Jump to content

Medical Marijuana Absurdities In Michigan: Patients Can't Share


Recommended Posts

Actually I think the SC and Green have already ruled.  As you have been shown.  

 

This isn't a hypothetical issue.  Section 8 is a defense and no more.  To suggest someone do something and rely on section 8 is irresponsible.  Section 8 only comes into play AFTER a patient has been charged.  Now if you have someone that has been charged and are looking for ideas to try and use section 8 to prevent them from going to jail for something they can justify under the act that is another matter and I for one am all ears.  But to start with a premise (like an 'unregistered caregiver') and then try to use section 8 to justify the position shows a clear lack of understanding of what section 8 is, says, or how it is used.

 

Not trying to quiet you or change your mind, just pointing out the obvious flaw in the discussion.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Again, thanks for your opinion Dr. Bob. I have a very clear understanding of section 8, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, at best. We all respect your wonderful contribution to this industry and all the testimony you have given in section 8 defenses. You are a stand up guy. But as much as you hate to admit it, a P2P transaction (or unregistered caregiver transaction) that meets the 3 prongs of section 8 is covered by section 8. Your are arguing with the written law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We can deal with hypothetical "what if" scenarios all day long. We can discuss what judges might do in a hypothetical case. But, but... a hypothetical judge might just say your case doesn't meet the requirements in this hypothetical case...

 

Or we can discuss the written law. A P2P transaction meeting the 3 prongs of section 8 is covered under section 8

 

That's what I'm doing, I'm discussing the law the way it was written and is being enforced.  Any judge can say your case doesn't meet the criteria of a Section 8 defense.  The judge gets to decide this, in all Section 8 cases, before a victim is taken to trial.  I don't know how to explain this to you any other way.  The judge may decide in your favor and let you use a Section 8, or he/she may not.  You have to prove to the judge that your case meets all three prongs and the judge then issues a decision based on your and the prosecutors arguments.

 

The judge may rule wrongly and the victim could win on appeal.  That would give us some precedent to base our opinions on.  Unfortunately, it will probably also ruin someone's life, ask Bob or Kingpinn.  Until those precedents are set though, you can't make a sweeping generalization about Section 8 defenses and what they cover.

 

How do you prove you meet all three prongs, for instance?  How do you prove that you were an unregistered caregiver so that a judge believes you and gives you the benefit of using a Section 8? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, thanks for your opinion Dr. Bob. I have a very clear understanding of section 8, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, at best. We all respect your wonderful contribution to this industry and all the testimony you have given in section 8 defenses. You are a stand up guy. But as much as you hate to admit it, a P2P transaction (or unregistered caregiver transaction) that meets the 3 prongs of section 8 is covered by section 8. Your are arguing with the written law.

Well thank you very much for saying that.  

 

I certainly don't argue with your statement that an 'unregistered caregiver' that 'meets the 3 prongs' would be defensible under section 8.  On the contrary, I agree with you, and perhaps too might a court.  I also think that unicorns would be great with A1 Steak Sauce.  I also think that you fail to realize the courts have already ruled against your position on p2p and 'unregistered caregivers'.  

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key to section 8 is 'mercy of the court' and 'explaining yourself'.  

 

It all comes down to your story, your presentation, your intent, and whether the judge/jury believes you were within the law.

 

I would much rather try to help defend a grandma with glaucoma and 13 plants than someone trying to claim they were an 'unregistered caregiver' making cash sales to patients they are not connected to, especially if they are not qualified legally to be a caregiver in the first place as Green wasn't.

 

All probabilities man, grandma will probably win with the right attorney, your 'unregistered caregiver' would only get a pass on a really good day, more than likely he will become a 'registered offender'.

 

But this discussion is pointless, do what you wish and take your chances.  I hope folks here don't follow your advice.  

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to give legal advice over the internet regarding ensuring the 3 prongs of section 8 are met in a scenario not covered by section 4.

 

:-)

 

But we can say one thing with certainty: a P2P transaction (or unregistered caregiver transaction) meeting the 3 prongs in section 8 is protected behavior under the MMMA.

Edited by Natesilver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to give legal advice over the internet regarding ensuring the 3 prongs of section 8 are met in a scenario not covered by section 4.

 

:-)

 

But we can say one thing with certainty: a P2P transaction (or unregistered caregiver transaction) meeting the 3 prongs in section 8 is protected behavior under the MMMA.

Thats funny

 

Thank you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very eeyore position to take though Nate. To me it is like saying the sky is blue. 

 

 The problem for the unregistered caregiver has been getting a patient willing to come in and testify and prove their 3 prongs of Sec 8 to allow their unregistered caregiver to fulfill their 3 prongs of Sec 8.

