient that is connected with me through the registry. At the time of this initial sale the cannbis is intended for that patient's own medical use. If subsquent to that, said patient receives a request for product from a patient he/she has connected with through the registry and is acting as caregiver for and sells any or all of it to that pt, can it be said that my patient or I have committed a crime?

 

The futility, and I think disingenuousness, of this ruling lies in real world happenstance and makes the majority fools.

Edited February 8, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

 

 

Not illegal, just not immune from arrest by way of section 4. Still defensible with section 8.

 

I agree Sec 8 is what someone has in court Sec 4 is what you have if you don't go to court IMHO

[bobandtorey]

The dispensaries are not going to close their doors today or anytime soon in the D you can get meds

Today but they are running out fast

Don't delay get them today or grow your own and use the A.D

 

But wait until the people that got railroaded back in 09 get FREE

[SFC]

Nothings Free Bob.

[GregS]

If this works the way I see it coming, the SC has opened things up for much more trouble than they bargained for. That said, it is a matter of time before this decision is rendered moot when more liberal cannablis laws prevail, and they will.

[bobandtorey]

 

 

Any opportunity for a "section 4 defense" is very narrow, I'd say. Though I think that a card should ultimately prove enough to make 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3).

 

 

Any opportunity for a "section 4 defense" is very narrow

You must mean Limited and its also how the courts see it

[Highlander]

I think your last statement may be most pertinent.

 

Suppose that I, as a caregiver sell mm to a patient that is connected with me through the registry. At the time of this initial sale the cannbis is intended for that patient's own medical use. If subsquent to that, said patient receives a request for product from a patient he/she has connected with through the registry and is acting as caregiver for and sells any or all of it to that pt, can it be said that my patient or I have committed a crime?

 

The futility, and I think disingenuousness, of this ruling lies in real world happenstance and makes the majority fools.

 

The devil is in the details. A network organized for a purpose like this invites a bunch of conspiracy charges if someone does get popped...then the house of cards collapses.

 

So P1/CG2 never calls up his CG and says "hey, I need some meds for MY patient today." He says "hey, my patients were in a lot of pain this week, so I gave them all the meds I had on-hand. I have nothing for myself now. I know you just brought me meds yesterday. I swear on a stack of bibles that the meds you'll bring are for me and only me."

[bobandtorey]

Nothings Free Bob.

I agree I guess I mean FREE from the Courts and it will happen but people have to stand up and stop taking the plea deals (if they can)

[GregS]

The devil is in the details. A network organized for a purpose like this invites a bunch of conspiracy charges if someone does get popped...then the house of cards collapses.

 

So P1/CG2 never calls up his CG and says "hey, I need some meds for MY patient today." He says "hey, my patients were in a lot of pain this week, so I gave them all the meds I had on-hand. I have nothing for myself now. I know you just brought me meds yesterday. I swear on a stack of bibles that the meds you'll bring are for me and only me."

 

Shhhhh!

[Highlander]

Shhhhh!

 

I ain't heard nutthin and I ain't seen nutthin.

[GregS]

The devil is in the details. A network organized for a purpose like this invites a bunch of conspiracy charges if someone does get popped...then the house of cards collapses.

 

So P1/CG2 never calls up his CG and says "hey, I need some meds for MY patient today." He says "hey, my patients were in a lot of pain this week, so I gave them all the meds I had on-hand. I have nothing for myself now. I know you just brought me meds yesterday. I swear on a stack of bibles that the meds you'll bring are for me and only me."

 

Membership could require a contractural agreement, whereby members attest to their intention to abide within the limits of the law.

[Highlander]

Membership could require a contractural agreement, whereby members attest to their intention to abide within the limits of the law.

 

Hmmmm. So I as a patient/caregiver am looking for P#5.

 

When I sign that new patient up, if he happens to also be a CG, I will make him sign a contract that he pinky promises and crosses his heart and hopes to die, and that he will never, ever, ever, ask me for meds for his patients. He just wants a CG around for backup in case his grow fails, and being the selfish b@stard that he is, in the event of a grow failure, he will not under any circumstances transfer meds he gets from me to his patients.

