Meeting In Lansing 7 16 13

[Dr. Bob]

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

Apparently you missed the discussion above.  The show cause involves proving your relationship to the patient and the reason you didn't use the registry.  You will be assumed to be a street vendor, it is up to you to prove you aren't.  That is before section 8 even comes in to play.  Street vendors don't get section 8 defenses.

 

Dr. Bob

[bobandtorey]

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.

We come to mind here

What happen to bob and torey then?

Thank you

[GregS]

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

It is a germane response.

[bobandtorey]

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

LOL good one Doc

[Natesilver]

Compare an unregistered caregiver to a street dealer

 

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.

 

 

Dr. Bob

 

Not this sh*t again bob. jeezus

Edited July 24, 2013 by Natesilver

[Dr. Bob]

We come to mind here

What happen to bob and torey then?

Thank you

They started their case before Kolanek and apparently didn't mount an actual section 8 defense.  But I am not privy to the case.

 

Dr. Bob

[GregS]

Apparently you missed the discussion above.  The show cause involves proving your relationship to the patient and the reason you didn't use the registry.  You will be assumed to be a street vendor, it is up to you to prove you aren't.  That is before section 8 even comes in to play.  Street vendors don't get section 8 defenses.

 

Dr. Bob

Not as Reso suggests. Even at that I would like to see an attorney chime in whether meeting the elements equates to showing cause. I doubt that. On what authority do you make the statement?

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[GregS]

soo. Will a notarized agreement like the one posted above, along with the supporting doucments and a zip, provide a preponderance of evidence that would satisfy the requirements?

[Natesilver]

soo. Will a notarized agreement like the one posted above, along with the supporting doucments and a zip, provide a preponderance of evidence that would satisfy the requirements?

 

Yes

[Restorium2]

Not as Reso suggests. Even at that I would like to see an attorney chime in whether meeting the elements equates to showing cause. I doubt that. On what authority do you make the statement?

The authority of Common Sense. We all hope the court has some decent amount of common sense.  But you want them to rule without any, selectively, in this situation only. In other words, you need to be even handed in your demands for common sense for medical cannabis. That's what is so lacking in your positionS.

[Restorium2]

Yes

You must be a justice then? The great decider? Pleased to meet you. What other decisions do you have ready to give us?

Edited July 24, 2013 by Restorium2

[Highlander]

While not a binding decision, this is the only case I'm aware of where there was discussion about whether someone needs a "good" reason not to register and still qualify for section 8.

 

District Court High Judge Hugh Clarke Jr. issued a 19-page opinion dismissing the felony charges filed against four employees of HydroWorld in Lansing.  Clarke said that Michigan’s medical marijuana law “screams for legislative clarification in numerous areas.”

 

Clarke continued that “absent that clarification, this court concludes that the transactions that took place here were undertaken in accordance with the law.”

The four individuals were originally arrested after police officers conducted undercover purchases of marijuana without state-issued marijuana cards.  According to testimony, the officers filled out applications for the ID cards and a doctor approved them without ever seeing them.

 

Based on a Michigan State Court ruling, doctor certification “is sufficient to allow medicinal marijuana if, for whatever reason, the qualifying patient has not obtained a registry card,” Clarke explained.

[GregS]

While not a binding decision, this is the only case I'm aware of where there was discussion about whether someone needs a "good" reason not to register and still qualify for section 8.

 

District Court High Judge Hugh Clarke Jr. issued a 19-page opinion dismissing the felony charges filed against four employees of HydroWorld in Lansing.  Clarke said that Michigan’s medical marijuana law “screams for legislative clarification in numerous areas.”

 

Clarke continued that “absent that clarification, this court concludes that the transactions that took place here were undertaken in accordance with the law.”

The four individuals were originally arrested after police officers conducted undercover purchases of marijuana without state-issued marijuana cards.  According to testimony, the officers filled out applications for the ID cards and a doctor approved them without ever seeing them.

 

Based on a Michigan State Court ruling, doctor certification “is sufficient to allow medicinal marijuana if, for whatever reason, the qualifying patient has not obtained a registry card,” Clarke explained.

Do you have any idea how old the decision is HL? There are some holes in it, but I hope these four people walk.

[CaveatLector]

I have pretty much kept silent on this whole section 8 discussion.  Mainly because I am not a big fan of discussing legal theory without the appropriate caveats and warnings and being sure that the people in the room understand those qualifications to your discussion.  That is the same reason why I kept fairly silent on the p2p issue.  I always acknowledged that you could run the p2p concept through an obstacle course in the law and come up with it being legal.  However, there was also much of the law that seemed to indicate that p2p would not be allowed.

