3 Marijuana Dispensaries Raided In Michigan This Morning

[douga]

How is a caregiver going to meet the first prong their no Doctor going to come into a court room and say he gave the OK to sell to anyone

 

That's a great question. Unfortunately I can't discuss hypothetical answers to your question, if I do, my answer will be hidden or deleted by the moderators.

[bobandtorey]

They can't do that

[douga]

They can't do that

 

Yes, they can, and they do. This is a topic I've been attempting to discuss my posts are always hidden or deleted. I wish I could engage in a lively discussion about how to meet the 3 prongs.

[douga]

They can't do that

 

Well let's see. Here's a "hypothetical" answer that is not to be construed as legal advice, nor attempted in the real world:

 

Unregistered caregivers are protected from conviction, as long as the three prongs of the Affirmative Defense are met. How is that nonsense?

 

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in section 7(b), a patient and a patient's primary caregiver, if any, may assert the medical purpose for using marihuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marihuana, and this defense shall be presumed valid where the evidence shows that:

(1) A physician has stated that, in the physician's professional opinion, after having completed a full assessment of the patient's medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, the patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition;

(2) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were collectively in possession of a quantity of marihuana that was not more than was reasonably necessary to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marihuana for the purpose of treating or alleviating the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition; and

(3) The patient and the patient's primary caregiver, if any, were engaged in the acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition or symptoms of the patient's serious or debilitating medical condition.

 

3(h) (definitions) "Primary caregiver" or "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 not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and has never been convicted of a felony involving illegal drugs or a felony that is an assaultive crime as defined in section 9a of chapter X of the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 770.9a.

 

There is no requirement that they be registered under the AD.

[Dr. Bob]

Well Douga, I will humor you a little.  

 

OK, let's say your argument is somehow valid.  That a caregiver is anyone over the age of 21 that doesn't have a disqualifying felony and has agreed to provide medication to a physician qualified patient.  That caregiver could either be registered and limited to 5 official patients, or NOT registered and do this for an unlimited number of patients.  Why register and be restricted to 5?  What additional protection or rights does registering bring?  Why have registration at all?

 

I am very curious to hear your answer to this very simple question.  Tell us WHY any caregiver should register?

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 29, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Section 8 is very powerful, arguably moreso than sec 4

 

So you are saying that a good defense is better than immunity?  Clearly if one section 8 defense loses, that is not the case.  Not a very logical statement, but proceed.

 

A better claim would be that 'Section 8 is very powerful in that it may be used to try and justify activities outside of the limits of the Section 4 immunity.'  That might actually have some truth in it, but you must be willing to justify the time, expense and hardship of a section 8 battle in a court.  Just ask Bob what that is like.

 

Dr. Bob

[douga]

Well Douga, I will humor you a little.  

 

OK, let's say your argument is somehow valid.  That a caregiver is anyone over the age of 21 that doesn't have a disqualifying felony and has agreed to provide medication to a physician qualified patient.  That caregiver could either be registered and limited to 5 official patients, or NOT registered and do this for an unlimited number of patients.  Why register and be restricted to 5?  What additional protection or rights does registering bring?  Why have registration at all?

 

I am very curious to hear your answer to this very simple question.  Tell us WHY any caregiver should register?

 

Dr. Bob

 

That would be up to the discretion of the individual caregiver. And you are correct, an unregistered caregiver could have an unlimited number of patients.

Registering would afford said caregiver section 4 immunity when dealing with his 5 patients.

Edited June 29, 2013 by douga

[Dr. Bob]

Ok, so you say that registering would give the caregiver section 4 immunity when dealing with the up to 5 patients that are associated with them through the registry.  I'll buy that.

 

Now let's move on to the next logical step.  Why only 5?  Why does the law put any limit on the number of patients that a caregiver could 'safely' service, yet say 'you can go beyond that number, do the same thing for them, but you do so at your own risk of having to mount a section 8 defense to justify your actions'?  Why put caregivers at risk simply because they want to serve 6 rather than 5 patients?  For that matter, does it matter if they have 6 or 100 patients?