[GregS]

No reason is required to explain to a caregiver why a patient wants to buy.

[GregS]

Hmmmm. So I as a patient/caregiver am looking for P#5.

 

When I sign that new patient up, if he happens to also be a CG, I will make him sign a contract that he pinky promises and crosses his heart and hopes to die, and that he will never, ever, ever, ask me for meds for his patients. He just wants a CG around for backup in case his grow fails, and being the selfish b@stard that he is, in the event of a grow failure, he will not under any circumstances transfer meds he gets from me to his patients.

 

I always knew you were a smart guy. But that patient is not required to lay out any reason for entering the relationship. As long as they are duly registered, there is no reason to ask or to tell. Leave that part out and the rest is spot on.

[Highlander]

No reason is required to explain to a caregiver why a patient wants to buy.

 

I agree, but if CG2 goes to his CG, CG1 and says "I need meds for MY patient," he blew it.

 

I guess I didn't do a good job of communicating the wink and the nod.

 

Point is, don't ever ever ever ask me for meds for a reason other than to alleviate your condition. dDon't give me a reason if you don't want to...just don't give me the wrong reason, and we're good.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Highlander

[GregS]

I agree, but if CG2 goes to his CG, CG1 and says "I need meds for MY patient," he blew it.

 

I guess I didn't do a good job of communicating the wink and the nod.

 

Point is, don't ever ever ever ask me for meds for a reason other than to alleviate your condition. dDon't give me a reason if you don't want to...just don't give me the wrong reason, and we're good.

 

Live by the maxim, "Don't tell anyone anything they don't need to know."

 

The wink and nod could not have been more clear.

Edited February 8, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

Our own version of don't ask don't tell.

[GregS]

Hmmmm. So I as a patient/caregiver am looking for P#5.

 

When I sign that new patient up, if he happens to also be a CG, I will make him sign a contract that he pinky promises and crosses his heart and hopes to die, and that he will never, ever, ever, ask me for meds for his patients. He just wants a CG around for backup in case his grow fails, and being the selfish b@stard that he is, in the event of a grow failure, he will not under any circumstances transfer meds he gets from me to his patients.

 

And for that matter, it is not necessary that you know that he is a cg.

[mibrains]

correct me if i am wrong..

 

but isn't that only applicable as it applies to a situation or relationship outside the directly connected patient caregiver model?

the SC addresses p2p not pc2pc

if the patient is signed with the caregiver then to transfer under 2.5 oz would be allowed and presumed to be medical use?

 

the SC is addressing Patient to another patient transfers only... they have not addressed any patient/caregiver to patient/caregiver transfers.

 

so if you not a caregiver, your not able to transfer to a patient obviously..

 

but as a patient and a caregiver who said i can't call my caregiver and ask for my 2.5 oz? that action is protected and immune from arrest no matter what my intent is?

[cristinew]

marijuana constitutes “medical use” as the term is defined in MCL 333.26423©, § 4 of

the MMMA, MCL 333.26424, does not permit a registered qualifying patient to transfer

marijuana for another registered qualifying patient’s medical use.

 

did they rule that caregivers have to keep within the 5 patients ?

 

stupid question,,, the law clearly states that in section d

Edited February 8, 2013 by cristinew

[GregS]

The purpose of these orgaizations would be spelled out as bringing any patient together with a caregiver;nothing more, and nothing less.

Edited February 8, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

marijuana constitutes “medical use” as the term is defined in MCL 333.26423©, § 4 of

the MMMA, MCL 333.26424, does not permit a registered qualifying patient to transfer

marijuana for another registered qualifying patient’s medical use.

 

did they rule that caregivers have to keep within the 5 patients ??????

 

Have you read the opinion?

[Dr. Bob]

Have you read the opinion?

 

LOL.

 

But to help out, the opinion has nothing to do with changing the caregiver system C. You might want to read it. There is a link to it in this thread. But thanks for jumping in.

 

Dr.Bob

[pic book]

5. medical use includes sales, but not patient-to-patient.