Meeting In Lansing 7 16 13

[phaquetoo]

 

So this was a meeting to raise money to help the COA defendant Earl C with his bid for an appeal to the Supreme Court.  Yet we don't even know that the defendant wants or needs this money. Money that would be raised by assuming that section 8 defenses could be made to cover folks that are selling to any and all 'patients' that would come to a table.

Add to the mix that we have no idea that the courts wouldn't want to see the same restrictions in numbers as dictated in section 4., limiting sales to only 5 per seller.

This reminds me of a dangerous invention, where the inventor intends to send a bunch of naked cannabis sellers through machine that has a lot of very sharp edges that need to be smoothed out before anyone tries it out. To me, this 'invention' is just a human meat grinder invented by a mind desperate to find a way to justify an income.

Yes you have the whole story!  That is the same thing I read and was following, and than some kind of despense got involved to help raise funds for carruthers, it was not untill after I read that way down the road, that I seen it was trying to be done in an ilegal way, JMHO

 

when I first started to follow this, I was very interested, I still am but for different reasons, In fact Im realy in disbeleif how this could happen to me, (yea the medible, oil and tincture thing has me blinded temporarily) I realize the only way we can change it for the best is thru the s.c or legislation, it dont mean im happy.  I beleive many people can be persuaded to think either way on this matter, but I ask all to just remember I/you dont want to be a test case, so keep it real, and keep it real close to your chest!

 

Peace

Jim

[Dr. Bob]

Had those specific conditions been met, the transfer would fall under sec 8, and ultimately the case most likely would not have been brought.

 

That is HIGHLY doubtful.  As I said, I know this individual, very high profile In Your Face activity based on his reading of the Act and Court cases.  Had the transfers been between REGISTERED caregivers and THEIR registered patients, for the patient's own use, then you are talking no case being brought.

 

Ready for those 10 patients yet?  It is easy to test out your theories on others, why not put yourself on the line for them?  I am with the above 2 quoted posts.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Pretty much sums things up well.  It would be nice to get back to a section 8 discussion for patients, not a farmers market.  That would be information that people could use.

 

Dr. Bob

 

 

I find this interesting. Not just the quote, but the source.

 

People V Kolanek

Ruling established that registered and unregistered medical marijuana patients and caregivers are entitled to a medical marijuana defense, so long as they meet the requirement of Section 8 of the MMMA.

 

http://michiganmedicalmarijuana.org/page/articles/community/leg/medical_marijuana_case_law.html

Did you miss this?

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

Did you miss this Townsend?

The correct quote is 'and their primary caregiver'.  Either you misquoted the ruling, or they misquoted the act.  I would not stake my freedom or the freedom of any patient on a misquote.  I certainly would not base a farmers market on a slip of the pen.  You are simply picking and choosing your quotes to support your income scheme, ignoring the context.

 

Some years ago in residency, we were asked to review medical articles.  Mine turned out to be an article relating serum cholesterol levels to the incidence of death by automobile accident.  It was random data mining and unspent research funds that needed to be used to generate medical papers for budgetary reasons, which became apparent on review.  You are also engaged in selective data mining, looking for isolated sentences taken out of context to 'support' your pet theory.  That leads to wrong conclusions.

 

In short, I miss nothing.  And I can see past BS based on a financial agenda.  There is an old saying.  Saudi Arabia will fight Israel to the last Egyptian.  It appears obvious to me and others that you are willing to promote your theory down to the last 'caregiver'.  That is dangerous to patients and caregivers alike and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it.  Recall I have those 10 patients and we can test this on you any time you wish.

 

Dr. Bob

[cristinew]

Greg do you work for An Attorney firm?  Seems like you want to fund them 

[Dr. Bob]

I work with attorneys involved in medical marijuana.  They like to make a buck like anyone else, but they don't like to just take people's money to lead a charge of the light brigade that leads to conviction.  That is exactly what this is.  It doesn't look good on an attorney's record to have their tail handed to them in court.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

The correct quote is 'and their primary caregiver'.  Either you misquoted the ruling, or they misquoted the act.  I would not stake my freedom or the freedom of any patient on a misquote.  I certainly would not base a farmers market on a slip of the pen.  You are simply picking and choosing your quotes to support your income scheme, ignoring the context.

