Mich Sup Crt 2/8/2013 Opinion In Comp. Apothocary

[mibrains]

That is my story and I'm sticking to it. How hard is it to interpret these 2 paragraphs?

 

The Mi Supreme Court didn't find it hard at all to define these 2 paragraphs. they took the time to explain how "a" does not = "any"... and that you must be connected via the registry...

 

do what you want.. we are not here to stop you.

 

the Supreme Court clearly stated that you must be connected to your patient via the registry... hence getting a caregiver card with your patients name on it.

 

any type of transfer outside of that specific requirement is a much much higher risk... and not protected by 333.26421-30 (as well will most likely require a lot of time and money to regain freedoms)... no matter how you parse it.

[Celliach]

4(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.

 

4(i) A person 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, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

DEFINITIONS

 

3(g) "Primary caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs.

 

3(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.

 

3(h) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

 

 

That is my story and I'm sticking to it. How hard is it to interpret these 2 paragraphs? A qualifying patient means any qualifying patient. Not my qualifying patient, or one of the 5 patients I have registered to me, but any. This is meant to give caregivers a way to rid themselves of overages so they are in compliance of the act under section 4. Medical use means use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of . The MMMA of 2008 was written as a protection act, not an instrument to use against patients, caregivers, and doctors.

 

 

I am hoping that Genesee County will remain as an island of sanity amongst the sea of insanity the rest of the state of Michigan is in.

 

You can interpret the law the way you see it all you want, but what the SC said is the law of the land.

[GregS]

4(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.

 

4(i) A person 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, solely for being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, or for assisting a registered qualifying patient with using or administering marihuana.

 

DEFINITIONS

 

3(g) "Primary caregiver" means a person who is at least 21 years old and who has agreed to assist with a patient's medical use of marihuana and who has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs.

 

3(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.

 

3(h) "Qualifying patient" means a person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition.

 

 

 

That is my story and I'm sticking to it. How hard is it to interpret these 2 paragraphs? A qualifying patient means any qualifying patient. Not my qualifying patient, or one of the 5 patients I have registered to me, but any. This is meant to give caregivers a way to rid themselves of overages so they are in compliance of the act under section 4. Medical use means use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of . The MMMA of 2008 was written as a protection act, not an instrument to use against patients, caregivers, and doctors.

 

 

I am hoping that Genesee County will remain as an island of sanity amongst the sea of insanity the rest of the state of Michigan is in.

 

Sorry Jones. I wish it were so and see that Cavanaugh's dissent, which I agree with, nonetheless struggles to entirely satisfy my sensibilities. The framers of the law did include some ambiguity. The issue has been taken to the n'th degree, and conclusively decided. There is no getting around it.

Edited February 11, 2013 by GregS

[KindWave Hydro]

http://www.rockindla...-isnt-that-bad/

 

 

 

That link to Neil Rockind is outstanding !

 

I drove to see him Thursday the 7th my Birthday to discuss my Case and the PLea I was forced to take

having been denied my lawful right to a section 8 affirmative defense after fully qualifying for it .

 

He told me that in Lenawee county as corrupt as it is , My Lawyer Tom Lavigne had done well for me .

I will take his advice ...Neil is a Genius and a Fighter ,he's as good as you're going to get in my opinion.

 

 

His disection of this ruling is priceless.....

 

 

Read it fully....he's of course correct on all accounts

Edited February 11, 2013 by KindWave Hydro

[bobandtorey]

I agree. The AD was made for people exactly like you Bob.

 

EXACTLY like you.

 

WOW am a lost for words by the kind thing you said why is their a change in

Your thinking

 

Can we count on your support ?

[kls]

Ok, so some people think shutting down dispensaries is a bad thing, saying it may drive up prices due to lack of competition. Some people believe dispensaries were a bad thing because they were businesses making a profit. Others dissent, saying dispensaries were good for patients because, among other issues, they could purchase MM at the storefront if their (or their caretaker's) plants failed. (hey, it has happened to me!) I believe that dispensaries were a necessary outlet for caregiver overages, which helped to compensate him or her for "time and reasonable expenses". Regarding the compassion club thing...the only one I knew of in the Grand Rapids area shut down quite some time ago, supposedly due to their inability to secure an available doctor. They didn't have lockers or facilitate patient/caregiver relationships.