 

While I think section 8 could be an option for some, I also think that there are significant roadblocks, particularly for certain caregivers.  Recall, if you will, that the MSC zeroed-in on the "medical purpose" concept when it came to transactions between unconnected individuals.  The court found, in part, that an unconnected transfer was not being done for the purpose of alleviating the transferor's med condition.  Here is some relevant text from the opinion:

 

Because the MMMA’s immunity provision contemplates that a registered qualifying

patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his or her own

debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with that condition, and not another

patient’s condition or symptoms, § 4 does not authorize a registered qualifying patient to transfer

marijuana to another registered qualifying patient. Similarly, 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 medical

condition, of a registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the

registration process of Michigan’s Department of Community Health.

 

 

Now, that only applies to section 4, you say?  Well, please note language in section 8 that is similar to section 4.  Specifically 8(a)(3) set out below.

 

 

(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.

 

If the court is inclined to restrict section 8 then I can see a scenario where the court could say that an unconnected transfer with remuneration is not being made, from the transferor-caregiver's standpoint, to treat the tranferee-patient's condition but, rather, is being made for profit and that the transferee-patient's benefit is incidental.  Rite-Aid sells aspirin for a profit.  While the aspirin may benefit the purchaser, Rite-Aid will NOT sell aspirin without a profit.  Its main goal is profit and your benefit from aspirin is incidental.  So if you are a cg and relying on section 8 and you make a profit from selling your mj to a patient then you could be in a bind.  Would the court adopt this interpretation?  I don't know, but stranger things have happened.  Please note that I do understand that the "business purpose" was more heavily relied on by the COA in McQueen and the MSC relied more on the phrase, "the patient."  So the arguments are not the same but they are similar.

 

Now, could a nonprofit get around this argument?  I don't know.  No one yet knows for sure which is why going the section 8 route is quite tenuous.

 

So, NOW, who wants to test this out? 

[Highlander]

It was late 2012 I believe.  The four people did walk.

 

There was talk about it being appealed, but I don't believe it was.

 

So of course, the decision means nothing at all, except it is the only qualified opinion I have see regarding this matter.

[GregS]

It was late 2012 I believe.  The four people did walk.

 

There was talk about it being appealed, but I don't believe it was.

 

So of course, the decision means nothing at all, except it is the only qualified opinion I have see regarding this matter.

Good for them.

[bobandtorey]

Good for them.

And as i have been saying they got Lucky

good for them

[GregS]

I have pretty much kept silent on this whole section 8 discussion.  Mainly because I am not a big fan of discussing legal theory without the appropriate caveats and warnings and being sure that the people in the room understand those qualifications to your discussion.  That is the same reason why I kept fairly silent on the p2p issue.  I always acknowledged that you could run the p2p concept through an obstacle course in the law and come up with it being legal.  However, there was also much of the law that seemed to indicate that p2p would not be allowed.

 

While I think section 8 could be an option for some, I also think that there are significant roadblocks, particularly for certain caregivers.  Recall, if you will, that the MSC zeroed-in on the "medical purpose" concept when it came to transactions between unconnected individuals.  The court found, in part, that an unconnected transfer was not being done for the purpose of alleviating the transferor's med condition.  Here is some relevant text from the opinion:

 

Because the MMMA’s immunity provision contemplates that a registered qualifying

patient’s medical use of marijuana only occur for the purpose of alleviating his or her own

debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with that condition, and not another

patient’s condition or symptoms, § 4 does not authorize a registered qualifying patient to transfer

marijuana to another registered qualifying patient. Similarly, 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 medical

condition, of a registered qualifying patient to whom the caregiver is connected through the

registration process of Michigan’s Department of Community Health.

 

 

Now, that only applies to section 4, you say?  Well, please note language in section 8 that is similar to section 4.  Specifically 8(a)(3) set out below.

 

 

(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.

 

If the court is inclined to restrict section 8 then I can see a scenario where the court could say that an unconnected transfer with remuneration is not being made, from the transferor-caregiver's standpoint, to treat the tranferee-patient's condition but, rather, is being made for profit and that the transferee-patient's benefit is incidental.  Rite-Aid sells aspirin for a profit.  While the aspirin may benefit the purchaser, Rite-Aid will NOT sell aspirin without a profit.  Its main goal is profit and your benefit from aspirin is incidental.  So if you are a cg and relying on section 8 and you make a profit from selling your mj to a patient then you could be in a bind.  Would the court adopt this interpretation?  I don't know, but stranger things have happened.  Please note that I do understand that the "business purpose" was more heavily relied on by the COA in McQueen and the MSC relied more on the phrase, "the patient."  So the arguments are not the same but they are similar.

 

Now, could a nonprofit get around this argument?  I don't know.  No one yet knows for sure which is why going the section 8 route is quite tenuous.

 

So, NOW, who wants to test this out? 

Thanks Cav.

 

What might happen then if the patient, who has had a physician state..., and caregiver, unregistered but clearly designated by said patient, could produce evidence that the exchange was expressly intended to treat the patient's condition, and what might that look like?

 

Whether or not someone throws up their hand to volunteer, it is bound to happen anyhow.