 

Is there any implication that a caregiver work specifically with certain patients over time, or can they just sell to anyone with a card and never see them again?  Does the law intend a relationship outside of a transaction between caregiver and patient?

 

Dr. Bob

[douga]

Ok, so you say that registering would give the caregiver section 4 immunity when dealing with the up to 5 patients that are associated with them through the registry.  I'll buy that.

 

Now let's move on to the next logical step.  Why only 5?  Why does the law put any limit on the number of patients that a caregiver could 'safely' service, yet say 'you can go beyond that number, do the same thing for them, but you do so at your own risk of having to mount a section 8 defense to justify your actions'?  Why put caregivers at risk simply because they want to serve 6 rather than 5 patients?  For that matter, does it matter if they have 6 or 100 patients?

 

Is there any implication that a caregiver work specifically with certain patients over time, or can they just sell to anyone with a card and never see them again?  Does the law intend a relationship outside of a transaction between caregiver and patient?

 

Dr. Bob

 

If a caregiver desired to serve more than his 5 patients, that's his/her prerogative.

Edited June 29, 2013 by douga

[mibrains]

Due to some creative editing and post removal the point of the consensus statement has been lost, please ignore it.

 

OG

please accept my apologies.

i accidentally deleted zaps post this morning while being impatient on this old loaner laptop and clicking to many times...

 

i could not find it in the trash bin so i contacted zap via the PM system and apologized to him and asked him to restore it as an administrator...

 

i promise there was no mal intent and no plan to remove the post then reinsert it later.. it was an accident due to my computer clicking so slowly... i was deleting what i thought was a double post on a different page.

 

my apologies to any and all who were affected by my loaner computer acting so slowly and my own impatience to wait for it.. hope to have another computer that will be good to go - to me sometime over the holiday week.

 

please remember everyone as you drive this week to be safe.. pay attention.. and keep your eyes and your mind on the road and the vehicle you are currently operating.. your life depends on it.

 

peace and God bless

[Dr. Bob]

If a caregiver desired to serve more than his 5 patients, that's his/her prerogative.

 

Ah, ok, if they want more than 5 it is up to them.  Please re-read the actual question and answer it.  Why is there a limit of 5 set for registered caregivers, why is there a loss of protection if they go to 6, and is there a difference between 6 and 100? 

 

The second part of the question is does the law (the MMMA) imply or encourage any relationship between caregiver and patient over time or is it designed to allow ad hoc one time transactions?

 

Please respond fully and in context to your insistence that an unregistered caregiver is an integral part of the act.

 

We await your response, please feel free to proceed.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 29, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Well, he ran off without answering.  Perhaps Greg might like to pick up where he left off....  Why don't you answer the question Greg?  We'd like to know.

 

Dr. Bob

[douga]

Bob, why the number 5 was decided on is beyond me, perhaps you should address that question to mpp. Anything you are reading into it is hypothetical.

[douga]

Well, he ran off without answering.  Perhaps Greg might like to pick up where he left off....  Why don't you answer the question Greg?  We'd like to know.

 

Dr. Bob

 

I'm sure Greg is on a "time-out"

[Dr. Bob]

Ah, so rather than answer the question, I am being hypothetical.  Actually these are more public policy questions.

 

Perhaps you should answer the question put to you.  Why put caregivers doing the same thing at different risk depending on how many they are caring for?  Caregiver patient relationship?  One time or long term?

 

Ok, here is an easier one for you, is the caregiver system designed to create large scale commercial grows? Or small gardens for limited groups of patients?

 

Please, explain as before, in the context of an unregistered caregiver?  We just want to understand your position.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Does the 'street source' (not a patient or registered caregiver) selling to a patient have more or fewer protections than a registered caregiver transferring with compensation to their patient?  Can the guy on the street corner sell to a stranger on the street- then use the section 8 defense in the Act if the 'buyer' turns out to have a card even if the seller didn't know it at the time of the sale?