 

So what about caregiver overages? My take on the statute and the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling is that the only legal transfer of MM is from caregiver to patient. My caregiver gives me one free supply of medication per month. If I run out I give her/him a donation towards his/her expenses, and the caregiver gives me more MM. The donation amount for meds in excess of the initial quantity isn't significan in relation to the caregiver's "time and "reasonable expenses" which the caregiver is allowed to recoup under the original Michigan MM statute. Three of my caregiver's other patients can't afford to "donate". If the majority of a caregiver's patients don't or can't help dispose of the overages and the overages can't legally be dispensed to anyone except the patient, then how is the caregiver to be compensated for "time and reasonable expenses"?

 

Seems to me that unable to meet expenses, caregivers will stop growing. I mean, lets be realistic; grow light bulbs, carbon dioxide tanks, special potting soil, nutrients, space in which to grow, time, vehicle expenses, etc. add up quickly. In addition, they are all ongoing expenses. So what is a caregiver to do? I don't know, and that makes me uneasy.

[bobandtorey]

http://www.rockindla...-isnt-that-bad/

 

 

 

That link to Neil Rockind is outstanding !

 

I drove to see him Thursday the 7th my Birthday to discuss my Case and the PLea I was forced to take

having been denied my lawful right to a section 8 affirmative defense after fully qualifying for it .

 

He told me that in Lenawee county as corrupt as it is , My Lawyer Tom Lavigne had done well for me .

I will take his advice ...Neil is a Genius and a Fighter ,he's as good as you're going to get in my opinion.

 

 

His disection of this ruling is priceless.....

 

 

Read it fully....he's of course correct on all accounts

 

I do agree with you about Neil Rockind I have went to see him also last year

and had a good talk for FREE we were great-full

I have been to many of his cases to watch him in the court room he knows how to make thing go his way for sure

 

Am sorry you had to take a plea I don't understand why but its up to each one to do what's best for them

 

I wish the best for you at least you got to have lunch with your Prosecutor

And have a good talk

 

Did he say anything to you that you can share here?

[bobandtorey]

Ok, so some people think shutting down dispensaries is a bad thing, saying it may drive up prices due to lack of competition. Some people believe dispensaries were a bad thing because they were businesses making a profit. Others dissent, saying dispensaries were good for patients because, among other issues, they could purchase MM at the storefront if their (or their caretaker's) plants failed. (hey, it has happened to me!) I believe that dispensaries were a necessary outlet for caregiver overages, which helped to compensate him or her for "time and reasonable expenses". Regarding the compassion club thing...the only one I knew of in the Grand Rapids area shut down quite some time ago, supposedly due to their inability to secure an available doctor. They didn't have lockers or facilitate patient/caregiver relationships.

 

So what about caregiver overages? My take on the statute and the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling is that the only legal transfer of MM is from caregiver to patient. My caregiver gives me one free supply of medication per month. If I run out I give her/him a donation towards his/her expenses, and the caregiver gives me more MM. The donation amount for meds in excess of the initial quantity isn't significan in relation to the caregiver's "time and "reasonable expenses" which the caregiver is allowed to recoup under the original Michigan MM statute. Three of my caregiver's other patients can't afford to "donate". If the majority of a caregiver's patients don't or can't help dispose of the overages and the overages can't legally be dispensed to anyone except the patient, then how is the caregiver to be compensated for "time and reasonable expenses"?

 

Seems to me that unable to meet expenses, caregivers will stop growing. I mean, lets be realistic; grow light bulbs, carbon dioxide tanks, special potting soil, nutrients, space in which to grow, time, vehicle expenses, etc. add up quickly. In addition, they are all ongoing expenses. So what is a caregiver to do? I don't know, and that makes me uneasy.

 

Oh I here you back long ago people would help thy Neighbor and the healthy would help the sick

That stopped long long ago I think their we're lots of not so sick people getting cards just to buy and that maid it worst for the real people that need MMJ

As said many times it only take a few bad one to ruin a good thing

[bobandtorey]

I'll be there, Bob. February 20 and 21.