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[Highlander]

Another good question leading from Greg's above....what about a CG transferring to a patient for the same price the CG paid for the meds?  For example, the "unregistered CG" buys some street meds for $200, delivers them to the patient, and collects $200?

[CaveatLector]

Thanks Cav.

 

What might happen then if the patient, who has had a physician state..., and caregiver, unregistered but clearly designated by said patient, could produce evidence that the exchange was expressly intended to treat the patient's condition, and what might that look like?

Well, first, let me state that I have no clue that the MSC would rule in the way I described.  It is just one thing to hang their hat on should they really want to restrict section 8.  So it is all going to depend on proclivities I suppose. 

 

Your scenario could be helpful but keep in mind that the proof is in the pudding.  Much the same as those who call their remuneration a "donation."  Calling it a donation doesn't make it such.  If it walks like a duck . . .

 

While it cannot hurt to expressly state the purpose of the transaction, the prosecutor will still examine the transaction as a whole.  Did you make profit?  If so then that smells like a sale meant to benefit the cg.

[CaveatLector]

Another good question leading from Greg's above....what about a CG transferring to a patient for the same price the CG paid for the meds?  For example, the "unregistered CG" buys some street meds for $200, delivers them to the patient, and collects $200?

Well then you aren't looking at profit and you can more easily make the case that it was done for the pt. 

[GregS]

Well, first, let me state that I have no clue that the MSC would rule in the way I described.  It is just one thing to hang their hat on should they really want to restrict section 8.  So it is all going to depend on proclivities I suppose. 

 

Your scenario could be helpful but keep in mind that the proof is in the pudding.  Much the same as those who call their remuneration a "donation."  Calling it a donation doesn't make it such.  If it walks like a duck . . .

 

While it cannot hurt to expressly state the purpose of the transaction, the prosecutor will still examine the transaction as a whole.  Did you make profit?  If so then that smells like a sale meant to benefit the cg.

What then if we consider the SC precedent that transfer includes sale?

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[ozzrokk]

I will say this........ The reason that you did not registered matters not...... Not one bit. If ANYONE can show me in the law where it says anything about needing a good reason not to register, I would love to see it......... Heres one for you..... The card is having its protections stripped away little by little..... well......  maybe I should say alot by alot.......

 

 

The fact that section 8 even mentions a caregiver tells you something. An unregistered person and their caregiver........ If the patient is unregistered then their caregiver definetely has to be UNREGISTERED.......

 

If the argument was being made to provide to ANYONE as alot suggest that would be one thing but we are talking about PATIENTS here. For the life of me I cannot figure out why everyone has such a problem when we are talking about PATIENTS being the ones receiving the MMJ........ I know the point is to keep people safe but it is not like anyone is proposing transferring to  just ANYONE ,as some have suggested and often do making it sound like literally ANYONE AND NOT PATIENTS, the talk is about PATIENTS........  But hey fukkit thats just my opinion.

Edited July 24, 2013 by ozzrokk

[GregS]

I will say this........ The reason that you did not registered matters not...... Not one bit. If ANYONE can show me in the law where it says anything about needing a good reason not to register, I would love to see it......... Heres one for you..... The card is having its protections stripped away little by little..... well......  maybe I should say alot by alot.......

 

 

The fact that section 8 even mentions a caregiver tells you something. An unregistered person and their caregiver........ If the patient is unregistered then their caregiver definetely has to be UNREGISTERED.......

 

If the argument was being made to provide to ANYONE as alot suggest that would be one thing but we are talking about PATIENTS here. For the life of me I cannot figure out why everyone has such a problem when we are talking about PATIENTS being the ones receiving the MMJ........ I know the point is to keep people safe but it is not like anyone is proposing transferring to  just ANYONE ,as some have suggested and often do making it sound like literally ANYONE AND NOT PATIENTS, the talk is about PATIENTS........  But hey fukkit thats just my opinion.

Is there a show cause requirement in sec. 8 Cav? Can a judge rightly order one?

Edited July 24, 2013 by GregS

[Natesilver]

I will say this........ The reason that you did not registered matters not...... Not one bit. If ANYONE can show me in the law where it says anything about needing a good reason not to register, I would love to see it......... Heres one for you..... The card is having its protections stripped away little by little..... well......  maybe I should say alot by alot.......

 

 

The fact that section 8 even mentions a caregiver tells you something. An unregistered person and their caregiver........ If the patient is unregistered then their caregiver definetely has to be UNREGISTERED.......

 

If the argument was being made to provide to ANYONE as alot suggest that would be one thing but we are talking about PATIENTS here. For the life of me I cannot figure out why everyone has such a problem when we are talking about PATIENTS being the ones receiving the MMJ........ I know the point is to keep people safe but it is not like anyone is proposing transferring to  just ANYONE ,as some have suggested and often do making it sound like literally ANYONE AND NOT PATIENTS, the talk is about PATIENTS........  But hey fukkit thats just my opinion.

 

Amen