Jump to content

Mcqueen Dispensary Case Decided: Does It Mean Anything To Other Dispensary Models?


lawyercaregiver
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://courts.michig...4%20Opinion.pdf

Upholding a civil injunction to stop a dispensary that facilitates patient-to-patient transfers of marijuana.

 

 

From the opinion

"transfer is “[a]ny mode of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, including . . . the payment of money,”4 the word “transfer,” as part of the statutory definition of “medical use,” also includes sales. ."The Court of Appeals erred by concluding that a sale of marijuana was not a medical use."

 

Section 8 affirmative defenses are for criminal charges and not pertinent in this Civil Case.

 

Section 4e was NOT considered or argued: "(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances."

 

Since "Medical Use" now CLEARLY INCLUDES TRANSFERS AND PAYMENTS OF MONEY, and since Caregivers can help in the "medical use" it seems the court is setting up to allow Caregiver to Patient Transfers for money.

 

Legaleeze accepted but clear thinking is preferred. :bong7bp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://courts.michig...4%20Opinion.pdf

Upholding a civil injunction to stop a dispensary that facilitates patient-to-patient transfers of marijuana.

 

 

From the opinion

"transfer is “[a]ny mode of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset, including . . . the payment of money,”4 the word “transfer,” as part of the statutory definition of “medical use,” also includes sales. ."The Court of Appeals erred by concluding that a sale of marijuana was not a medical use."

 

Section 8 affirmative defenses are for criminal charges and not pertinent in this Civil Case.

 

Section 4e was NOT considered or argued: "(e) A registered primary caregiver may receive compensation for costs associated with assisting a registered qualifying patient in the medical use of marihuana. Any such compensation shall not constitute the sale of controlled substances."

 

Since "Medical Use" now CLEARLY INCLUDES TRANSFERS AND PAYMENTS OF MONEY, and since Caregivers can help in the "medical use" it seems the court is setting up to allow Caregiver to Patient Transfers for money.

 

Legaleeze accepted but clear thinking is preferred. :bong7bp:

 

Did you read this part?

 

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read this part?

 

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)

That is the trouble with parsing a statute OR court opinion. The facts matter and all of the reasoning matters. Lawyercaregiver, may I refresh your memory? IRAC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is finished. The most outrageous and irrational conclusions I have ever read. Transfers for no money are even barred.

 

They spend the entire opinion skirting the 4e defense and then, at the very end in a separate APPENDIX WITH NO LEGAL ANALYSIS AND WITH SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS????

 

This is the nut of the Appendix:

 

(3) 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).

 

4E DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY CONNECTION TO THE CAREGIVER REGISTRY SYSTEM!!!

 

 

As the court states:

"Rather, § 4(e) independently describes the relationship between a registered caregiver and his registered

qualifying patient and provides an additional protection for the patient-caregiver relationship by emphasizing that it is not a criminal act for a registered qualifying patient to compensate a registered primary caregiver for costs associated with providing marijuana to the patient.45

Any transfer to a person who is “not allowed to use

marihuana for medical purposes”47—whether for a price or not—is already specifically

excluded from the definition of “medical use,” which requires a medical use to have the

specific purpose to “treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient’s debilitating

medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.”4

Thus, § 4 immunity does not extend to a registered qualifying patient who

transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee’s use59

because the transferor is not engaging in conduct related to marijuana for the purpose of

relieving the transferor’s own condition or symptoms.60 Similarly, § 4 immunity does

not extend to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana for any purpose

other than to alleviate the condition or symptoms of a specific patient with whom the

caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration process.

58

Our interpretation of § 4(d) does not turn on the fact that the patient-to-patient transfers

occurred for a price. Rather, § 4(d) acts as a limitation on what sort of “medical use” is

allowed under the MMMA. The same limitation that prohibits a patient from selling

marijuana to another patient also prohibits him from undertaking any transfers to another

patient.

 

(4) As a result, § 4 does not offer immunity to a registered qualifying patient who

transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient, nor does it offer immunity to

a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana to anyone other than a registered

qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration

process.

 

Again, 4e does not require this. They made it up and inserted it in an Appendix so they would not have to provide any legal analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the trouble with parsing a statute OR court opinion. The facts matter and all of the reasoning matters. Lawyercaregiver, may I refresh your memory? IRAC!

 

Give me a fricking break. Takes a lot of gall to use the term "reasoning" when discussing this opinion.

 

I remember IRAC- teach it in my graduate Law and Society course every semester. Actually IRAC works different in practice as we see in this case. This is REAL LIFE Judicial Reasoning:

 

Issue- The Judges identify the way they want to decide the case- Marijuana bad, people stupid for enacting resolution.

 

Rule- MAKE UP a rule, IGNORE any parts of the law that you don't like.

 

Analysis- You are joking, right? We don't need analysis! We can use an APPENDIX!

 

Conclusion- Whatever the court decided before hearing any of the proofs.

 

I will take your IRAC and offer a flower you.

 

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act lets patients get marijuana- but anyone providing them with marijuana goes to prison. Why not just require everybody to possess a Stamp before they use marijuana? Yah, wouldn't that be a cool idea? Maybe they could like, just not issue the stamp! This is the judicial equivalent of the marijuana stamp act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act lets patients get marijuana- but anyone providing them with marijuana goes to prison.