 

I can't make it that day I have other plans but thanks

[+Malamute]

WOW am a lost for words by the kind thing you said why is their a change in

Your thinking

 

Can we count on your support ?

 

You have always had my support since day one Bob.

 

I am not going to drive 8 hours to get to your court date, but you absolutely have my support.

 

Please don;t confuse my jerky donkey feeling towards an excessive amount of posts i felt were happening, with my concern and support i have for you and your beautiful lady.

[GregS]

Ok, so some people think shutting down dispensaries is a bad thing, saying it may drive up prices due to lack of competition. Some people believe dispensaries were a bad thing because they were businesses making a profit. Others dissent, saying dispensaries were good for patients because, among other issues, they could purchase MM at the storefront if their (or their caretaker's) plants failed. (hey, it has happened to me!) I believe that dispensaries were a necessary outlet for caregiver overages, which helped to compensate him or her for "time and reasonable expenses". Regarding the compassion club thing...the only one I knew of in the Grand Rapids area shut down quite some time ago, supposedly due to their inability to secure an available doctor. They didn't have lockers or facilitate patient/caregiver relationships.

 

So what about caregiver overages? My take on the statute and the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling is that the only legal transfer of MM is from caregiver to patient. My caregiver gives me one free supply of medication per month. If I run out I give her/him a donation towards his/her expenses, and the caregiver gives me more MM. The donation amount for meds in excess of the initial quantity isn't significan in relation to the caregiver's "time and "reasonable expenses" which the caregiver is allowed to recoup under the original Michigan MM statute. Three of my caregiver's other patients can't afford to "donate". If the majority of a caregiver's patients don't or can't help dispose of the overages and the overages can't legally be dispensed to anyone except the patient, then how is the caregiver to be compensated for "time and reasonable expenses"?

 

Seems to me that unable to meet expenses, caregivers will stop growing. I mean, lets be realistic; grow light bulbs, carbon dioxide tanks, special potting soil, nutrients, space in which to grow, time, vehicle expenses, etc. add up quickly. In addition, they are all ongoing expenses. So what is a caregiver to do? I don't know, and that makes me uneasy.

 

There are no overages. There are sufficient quantities. If you cannot manage that, why would you even consider being a caregiver? If you cannot cover your expenses, you will fail. Figure it out. Or not.

[chippewa2u]

Good morning all.

 

Am I not reading this correctly?

To me it seems that they are only saying that 4 simply does not protect against immunity so communities can ban dispensaries or the act of transfer between to non-specifically registered parties of as a " public nuisance" if they choose to. It also said that 8 protects against criminal prosecution for the "act" itself. That being said, if my community chooses not to declare these a public nuisance, then they are still legal. That's my take anyway.

[Restorium2]

Good morning all.

 

Am I not reading this correctly?

To me it seems that they are only saying that 4 simply does not protect against immunity so communities can ban dispensaries or the act of transfer between to non-specifically registered parties of as a " public nuisance" if they choose to. It also said that 8 protects against criminal prosecution for the "act" itself. That being said, if my community chooses not to declare these a public nuisance, then they are still legal. That's my take anyway.

No. It made selling cannabis beyond your 5 registered patients illegal. What 'communities' decide doesn't trump the supreme court and Schuette will make sure of that.

[chippewa2u]

Thanks Restorium2

 

No. It made selling cannabis beyond your 5 registered patients illegal. What 'communities' decide doesn't trump the supreme court and Schuette will make sure of that.

 

I understand the "no trump" of the supreme court. My comment regards immunity vs legality. Immunity is not legal and not being immune is not necessarily illegal; there would need to be a ordinance or other legislation in effect to prompt prosecution. At that point, the arrest would be for breaking the ordinance or communities could disallow businesses to operate. Not permitting a business is not the same as prohibiting a business. We are not immune from many things (prosecution for playing loud music for example) but if the state or local government has not written legislation banning this behavior as a public nuisance (or some other reason), than it is presumed permissible.