 

Some years ago in residency, we were asked to review medical articles.  Mine turned out to be an article relating serum cholesterol levels to the incidence of death by automobile accident.  It was random data mining and unspent research funds that needed to be used to generate medical papers for budgetary reasons, which became apparent on review.  You are also engaged in selective data mining, looking for isolated sentences taken out of context to 'support' your pet theory.  That leads to wrong conclusions.

 

In short, I miss nothing.  And I can see past BS based on a financial agenda.  There is an old saying.  Saudi Arabia will fight Israel to the last Egyptian.  It appears obvious to me and others that you are willing to promote your theory down to the last 'caregiver'.  That is dangerous to patients and caregivers alike and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting it.  Recall I have those 10 patients and we can test this on you any time you wish.

 

Dr. Bob

It is a direct quote from this website. Is it from Mr. Kormon's office?

[GregS]

Per sec. 3 deifinitions:

 

3(h) "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.

[Dr. Bob]

It is a direct quote from this website. Is it from Mr. Kormon's office?

 

And that changes the context of the post how?  'Is it from Mr. Komorn's office- Lord you don't even know the source of your quote?

 

Again, very shallow reasoning and hanging on to any sentence that will serve your purpose.  If the opinion of the court read 6 registered patients instead of 5 would you be out here telling everyone they could now have 84 plants?

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 24, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

It is closer to the language used on the ballot for the initiative, which I think is what they were trying to express.

Good point Zap, but does that change the actual language of the law?  Or is it an interesting tidbit that might come in useful in a specific case later (or not)?

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

The terms can be used interchangeably. The source of the quote is this website, and it is verbatim.

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[bobandtorey]

The terms can be used interchangeably. The source of the quote is this website, and it is verbatim.

Are you saying it all  has to do with Luck ?

[Dr. Bob]

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/11-12-Term-Opinions/142850-Opinion.pdf

 

Go to the source, not a quote about the source, if you want accurate information.  Even a superficial reading of the case confirms it was specifically addressing patient issues, registered or not, and that caregivers were simply a side note dependant on the outcome of the section 8 defense of the patient.  

 

Good luck proving your 'unregistered caregiver' is actually connected to the defendant patient.  If the 'unregistered caregiver' is the one charged for selling the meds, it is up to them to bring in the patient to prove prong 1 of the triad.  Recall that the patient, assuming they are a registered patient, stands to lose nothing if the 'caregiver' goes down.  They legally obtained their meds, it is the individual that sold it to them that is charged.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Are you saying it all  has to do with Luck ?

No Bob. I am not saying that.

[GregS]

http://courts.mi.gov/Courts/MichiganSupremeCourt/Clerks/Recent%20Opinions/11-12-Term-Opinions/142850-Opinion.pdf

 

Go to the source, not a quote about the source, if you want accurate information.  Even a superficial reading of the case confirms it was specifically addressing patient issues, registered or not, and that caregivers were simply a side note dependant on the outcome of the section 8 defense of the patient.  

 

Good luck proving your 'unregistered caregiver' is actually connected to the defendant patient.  If the 'unregistered caregiver' is the one charged for selling the meds, it is up to them to bring in the patient to prove prong 1 of the triad.  Recall that the patient, assuming they are a registered patient, stands to lose nothing if the 'caregiver' goes down.  They legally obtained their meds, it is the individual that sold it to them that is charged.

 

Dr. Bob

Gotcha.

 

Section 8(

a) provides that a patient or

person may assert this defense

in “any prosecution involving marihuana” and th

at the defense “shall be presumed valid”

if its elements can be established.

57

Section 8(b) provides that a person “

may

assert [this

defense] in a motion to dismiss, and the charges

shall be dismissed following an

evidentiary hearing

where the person shows the elemen

ts listed in subsection (a)

[GregS]

Would something kinda like this, along with the supporting documents, work to prove the elements, with the exception of possession?

 

Patient/Caregiver Agreement to Engage in the Medical Use of Marijuana

I,______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am a patient under the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act, Initiated Law 1 of 2008.