 

they didn't say that at all..

they said you do have to be connected to the patient via the LARA registry as a caregiver to assert 4e.

they said that no patient can transact with another patient. rather with or without compensation... a transfer is a transfer.

but the caregiver to patient model was reenforced as a correct position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a fricking break. Takes a lot of gall to use the term "reasoning" when discussing this opinion.

 

I remember IRAC- teach it in my graduate Law and Society course every semester. Actually IRAC works different in practice as we see in this case. This is REAL LIFE Judicial Reasoning:

 

Issue- The Judges identify the way they want to decide the case- Marijuana bad, people stupid for enacting resolution.

 

Rule- MAKE UP a rule, IGNORE any parts of the law that you don't like.

 

Analysis- You are joking, right? We don't need analysis! We can use an APPENDIX!

 

Conclusion- Whatever the court decided before hearing any of the proofs.

 

I will take your IRAC and offer a flower you.

 

The Supreme Court has just ruled that the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act lets patients get marijuana- but anyone providing them with marijuana goes to prison. Why not just require everybody to possess a Stamp before they use marijuana? Yah, wouldn't that be a cool idea? Maybe they could like, just not issue the stamp! This is the judicial equivalent of the marijuana stamp act.

 

Is this not what you are doing as well LC?

 

Making up your mind and then forming your opinion of the law around what you want?

 

This decision is COMPLETELY unsurprising and follows exactly what every previous state with similar language to ours has ruled.

 

Nothing has changed. It is as it always was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means zero to me, and I don't own a dispensary.

 

I will be printing out multiple copies of the Supreme Court decision, go to every public restroom, remove the toilet paper, and replace it with the copy of the Supreme Court decision.

 

Sorry I do not have more to offer. :)

 

And now their will be no need for testing mmj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this not what you are doing as well LC?

 

Making up your mind and then forming your opinion of the law around what you want?

 

This decision is COMPLETELY unsurprising and follows exactly what every previous state with similar language to ours has ruled.

 

Nothing has changed. It is as it always was.

 

Despite that it did not come down as most would have liked, it has sometimes been fun getting here. The conversation was lively and there was something for everyone.

 

Now we can turn to how best to keep it going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is finished. The most outrageous and irrational conclusions I have ever read. Transfers for no money are even barred.

 

They spend the entire opinion skirting the 4e defense and then, at the very end in a separate APPENDIX WITH NO LEGAL ANALYSIS AND WITH SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS????

 

This is the nut of the Appendix:

 

(3) 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).

 

4E DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY CONNECTION TO THE CAREGIVER REGISTRY SYSTEM!!!

 

 

As the court states:

"Rather, § 4(e) independently describes the relationship between a registered caregiver and his registered

qualifying patient and provides an additional protection for the patient-caregiver relationship by emphasizing that it is not a criminal act for a registered qualifying patient to compensate a registered primary caregiver for costs associated with providing marijuana to the patient.45

 

Any transfer to a person who is “not allowed to use

marihuana for medical purposes”47—whether for a price or not—is already specifically

excluded from the definition of “medical use,” which requires a medical use to have the

specific purpose to “treat or alleviate a registered qualifying patient’s debilitating

medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.”4

 

 

 

Thus, § 4 immunity does not extend to a registered qualifying patient who

transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient for the transferee’s use59

because the transferor is not engaging in conduct related to marijuana for the purpose of

relieving the transferor’s own condition or symptoms.60 Similarly, § 4 immunity does

not extend to a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana for any purpose

other than to alleviate the condition or symptoms of a specific patient with whom the

caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration process.

58

 

 

Our interpretation of § 4(d) does not turn on the fact that the patient-to-patient transfers

occurred for a price. Rather, § 4(d) acts as a limitation on what sort of “medical use” is

allowed under the MMMA. The same limitation that prohibits a patient from selling

marijuana to another patient also prohibits him from undertaking any transfers to another

patient.

 

 

(4) As a result, § 4 does not offer immunity to a registered qualifying patient who

transfers marijuana to another registered qualifying patient, nor does it offer immunity to

a registered primary caregiver who transfers marijuana to anyone other than a registered

qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the MDCH’s registration

process.

 

Again, 4e does not require this. They made it up and inserted it in an Appendix so they would not have to provide any legal analysis.

 

Much of the oral argument turned on 4(d)(2). The bench asked many pointed questions. The defense was flabbergasted. It is that subsection that fleshes out this argument when we consider what is "in accordance with the act."

 

I am not an attorney. I did not stay at a Holiday Express last night. But I still get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

typical..they need to address other issues before they can decide the real one before them. civil injunction on nuisance. compensated p2p sales can be medical use. but what about p2p sales under the law. rebut presumption of medical use to deny immunity by creating personal right to pt but denying right to any other pt or cg who is not registered cg for this pt. "fn.59: the same limitation that prohibits pt from selling to another pt also prohibits ANY transfers to another pt"

 

big crap by strict construction on what is permitted, they crush Justice Cavanaugh's point of view. Guess that clears it all up until legislators or new voter initiative can approve p2p and dispensaries. Big hit to vested interests. Unless locals are hands off, shops are closing.

 

Not surprising, but angers me for their Obiter Heads (bs dicta) goes so far, after the plain meaning decision!!! What hypocricy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cavanagh dissented and had a great rationale. His opinion would have been a more appropriate way for the court to rule based on actual voter intent.

 

His dissent is reasonable on the pt/pt sharing issue i agree. It is the only part of the ruling i feel like i didnt read or know about the result of years ago.

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...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...