 

 

In short, had McQueen or Taylor been criminally prosecuted, they couldn’t claim immunity under §4 but they could assert a defense under §8. Their transactions would not deemed unlawful or illegal merely because they occurred and the fact that money exchanged hands is meaningless. They just can’t wave their cards and claim to be immune – they will have to come to court and defend themselves but, and this is a very important but, they will have the opportunity to do so..” - Nick Rockind, esquire

Not permitting a business is not the same as prohibiting a business. I appreciate the discussion ... it would be interesting to know how local dispensaries are interpreting the decision.

[Restorium2]

Thanks Restorium2

 

 

 

I understand the "no trump" of the supreme court. My comment regards immunity vs legality. Immunity is not legal and not being immune is not necessarily illegal; there would need to be a ordinance or other legislation in effect to prompt prosecution. At that point, the arrest would be for breaking the ordinance or communities could disallow businesses to operate. Not permitting a business is not the same as prohibiting a business. We are not immune from many things (prosecution for playing loud music for example) but if the state or local government has not written legislation banning this behavior as a public nuisance (or some other reason), than it is presumed permissible.

 

 

In short, had McQueen or Taylor been criminally prosecuted, they couldn’t claim immunity under §4 but they could assert a defense under §8. Their transactions would not deemed unlawful or illegal merely because they occurred and the fact that money exchanged hands is meaningless. They just can’t wave their cards and claim to be immune – they will have to come to court and defend themselves but, and this is a very important but, they will have the opportunity to do so..” - Nick Rockind, esquire

Not permitting a business is not the same as prohibiting a business. I appreciate the discussion ... it would be interesting to know how local dispensaries are interpreting the decision.

Yet to be determined. No one can say that the section 8 would let anyone transfer past 5. That's what it would take to make dispensaries legal. I would be willing to bet a section 8 will be limited to a distribution stream of 5 just like the intent in 4.

[Celliach]

Ok, so some people think shutting down dispensaries is a bad thing, saying it may drive up prices due to lack of competition. Some people believe dispensaries were a bad thing because they were businesses making a profit. Others dissent, saying dispensaries were good for patients because, among other issues, they could purchase MM at the storefront if their (or their caretaker's) plants failed. (hey, it has happened to me!) I believe that dispensaries were a necessary outlet for caregiver overages, which helped to compensate him or her for "time and reasonable expenses". Regarding the compassion club thing...the only one I knew of in the Grand Rapids area shut down quite some time ago, supposedly due to their inability to secure an available doctor. They didn't have lockers or facilitate patient/caregiver relationships.

 

So what about caregiver overages? My take on the statute and the recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling is that the only legal transfer of MM is from caregiver to patient. My caregiver gives me one free supply of medication per month. If I run out I give her/him a donation towards his/her expenses, and the caregiver gives me more MM. The donation amount for meds in excess of the initial quantity isn't significan in relation to the caregiver's "time and "reasonable expenses" which the caregiver is allowed to recoup under the original Michigan MM statute. Three of my caregiver's other patients can't afford to "donate". If the majority of a caregiver's patients don't or can't help dispose of the overages and the overages can't legally be dispensed to anyone except the patient, then how is the caregiver to be compensated for "time and reasonable expenses"?

 

Seems to me that unable to meet expenses, caregivers will stop growing. I mean, lets be realistic; grow light bulbs, carbon dioxide tanks, special potting soil, nutrients, space in which to grow, time, vehicle expenses, etc. add up quickly. In addition, they are all ongoing expenses. So what is a caregiver to do? I don't know, and that makes me uneasy.

 

I have never sold to a dispensary or unconnected patient. I cover my expenses just fine. Where do you people get the idea that CG cannot sustain themselves without dispensaries? Did you see the several news stories about large quantities being confiscated that came from out of state and were heading to dispensaries?

 

To say that CGs cannot exist without dispensaries is false and a strawman argument.

[Celliach]

Good morning all.

 

Am I not reading this correctly?

To me it seems that they are only saying that 4 simply does not protect against immunity so communities can ban dispensaries or the act of transfer between to non-specifically registered parties of as a " public nuisance" if they choose to. It also said that 8 protects against criminal prosecution for the "act" itself. That being said, if my community chooses not to declare these a public nuisance, then they are still legal. That's my take anyway.

 

No, you are not reading it correctly.

[Celliach]

Thanks Restorium2

 

 

 

I understand the "no trump" of the supreme court. My comment regards immunity vs legality. Immunity is not legal and not being immune is not necessarily illegal; there would need to be a ordinance or other legislation in effect to prompt prosecution. At that point, the arrest would be for breaking the ordinance or communities could disallow businesses to operate. Not permitting a business is not the same as prohibiting a business. We are not immune from many things (prosecution for playing loud music for example) but if the state or local government has not written legislation banning this behavior as a public nuisance (or some other reason), than it is presumed permissible.

 

 

In short, had McQueen or Taylor been criminally prosecuted, they couldn’t claim immunity under §4 but they could assert a defense under §8. Their transactions would not deemed unlawful or illegal merely because they occurred and the fact that money exchanged hands is meaningless. They just can’t wave their cards and claim to be immune – they will have to come to court and defend themselves but, and this is a very important but, they will have the opportunity to do so..” - Nick Rockind, esquire

Not permitting a business is not the same as prohibiting a business. I appreciate the discussion ... it would be interesting to know how local dispensaries are interpreting the decision.

 

This ruling wasn't about prohibiting a business, it was about prohibiting P2P transfers. What Neil said is correct, but just because you can use a Section 8 defense at trial doesn't mean you will be acquitted. You can still go to prison on a Section 8 defense, as it is much, much narrower than a Section 4 defense and everything is left to the whims of the judge or jury.

[CaveatLector]

I have never sold to a dispensary or unconnected patient. I cover my expenses just fine. Where do you people get the idea that CG cannot sustain themselves without dispensaries? Did you see the several news stories about large quantities being confiscated that came from out of state and were heading to dispensaries?

 

To say that CGs cannot exist without dispensaries is false and a strawman argument.

That's because you have set a reasonable definition for the term, "expenses." When expenses means supporting a middle-class lifestyle off of 5 patients then there is no way to meet those expenses off of 5.

[Indica Jones]

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/02/michigan_supreme_court_medical.html

[OG Fire Beaster]

Chipp

 

I posted this in the other thread. I agree with you. This case was about whether or not an injunction could be issued. A civil case. The SC said that yes an injunction could be issued. Prosecuting for not abiding by the injunction is another story. Section 8, I believe, does allow any patient to transfer to another patient for money.(My opinion). They pretty much said as much. Also following the logic of "using and administering" being a more narrow protection than "medical use", the "medical purpose" that is protected by section 8 seems to be a broader protection than "medical use."

 

Please note the conclusion. The Supreme court did not say that the MMMA act does not allow P2P. They said Section 4 does not allow P2P.

 

 

After rereading the opinion again I have come to the conclusion that if CA were to stay open and defy the nuisance injunction, section 8 would prevent prosecution. They could in effect ignore any order to close down the buisness and prevent enforcement of the order by means of section 8.

 

What do you think?

 

From the ruling:

 

Finally, even though § 4 does not permit defendants to operate a business that

facilitates patient-to-patient sales of marijuana, our decision in Kolanek makes clear that

§ 8 provides separate protections for medical marijuana patients and caregivers and that

one need not satisfy the requirements of § 4 immunity to be entitled to the § 8 affirmative

 

(6) The affirmative defense of § 8 of the MMMA, MCL 333.26428, applies only

to criminal prosecutions involving marijuana, subject to the limited exceptions contained

in § 8© for disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing

board or bureau or forfeiture of any interest in or right to property.

 

However, by its own terms, § 8(a) only applies “as a defense to any

prosecution involving marihuana . . . .”67

 

Although it did so for a different reason than the one we articulate, the Court of

Appeals reached the correct conclusion that defendants are not entitled to operate a

business that facilitates patient-to-patient sales of marijuana.

 

IV. CONCLUSION

Because we conclude that defendants’ business does not comply with the MMMA,

we affirm the Court of Appeals’ decision on alternative grounds. 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. Plaintiff is thus

entitled to injunctive relief to abate a violation of the Public Health Code.

Edited February 11, 2013 by OG Fire Beaster