 

 The patient must go to court and prove their condition etc etc etc for the CG to even qualify for it.

 

 Most unregistered caregivers do not have a very tight relationship with their patients as does a registered caregiver.  Thus as has been shown already; patients are not testifying to protect some dispensary; farmers market attendee or some guy they just bought cannabis from.  Not speculation just what is actually happening.  A unregistered CG is wholly dependant on the people they have sold cannabis to.

 

 So to say " if they meet the three prongs" is not really saying anything to me.  Of course of you meet the three prongs a judge should dismiss.  The problem is meeting those three prongs which is much harder to do than can be portrayed many times.

 

 

p.s. I forgot to add that many times the "patient" that was sold to was an undercover cop who Is likely not going to testify on your behalf!!!!!!  Seen this one several times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you Mal.  This is a fool's errand. Very poor advice, poorly thought through strategy.  The whole concepts smacks of a weak attempt to justify a dispensary, farmers market or worse.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Dr. Bob, I didn't give any advice. I simply stated what section 8 says.

It's the law, live with it.

 

:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should point out it was ruled correctly for incorrect reasons according to new precedent setting rulings.

Is there an actual final ruling from the CoA or SC that says it is ok to be an 'unregistered caregiver'?  Since Bob brought it up, perhaps he could summarize it for us.  Every other post on that thread seemed to come from PB so I'd like to see something definitive from the court.  

 

I am basing my opinion on McQueen and Green, which seems to be the current state of the law.

 

Dr. Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

******Assuming the 3 prongs of section 8 are met, we can say two things definitively:

 

P2P TRANSACTIONS ARE PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 8.

 

UNREGISTERED CAREGIVERS MAY ASSIST AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF PATIENTS UNDER SECTION 8.

 

 I would say you can't assume that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue here is phraseology.


 The transaction is not "permitted"; it is simply not convictable if all 3 points are met for each patients transactions.


 Unlimited is a large number and bases way to much on assumption.


 The problem here is people not familiar with the intricacies of the law may read your post and think they can transfer to anyone for any reason and then go off and start selling to every tom penis and mary.


 That is why those types of statements are dangerous. One must fill in some of the blanks so people can make informed decisions; not just assume what is said as absolute, is true for all circumstances..

 

 

 

 

p.s. Can ya guys like take the name 'diick' off of the word filter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the issue here is phraseology.

 

 The transaction is not "permitted"; it is simply not convictable if all 3 points are met for each patients transactions.

 

 Unlimited is a large number and bases way to much on assumption.

 

 The problem here is people not familiar with the intricacies of the law may read your post and think they can transfer to anyone for any reason and then go off and start selling to every tom penis and mary. Sorry but people are doing just that

 

 That is why those types of statements are dangerous. One must fill in some of the blanks so people can make informed decisions; not just assume what is said as absolute, is true for all circumstances..

 

 

 

 

p.s. Can ya guys like take the name 'diick' off of the word filter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps then, carbonless copies of agreements between patients who have been authorized for use by a physician and any caregiver, and witnessed by a third party, that spell out that pt/cg relationship can be used and would be adequate to demonstrate the necessary association to establish medical use, and subsequently to establish that required prong of the AD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a very eeyore position to take though Nate. To me it is like saying the sky is blue. 

 

 The problem for the unregistered caregiver has been getting a patient willing to come in and testify and prove their 3 prongs of Sec 8 to allow their unregistered caregiver to fulfill their 3 prongs of Sec 8.

 

 The patient must go to court and prove their condition etc etc etc for the CG to even qualify for it.

 

 Most unregistered caregivers do not have a very tight relationship with their patients as does a registered caregiver.  Thus as has been shown already; patients are not testifying to protect some dispensary; farmers market attendee or some guy they just bought cannabis from.  Not speculation just what is actually happening.  A unregistered CG is wholly dependant on the people they have sold cannabis to.

 

 So to say " if they meet the three prongs" is not really saying anything to me.  Of course of you meet the three prongs a judge should dismiss.  The problem is meeting those three prongs which is much harder to do than can be portrayed many times.

 

 

p.s. I forgot to add that many times the "patient" that was sold to was an undercover cop who Is likely not going to testify on your behalf!!!!!!  Seen this one several times.

Specific and close familiarity with evidentiary rules in a court case are required. That is one, of among others, of the reasons for having an attorney represent a  sec. 8 defense. Another is meeting filing deadlines and adhering to procedure specific to the court the case is heard in.

Edited by GregS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps then, carbonless copies of agreements between patients who have been authorized for use by a physician and any caregiver, and witnessed by a third party, that spell out that pt/cg relationship can be used and would be adequate to demonstrate the necessary association to establish medical use, and subsequently to establish that required prong of the AD.

 

Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...