__Dr._____________________________, a physician authorized under Part 170 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17001 to 333.17084, or an osteopathic physician under Part 175 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.17501 to 333.17556, license I.D. number____________________, and dated___________________________has stated that in the physician's professional opinion, and 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, that I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition (copy attached) .

or:

__A registry card duly issued by the State of Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) , number______________________(copy attached), has been issued to me which attests to a physician's recommendation that in the physician's professional opinion, and after having completed a full assessment of my medical history and current medical condition made in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship, I am likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from the medical use of marihuana to treat or alleviate the debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition.

I hereby designate_______________________________ as my caregiver under that law, and agree to conform with the Act in the medical use of marijuana.

I,______________________________________, swear and affirm that I am at least 21 years of age and have agreed to assist with the above named patient's medical use of marijuana. I have not been convicted of any felony within the past 10 years and have 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.

Signed this date:____________________________

Patient sign here:_____________________________

Signed this date:___________________________

Caregiver sign here:________________________________

/s/_________________________________

Print Notary Name:_____________________________________

Notary public, State of Michigan, County of _____________________.

My commission expires: __________________.

Acting in the County of ___________________.

Supporting documents are here: https://sites.google...attredirects=0, and here
https://sites.google...?attredirects=0

[Dr. Bob]

So you are saying a 'patient or person' in a discussion of patients 'registered or unregistered' can be extended to include 'caregiver or person' that is 'registered or unregistered'?  

 

What was the purpose of the MMMA?  To allow qualified patients to use medical marijuana.  That is the bottom line.  Under Kolanek certain leeways were clarified for patients, namely so long as they were certified, they could tell their story to the court whether they registered or not.  That was a good thing.  It assured qualified patients their day in court, and that is what we do in America.

 

Now we turn our attention to the supply of those patients.  A very specific exception to the public health code was made for individuals that supplied up to 5 specific patients.  It allowed qualified patients to obtain meds from any source, but specified a specific group of people to legally sell it to them and avoid prosecution.  It did not contemplate a free for all of sales.  Obviously there are some very limited cases that an emergency supply of meds to a patient from a caregiver might fly, but everyone clearly knows that would be a very high standard to meet.  First you have to prove there was a patient, then you need to prove the amount, then you need to prove the amount was appropriate for the patient.  

 

Compare an unregistered caregiver to a street dealer selling to a carded patient.  Assume both are 21 and have no felonies.  How do you tell the difference between the two, as the 'unregistered caregiver' will be prosecuted as a street dealer?  Connection to the patient is one thing, a clear medical nature of the transaction would be another, and a reason it went outside of the 'official channel' and don't fool yourself into thinking you won't face the latter.  If there is a financial exchange, you can bet that will be used to show it was simply a street transaction between a dealer and a user who happens to be a patient, assuming you can even locate the patient to bring to court to defend yourself.

 

It is a tough case to make, and only a fool would consider basing a 'business plan' to commercialize the process.

 

Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

I have the same document/contract.  It allows me to rob a liquor store because I have an agreement with a needy family that needs money for food to give them the proceeds less the cost of my mask and ammunition.

 

Think that will work in court?

 

You document might not hurt, but it certainly will not protect you or allow you to operate outside of the Act and Registry.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited July 24, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[GregS]

So forget the business plan. Unregistered caregivers who are designated by a patient are to be afforded the AD.

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[Restorium2]

So forget the business plan. Unregistered caregivers who are designated by a patient are to be afforded the AD.

Of course. With the courts and legislature we have now, you can expect the protections to be interpreted in a very restrictive way.  It's for those patients and caregivers that can show just cause to be in the position they are in. Last days for a cancer patient come to mind. There had to be a good reason to not register.

[GregS]

So you are saying a 'patient or person' in a discussion of patients 'registered or unregistered' can be extended to include 'caregiver or person' that is 'registered or unregistered'?  

 

What was the purpose of the MMMA?  To allow qualified patients to use medical marijuana.  That is the bottom line.  Under Kolanek certain leeways were clarified for patients, namely so long as they were certified, they could tell their story to the court whether they registered or not.  That was a good thing.  It assured qualified patients their day in court, and that is what we do in America.