 

Please explain how this should be viewed from your position.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Ok, this is probably too much and too complicated to come at you this fast.  I'll wait a while until you have time to organize an answer for us. I am sure many would like to hear how this will work under your system if you are correct.

 

Dr. Bob

[douga]

Ah, so rather than answer the question, I am being hypothetical.  Actually these are more public policy questions.

 

Perhaps you should answer the question put to you.  Why put caregivers doing the same thing at different risk depending on how many they are caring for?  Caregiver patient relationship?  One time or long term?

 

Ok, here is an easier one for you, is the caregiver system designed to create large scale commercial grows? Or small gardens for limited groups of patients?

 

Please, explain as before, in the context of an unregistered caregiver?  We just want to understand your position.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Bob, in terms of *why* the law is written the way it is, I would suggest you direct that question to mpp. But we can examine the law as it is written. Section 4 AND section 8. You are obviously more comfortable in the confines of section 4. And that's ok. But to ignore section 8 is dishonest, at best. Section 8 does permit unregistered caregivers and patient to patient transactions. Is it advisable? NO! You will be in court! But section 8 *DOES* exist. If a caregiver wants to supply oil to 8 cancer patients- good.

[douga]

 

Ok, this is probably too much and too complicated to come at you this fast.  I'll wait a while until you have time to organize an answer for us. I am sure many would like to hear how this will work under your system if you are correct.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Bob, do you know where that falls in the pyramid?

[douga]

Does the 'street source' (not a patient or registered caregiver) selling to a patient have more or fewer protections than a registered caregiver transferring with compensation to their patient?  Can the guy on the street corner sell to a stranger on the street- then use the section 8 defense in the Act if the 'buyer' turns out to have a card even if the seller didn't know it at the time of the sale?

 

Please explain how this should be viewed from your position.

 

Dr. Bob

 

Bob, this can't be a serious question.

[Natesilver]

Doug and Greg are correct. Unregistered caregivers and patient to patient transactions are covered under section 8. I don't understand why Dr. Bob is fighting so desperately against the written words of section 8.

[Dr. Bob]

Right at the top, I am dealing with the central theme of your argument, that an unregistered caregiver can serve unlimited patients.  The questions I ask required thought, you have dodged them and I am giving you an opportunity to think about them and formulate a response.

Now please answer the questions I put you, I'll just hang out for awhile and wait.  

 

To recap.

 

Why is there a different level of protection offered a caregiver providing the same server to 5 or 6 patients, is there a difference between 6 and 100 patients, why is there a cap on the number of patients a caregiver can serve, and is the caregiver system designed to have commercial grows with short term relationships with many patients, or small grows with long term relationships with a limited number of patients.

 

What is the intent of the law in respect to public policy- are caregivers being encouraged to limit themselves to 5 patients?  How does this promote access or serve a purpose in the public interest?

 

You say there are unregistered caregivers, how does this fit into the big scheme of things in the MMMA?  If they exist, why register?  Did I miss anything.

 

Oh yeah, does section 8 give you any protections or rights?

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

Bob, this can't be a serious question.

Actually it is.  The street source claims he is an 'unregistered caregiver' for the card holding patient.  Refute it?

 

Dr. Bob

[douga]

Actually it is.  The street source claims he is an 'unregistered caregiver' for the card holding patient.  Refute it?

 

Dr. Bob

 

The street drug dealer wasn't transferring medicine to help alleviate the medical condition of his patient. He didn't even know if he/she was a patient (in your original scenario)

[Dr. Bob]

ok, so knowing that you are doing it to alleviate a patient is the key to your premise of 'unregistered caregiver'.

 

"Sure I knew he was sick just by looking at him" says our street friend.  Does that make him an unregistered caregiver?

 

Dr. Bob