Jump to content

Supreme Court Ruling - McQueen - Compassionate Apothacary


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's get the lawyers to make that call.

 

there is no call to make.. the SC bounced it. right there in the conclusion.

 

While the sale of

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.

 

this means..

 

any transfers..

 

even ones for free that were just upheld by the Green decision are now not protected as medical use.

I agree but we still have the AD ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are making schit up again p'nut. Please, and I have not read the opinion entirely thoroughly, where is intent addressed as you indicate? And would you please calrify your remarks concerning sales?

 

Read my signature and then read the pdf

 

May be rebutted. They examined the purpose of the persons claim to medical use. For the purpose of the presumption.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ruling was not entirely about section 4 protections.

 

One thing that has been going against us has been this idea that sales were not transfers.

 

We had two COA rulings that made that claim.

 

The Supreme Court completely undermined that logic. As such, it no longer has much value to a PA.

 

This weakens section 4 application and strengthens section 8 defenses.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

somebody asked...

 

i forget who or when.. :)

 

but i came across this and thought i would post it.

 

Justice CAVANAGH, dissenting, disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the

MMMA and would have held that when a qualified patient transfers marijuana to another

qualified patient, both individuals have the right to assert immunity under § 4 of the act. The

presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of

marijuana may be rebutted with evidence that the conduct related to marijuana was not for the

purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient’s medical condition. The majority reasoned that the

reference to “the” qualified patient requires the conclusion that only the recipient of marijuana is

entitled to § 4 immunity for a patient-to-patient transfer of marijuana. The majority’s

interpretation was inconsistent with the rules of statutory interpretation and with the purpose of

the MMMA. The reference in § 4(d)(2) of the act to “the” qualifying patient simply requires that

one of the two qualified patients involved in the transfer of marijuana have a debilitating medical

condition that the transfer of marijuana is intended to alleviate. The majority’s erroneous

interpretation of § 4(d) further led it to an incorrect conclusion that any facilitation of a patientto-

patient transfer of marijuana was enjoinable as a public nuisance.

JusticeMCCORMACK took no part in the decision of this case.

©2013

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cannabando (kan-eh-ban'-do)

 

n. pl. cannabandos or cannabandoes

 

1. An elite resident of the State of Michigan who qualifies to engage in the use of cannabis for medically necessary purposes, but declines the protections afforded in §4 of The Michigan Medical Marihuana act, and instead enjoys the sparser requirements and the extensive protections found in §8 of that same law.

 

2. (a member of) a unit of geurilla growers and patients specially trained for tasks requiring special courage and skill.

 

3. (modifier) denoting or relating to a cannabando or force of cannabandoes. A cannabando raid or a cannabando unit.

 

adv. To go cannabando, i.e, with only the barest requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this sucks....

 

.we just had a fairly decent COA Decision that "FREE" transfers of MM were OK -- which sorta supported the a model that one could give it away (but could make a donation (or something similar). Anyway....I think this ignores the intentionally slow mail based ADMINISTRATIVE Regulations of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Program (MMMP) where a Caregiver and Patient that agree to help one another, have to wait weeks, no months, to be added to the 5 patient list.

 

What if it were online with every caregiver having online access to their 5 patients? And they could add or delete to and from their list at will -- is it the Caregiver's right to do this or the State of Michigan? I say it is the Caregivers' --

 

And if it is up to the Caregiver, who and when they add or delete a patient -- then an online account could do a great deal to resolve these issues -- and WE can demand, a change in the administrative rules, which is much easier than getting the legislature to pass a law and 5 years of court Hearings to the MiSupCrt.....

 

If all caregivers and patients petitioned for this change ADMINISTRATIVELY, We could enter the 21st Century and make this system go online?

 

The whole problem rests with the MM PROGRAM and the paper changes, having to mail it in an envelope, and waiting for them to get around to it -- e.g. the lack of online accounts for caregivers/patients is a problem -- even leaving out the $10 charge for now..

 

Now imagine Caregiver's have online account at the Michigan Medical Marijuana Program (much like a email account). Caregiver's would then have the ability to login, and ADD or REMOVE anyone from their 5 patients at will --- and instantly print the proof out. A Print would (and a $10 charge) would be proof of the registry connection. THEN Transfer of Medical Marijuana would not need patient to patient ---you are now connected through the registry instantly. If you need to log in 10 minutes later and remove them, and add another person -- YOU COULD. Sure the $10 fee would be a pain, but the LEGAL PROTECTION from a Felony is what We all want, right?

 

The MMMProgram by making it old school "paper, envelope, and mail" process are the one's making patients wait for weeks (months) to simply add or delete a patient from the caregiver/patient connection in the "Registry" -- indeed this is the difference between legal and illegal. We all just want to be LEGAL right? I do not want to have to worry about it coming to bite me -- certainty from arrest was the whole point, no? We have not had it since the law was passed with all the dispensary stuff --. So we need to make something CERTAIN that we can get MM from somewhere and not have to worry about it -- the connection through the registry is what the law was designed to do.....

 

A caregiver's 5 patients should be under their control and INSTANTLY changeable -- Not the State (intentionally) making it a slow cumbersome paper based process when it would be far cheaper and easier to make it online and then the caregiver's could change, print, and sell. Totally protected.

 

Why we tolerate this mail system in the MMM Program I do not know --- It causes many problems --- the whole issue of patient to patient transfer disappeared with this decision (but free is fine now according to the COA but who is going to give you a free Oz)? --

 

Sure, more people are needed to be Caregiver's -- but that would be solved soon enough..... with up-to-date online accounts, password protected, ect... a Caregiver could add or remove from their 5 patient list at will, and it would INSTANTLY transform they entire system to cover Sales....

 

I am glad the SupCrt ended the "they did not say sales" crap as that was nonsense from the start -- but they clearly ended patient to patient transfers anyway!....Back to the Homes, no more stores (which were going to continue to be a thorn in LEO's side anyway)...I think it's better everyone lay low anyway, and try to make them go with an online system -- it would save them all those employees pushing paper --- AND I do not see the Legislature Helping MM Patients anytime soon (especially when it remains a Schd. 1 federally). Until the Feds change that States are going to continue to oppose any type of non-sanctioned sales -- so we need to use the law as passed, a web of 5 to 1, 1 to 5 and everyone connected through an online registry, print that out for both people and it is a done deal.

 

Adminsitrative changes to the program should be much easier to do than changing laws in our Mich Legislature.......no?

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For four freekin years we have been debating these points here.

 

Are you trying ti imply that it's none of my business?

 

60% of patients don't even have a caregiver. So every bit they purchase requires that a felony take place?

 

Are you happy about that?

 

Um, around 50% of patients grow their own ....

 

Sheesh.

 

How about some more support for the caregiver system instead of dispensaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will give caregiver incomes a boost.

 

Will raise prices for patients.

 

Patients will be in pain as a result of this ruling.

 

In my thinking, it's patients first.

 

Dispensaries are always more expensive than caregivers. Sheesh pb.

 

If it is patients first, you would be supporting the law and the caregiver system. Directly connecting patients to the actual producers.

 

Train more caregivers if needed. Train patients to be caregivers.

 

There is no excuse except greed and laziness to make our law work as intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is many of those 60% without caregivers will not renew if dispensaries, fms dont exist. I know plenty that got the card for the dispensary experience. That being said if I had room for patients I would start throwing up ads, should be much easier to fill up.

 

I thought they got a card to help their medical condition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep Zap, you are correct in my opinion. I too read that as the final decision.

 

Look, the glass is still half full, our law has been left alone in the core of it (12 plants, 2.5 oz, 5 patients, compensation for time and effort for caregivers). Certainly the p to p for No Remuneration is a total disappointment. That being said, people need to "help" others learn to grow, and "help" other less fortunate souls find caregivers. We have been given a chance to make the law work. It is important we give that a try. The dispensary proponents fully intend to craft a new bill (not 5580 redux). That is one we want to take a cold hard look at.

 

But this nonsense about patients going without, is manufactured, and or a bit lazy.... and sounds suspiciously like a marketing doomsday comment. I ain't buying it...

 

Note to patients: Some clarity has come in the form of this decision. You may grow for yourself, or, you may assign a caregiver. Anything else is illegal.

 

Use your heads. Bring yourselves back home safe.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.. page 5

 

The court further determined that “the registered qualifying patients and registered

caregivers perform medical use of the marihuana by transferring the marihuana within the

lockers to other registered qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers.” The

court noted that plaintiff had “failed to provide any evidence that defendants’ medical

marihuana related conduct was not for the purpose of alleviating any qualifying patient’s

debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical

condition.” As a result, “the patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries of marihuana

between registered qualifying patients fall soundly within medical use of marihuana as

defined by the MMMA.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dispensaries are always more expensive than caregivers. Sheesh pb.

 

If it is patients first, you would be supporting the law and the caregiver system. Directly connecting patients to the actual producers.

 

Train more caregivers if needed. Train patients to be caregivers.

 

There is no excuse except greed and laziness to make our law work as intended.

If there are no dispensaries then there is no place to sell other wares on the side.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The glitch is that the SC says that the transfer of MJ from CG to pt "for the purposes of alleviating the patient's debilitating condition." In the daisy chain model, the CG transfers meds to his patient for a different purpose. The purpose isn't to alleviate the patient's condition. It is to alleviate some other patient's condition.

 

One word.... "Intent".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no excuse except greed and laziness to make our law work as intended.

 

I don't support caregivers AT THE EXPENSE OF patients.

 

So people will go to jail by avoiding a caregiver?

 

Does that make you happy? Sounds like pure caregiver greed to me.

Enjoy your glee about people going to jail.

Edited by peanutbutter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting.. page 5

 

The court further determined that “the registered qualifying patients and registered

caregivers perform medical use of the marihuana by transferring the marihuana within the

lockers to other registered qualifying patients and registered primary caregivers.” The

court noted that plaintiff had “failed to provide any evidence that defendants’ medical

marihuana related conduct was not for the purpose of alleviating any qualifying patient’s

debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical

condition.” As a result, “the patient-to-patient transfers and deliveries of marihuana

between registered qualifying patients fall soundly within medical use of marihuana as

defined by the MMMA.”

 

more on page 7.. i find interesting...

 

Finally, the Court noted that defendants

are not entitled to immunity under § 4(i) of the MMMA, which insulates from liability

someone who assists a registered qualifying patient “with using or administering

marihuana.”21 It explained that “[t]here is no evidence that defendants assist patients in

preparing the marijuana to be consumed” or that they “physically aid the purchasing

patients in consuming marijuana.”22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

I can say, this interpretation by the court is the exact interpretation that this website and organization had when the law passed and for months afterword.

 

So, to those that believed the initial intent from the framers was as it is, this ruling does not surprise us in the least bit. Anyone who listened to what was said here before greed and laziness set in knew that this was the very likely outcome and have operated in accordance with it from day 1.

 

I am still annoyed by MPP for writing such restrictive language when i feel they did not need to,. but hey, jump through 3 hoops and honk a horn and all is good.

 

:-)

 

Operate without a card or with the intent for greed, chances are you will have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...