 

Now we turn our attention to the supply of those patients.  A very specific exception to the public health code was made for individuals that supplied up to 5 specific patients.  It allowed qualified patients to obtain meds from any source, but specified a specific group of people to legally sell it to them and avoid prosecution.  It did not contemplate a free for all of sales.  Obviously there are some very limited cases that an emergency supply of meds to a patient from a caregiver might fly, but everyone clearly knows that would be a very high standard to meet.  First you have to prove there was a patient, then you need to prove the amount, then you need to prove the amount was appropriate for the patient.  

 

Compare an unregistered caregiver to a street dealer selling to a carded patient.  Assume both are 21 and have no felonies.  How do you tell the difference between the two, as the 'unregistered caregiver' will be prosecuted as a street dealer?  Connection to the patient is one thing, a clear medical nature of the transaction would be another, and a reason it went outside of the 'official channel' and don't fool yourself into thinking you won't face the latter.  If there is a financial exchange, you can bet that will be used to show it was simply a street transaction between a dealer and a user who happens to be a patient, assuming you can even locate the patient to bring to court to defend yourself.

 

It is a tough case to make, and only a fool would consider basing a 'business plan' to commercialize the process.

 

Dr. Bob

A caregiver IS a person for the purposes of the AD.

[GregS]

Of course. With the courts and legislature we have now, you can expect the protections to be interpreted in a very restrictive way.  It's for those patients and caregivers that can show just cause to be in the position they are in. Last days for a cancer patient come to mind. There had to be a good reason to not register.

There is no show cause requirement in sec. 8. It is only required that the 3 elements be proved.

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[Dr. Bob]

A caregiver IS a person for the purposes of the AD.

Typical superficial response.  

 

Yes a caregiver is a person.  A person with a relationship to a patient and protected under section 8 by the patient.  Making the leap from a discussion about patients in a court opinion to justification for 'unregistered caregivers' as the basis for an income producing farmers market is not a leap of logic, it is a leap of faith.  Pity you have the faith and others have to make the leap.

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

So you are saying a 'patient or person' in a discussion of patients 'registered or unregistered' can be extended to include 'caregiver or person' that is 'registered or unregistered'?  

 

What was the purpose of the MMMA?  To allow qualified patients to use medical marijuana.  That is the bottom line.  Under Kolanek certain leeways were clarified for patients, namely so long as they were certified, they could tell their story to the court whether they registered or not.  That was a good thing.  It assured qualified patients their day in court, and that is what we do in America.

 

Now we turn our attention to the supply of those patients.  A very specific exception to the public health code was made for individuals that supplied up to 5 specific patients.  It allowed qualified patients to obtain meds from any source, but specified a specific group of people to legally sell it to them and avoid prosecution.  It did not contemplate a free for all of sales.  Obviously there are some very limited cases that an emergency supply of meds to a patient from a caregiver might fly, but everyone clearly knows that would be a very high standard to meet.  First you have to prove there was a patient, then you need to prove the amount, then you need to prove the amount was appropriate for the patient.  

 

Compare an unregistered caregiver to a street dealer selling to a carded patient.  Assume both are 21 and have no felonies.  How do you tell the difference between the two, as the 'unregistered caregiver' will be prosecuted as a street dealer?  Connection to the patient is one thing, a clear medical nature of the transaction would be another, and a reason it went outside of the 'official channel' and don't fool yourself into thinking you won't face the latter.  If there is a financial exchange, you can bet that will be used to show it was simply a street transaction between a dealer and a user who happens to be a patient, assuming you can even locate the patient to bring to court to defend yourself.

 

It is a tough case to make, and only a fool would consider basing a 'business plan' to commercialize the process.

 

Dr. Bob

That is the bottom line.  Under Kolanek certain leeways were clarified for patients, namely so long as they were certified, they could tell their story to the court whether they registered or not.  That was a good thing.  It assured qualified patients their day in court, and that is what we do in America.

 

Sorry Doc it will only work if you happen to be Lucky 

just saying

[GregS]

I guess these agreements between individuals without taking part in a market might work too.

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS